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

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

[topcat54]

Can I make broad, single sentence generalities without any biblical foundation and expect to be taken seriously?

[kosta50]

Then went Luther split from the Church, as a fully ordained priest, didn't he carry the "apostolic succession"?

No, of course not. Priests do not carry apostolic succession; bishops do. Priests have no authority without a bishop. Since no bishop joined Luther, and since Luther was excommunicated (and his bishop consented to it), Luther and his "church" (and all the offshoots of that movement) has no apostolic authority. In contrast neither did the Latin nor Greek Church lose that authority.

Our theological disagreement is within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the one that was founded by Christ in 33 AD and passed on to his Apostles and their successors. It's not some home-grown variety of 33,000 subspecies all claiming to be the 'true church' of Christ..

I don't think you have a clue what apostolic succession is and you call it a myth. Amazing.

If the keys are handed to Peter and the Vatican traces its succession of Popes to Peter, then it seems to me the Orthodox are not following the line of Peter, now are they? Where is the apostolic succession in all of this?

Which proves my point. The Church was not "ruled" by the Bishop of Rome. You got that all wrong. The Church operated and (the Orthodox Church still operates the same way it did for the past 2,000 years: by councils (apostolic gatherings); it's conciliar. It's the collective wisdom of the Church that carries the day.

While the Church was undivided, the Bishop of Rome gets to bless and his legates usually psuched for those agenda the successor of Peter wnated, but didn't always get. He is a senior bishop, the way Peter was the senior Apostle, but Peter did not have legal authority over other Apostles.

Now, after the East and the West stopped communing, the Latin side went on a limb and re-invented papacy in terms of primacy being equal to supremacy. Our issue with the Pope is not whether he is a legitimate Bishop of Rome or the successor of +Peter, but over the nature and the extent of his primacy (seniority) in the Church. And, contrary to your shooting with your eyes close, the Orthodox recognize the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals in honor and privileges.

[kosta50]

Frankly, your response is gibberish to a Christian, Kosta. To say that supporting Scripture "dilutes the point we're making" is like saying that using our arms and legs while we swim takes the fun out of the swimming pool

As much as we need oxygen to breathe, one can be intoxicated by it in excess; as much as water quenches thirst, there is a limit to which we can drink it before we begin to gag and drown on it.

Protestant bible thumpers are like overzealous mothers who force-feed their children whether they are hungry or not, whether they have already eaten or not, whether they need it or not.

And, frankly, jibberish to me is the indiscriminate (ab)use and blasphemy of using the Lord's name in vain every time some self-rigtheous, self-styled Christian decides to defend his or her personal opinion as the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

[kosta50]

I only know one way we can be righteous before God and it sure isn't the result of anything I've done

Keep thinking that and don't worry. And by all means ignore that fact that the bible is full of reminders that we will be judged according to what we have done (oh, wait you skipped over that part, right?).

[kosta50]

Acts 15:11 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter

No, wmfights, which part here don't you understand? It doesn't say everyone showed up with a bible and started to argue whose opinion is based on the "indwelling Spirit."

The Council was a gathering of apostles and elders. That spells h-i-e-r-a-r-ch-y. Okay? from the very beginning you had hierarchy and not some home-grown backwoods church with a lay minister toting the OT.

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers...

It is the fruits of the...

Are you joking? Acts 20:28 speaks of overseers (bishops). Where do you get the "Spirit that reveal the qualities of leadership, not a monobishophoric hierarchy?" Bishops are hierarchy.

There was hierarchy in the Council of Jerusalem and ever since then. there was hierarchy from the moment Christ left the Church to his Apostles on the Pentecost. They, the Apostles, were the hierarchy and anyone they ordained was part of that hierarchy. The apostolic authority is thus preserved in the direct self-styled, self-ordained bible thumpers.

[kosta50]

2 Peter 1:20-21...It appears this point is often missed or interpreted to mean there must be a wise counsel of men...

No, I think it is misinterpreted to mean that every Jo and Jane can read the bible and say "Holy Spirit explained this to me..." and believe it instead of recognizing that it is their private opinion. Tha's when you get the "It must be true. God told me so" statements. Sure...that must be it.

[kosta50]

Does the Orthodox immerse?

Yes, the Orthodox do immerse.

[kosta50]

Both the Incarnation and Resurrection are logically consistent in Scripture and have lots of support, including hundreds of witnesses to the Resurrected Christ

Witnesses and explanation are two different things. And what about Jonah? Got any witnesses there too besides the fish? How does one live in a stomach full of digestive juices without being crushed by smooth muscles into a pulp and deprived of oxygen for three days and live, scoff-free?

How does a dead body come back to life? Please show me a "logical" sequence of this phenomenon. Petrification (decomposition) begins minutes after the breathing stops. The brain dies for all practical purposes four minutes after being deprived of oxygen. How does a dead Lazarus (dead for four days!) come back to life? Miracles, right?

Well if you are going to believe miracles why is painless birth an obstacle. The Church seems to have always believed Mary remained a virgin after the birth. We can only believe that if Christ was born supernaturally — the way he appeared to the apostles through the closed door...

[kosta50]

And when the Orthodox split in 1054AD, did the apostlic succession go to Rome or stayed with the Orthodox? Who had the legal right to "lead" the flock?

It remained with every bishop, in direct lineage to one of the Apsotles. It has nothing to dow ith Rome.

[kosta50]

Kosta: What matters is if God finds us to be righteous

HD: Now that's spoken like a true Protestant

Cool, huh?

But that's something the orthodox knew way before the Protestants came out. So, maybe on that account they soud orthodox rather than the other way around?

[annalex]

LOL.

[annalex]

the men selected were ALREADY filled with the Holy Spirit ... the twelve, not one, that decided that they needed a group of good men

How does this invalidate the Apostolic succession? The Church ordains and consecrates baptized men only, and in the name of the Church as a whole, to this day.

[annalex]

doctrines are accepted that place the church between man and GOD

The Church has authority above men and binds in heaven:

16 ... if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

(Mathew 18)

[kosta50]

petrification=putrification (spellchecker...)

[annalex]

The apostolic succession split also.

[kosta50]

Correction: apparently one of my editing keys cut out a portion of my sentence. It should read (indicated in red). Sorry for any ocnfusion.

The apostolic authority is thus preserved in the direct self-styled, self-ordained bible thumpers = The apostolic authority is thus preserved in the direct succession, but not in self-styled, self-ordained bible thumpers.

[kosta50]

The apostolic succession split also

But is valid and preserved in both Churches.

[kosta50]

It's nice to see the number climbing. The last time I saw this thrown out it was 20,000. :-0

The unravelling continues unil we have as many "churches" as individual believers.

[annalex]

Mary was fully converted at some point, but I don't think we can be sure about when that was. Surely she was not when Jesus was 12.

Jo kus will answer your long post (I am sure he won't miss how St. Paul uses a future tense conditional in the quote you offer in support of his having been saved in the past).

I recently discovered this rare iconographic type. It is called The Unslumbering Eye of God and it depicts Mary and an angel guarding Jesus as a boy, who rests with his eyes open, while another angel delivers the instruments of His Passion to Him. This is different from better known icons of the Theotokos, where she is holding up Jesus as an infant.

The Unslumbering Eye Savior mid 16c

Maybe Kolokotronis has a better photo.

Another icon that depicts Our Lady near adolescent Jesus is Worthy It Is, where He is delivering the scripture to His Blessed Mother:

[annalex]

[when] Luther split from the Church, as a fully ordained priest, didn't he carry the "apostolic succession"?

A better example would be the apostolic succession of the Anglican Church, which was valid for a while. It got terminated with the change in the consecration formula which finalle broke the succession. It was determined as broken by Pope Leo XIII in late 19c.

I simply don't know about Lutheran Church as a whole. I heard an expression "Continuing Lutherans"; it is possible that they retained the apostolic succession as a sub-Church even to this day. Maybe Jo Kus knows more.

Luther personally was never a bishop. The apostolic succession continues through bishops, not priests. It is true that loss of communion with Rome alone would not break the succession but rather split it. It does, however, require communion in the essentials of the faith, and since that is lacking with the most Lutherans, their succession as a whole is not longer valid.

Finally, priesthood is an indelible mark that cannot be removed. Luther (or any other defrocked priest) retains an ability to forgive sins and consecrate the Eucharist, but the flock is asked not to partake of it. It is a valid Eucharist but not licit.

I will welcome any correction to this; it is a highly technical matter and I am not a canon lawyer.