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

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

[kosta50]

It's a great way to learn!

And what a blessing it is. :)

[kosta50]

Yet some sects don't do a lot to stop it and after a few generations it becomes accepted as the norm by that sect

We do pick up bad habits but that's because we don't bother to learn. Most people fall into these self-created errors in good faith, and for pious reasons; their intention is not to minimize God, or to make mary into a goddess.

The way to hell is paved with good intentions. That applies to all of us.

[wmfights]

The way to hell is paved with good intentions. That applies to all of us.

Every now and then we Can agree on something!

I said before, that the people who fall into this error are probably driven by a desire for a close personal relationship with GOD and they have been misled.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements and for sharing your insights!

I merely objected, I think, to the notion that God does not or cannot or has not chosen to manifest in a . . . . HEAVENLY CONTEXT . . . at least analogous to space, tangible space. I contend that the evidence is that He has.

I probably should have extended my remarks a bit further in discussing the Jewish mystic view of the firmament, re: post 12477

Their view that the firmament is not geometric but a boundary between the spiritual and physical realms rings true in the Spirit for me, i.e. that the physical and spiritual realms are not spatially separated.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Gal 2:20

However, as I said, their musing that the firmament is the "speed of light" doesn't bring a leaning for me in either direction, i.e. true of false.

It is equally possible that the boundary is dimensional though not spatially separated per se.

Visualize the firmament as one of the planes (colors) in this rotating hypercube (which, btw is merely 4 dimensional.)

IOW, we are able to sense four dimensions - three of space and one of time. We cannot "see" in four spatial dimensions as in the hypercube. We see in three spatial dimensions and sense time passing. But it is possible - likely even - that more spatial and/or temporal dimensions exist.

An interesting side point is that sensing one additional temporal dimension would yield our timeline (arrow of time or sense of time passing) as a plane - where past, present and future all co-exist on the plane. Such a dimension would comport with prophesy as well as answer a number of anamolies in physics: non-locality, superposition, etc.

IOW, as denizens of physical reality with vision and mind limited to four dimensions (3 spatial, 1 temporal) - we would not be able to "see" the spiritual realm, but the denizens of the spiritual realm might be able to "see" us being separated by perception of one or more higher dimensions (or planes):

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. - I Cor 13:12

IOW, if that were the case, those mansions Christ promised would be even more "real" in terms of space/time than what we perceive as physical reality in 4 dimensions.

Those are just my musings on the matter - not leanings in the Spirit. But they are every bit at reasonable and consistent with Scripture as the Jewish mystic musing that the firmament is the "speed of light."

[annalex]

Let me make one general remark. I may have made it before to you, in which case pardon the repetition. I do not have an issue with you or any other Protestant interpreting the scripture in the way you like. Some scriptures can be interpreted in the Catholic way and also in the way you interpret them. For example, much of the Catholic mariology is one particular interpretation of the scripture among other interpretations. In these cases I tend to skip down to a more productive discussion. My chief concern is to explain the Catohlic reading of the scripture. I will also point out when your reading is not merely deviant from Catholicism but also contradicts the very scripture you hold as the sole arbiter in disputes. OK? I mention this just to save time, because you seem to want to tell me what you think of the scripture, and I am not really interested in anyone's private interpretation, so I am not interested in yours either. I will also conflate your posts to me in batches of my own, as my time allows.

Romans 2:6-10.

This is largely your interpretation. The passage says that those who do good works get eternal life and the rest "wrath and indignation". If you want to wiggle out of it with some casuistry, do it on your own.

James 2

Verse 18, when it speaks of works as a demonstration of faith is put there rhetorically:

18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

St. James does not say it, his rhetorical opponent does. James concludes that "faith without works is dead" and he hcalls the rhetorical opponent, you, "vain man".

James is discussing being saved from physical death

This is your fantasy. St. James speaks of salvation in v. 14, justification throughout the passage. Of physical death he speaks once, comparing it to the death of faith, v. 26.

Romans [ch.4] makes it clear it is discussing eternal salvation and the works it is discussing are all works

The context says otherwise, and nowhere does it say "all works". The context mentions debt, that is obligation to work, and circumcision, that is ceremonial works of Jewish law. Eph. 2:9 adds works of social reward, "boast", to that list of non-salvific works.

No one disagrees that faith can be increased by works

So what are you arguing then? This is the Catholic teaching: works increase faith and hence are necessary for salvation.

but the man in 1Cor. 3 is not being burned, his works are.

Good enough, the purgation therein described is Purgatory nonetheless.

The sin offering was for all women who gave birth because they had sin in their bodies, not for any particular sin

Ah. So, Mary had no particular sin. She simply fulfilled a ceremonial obligaiton.

The only thing counted for salvation is the faith

None of your prooftexts (Rom.4:5,Eph.2:9,Tit.3:5,Rom.4:16) say "only". You read various passages that speak of the importance of faith and jump to your own conclusions.

is insane!

"it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe" (1 Cor 1:21)

[annalex]

This does not speak to the issue. I am not Jewish, I am Christian.

[annalex]

Jerome had a personal opinion about these books, that was not normative for the Church; the books in question were canonized at Hippo and Carthage and were a part of every bible ever since, excepting Protestant falsifications of the scripture. They were also translated by Jerome despite his misgivings, and included in his Vulgate.

[Quix]

I resonate yet again rather wholesale.

Thanks.

[annalex]

Scripture is very clear, it is about JESUS and no one stands between us and JESUS.

In fact, 1Tim. 2:1-5, one that concludes with "one mediator" verse also calls for intercession of saints -- as I do not tire repeating on this thread.

[annalex]

I think Jesus gave John the responsibility for Mary because ...

You think. This is your private interpretation. It is not the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome, dear brother in Christ!

[annalex]

this can't be Mary because you believe she did not suffer any pain during childbirth

the woman in Apocalypse 12 is Mary because she is identified as the mother of Christ (vv 2 and 10). Rather, this passage is an argument for Mary actually suffering the labor pains. The idea that she did not is popular piety and is not dogmatic. It is also possible to read the reference to pains as her participation in the labors of the entire Jewish nation and not physiological pain.

the woman flees to a sanctuary After the ascension of the child and hides there

Mary did flee to Ephesus, tradition tells us. It is also possible to see the Church in hiding in this passage. The reference to Israel is more clear in the birth pains, discussed earlier.

[annalex]

you must always end the prayer, in Christ's name. Even then technically, you are still committing idolatry

Catohlics always begin and end their prayers in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, amen. What is and what is not idolatry we tell you -- you don't tell us.

[annalex]

Rudolph Otto

I am sure somebody did. Dan Brown comes to mind as well. The point is, when the disciple who most likely was not at the Last Supper, Cleophas, recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread despite having talked to Him at some length prior and not recognizing Him, the first thing comes to mind is the Eucharist, and not historical speculations.

[blue-duncan]

Why would “Eucharist” come to mind if he had never participated in it? The Gospel does say he was a disciple so he would have participated in the “brotherhood” rite. By the way, Otto was a respected theologian and biblical scholar in Germany. His book “The Idea of the Holy” is a classic.

[annalex]

Ah, that is exactly the point. He has no rational basis to recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread, but not face to face. This points to Christ’s presence in the broken bread, i.e. His eucharistic presence.

[kosta50]

the people who fall into this error are probably driven by a desire for a close personal relationship with GOD and they have been misled

I am not sure they are mislead, wmfights. If you asked them, they would flatly deny that Mary is divine. And they would be horrified to learn that others may perceive their devotion as such.

They are a humble Orthodox couple, whose highlight on a trip to Africa was a chance to pay for some poor woman's medicines. That and other charity they did made their trip, in their eyes, evry bit worth all the money they spent.

They absolutely lack any spiritual pride to make this a personal crusade. What they are doing is inaproporiate, but they are not aware of it.

[wmfights]

You think. This is your private interpretation. It is not the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

Correct, that's why I started the thought with "I think", instead of "the RCC told me to think". ;-0

[annalex]

If I bring this up to you needlessly, I apologize. Very often as a Catholic apologist, I am asked to supply scriptural basis for one Catholic doctrine or another. Now, for some of our doctrines it is straightforward, for others it is open to different interpretations. For example, one can reasonably see in the mutual adoption of St. John and Mary described in John 19:26-27 Mary as mother of the entire discipleship of Christ or merely of John. The latter tends to be the Protestant belief and the former the Catholic belief. I can argue why ours is more authentic or more reasonable but I would not call your view scripturally unreasonable. It is a possible private interpretation.

Then there are cases where I would argue that not only does our view accord with the scripture, but that yours does not. For example, I do not see how the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide is scriptural — it is after all flatly denied by the scripture.

Invariably, when I point out the Catholic interpretation, I am then told “and this is the Protestant interpretation of this passage”. At which point I lose the interest in the discussion: I am quite familiar with the protestant system of theological thought and I reject it. I do not need to be informed of it one more time and it is not I who had come to you with questions in the beginning. As soon as the Catholic explanation of the scripture is given and clarified, my job, as I see it, is basically done. This is why I try to point out when the conversation crosses over into a debate between interpretations. I am not trying to be rude or sarcastic.

[Kolokotronis]

Kosta: "Physical space as such is irrelevant when it comes to God, as we would surely say that God is present in all parts of the Creation, immensly vast and it is, and all at the same time. This is a highly transcendental concept which we know of but cannot comprehend."

AG: " I prefer the term timelessness, but it still doesn't capture the point that time is a part of Creation and not something in or by which the Creator exists."

Now this is finally an interesting part of this otherwise way too long thread! :)

As I likely have mentioned before, the Cappadocians Fathers commented, "I believe in God; God does not "exist". And on most every icon of Christ you will see the Greek words, "Ο ΩΝ". The words don't translate into English well at all, but they sort of mean The Being which is the source and Creator of Being or Existence. Thus the Cappadocians could say that God does not "exist" since "existence" itself was created by Him ex nihilo. To carry it further, it is similarly apparent that "place" is a spacial or psychological context for "existence". And it is likewise created ex nihilo by God and thus "place" can have no meaning when applied to God because He is "everywhere" and "nowhere" "in" and "out of" what we perceive as time.

Now here's the wonderful thing about Christianity, at least in most of its earthly manifestations. The transcendence of God beyond transcendence, for us, does NOT mean that we are dealing with a divine and uncaring watchmaker or the monster Allah that the Mohammedans worship, but rather God Who calls us His sons and daughters and loves us beyond our ability to understand. It is even more marvelous when one considers the whys of the Incarnation as outlined by +Athanasius the Great, that the "Ο ΩΝ" became Man so we could, among other things know Him!