Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
No. .......... Really. .......... :) I don't see anything helpful to your side in the rest of the passage. Here is part of what you quoted:
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever He shall say to you, do ye. Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. 2:9. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested His glory. And His disciples believed in Him."
Within our context, so what? :)
Now FK, it seems to me clear, even in so sorry a tongue for matters spiritual as English, that the Theotokos expected, no knew, that He would do something about the wine situation.
Yes, sure. I don't know how many 24-hour "Brew-Thrus" were open at the time, but the answer was simply "get more hooch". I don't at all see a miracle as being absolutely required here. I would imagine that beer-runs had already been invented. :) Some friend or neighbor would have been able to dip into his stash in such an emergency. Jesus just decided to handle it His own way.
It seems also perfectly plain that He wasn't ready to perform miracles and that He was "snappish" to His mother...but He did turn the water into fine wine, didn't He, and at his mother's suggestion, a suggestion He clearly understood.
I wouldn't say that He wasn't "ready" to perform a miracle, but for any outside influence. I would say that Jesus was perfectly ready and perfectly prepared at the performance of all of His miracles.
Whether Jesus was "snappish" with Mary here may be fairly debatable, however, I do not think there is enough to say that Mary sinned here. That leads me against that He was cross with her in His heart. When Peter bombed, then He was cross! :)
Jesus certainly did turn the water into wine, but I think the "suggestion" was "please fix the problem", which He could have done by conventional means. I'm thinking that you would agree with me that it is highly likely that Joseph is out of the picture at this point, so Jesus is the MAN of the family. If a problem needed to be solved and Mary wanted to help it would make perfect sense for her to ask her eldest/(only) son to solve the problem.
No, since you added books to the Bible, you are the ones that show contempt for it.
Even many of your own theologians, before Trent, did not regard those books as Canonical.
As for 'tradition' the tradition that Paul is speaking of is the tradition he gave to the church, that is the example that he showed.
Christ condemned tradition when it is used to supplant or undermine scripture (Mk.7:7-3)
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
Thus, there can be no human works involved, since it is all of grace by your own definition. (Rom.4:4)
If it is all of grace than it must all of faith (4:16)
Human response is not considered a 'work' since it does not entail any human merit on the part of the responder, he is but yielding to grace (Rom.6)
Yawn. typical RCC double-speak.
The only way to avoid sola scriptura is to avoid what Paul says clearly in Rom.4,and Eph.2.
It does not speak of faith at all; it says plainly that he who "worketh good" is saved, and who does not, is not. What you offer is counterscriptural spin.
Really?
You really do have a reading problem.
I do not see the word saved in vs.10.
I see glory, honour and peace, which would be fruits and rewards of salvation.
James is not saying anything about salvation in James 2 Yeah, right. Learn to read. Generally, your musings on James are uncomprehensible, when the passage is very clear: "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only". Period, end of story. Clear scripture.
No, since the word 'justified' can have more then one meaning.
It also has the meaning of being seen to be right.
James is speaking of what is seen, he is not speaking of being justified in the theological sense.
you avoid Paul's statements in Rom.4 that state very clearly that works are not involved at all in salvation. Romans 4 says that works of law, such as the circumcision (see verse 9), are not involved in salvation. It contains no general statement of works not involved in salvation "at all", -- this is your invention.
(vs.5) It says very clearly but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifeth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Thus no works.
As for vs 9, Paul is giving explaining to the Jews that Abraham was the father of faith, and his act of faith did nothing to save him, it just showed his faith.
[Luke 17:5-10] shows that we ought to work, not that works are necessarly for salvation Christ explains in that passage that work increases faith, if it is done not out of obligation, but out of love of God, just as the Church teaches.
And that has nothing to do with salvation, it has to do with rewards.
Moreover, it is not a 'work' it is an act of obedience from faith.
the Christian [will be judged] at the judgement seat of Christ and if he has produced nothing he will not receive any reward (but he will still be saved)(1Cor.3,Rom.14:10,2Cor5:10). This theory -- that works only count for reward -- is Protestant spin. The Scripture does not teach that. 1 Cor 3 speaks of the suffering of the saved soul for past impurutues, -- it is a prooftext for purgatory, as I recall explaining to you once, -- but it does not guarantee salvation without good works. Rom. 14:10 seimply states that we will all be judged, it does not explain on what principle. 2Cor5:10 is, of course, another prooftext for necessity of works for salvation itself, not for rewards of the saved: "we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil". You cite what you don't understand, and it does not remove the clear teachign of Romans 2 and James 2, that deal with the issue directly.
No, 1Cor.3 is not proof text for the non-Biblical purgetory.
It is not the person being burned, but his vain works (wood, hay and stubble)
Moving to your next post. Mary offered up a sin offering like any other Jewish woman did That she did, but it does not say anything about her actually sinning.
Well, offering a sin offering means that she was a sinner.
The only one I am concerned about understanding is the Lord Jesus Christ At that, you fail. False mariology is false christology.
LOL!
No joke, Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away...
So long.
Ofcourse we can, based on the number of accurate manuscripts that we have, we can have complete confidence that we have an exact replication of the Originals in our King James Bible.
We have noted how carefully the Jews copied their texts. How some Palestinian Jews copied their version of the OT.
And they copied it very accurately as shown by the DSS discovery of Isaiah.
The TR differs very little between the various manuscripts (unlike the Critical text) Nonsense. TR is not the norm, and neither is the CR. These are conjectures based on extant copies of copies, mixted with mythology and other manipulations that were applied to Christian writings.
No, the TR is totally accurate and dependable and has been received by the church for 2000 years.
Sure I can, I can quote Christ who stated Moses did in Mt. 8:4; Jn. 5:46; 7:19. And you have absolutely zero proof that that is exactly what Christ said or that He even said it! You simply take it on faith, based on a copy of a copy or caopy...
Based on a correct copy of a copy etc.
Just like I know that He rose from the Dead from a copy of a copy of a copy.
In other words, you are doubting the word of God but are replacing it with the consensus of men. Why should I trust an individual opinion and not a consensual agreement of many as better? The blasphemous claim that somehow individual believers are guided by the Holy Spirit and denying that the same is true of the whole Church has no legs to stand on. There is a much greater likelyhood that an individual will be wrong than the entire Church.
Well, we Protestants hold to a consensus also, a consensus of the 1 and 2nd century Christians who accepted the Canon (66) and the correct Hebrew and Greek text.
The entire Canon was accepted by the Body of Christ (the church), long before any 'official' recognition of it occurred. Nonsense. The fathers were arguing over what is scripture and what is not. NT detero-canonicals were probably not even written before the 2nd century.
Nonsense, the local churches had long accepted the books long before the 'father's' got around to 'officially' recognizing them.
The proof is in the fruit that it produced. Really? And what would that fruit be?
Saved souls and changed lives.
Christ attested to the complete Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha books) and by the end of the 1st century, we had the complete New Testament Books, the same books we have today and the same that your church accepts as well. No, copies of the copies of different and differing texts, altered, manipulated and oytherwise changed by individual scribes, that are accepted as official truth tell us what Christ supposedly attested to.
No, we have the perfect words of Christ, passed down and preserved, much of it by the Byzantine church.
We don't know who wrote them, or if they simply copied someone else, or spoke on account of a popular myth, or if they actually witnessed it. You accept it on faith what some men wrote.
No, the evidence is very clear on comparing manuscripts.
We have far better accuracy in the scriptures then in the writings of Plato of Caesar.
So I guess according to you, we can't trust any ancient work, since we do not have the originals of them either.
Well, the only way you know of the birth, death, and Resurrection of Christ is through those Scriptures, so you have to accept them. Yes, that is unfortunate, isn't it, for we must depend on undependable writings of men to put our entire belief in God in that. On faith alone. However, it is not the only way to know. There is circumstantial evidence to show that the turth may be somewhat different.
No, 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God'
What you want is the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest. Not much different that wanting the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.
No, I accept what is true based on what the Bible says to be true and the evidence that it has indeed been preserved by God led men.
The Greek heading tell us who the author is, just as it does Hebrews. Those are latter-day additions. You obviously know nothing about how the books were titled in 1st century AD, and are not aware of the fact that first clear refrences to authorship (even as hints) did not exist until about 150 AD. For at least 65 years or more after the Gospels were written, no one creditted any of the Apostles in quoting from the Gospels.
More Higher Criticism nonsense.
The headings are part of the Greek text.
There is no legimate reason to doubt that Matthew wrote it.
No, I am not concerned with those two men at all, I have a King James Bible that gives me the correct authorship, coming from the correct Greek text, with the authors name on it. The ostrich approach works for some people, I guess.
And the critical approach, rejecting truth, works for others.
God certainly did and used men to do so, just as He used men to get the Originals to us. No He didn't. The Church did nothing to preserve the originals for posterity. Obviously they didn't put much value in originals. We don't have originals of any kind when it comes to the Bible. None, Zip, Zilch, Zero.
We don't have the originals, because we don't need the originals, we have perfect copies of them.
But, burying one's head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine is an option, I suppose.
And, rejecting what God says is another. (Pr.13:13)
http://www.antiochian.org/1123705782
The Bible - Greatest Monument of Mankind
There are distinguished persons and distinguished monuments which stand out in the annals of history. Their lives were full of adventure as they faced the tremendous opposition of their contemporaries as well as accepting enormous sacrifice in their own lives. One of the monuments, the greatest in the history of the world, is the Bible. It has met great challenges of its literal expression as well as its trials over its validity and accuracy. The critical scrutiny of the Bible is the most thorough effort and examination that has ever been made of a literary work from the beginning of time, an examination challenging its integrity, and meaning. Its words, thoughts and personalities have been the subject of controversial discussion and debate through the centuries, both in its original language and its translation. From approximately 12 centuries before the Christian Era through 20 centuries since (the former for the Old Testament and the latter for both the Old and New Testament), its construction, correction and restoration was achieved. The Bible is stronger today than ever before, despite the "scientific" effort to replace it with human elements of the laboratory and technology. The Bible is so different from other literary works of famous writers whose names are mentioned in the history of scientific findings that only a Superhuman Providence has kept it alive through its orbit of destiny. The Bible has been inscribed on stone, papyrus, lamb skin, in the memories of men and in the hearts of the people.
This extraordinary adventure of the Bible, a written document of historical validity, is so because its content and mission is different from all other examples of human literature, regardless of their valuable content of knowledge and human wisdom. The Bible was written by different writers over an extensive period of time, especially the Old Testament. The writers of the Old Testament began with Moses, covering 12 centuries before Christ and continuing through the writers of the historical, poetical, instructive and prophetic books, together with the writers of the New Testament, writing over a period of 50 years. They find themselves in agreement on thoughts, purpose, destination and mission. The readers of the Bible are overwhelmed and astonished to find these harmonious elements of destiny and purpose. No other literature of this kind exists. A close coherence of the Old and New Testaments, keeping their content intact their continuity in "promises" and "fulfillments", links them together so closely. The various writings of the Old and New Testaments witness one Editor with Authority that permeate their thoughts.
http://goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp
So were many other writings that are not part of ANY Christian's canon today, like the Shepherd of Hermans or the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Many different letters were read locally. It was not until the universal Church sat down to confront the ideas of such men as Marcion that the Canon was officially defined.
Regards
The local churches knew which books were canonical and which weren't.
The 'offical' lists only confirmed what was already accepted by the churches.
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.html#62
Maybe they didn't get the "memo", because a number of local churches thought that the First Letter of Clement was Scriptures - which is why they proclaimed it during the Mass. The idea of "canonization" didn't occur until the late 300's as a result of NOT KNOWING which was without doubt inspired by God. Otherwise, what would be the need to officially set down the Canon if it was just "known by everyone"?
Regards
The Church declared what was accepted by the community as inspired. But this declaration clarified some of the books that were uncertain or were questionable. Thus, they are called "Deuterocanonical", (second canon). There exists New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals - because there was disagreement on some of the inspiration of these books. Thus, some Church men were not sure about the book of Wisdom or the letter of James or 2 John. The Church, being divinely authorized to bind and loosen, made a determination based on the teachings already given it to include these books in their canon - although some individuals were not sure.
"Rome has spoken, the case is closed..." St. Augustine.
Regards
And, rejecting what God says is another. (Pr.13:13)
To which I say: rubbish!. There is no love in threats. Love does not conquer by fear.
Yeah, but it doesn't specufy which writings exactly make up the Bible. Obviously at the time of the writing of Timothy, the NT was not yet extant.
Neat phraseology, but lacking in substance. The presense of such vaguness through the religious world allows multidues of interpretations and mixes myth with history to create that which cannot be proven and can only be believed.
But was't the only version of the OT.
No, the TR is totally accurate and dependable and has been received by the church for 2000 years
You live in denial.
Based on a correct copy of a copy etc
You have no proof that any copy is a "correct" copy. We are talking even fragments dating decades, even centuries after the supposed 'originals.' The oldest complete Bible is mid 4th century and its Gospel of mark ends on verse 9:8 (the critical verses 9-20 were added at a later date).
Nonsense, the local churches had long accepted the books long before the 'father's' got around to 'officially' recognizing them.
Dream on. The local churches, even Rome, were reading all sorts of things that are not in the Bible today. And many local churches were not reading what is in the Bible today. For one, the oldest complete Bible (C. Sinaiticus) has two books that have been discarded since then. Constantinople did not use the revelation of John until the 9th century!
Saved souls and changed lives.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but other religions make the same claim and show the same "fruit." Get real!
No, we have the perfect words of Christ, passed down and preserved, much of it by the Byzantine church
Another sweeping myth without a shred of evidence. Nice way to "discuss," isn't it? Just make up the answer.
No, 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God'
Then don't read! Just listen! You may hear something.
No, I accept what is true based on what the Bible says to be true and the evidence that it has indeed been preserved by God led men
You seem to accept what you want to be true, since you are not willing to admit what are glaring examples of inconsistencies in the biblical texts and other facts.
You will probably tell me that cavemen and dinosaur bones are a lie, and Genesis is not a myth but 'just the way it happened.'
So I guess according to you, we can't trust any ancient work, since we do not have the originals of them either.
Trust is one thing. Believe with all your heart in them as absolute, immutable truth is a differ requirement. I trust that many people wrote the Bible. I trust that even more people copied them, added and deleated and altered them.
The headings are part of the Greek text
No one mentions any of the authors of Gospels by name for over a century. All references to what we find in Gospels are made as "the Lord Jesus Christ said..." until Irenaeus actually (c. 200 AD) began using presumed author's names.
Ancient books, including those in the Bible, were titled by the first sentence and not by the author. Thus the Hebrew name for Genesis is Bereishyit (lit. "in the beginning"). In Exodus, in Hebrew called Shemut, it;'s the second word because the first one means 'now.' Leviticus, Vayikra in Hebrew, again, is the first word, etc.
The Gospels are anonymous. If the original Greek text had "kata" (according to ... and the name of the author) they wouldn't be anonymous, genius, would they?
[Story of] Finding Jesus in the Temple:... ........ [compared to ] 38 ... Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. ...
I disagree with you if you are saying that true belief is possible without even basic understanding. It is certainly true that God does things I do not understand, yet I have belief. However, my belief does not waiver back and forth on the basic IDENTITY of Christ. Clearly Mary did not understand who her Son was (at the Temple) in the way you do now. So, she did not yet believe as you do now. And this, BTW, is no rap against Mary. I'm sure she was perfectly saved by the time she left this earth, but that happened at some point later, when God had chosen it.
It seems odd to me that you have Mary as a true believer, sinless, yet here she is chastising our Lord and Savior. Perhaps this is the better example of her possible sin. But then, if her belief required zero understanding, then it would be pointless to apply any standards at all to her. No matter what she did or thought, she would be perfect and sinless because she was Mary. That's all.
FK: "It is pure invention to suggest that this meant Mary was encouraging Jesus to wave His hands and produce something from thin air. Biblically, we have no idea if Mary "got it" at this point."
This is approaching blasphemy in tone, although I am sure you did not mean it that way.
You just got through telling me that Mary did not have understanding at the Temple, but now it is potential blasphemy to say she still didn't have it at Cana? :) Pretty interesting parameters for blasphemy.
It is also wrong in substance. This is the entire exchange between Mary and Jesus:
From v. 4 we know that Jesus understood her as interceding for a miracle. I suggest you follow His lead and understand her speech to Jesus in the same way He did. From v. 5 we see that Mary "got it" perfectly well.
This is again pure invention. How can you assume Mary was asking for a miracle? She was asking for help, the way any mother might ask her son for help. Then, Jesus answered her. THEN "something" unknown happened. Then, Mary said what she said to the waiters. You are using the unknown part as your proof! :) Mary tells them simply to do Jesus' bidding. Based on verse 4, that might have been NOTHING. Or, it might have been "Go over to Hiram's house and raid his wine cellar. I'll square it with him later." Or, it could have been as it turned out. But we have NO WAY to assume for sure that a miracle was on Mary's mind at all. It's just not there. AND AGAIN (forgive the shouting :) this is no slam on Mary. Jesus did His miracles when He saw fit, not typically when others were expecting them. Does the Church really need your interpretation to show that Jesus obeyed the commands of Mary, etc., etc.? I really don't understand the "need" to go here.
I do not need to remind you that the miracle did happen, involved not "thin air" but rather the two sacramental substances, water and wine, and Mary's faith we see in v.5 lead to the faith of many in v. 11.
What is the significance of "the two" sacramental substances in this context? The Master of the banquet tells us clearly what the deal was here. It was a normal wedding feast. Some people got loaded. It doesn't occur to me to be drawing the type of comparisons that you might be here. .......... Plus, how in the universe do you tie verses 5 and 11 together? 11 ONLY glorifies Christ. Mary's faith led to the faith of NO ONE. God gives faith, not Mary.
I renew my question, why do you need to go here? Verse 11 says that Jesus did His miracle, and then His disciples believed. Isn't that enough? Is there no joy in that in itself without needing to give Mary credit for the assist?
The blindness to scripture you exhibit is a direct consequence of mariophobia.
You mean because I don't glorify Mary and raise her up to the same level you do? You mean that I am intolerant because I don't read the relevant scriptures the same way you do? You mean that I am a mariophobe because I don't support the Mary "agenda"? Hmmm. While they are wholly unrelated in fact, this nonetheless reminds me of a lot of other threads I have seen on FR. :)
I wonder if that was added to his liturgy ex post facto, as it is not part of the Divine Liturgy of st. Basil, which preceded Chrysostom's (and is still used on special days in Eastern Orthodox and, I preusme, Eastern-rite Catholic churches).
I also do not see sacramental connection between water and wine at the wedding, as both were used for wholy unsacramental purpose. The bread, water and wine used in the Eucharistic Mystery are specifically selected, prepared and blessed for that purpose.
Here is what replaces the "Axion estin" of the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostomos in the Divine Liturgy of +Basil:
"All of Creation rejoices in thee, O full of grace:
the angels in heaven and the race of men,
O sanctified temple and noetic paradise,
the glory of virgins, of whom God was incarnate
and became a child, our God before the ages.
He made thy body into a throne,
and thy womb more spacious than the heavens.
All of creation rejoices in thee, O full of grace:
Glory be to thee."
Both make her near-divine, but St. Basil's has me somewhat gasping with his "Glory be to thee." Glory? Isn't Glory to be given only to God???
I can see why the Portestants go into electrict-shock spasms.
In my church there are a few people who actually do touch the ground when her name is mentioned! When I asked them where did they get that from the answer was "we feel we need to give her more than just [sic] a sign of the cross."
More than a sign of the cross?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.