Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: Quester
Yes ... I will presume to speak for Protestants in saying that we do, indeed, regard only "true believers" ... as members of Christ's church (i.e. the ecclesia or "called out ones").

Unbelievers may participate, to an extent, ... in the context of the church, ... but are not considered members of the church ... until they declare their personal belief.

Yes, I thought so. This different view on who is in the Church makes a lot of sense on how we view things, such as who is saved, the effects of Baptism, and so forth.

I do think that Christ's parables on the wheat and the weeds refers to the Church, which is why Catholics view salvation a bit differently - we can see nominal Catholics and call them part of the Church, but they are not "true believers" according to the Protestant. Thus, these discussions that seem to pass by each other.

Regards

1,281 posted on 12/13/2006 5:58:46 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1228 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; adiaireton8; jo kus; xzins; blue-duncan; Frumanchu; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; kosta50; ...

It has been pointed out to me that I made an error in my post 1246 in saying that the Council of Ephesus refered to the Theotokos as "ever virgin". That is of course incorrect. It was the 5th Ecumenical Council at Nicea which made that statement in canon 6, reaffirming the dogma of the Council of Chalcedon.

Sorry! I guess the drugs hadn't worn off (I asked for a doggy bag but the doctor said no)! :)


1,282 posted on 12/13/2006 6:00:38 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1246 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
And it was wrapped in fresh spinach!

LOL! Nice touch. :)

1,283 posted on 12/13/2006 6:03:02 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1068 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

I've been wrong before.


1,284 posted on 12/13/2006 6:05:38 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1282 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Where is your proof for the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

The teaching, as far as doctrinal, comes with the Church's understanding of Christ and Mary's role when Mary is called the Mother of God and Mary as the New Eve, both concepts clearly stated in the first 300 years of Christianity. Furthermore, with such men as St. Ambrose, Mary is called a type of the Church. The Church is ALSO our Mother (it is called this throughout history) in that it gives birth to us through being baptized (born again) and we are nourished and nutured by it (receiving the Word of God and the Sacraments). The Church more clearly defines this later on, culminating with Vatican 2. The Church sees that Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is a virgin dedicating her life to her spouse, Jesus Christ.

Thus, what the Church sees in Mary is a reflection of Christ and the Church itself.

Regards

1,285 posted on 12/13/2006 6:06:30 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1226 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Any pleasure derived form it was from the devil. This was the basis for +Augustine's Confessions and his belief that, like Satan, concupiscence enslaves us.

That is not an accurate depiction of Augustine's position. He does not think that sexual pleasure is evil.

-A8

1,286 posted on 12/13/2006 6:09:50 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1280 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex; blue-duncan; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; jo kus; xzins
BD, what do you call God's plan to have David kill his general so that David can marry the general's wife? Premeditated murder? Can we apply human law to Scripture and judge it? Can we cry "it's not fair?" Can we say it violates "human rights?" I think the absurdity of "lawyering" the Scripture is self-evident; or at least it should be.

I think it was Milton, who said that God will do as He wills, and we can't judge him for it. God is good, and operates on a whole different level than we do, so applying human laws to God is a bit silly.

1,287 posted on 12/13/2006 6:10:05 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1278 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Sorry! I guess the drugs hadn't worn off (I asked for a doggy bag but the doctor said no)! :)

Did you have some surgery recently?

1,288 posted on 12/13/2006 6:12:00 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1282 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex
I agree. The idea that sex in marriage is also "recreational" and just for "marital pleasure" is a novel one, I would even dare say latter 20th century innovation.

I wouldn't say that. The real Purtians had a rather interesting view of martial sex. A husband could be put in the stocks for not fulfilling his martial duty enough. Which is pretty ironic when you see how the word "Puritan" is used today.

1,289 posted on 12/13/2006 6:16:00 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1280 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
You offered no proof of the existence of any doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. If she is the "New Eve" as you say, then she would fall under God's first commandment to Eve, "be fruitful and multiply".

Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is a virgin dedicating her life to her spouse, Jesus Christ.

Mary was not the "spouse" of Jesus, she was his mother. She was the spouse of Joseph and as such she had been commanded to cling to him, forsaking all others. If she did not cling to Joseph, then she was a sinner. If she gave all of her attention to Jesus and none to husband then she was a sinner.

Now you can avoid all this stuff by denying that Mary was really Joseph's wife, and that her suppposed marriage was simply a sham. Is that what you are implying?

1,290 posted on 12/13/2006 6:17:21 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1285 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex; Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; Kolokotronis; jo kus; redgolum; xzins

Oh, I get it now. I see where my mistake was. I was reading Matthew from the KJV instead of reading it from a Herrew/Aramaic translation into Greek and then into English. When we do that we get,

"And the angel appeared unto Joseph and said, 'I got some good news for you and bad news.' And Joseph said, 'give me the good news first.' 'Right,' the angel said, You're going to marry a young virgin but she is pregnant'. 'That's good news', Joseph asked? 'Yup, that's the good news', the angel replied. 'If that's the good news what's the bad', asked Joseph. She's going to be an eternal virgin and you can never have sexual relations with her nor can you ever touch her since she is holy'. 'Why didn't you tell me this before I got betrothed, whatever that means?' asked Joseph. 'Cause we wanted to see if you would go through with the betrothal before we told you about the plan. It's a free-will kind of thing.' said the angel, 'very hush-hush.'"

There, I think I got it now.


1,291 posted on 12/13/2006 6:21:48 AM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1278 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
then she would fall under God's first commandment to Eve, "be fruitful and multiply".

The fruit of her womb is greater than all the fruit of all other wombs combined.

-A8

1,292 posted on 12/13/2006 6:25:05 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1290 | View Replies]

To: annalex; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Buggman
who is the woman who gives birth to the child?

The woman of Rev 12 who gives birth to a male child:


1,293 posted on 12/13/2006 6:25:41 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1252 | View Replies]

To: redgolum; kosta50; annalex; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; jo kus; xzins

"I think it was Milton, who said that God will do as He wills, and we can't judge him for it. God is good, and operates on a whole different level than we do, so applying human laws to God is a bit silly."

Watch yourself, you are beginning to sound like those dreaded Calvinists!


1,294 posted on 12/13/2006 6:26:35 AM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1287 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
How instrumental was the Bible in convincing you that the Church is the Church set up by Christ? Did you come to believe the Roman Catholic Church was Christ's "Ont True Church" primarily because Scripture said it was or because you chose to believe others when they told you it was?

I found that extra-biblical writings, whether secular or religious, appeared to agree and that there appeared to be cohesiveness with the Catholic claim. The sources led me to believe the veracity, along with the witnesses who make the claim. Of course the bible played a role. But men surrounding the Bible, the Church, make a distinctive claim that only Islam or Judaism makes in a historical context. So one comes down to whether one believes Mohemmed or Jesus Christ was indeed a continuation of Judaism. I disregarded the Koran - not because of the Bible, but because of the Church AND the witness of Islam.

And at the time of Augustine the Church was quite well orthodox and Biblical in its teachings. The church you belong to today is not.

So the Catholic Church of St. Augustine is not the same Catholic Church of today? That is like saying an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree... Men do not remain static in their contemplation of the Word of God.

You're putting words into my mouth when we've never even had a discussion on Biblical inerrancy, which demonstrates pretty clearly that the "sola scriptura" you are railing against isn't the sola scriptura historical Protestantism holds to.

I've had this conversation enough times to know that Protestants themselves do not hold to their own definition of Sola Scriptura. Basically, it comes down to interpretation - your own - vs. anyone else. Anyone who disagrees with your particular interpretation is clearly wrong... Thus, the "spirit" gives a million different interpretations on a wide array of topics. I suppose that goes hand in hand with the relativism prevalent today in society... - "what i believe is truth and what you believe is truth"

It says they examined the Scriptures to see if the things they heard were so. It does NOT say they went back and re-interpreted the Scriptures in light of what Paul told them.

Wrong. The first Christians - Jews - had to do a MAJOR paradigm shift. Anyone who doesn't recognize that hasn't a clue on what was being taught vs. what was previously held by the Jews. For example, the OT says that anyone who was hung on a tree was condemned... Paul himself had a problem with that verse, no doubt, because Jews brought it up! People didn't become Christian because of the Old Testament. They became Christian because they SAW Christ in the Church, the people. They saw a committment, a love, a fervor for God. The "foolishness" of the Gospel was a stumbling block - until people SAW Christians at work, SAW Christ working through these people.

Today, this continues. People convert LARGELY because of the witness of other people, not by picking the Bible off the library shelf and reading it. I can tell you this is so from my own experience every year when people become Catholic.

Regards

1,295 posted on 12/13/2006 6:27:01 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1219 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

" Did you have some surgery recently?"

Nope. An "invasive test" that people over 50 are supposed to have! :)


1,296 posted on 12/13/2006 6:34:20 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1288 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
The fruit of her womb is greater than all the fruit of all other wombs combined.

In that sense she is truly Blessed.

However that did not relieve her of her duty of devotion to her husband. She was married to Joseph.

1,297 posted on 12/13/2006 6:35:19 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1292 | View Replies]

To: Quester; Kolokotronis; kosta50; annalex
I'm pretty sure I have read in Catholic posts that you believe that Mary did not experience birth pangs and travail in delivering Jesus.

Also, the persecution narrative of the remainder of the chapter is more representative of Israel (the Jews) ... than of Mary.

Brother, the Church has seen since before St. Ambrose' time that Mary is a type of the Church. Thus, when the Scriptures relate something about the Church (as interpreted by the Church), they also see Mary there, as well. For example, the Song of Songs. The 12th Chapter of Revelations. Genesis 3:15. And the persecution narratives. There is NOT an either/or here. Just as the Church sees in Israel's crossing of the Red Sea as a type of Baptism in Scriptures (Peter), the Church ALSO sees in Mary the Church, the People of God. Vatican 2 clearly points this out, and does it very well.

Who obeys God? Mary/True Israel. Who is the one who gives birth to the Savior? Mary/Church(True Israel is the Church, according to Paul in Romans 11). Thus, when we see Scripture that points to God's People, True Israel, the Church, we also see Mary there as well. That is why we call BOTH Virgin. That is why we call BOTH our Mother. This understanding will help you see why we hold Mary so highly. Because God does in His plan of salvation.

Regards

1,298 posted on 12/13/2006 6:38:22 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1272 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; kosta50; annalex; Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; jo kus; redgolum; xzins
"There, I think I got it now."

No wonder poor +Joseph looks so down in the dumps (lower left with the Devil talking to him)!


1,299 posted on 12/13/2006 6:40:03 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1291 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

You know, I am really not looking forward to that part of getting older.


1,300 posted on 12/13/2006 6:45:27 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1296 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 16,241-16,256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson