'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[D-fendr]

I try to follow what is taught in Scripture…

I was asking how one starts with Sola Scriptura when there are widely different, including the Gnostics, views of what is inspired, how this is accurately translated and what the translation means.

Does Sola Scriptura assume its own canon/translation/interpretation? Do you accept another's authority, choose a tradition or examine the source document's provenance and translations for yourself?

[D-fendr]

Didn't mean to be rude in my last post.

Not at all. Passion for your beliefs, but nothing rude. Course I'm on my fourth cup of coffee myself..

[Quester]

Where is the difference? (I see no contradiction.)

Well ... Paul does not propose that consenting marital intercourse would ever be sin ... and Paul never makes mention of procreation (let alone it being the only valid purpose for marital intercourse).

Paul encourages marriage ... and marital union ... for the purpose of avoiding falling to the temptation of Satan.

[wmfights]

I was asking how one starts with Sola Scriptura when there are widely different, including the Gnostics, views of what is inspired, how this is accurately translated and what the translation means.

Every book that is a part of the NT was written by an Apostle or someone closely associated with an Apostle. At the end of the Apostolic Era no other inspired writings appeared. Although a lot of forgeries did appear such as the "Protoevangelium of James", which is the source of so many myths concerning Mary, they were quickly recognized as such.

The question of understanding is the result of prayer, meditation and being guided by the Holy Spirit. If instead you wish to deduce your understanding from what others tell you, you will become dependent upon them in no short order. Hopefully for your sake they will ALWAYS be good people.

I rather trust in the LORD. Jesus gave us all the proof we need. He proved he was exactly who he said he was.

"Does Sola Scriptura assume its own canon/translation/interpretation? Do you accept another's authority, choose a tradition..."

I understand you are a product of a system where you have been taught it is better to have others think for you than to think for yourself, but your insistence on mischaracterizing Sola Scriptura is silly.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

Every book that is a part of the NT was written by an Apostle or someone closely associated with an Apostle.

How do you know this personally? Have you checked for sure? Or did you take it on someone's authority?

If it is as simple as you believe, it would seem a reasonable inference that forming the canon was unneccessary, it's an obvious no-brainer. Would you agree, or was it necessary? If so, why?

Also an important choice, that affects doctrine is the selection of the OT canon. How did you arrive at your choice for it?

I actually agree with the Protestant Principle in the main as it involves the Holy Spirit and scripture reading.

However, I find it impossible to imagine selecting, preserving, translating and interpreting the entire Christian dogma and doctrine - particularly in the detail of homeostasis, the Trinity, the Mother of God, etc. such as we discuss on threads like this - on one's own without relying on tradition or trusting in some authority.

I just don't think it can be done or is done. I imagine that if you look closely, you will find you rely on some authorities somewhere. So to force a choice between having others think for you or to think for yourself is a false choice. And it is contrary to Jesus' commission, to the Apostles, to the Gospel and to the Church that Our Lord established. They did not create a canon and preach "here, read this."

And they certainly did not reject all authority and all hierarchy in teaching.

It is antithetical to an Apostolic Church, and quite impossible to accomplish when put in the extreme as you have. None of us sat on a desert island with a book of scriptures and developed our spiritual formation, beliefs and doctrines. And to try this all alone, is not what I think of when I read the Gospel and the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

My point was that I believe it more difficult to begin. To know Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Sola Scriptura direction because then even the book of scriptures you hold must be examined - in order to most rigorously avoid having others think for you.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is only if you have a presumption that she was a perpetual virgin that you would have a problem with that being the proper use of the word in context. That presumption did not begin to show its face until 3 centuries later."

You know, gang, I've been watching this thread and saying little for the past few days; first because I have been fascinated with the presumption of the some of the arguments and thus thought it would be more fun to simply watch and second, I had a medical proceedure Monday the prep for which took up much of Sunday and the after effects rather dulled me on Monday (well, more than I usually am; all went well, thank-God).

But now I have a couple of observations. First, none of you speak Greek or think in or like Greek or Greeks. I do. It is disingenuous at best for any of you to claim you know better than Greek speaking Fathers did about the meaning of αδελφοι! You can of course believe whatever your English speaking minds tell you to believe. It may even be that the Holy Spirit has guided Anglo Saxon English speaking minds to the Truth, having left the entire Christian world until at least the 1600s, including the Greeks, and most of the Christian world thereafter, including the Greeks, in error. I don't know. It becomes a matter of Faith I suppose, because I can assure you it isn't a matter of linguistics.

Second, the issue of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, a subject closely tied to the meaning of the word αδελφοι, did not spring full blown out of nowhere in the Fifth century and the Council of Ephesus or from the writings of +Jerome. Origen argues for it in the 2nd century. Now Origen is not one of my favored sources, but he is a keen observer of what many in the Church believed in his times. +Zeno of Verona, +Augustine of Hippo and +Ambrose of Milan all affirmed her perpetual virginity in the Fourth century. And of course the Council of Ephesus anathemized those who would say otherwise. So far as I know, no one, not even the Reformers of the 16th century, questioned this tenent of the Faith thereafter. So where did this denial of an article of Christian Faith come from? Sola Scriptura? It didn't seem to bother the great Reforming proponents of Sola Scriptura. They believed it, doubtless with the same conviction that they knew that bats are not birds, the OT to the contrary notwithstanding (Thanks Kosta). Now once again, you are of course free to believe whatever you wish. This isn't a linguistic matter, as I am sure we all agree. It is, however, a matter of some Protestant thinkers being completely outside 2000 years of Christian mainstream thinking on the subject, the very thinking which determined the canon of scripture...and apparently believing that bats are birds.

So far as I can see, this thread will go nowhere from here; its just using up bandwidth. The Protestants could care less about 5th century anathemas and the rest of us aren't about to throw over 2000 years of Church teaching. My suggestion is we leave it at that and move on to more arcane subjects like what is grace! :)

[adiaireton8]

Well ... Paul does not propose that consenting marital intercourse would ever be sin

You can't use what Paul *doesn't* say to make him contradict Augustine.

... and Paul never makes mention of procreation (let alone it being the only valid purpose for marital intercourse).

Again, you can't use what Paul *doesn't* say to make him contradict Augustine.

Paul encourages marriage ... and marital union ... for the purpose of avoiding falling to the temptation of Satan.

Augustine agrees. So there is still no contradiction between Paul and Augustine.

-A8

[P-Marlowe]

First, none of you speak Greek or think in or like Greek or Greeks. I do.

I speak English, but I have a lot of difficulty with Chaucer.

The Protestants could care less about 5th century anathemas and the rest of us aren't about to throw over 2000 years of Church teaching.

You are right. We are only concerned with Biblical anathemas. You know, the first century ones. Like the one in Galatians. You know, by the guys who had the actual authority to issue them.

[blue-duncan]

The life expectancy of a fifth century anathema was approximately three years I think. I may be off by a year or two but I read where they had trouble with the wuk joint where it connected to the mreph and it kept wearing out. I may be wrong about this but I'm definitely uncertain.

[xzins]

Sorry, but you are the one arguing from silence. Marlowe is arguing from repeated lack of evidence.

Santa Claus will NOT be observed going down any chimneys on Christmas Eve this year.

That certainly is evidence that he does just that.

[Quester]

Augustine agrees. So there is still no contradiction between Paul and Augustine.

I don't believe that I stated that there was contradiction between Paul and Augustine.

I believe that I said that their teaching on the issue was different ... which it clearly is.

[annalex]

The contrast is between Mary and his brothers and those in the crowd who are his spiritual brothers and mother.

What contrast? The repudiation of His family is a counterscriptural Protestant tale. the child is taken to heaven, but the woman remains on earth. This denies the Assumption, doesn't it?

No it does not deny the Assumption, which indeed followed the Ascension by many years.

In fact, it is not about Mary at all

2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. 7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: 8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.

(Apoc. 12)

Who, do you think is the woman who gives birth to Christ?

[annalex]

no evidence that he started any church

Take that up with XZins. I go to Petrine Church often.

[HarleyD]

First, none of you speak Greek or think in or like Greek or Greeks. I do.

I think that is a tad harsh. I'll confess I don't know many Greeks but those that I have met were very likable chaps. Given polling data, I would tend to say, in general, Americans are ambivalent to Greeks. I would also say, in general, the Greeks do not like Americans or our policies.

It is disingenuous at best for any of you to claim you know better than Greek speaking Fathers did about the meaning of áäåëöïé!

Please don't tell me that just because you're Greek you know the thought process of every Greek.

Second, the issue of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, a subject closely tied to the meaning of the word áäåëöïé, did not spring full blown out of nowhere in the Fifth century and the Council of Ephesus or from the writings of +Jerome. Origen argues for it in the 2nd century.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. The Orthodox and Catholics base their beliefs on the Canons and the Magisterium. They are guided by the Holy Spirit and are free, where reasonable, to evolve their theology discarding old beliefs and establishing new ones after careful deliberations.

Protestants base their beliefs on what specifically the scriptures states. If they discuss things contain in the scriptures and come to a general consensus, isn't that the same thing as what the Orthodox and Catholics are doing? Are we not allowed to do the same thing? I would think you would welcome that.

What you find offensive is that we would question the perpetual virginity of Mary apart from the traditions of the Church. There is no scriptural support for the perpetual virginity of Mary. But, frankly, it probably would be a non-issue with us Protestants except for the excessiveness in which Mary is worshiped today. It seems your beef is really with the Catholics.

[annalex]

Compare Matthew 16 with 18 regarding binding and you'll see that the keys are not unique to Peter, all Christians have them.

I am Catholic. I am familiar with the Holy Scripture. Why don't you do the comparing and tell me if you see any keys to the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 18, or if there is anyone beside St. Peter promised them.

[annalex]

The huge bulk of the comments about Mary are that she was a virgin when she gave birth to our Lord, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah.

Of course. The Virgin Birth is the real miracle. Our Lady's perpetual virginity is a personal aspect of the Incarnation, not a public miracle for anyone but her enemies to comment upon.

when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child [...] And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

(Apoc. 12)

[annalex]

They elevate Mary thus diminishing Christ

One example of "diminishing" Christ is think of Him as someone Who would not want His mother elevated.

[annalex]

the hierarchal structure did not emerge until well into the second century and even then was not fully adopted for at least another 50-100 years after that.

Yet, the epistles to the Corinthians was written by St. Paul, and so were the epistles to Timothy and Titus. All lay foundation for such hierarchy.

Generally, the Church responded to challenges as it faced them. Among 12 men there is little need for hierarchy. As the Chruch grew, naturally it developed structures appropriate for its size.

[annalex]

we do not need a human being to legislate on matters of salvation

What do you think a possession of the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven signify? I just read what is written.

He most certainly DID give the Holy Spirit to every believer

This is how that is described:

When he had said this, he breathed on [the disciples gathered in the upper room]; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost (John 20:22)

I don't see anyone but a select group in there. Now, it is true that the Church gives the gift of the Holy Spirit to those the Church sacramentally confirms. I don't think I argued otherwise.

[annalex]

the doctrine of the I.C. also states that she was filled with every grace -- to such supercapacity that she was, from that moment, able to give away her extra grace to others.

This is what the Catechism says.

490. To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role". The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace. 491. Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1844: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854.) 492. The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son." The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love." 493. The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia) and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

We see two things: she was redeemed and she was freed from original sin. This is to say, she became a saint and was baptized at conception. I did not become saint yet, so there is a difference; but as example of many saints show, hers is not a superhuman condition.