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/
It speaks very much to the issue since both Athanasius and Jerome (to name just two) rejected Old Testament books that were not written in Hebrew, understanding that represented the Canon of the Old Testament for the Christian as well as for the Jew.
Those interpretations of scripture are not private in the sense that they are my 'opinions'.
They are based on the normal, clear reading of the passage, not reading into the passage what you want to find.
Christ never even uses the term Mother for Mary, and when she comes to get Him, with His brethren, He refuses to leave and doesn't even go to her. (Mat.12:46-50)
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.
I am reading the scripture and addressing with what it says, not what I want it to say.
The passage does not say that doing good works result in eternal life, it says, those who seek eternal life by doing good works will find it.
Again the example is found in Acts 10, when Cornilus was brought to the Gospel because he was a 'devout' man.
Yet, his good works did not save him, he had to receive the Gospel by faith to be saved.
Words do matter in scripture.
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.
Nowhere is eternal damnation mentioned, only physical death.
Every example given represents an active faith showing itself by its acts, not saving anyone eternally.
Abraham was saved in Gen.15, not Gen.22.
Gen. 22 showed that he believed.
James makes what he is saying very clear in vs.22, seest thou how faith wrought with his works and by works faith was made perfect?
A 'dead' faith, one that does not produce works results in physical death for those who have believed, such as the Exodus generation, who died before going into the Promised Land (Heb.4:2).
Christ states very clearly in John 15:2, that God the Father removes those who do not produce fruit.
Moreover, Paul states that one can lose his faith (dead faith) and Christ will not forsake him (2Tim.2)
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.
Now you are just playing games.
The passages that are stated make it clear that all works being discussed and no distinction is made between some works and others.
What Paul makes clear is that it is either faith or works, and if it is going to be by grace, it must be by faith and faith alone (without works) since works demand a reward and thus, are not grace.
The passage in Eph. 2:9 makes it clear that all works are excluded 'lest any man should boast', it has nothing to do with any particular kind of work.
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.
Clearly, you do not understand the Baptist view of Sanctification.
Salvation occurs in a moment at the receiving of the Gospel.
Growth occurs over time with faith being tested and producing fruit (Jn.15:3, Ja.1:2-3,1Pe.1:7), to be rewarded for at the Judgement seat of Christ (Rom.14:10, 2Cor.5:10)
but the man in 1Cor. 3 is not being burned, his works are.
Good enough, the purgation therein described is Purgatory nonetheless.
No it is not, since the man himself is not being burnt and suffering for his sins.
His useless works are being burned, while the good works are rewarded (Gold, silver, and precious stones).
Purgatory has nothing to do with rewards.
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.
No, Mary needed a saviour like anyone else and called Christ her saviour, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Mary was born with a sin nature and committed sin, just like anyone else and needed a saviour for those sins.
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.
What those texts say is that there is no works at all involved in salvation and they state that it is by faith and not works.
Thus, they do not have use the word 'only', they remove any possiblity of works being involved by the clear statment,
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom.4:5).
Works are removed from the equation thus, it is by faith and faith alone (without works) that one is saved.
is insane!
"it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe" (1 Cor 1:21)
Now, to cut out the entire statement and just leave 'is insane' is a sign of blatant dishonestly.
What is 'insane' is the RCC making John the representive of the Church, where nowhere is it stated as such and then to jump from that to state because John took Mary in his own home as his mother, that Mary is the 'mother' of the believer.
No scripture ever states such a thing.
But your use of 1Cor.1:21 is interesting since it states that those who are saved are saved by believing, not working.
No Roman Catholic can use only scriptures to defend their system, since it is not based on scripture, but tradition, thus the RC makes scripture to fit it's own constantly evolving doctrines.
The work that I cited showed that the Davidic kingdom is regarded by historians to be as it is stated in the Old Testament historical works.
Nothing found has contradicted those facts, in fact, the opposite is true.
You need to get out of the 19th century.
I wouldn't go that far:
wor·ship ... n.
1. a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. [FOD]
You noted that Jesus gave us some help with letter "b". But what about "a"? If we worship God we must love God. The Bible is packed with how to do that, perhaps most simply through obedience. The ceremonies, etc. should come from that. Being merciful and pure in heart also comes from loving God. We are given tons of examples. Love God and these things will come.
It doesn't even tell us to read the Bible, but to listen.
What? The Bible teaches us to love, learn and know the scriptures (word of God). That CAN be done by listening alone, but it obviously encourages those who can read to do so for themselves. I thought your Church specifically teaches that the laity should read their Bibles. That wasn't made up, it came from the scriptures. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 talks about the scriptures being for the "man of God". Who are "men of God"?
Worse, from the Bible alone you will not get a clear understanding of the Holy Trinity or the dual nature of Christ, our Lord. In fact, relying on the NT alone, you are very likely to develop a belief closer to docetism then orthodoxy.
I see the foundation for the Trinity and dual nature being very strong in scripture, even if they wouldn't necessarily be obvious on a first reading. Further study would clearly reveal both, and obviously has, since we agree with you without Tradition.
I don't know much about docetism, but here is the first paragraph from Wiki:
In Christianity, Docetism (... "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians[1].
I seriously doubt anyone comes away with this from a free reading. From this description it seems that Jesus was a hoax. It is an interpretation based on an agenda NOT supported by the actual scripture. It assumes myth, which the free reader is not led to. With obvious exceptions, you have to admit that the general tone of the Bible is matter of fact, and literal.
Reformation was intended to correct corruption, not the theology of the Church.
In this case, they were inseparable. The first must have concluded with the second. Luther saw corruption and knew that this was not the way of the Apostles. "Why is this happening?", he must have said to himself. He must have concluded that the corruption went beyond mere individuals into something deeper, etc. Would the Orthodox Church (as a whole) have allowed and supported such corruption then or now? I'll bet you'd say "no". But apparently the Church that Luther knew (as a whole), did. That's huge.
FK: "The Elect HAVE already been forgiven."
Provided they also forgive.
And they will, all of them, whoever they are. Forgiveness is part of perseverance, and God promises that the elect will persevere, each and every one. He loses none given Him, by any means whatsoever. Therefore, I don't think "provided" is the right word. You are right that the elect must forgive. But this is guaranteed, it is an asterisk, "Biblically speaking". This doesn't mean we ignore it at all. Other scripture teaches much against that. We just put faith in what God has promised and follow Him.
Greek should be used as our litmus test, making sure our comprehension is the same as that in the original language — which becomes a long and arduous process very few are willing to take. The Protestants want to go it alone, but very few will go to the lengths needed to master and read everything and all. The Orthodox and Catholic don't have to. The Church has addressed all the issues one could possible think of, and made them available to those who need to know.
I'm not sure of what you are saying. All of our sides have always had Greek scholars. Translations and interpretations have been debated for centuries on all sides. We just trust different guys. How are Protestants "going it alone", except that we are not under the authority of the Apostolic Church?
David’s conquests (2 Samuel 8; 10; 12:26-31; 1 Chronicles 18-20)
Israel’s unity would have involved the acquisition of land originally allotted but never occupied.
- Until now Israelites had been confined mostly to the hills, with the Philistines and Canaanites holding the better lowlands.
- Canaanite holdings along the Mediterranean to the north, across the Esdraelon Valley, and through the Jordan Valley were now brought under Israelite control.
- The Philistines were not driven from the plain of Philistine in Israel’s southwest, but they were confined to a restricted territory.
- David ruled from north of the Sea of Galilee, to Beersheba in the south, and on both sides of the Jordan River.
- The tribes had become united.
http://www.truthnet.org/Biblicalarcheology/9/Unified-Kingdom.htm
David’s authority extended from the Gulf of Aqaba and the River of Egypt in the south, all the way to the Euphrates in the north (fig. 6).
- The River of Egypt is best taken to mean Wadi el-Arish, reaching the Mediterranean 45 miles southwest of Gaza, and 80 miles east of the Pelusiac mouth of the Nile.
- Israel’s land now included:
o All land originally allotted to the twelve tribes, minus Philistia.
o The kingdom of Ammon.
o Vassal states included Moab and Edom (east and south of the Dead Sea), the area around Damascus (northeast), which included Zobah.
o Territory that acknowledged Israelite sovereignty through the payment of tribute included the northern region of which Hamath was capital.
http://www.truthnet.org/Biblicalarcheology/9/Unified-Kingdom.htm
Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David (”House” or “Dynasty” of David”). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.
Another piece of significant evidence comes from Dr. Avi Ofer’s archaeological survey conducted in the hills of Judea during the last decade, which shows that in the 11th-10th centuries bce, the population of Judah almost doubled compared to the preceding period. The so-called Rank Size Index (RSI), a method of analyzing the size and positioning of settlements to evaluate to what extent they were a self-contained group, indicates that during this period - David’s supposed period - a strong centre of population existed at the edge of the region. Jerusalem is the most likely candidate for this centre.
To sum up the evidence then: in the tenth century bce, a dynasty was established by David; the population doubled in the hill country of Judah, which acquired a strong central point, probably Jerusalem, a previously settled site that was important enough to be mentioned in Egyptian documents. These facts are certainly consistent with the biblical account; but, before examining the biblical version, we should consider the nature of the Bible and of the historical material it contains.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html
And it is clear you do not understand the scientific method, which tests something to see if it is so.
Thus, H20 always forms water and can be tested and proven
Science creates working models not truthful models. A perfect example of one is the Ptolemaic navigational system. It was based on geocentric premises and it still works! But today we know its assumptions were wrong (as far as geocentricity is concerned).
Science does not 'know' anything of the sort, it only assumes that, but it cannot prove it by scientific methods.
Evidence shows that humans were not created exactly as the Genesis tells us. That doesn't mean that archeology and anthropology can tell us just how the humans were formed, or why for that matter.
Again, there is no evidence of any sort that proves that.
In fact, the reality is that the evidence shows the opposite, that man came from the earth but is unique to the other creatures created.
The craters on the moon and the moon itself are undeniable facts. That doesn't mean we know how they were formed or why. We have theories, and some working models, but working models can be wrong. What we do know is that the moon is not a smooth, perfect sphere and that "up" is not where heave is.
And what does the fact that the moon have craters to do with the Genesis account?
Nothing!
As for 'up' it is 'up'.
Only a fool would not know which way is up!
Christ ascended into the heavens, which means He went up and when He returns, He will descend.
We know that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, containes billions of stars, and today we also see billions of galaxies separated from our own. Based on their light and size and distance we can estimate that there are more visible stars in the Creation than grains of sand on all the beaches and in all the deserts on earth (27 hexatrillion is the estimated number), and this doesn't account for those too far for their light to have reached us yet!
So? That does not contradict the Genesis account at all.
So, God's Creation from the tiniest atom to the galactic expanse is beyond our comprehension. We must not stuff God into our little box even if our minds and languages can do no better than that. We must always remember that the Bible is a "working model" as well, at best, defined by our own finite reality.
What we must remember is that the Bible is God's truth and that science must reflect that truth.
Even your own Church teaches that (see below)
Moreover, nothing that is an actual fact (not an evolutionarly hypothesis) contradicts the Genesis account.
The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God (II Timothy 3:16), and is a crucial part of God's self-revelation to the human race. The Old Testament tells the history of that revelation from Creation through the Age of the Prophets. Creation: Orthodox Christians confess God as Creator of heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1, the Nicene Creed). Creation did not just come into existence by itself. God made it all. "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:3). Orthodox Christians do not believe the Bible to be a science textbook on creation, as some mistakenly maintain, but rather to be God's revelation of Himself and His salvation. Also, we do not view science textbooks, helpful though they may be, as God's revelation. The may contain both known facts and speculative theory, but they are not infallible. Orthodox Christians refuse to build an unnecessary and artificial wall between science and the Christian faith. Rather, they understand honest scientific investigation as a potential encouragement to faith, for all truth is from God. http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catechism_ext.htm#n2
It would seem that your Church has a better understanding on this than you do.
You are confusing faith with 'blind faith', but your own Church uses faith as a guide to understanding truth.
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:3). http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catechism_ext.htm#n2
It is clear that you have little in common with your own Church in that regard as well.
John. 3:5 is not speaking of water Baptism.
Nicodemus thought it had to do with being born physically second time and Christ stated that it had to a spiritual (second) birth, that the water dealt with the physical birth.
Water Baptism is a figure of being born again (1Pe.3:21).
The Baptism that comes after faith in Christ is a spiritual one (1Cor.12:13) and that only comes by faith in the Risen Christ (Acts.8:37).
So if you think that water Baptism saved you, you are greatly deceived and are still lost in your sins.
Hardly. The fact that no one believed in such fantasies until the Protestant reformation should give you cause to doubt your statement.
The chapter in James 2 is not speaking of eternal salvation at all as the context makes very clear.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I have heard regarding the "sola fide" argument... EVERYONE dies a "natural" death, whether they have faith or not. NOWHERE does James talk about physical death in James 2! Your explanation of James 2 is simply beyond "normal and clear" reading of Scriptures. It is a fantastical twisting to attempt to keep the invention of sola fide intact, even though it has very little support in Scripture. James 2 thoroughly destroys the idea.
WHAT MORE COULD HAVE JAMES SAID?
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20
Isn't being called a fool by Sacrerd Scripture enough for you?
Thus, Peter is not talking about individual opinions, he is talking about no doctrine being formed by a single scripture, all true doctrines are formed by comparing scripture with scripture.
How did you come up with that? He doesn't mention comparing Scriptures with other Scriptures!!! Again, you invent an interpretation that cannot be sustained by what is written.
Do you REALLY consider the Scriptures the Word of God? One would think not, considering how you manipulate and twist them to claim you fantasies as from God. In reality, they are from you. Anyone reading James 2 and STILL believing that we are saved by faith ALONE is a fool, as Scriptures clearly note.
Finally, when Christ is asked what works must be done to do the works of God, He replies ...this is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (Jn.6:29)
Does Jesus say BELIEVED? Or does He say BELIEVES???
Think about it for a minute... Maybe it'll come to you. We are required to believe EVERY DAY! IN THE PRESENT. Jesus NOWHERE says that we are OK with Him as long as we BELIEVED in Him in the past ONLY. And secondly, you place words in Jesus Christ's mouth. He NOWHERE says we are saved by faith ALONE. Elsewhere, He makes it clear that faith AND works of love are necessary and go together.
Regards
He has Jesus sitting right in front of him and he also sees Him in the bread? Two places at the same time? The disciple was having trouble with he resurrection just like the other disciples did until they saw the empty tomb. It was the fact that the rabbi was sitting in front of them and when He celebrated the sacramental brotherhood feast, the breaking of bread, they recognized him as the resurrected Lord. There was no magic to it, it was just the ancient rite of the brotherhood that united them around the rabbi. Look at John 17, “that they may be one as We are one You in me and I in them”. Did Jesus eat the body of the Father? The bread was the symbol of unity (many grains making up the one bread) as well as the eschatological testament (will) they participate in His inheritance, the kingdom.
Excellent narrative, exchange.
Thanks.
do you feel it’s possible that for instance some group or groups of adventists are completely Christian, and some group of lutherans, etc. IE that no one group is completely Christian and more than one in all likelyhood constitute true Christiainity?
That is the branch theory.
For perspective:
Orthodox Christianity and The “Branch Theory”
Printer Friendly Format
QUESTION:
In an answer to the question “Is the Orthodox church anti-Roman Catholic” you stated that: “We continue to pray for unity while, at the same time, rejecting any notion that Orthodox Christianity is just one of many ‘branches’ or ‘expressions’ of Christianity. To believe this would be to reject our understanding of Orthodoxy as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”
With all due respect, this strikes me as highly prideful. The apostles were dispersed throughout the world, and those they taught to follow them were dispersed yet further. Clusters of Christians organized churches where the Holy Spirit led them, and according to their own character, the environment and cultures in which they found themselves, etc. The tree of life indeed has many branches, and the only trunk and root is Christ and Israel (”I am the vine...”). That you should presume that Orthodox Christianity is the trunk and not one of the oldest and thickest branches is an extremely heretical position, as heretical as the Roman Catholic claim that Peter and his successors are infallible. (Did not JESUS say to Peter, his rock: “Get thee behind me satan” when the latter attempted to hold him back from His passion?)
Indeed, the paradox which all Christians (including the Eastern rite branch) must live with is that while Peter is indeed the rock on which God’s church is founded, he is also called ‘satan’ by his Master, and he denies Him three times. This should be a comfort for our human frailty, fear and lack of faith.
The certainty with which you express that Orthodox Christianity is the only true catholic and apostolic church is no doubt based in the deeply felt understanding that yours IS a true and living branch on the vine of Christ. But dear friend, it is just another bitter branch grafted onto the rootstock of sweet truth.
Doctrinal differences are caused by the persistence of human sin and error, to which we are all subject as sinners. The truth cannot be expressed in doctrine alone, because it is Jesus Christ who is the truth; the Gospels are an expression of His truth and our interpretations are expressions of our desire to understand His truth. But verily, the only Truth is to be found in Himself, as the very Son of God.
I have nothing against special garments and titles, but I do have something against those who do not perceive the vanity of such things.
ANSWER:
Thank you for your enquiry. Without wishing to enter into a lengthy debate, I must say that I think you were reading a bit more into the answer than what is there.
The statement to which you take exception is not a statement of pride; it is a statement of fact that Orthodoxy indeed rejects the “branch theory,” for very good reason — namely that not all who refer to themselves as “Christian” possess the fullness of Christian truth. To say that “it’s all the same, there’s only one Christ, there’s a variety of different ways to express our belief in Him,” is to flatly ignore the history of Christianity, specifically the first two Ecumenical Councils, which discerned once and for all the truth concerning the person and mission, the humanity and divinity, of Jesus Christ — and which, incidentally, in no way subscribes to the branch theory.
While I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement that “the truth cannot be expressed in doctrine alone,” it must be stated that not all expressions of belief in Jesus Christ constitute the truth. There are some Christians to this day who deny His divinity. There are others who deny His humanity. And there are others who have distorted His teachings on everything from fasting to the centrality of the Eucharist to the role of His Mother in the life of the Church. To say that all of these are different “expressions” of the same “truth” is a lie at worst, a distortion at best. If Christ is both God and man, for example, one who would affirm that He is only God or only human would not be proclaiming the same truth as one who would affirm that Christ is both divine and human. Are we to affirm that those who believe that Jesus is the manifestation or incarnation of the Archangel Michael hold the same truth as those of us who believe that He is the only-begotten Son of God Who took on the human nature without relinquishing His divinity? Are we to see those who deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as holding the same truth as those of us who believe that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ? Are we to claim that those who deny the ever-virginity of Mary hold the same truth as those of us who believe that she was a virgin before, during, and after the incarnation of Our Lord? These are hardly different “ expressions” or “nuances” of the same truth. And, as such, they are not seen by Orthodox Christianity as being a part of the same trunk, founded upon the rock of Peter’s faith [and not on Peter himself, as Orthodox Christianity understands the “upon this rock” passage], since the teachings of some traditions are diametrically opposed to the fullness of truth as discerned and defined by the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church, to which Orthodox Christianity looks as definitive for all time, and not just for “part” of the time.
Of course, as you rightly assert, Jesus Christ is the truth. Of course, the Gospels are an expression of His truth, a revelation through the written word of God of the Living Word of God Himself. And of course, the only truth is to be found in Jesus Christ, the very Son of God. But are we to say that those who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God hold the same teachings as we hold, or that those who reject certain teachings found in Scripture or who reject the Holy Mysteries or who reject the ongoing Tradition of the Church believe and hold the same truths as we believe and hold? Are we to agree with those who insist that, in venerating icons, we are “worshipping wood and paint and varnish,” even though the seventh ecumenical council in 787 AD affirmed that worship is accorded to God alone and that the Church does not “worship” icons? Are we to imply that those who insist that Mary had other children hold the same faith as those of us who insist on her ever-virginity? Are we to accept that those who believe that God is a single person with three “modes” or “expressions” known as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” believe the same as those of us who believe that God is in fact three separate, equal and distinct persons rather than a single person who merely reveals Himself at some times as Father, at other times as Son, and still at other times as Holy Spirit? Are we to say that those who believe that good works are meaningless in the process of salvation hold the same faith as those of us who accept St. James’ precept, namely that “faith without works is dead”? Are we to acknowledge that those who are convinced that the episcopacy is not scriptural [even though the New Testament makes clear reference to the “episcopi”] hold the same truths that we hold? And what about those Christians who believe that the white race is God’s chosen race, that all other races exist out of God’s punishment or anger? Do these Christians hold the same truths as we hold? Can one reconcile this notion with the faith of St. Paul, who says that “in Christ their is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek,” and, by extension, “black nor white nor red nor yellow”? Would Roman Catholicism hold that those fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Pope of Rome is one and the same as Anti-Christ hold the same faith that they, as Roman Catholics, hold?
The Church struggles to preserve the “fullness of Truth.” As such, there is no room for “relativism” in the sense of “all Christians being grafted to the same trunk.” Clearly, there are those who’s branches have completely fallen from the trunk, who have severed any and all connection from historical Christianity. Are you aware that there are those who literally believe that from the time of the apostles until the first stirrings of reformation, the “true” Church simply did not exist — for some 1400 years! It is patently ridiculous to imply that Orthodox Christianity should acknowledge as “branches” those who reject the “trunk” from which they supposedly sprout, or who deny that the “trunk” even exists in the first place.
While the Church preserves the “fullness of Truth,” it does not imply that everyone else is completely and utterly devoid of all truth. As Fr. Georges Florovsky once said, nothing is 100% wrong. Wherever life exists and love is experienced, God’s presence is found, even if those who live and love reject His presence. Even if a tradition preserves but one percent of truth, it is not totally devoid of truth. But one must not forget that one percent of the truth is certainly not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” And to imply that traditions that believe in “truths” that are diametrically opposed to those held by the Church in all places and at all times are merely expressing the same faith but in different terms or from different perspectives is not a principle of Orthodox Christianity; it is the hallmark of relativism.
There is no “relativism” or “varying perspectives” or “nuances” in the truth as revealed by Christ. For example, He did not say, “This is My Body, but it is equally true that this could be My Body, or that this symbolizes My Body, or that this is My Body if you believe it is but not My Body if you don’t.” He said, “This IS My Body.” Not much room for discussion or alternative “expressions” here, or anywhere else in His words and actions.
Hope this helps.
In Christ,
Father John Matusiak
From oca.org
Catchy phrase, A-G, however it seems to me to be self-contradicting by suggesting that:
Unfortunately, this still doesn't define what "space" is, and gives no clues whence did time come from and, paradoxically, "when?"
The "creation" of time in absence of matter and space is meaningless because such creation would by itself be an "event." Which means "time" was never created but had to exist forever!
One way to circumvent this self-contradiction and avoid making time into something eternally "divine," is to posit that everything was created at once, but that contradicts the Bible.
There was only one theologian, as far as I know, who (because of a rusty knowledge of Greek) mistranslated Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) and said that God created the world at once! (simul in Latin)*, and that man was +Augustine of Hippo. Needless to say, the Church rejected such a notion as it contradicts the Scripture.
Indeed walking THIS life as a spirit inhabiting a human body.. as Jesus did.. Being a witness that flesh can be controlled and guided to observe spiritual things.. That flesh can exibit faith from the indwelling spirit.. Providing PROOF there even IS a spirit.. and that DNA is only the finger print of life..
Here are the passages the Spirit has led me to in confirmation of this leaning (emphasis mine):
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one. – John 10:26-30
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. – Gal 3:28
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. - I Cor 3:1-7
I will however challenge any Christian brother or sister if I see in their translations, doctrines or traditions an instance where there is a failing to give God the glory.
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.