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

'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/


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; christmas; mary; movie; nativity; nativitystory; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 14,301-14,32014,321-14,34014,341-14,360 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: fortheDeclaration
What Roman Catholics Protestants have is a 'cultic method' of interpeting scripture, using a few scriptures and ignoring all those that contradict or explain them

There... That's better.

I don't have the desire to repeat the same stuff over and over. All you are doing is twisting Scripture to suit your purposes. James is not talking about eternal salvation? What else is he talking about? Physical salvation??? Friend, EVERYONE is going to physically die, even one with faith...

Jesus talks about Sola Scriptura? LOL!!! WHICH verse does he say that?

Paul is speaking in the historical present???

What are you talking about?

Forget it. Don't bother.

I leave you to your fantasies. I do not see the point in continuing.

Regards

14,321 posted on 05/09/2007 7:33:09 AM PDT 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 14314 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
There were some bishops who left with Luther, and a few who ended up so by default

Do you have any references/names?

Anyway, if they did join Luther, then they would have taken the helm of this new church, not Luther. Obviously, part of Luther's dissention was dissolution of the ordained order, which makes any bishop(s) joining Luther meaningless.

After anarchy that followed, the Lutherans gathered their wits (unlike the Calvinist and Zwiglian followers) and tried to re-establish a church. But by that time everything has been broken.

14,322 posted on 05/09/2007 8:26:10 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14315 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus
God finished His work in CREATION on the 7th day. That says nothing about His other work

FK, perfect comes from completed accomplished or finished. Whatever other God's work you are speculating asbout, that is also completed. God doesn't leave anything unfinished because that would make Him subject to time.

If God is timeless, then we can't speak of His "foreknowledge" or His "future plans" can we? For, there is no past or future in God.

14,323 posted on 05/09/2007 8:57:31 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14306 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I will look into it, but they were from the Scandinavian countries. In Germany, there might have been a few (can’t remember) but they didn’t take a leadership role.

Apostolic Succession and ordination is one of those, well “odd”, areas in Lutheran theology. You have to be ordained to be able to consecrate the Lords Supper, but the actual specifics of what happens in ordination, and how it happens, is a bit of an open question. One that has never really been settled.

14,324 posted on 05/09/2007 9:09:21 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14322 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I defer to the posts of others that corrected me; this however, I can answer: apostolic succession requires two things: valid consecration and unity of doctrine. It is possible to consecrate a bishop or even a succession of bishops who drift into heresy overtime. At that point further consecrations cease to be valid.

It will be interesting to read the replies you get to this post.

14,325 posted on 05/09/2007 9:14:54 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (FR Member Alex Murphy: Declared Anathema By The Council Of Trent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14293 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Alamo-Girl; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; wmfights; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan; ...
Do you have kids, Kosta? I can't say that I've ever had to "force-feed" mine

We come from two opposite poles. My Christian background does not involve endless bible quotes, but rather Patristic writings with biblical references included. Those who are spiritually hungry and thirsty can open the Bible and read until their thirst is quenched and ant their hunger satiated.

If I want someone to preach to me, I can find a preacher. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit. I come here to read what other Christians think and believe. I am not looking for a sermon.

I don't need a basketful of verses to hear someone's opinion. And, contrary to some Protestants here claiming their opinions are really the Holy Spirit's revelations, I consider everything written on this Forum as an individual's personal opinion, not God's revelation.

I don't see any Apostles on this thread. If there are any, please identify yourself.

14,326 posted on 05/09/2007 9:21:04 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14307 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Thanks redgolum. I know of the Scandinavian bishops. Timing is also important.


14,327 posted on 05/09/2007 9:24:14 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14324 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine

Thank you so much for your encouragements!


14,328 posted on 05/09/2007 9:30:47 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14309 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Alex Murphy
after the orgies or some such

No. To say so would be the heresy of Donatism, condemned into oblivion by St. Augustine. The validity of a sacrament is not impacted by the disposition of the priest.

14,329 posted on 05/09/2007 9:39:18 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14296 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; kosta50; hosepipe; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; wmfights; 1000 silverlings; ...
Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for those beautiful Scriptures!

Truly an underlying theme of Psalms, beginning with the very first one, is the delight in God's words, His laws, His precepts, his works.

BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed [thereto] according to thy word.

With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Blessed [art] thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as [much as] in all riches. I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.

I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. – Psalms 119:9-16


14,330 posted on 05/09/2007 9:43:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14307 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Hmm,
So far on line the earliest bishops, of those Lutheran synods that have A.S., are from Sweden and Finland (though at that time there were a lot of Swedes in Norway, so there were some there also). Also, there are a few from the East and Near East such as what is now Romania.

I am still looking for lists, but I don’t speak Swedish.

14,331 posted on 05/09/2007 9:46:14 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14327 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; hosepipe; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; wmfights; 1000 silverlings; ...
I don't see any Apostles on this thread. If there are any, please identify yourself.

I strongly recommend avoiding the presumption that everyone you are speaking to here is indeed, mortal.

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. – Hebrews 13:2


14,332 posted on 05/09/2007 9:50:16 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14326 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; blue-duncan; wmfights; Quix
For over 1900 years the church historically has held three differing views on eschatology; Post, Amil, and historical Premillennialism.
Historic pedigree means less than biblical accuracy, I'm sure you would agree.

While each view offers legitimate arguments on eschatology, they all agree on the fundamental principle that God blesses believers only. He does not bless, nor has He ever blessed, those who have no faith in Him.
This argument fails on two points. First, it is biblically incorrect. "Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." By virtue of not being cast into Hell without any further delay, God blesses the lost. Further, Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Harley. Don't you realize that before the very foundation of the world, before you had ever accepted Christ as Savior, God already loved you and had a plan for your life. His love for Israel is no different. He loves them with a holy love that is IN SPITE OF their current state of unbelief and will draw them en masse to Himself in the latter years. Second, your statement mischaracterizes what I have explicitly said for thread after thread (including in answers directed to you). The ones receiving the blessing will be regenerate Israel. They are the ones who will inherit the earthly as well as the heavenly promises God made to Abraham.

I remember reading The Late, Great Planet Earth in the early '70s.
If any of us had based our authority on what Hal Lindsey said, then you would have a point. Hal Lindsey, John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, did not create pre-tribulational doctrine. Those of us who believe it, believe it based upon Scripture.

The post-modern dispensationalist view isn't rooted in anything except loosely cobbled together verses following news events. It doesn't even parallel historical premillennial arguments.
Not that I agree with this statement, but "so?" Harley, in the book of Daniel, Daniel is instructed to seal up the words of his book until the time of the end. Now, we obviously have the book of Daniel and its contents, so what is meant? Knowledge shall increase. And, as the time grows closer, I believe Scripture teaches that Christians will gain more understanding as to what is occuring and how it fits into prophecy. Scripture tells us to watch. Watch what? The sky? Ignore history around us because someone might accuse us of newspaper exegesis? Jesus said to a Jewish audience "when you see these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up for your redemption draweth nigh." What things? Historical things. Tangible things. Things predicted in prophecy. The Book is alive Harley, and we are seeing prophecy fulfilled and set up to be fulfilled each day.

You asked, “What is the harm?” To me, people like Hal Lindsey, Scofield and Rylie are dangerous (and, yes, that is a correct word) although they probably don’t understand their error. They are Christians who are saying God loves people who reject Him. This is a dangerous position to be in and to be touting.
HOGWASH! He loved us Harley, even while we were still rejecting Him. It may fit in your mind intellectually but it is very poor scripturally. EVEN WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS. Israel is blinded in part, but has God ultimately cast them away? GOD FORBID! Says Paul. He has not. Why? Because He loves them and has a plan for their lives as well.

It was never the view of the church but it is now. This view has so crept into the church today that it permeates just about every facet of every church and has lead to the post-modern church we see today. Sin and God's wrath are minimized to a point that it is barely visible in but a few churches who dare to teach this truth. The Post-Modern will ask, "If God loves everyone, why doesn’t He love those in Africa who practice some kind of pagan ritual, a Hindu in India, a homosexual cleric?" The harm is the subtle change that has occurred; that God loves us in spite of our rejection of Him.
God chose us when we would not choose Him. God quickened us when we were dead to His truth. God will do the same for Israel.

God loves everyone. God loves Israel despite the rejection of His Son, therefore God must love all mankind for their rejection of His Son.
Now you are being ridiculous! Nothing has ever been implied. God does not love us for anything we have done. God certainly doesn't love us for the evil we have committed. God's love for us is U N C O N D I T I O N A L!!! I.E., He didn't look down and say "That Harley is such a swell person, I think I'll love him." No. He said, I love her IN SPITE OF HIMSELF!" He did the same for me.

After all, isn't the God of the Jews the same as the God of Christians? The answer is no!
For now. You are corrrect. BUT ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED. They will look on Him whom they have pierced and mourn for Him. They will look at the wounds in His hands and say how did this happen? He will look to them and say "These are the wounds I got when I was in the house of my friends." Then they will worship Him, year after year, in Jerusalem. And they will be His people. And He will be their God.

God does not love the Jews any more than He loves the Hindus. God's wrath rests upon this world. Every time God graciously showers His blessings upon us, and we reject His mercies, we store up wrath and judgment against us.
You just contradicted the earlier statement. God doesn't bless those who have no faith in Him. Of course, He does. And when we reject Him, He grieves. For some, He chooses to intervene. Why? Because it pleases Him to do it.

God calls all men to repent and come to the Son. Those who spur God’s message will not find fellowship with Him, but His wrath will rest upon them.
Agreed.

The reformulation of Israel, is divinely inspired for whatever purpose, but it is not because God favors the Jews.
Listen to yourself! The reformulation of Israel is for some reason, and I don't know what it is, but by golly gum, it isn't because of the reason that dispensationalists say the Bible teaches!!!!!! Harley, read the Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel. Many of them are not conditional. Read the New Testament book of Revelation. The 12 tribes are mentioned by name as having a role as the servants of God in the end times. Read Romans 11 carefully and openly. God has not rejected Israel, but just like with us, He will show her mercy one day and draw her to Himself.

One only has to read the book of Judges to discovered what happened when Israel fell away.

Jeremiah 33 19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 "This is what the LORD says: 'If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, 21 then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. 22 I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.' " 23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 24 "Have you not noticed that these people are saying, 'The LORD has rejected the two kingdoms he chose'? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. 25 This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, 26 then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.' "
14,333 posted on 05/09/2007 9:50:34 AM PDT by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14313 | View Replies]

To: redgolum; HarleyD; wmfights; Forest Keeper; blue-duncan; Quix; Kolokotronis; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
The Royal Supremacy Act of 1534 indeed was devastating to the apostolicity of the Anglican Church in practice as it created a state church. However, one can argue in favor of the Anglicans that the Decree was an external usurpation of the God-given powers of the Church, rather than a voluntary decision.

The loss of apostolicity was not confirmed till much later:

It was natural that this advance section of the Anglican Church [i.e. the leaders of the Anglican Revival] should seek to ratify its position, and to escape from its fatal isolation, by desiring some scheme of corporate reunion and especially by endeavouring to obtain some recognition of the validity of its orders. With the truest charity, which consists in the candour of truth, Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on Unity, pointed out that there can be no reunion expect on the solid basis of dogmatic unity and submission to the divinely instituted authority of the Apostolic See. In September, 1896, after a full and exhaustive inquiry, he issued a Bull declaring Anglican Orders to be "utterly null and void", and in a subsequent Brief addressed to the Archbishop of Paris, he required all Catholics to accept this judgment as "fixed, settled, and irrevocable" (firmum, ratum et irrevocabile).

(Anglicanism )

Finally, with apologies for the long quote, this is a chapter in the Catholic Encyclopedia that deals with the reasons the separation was formalized:

THE BULL OF LEO XIII

From the foregoing account it can readily be understood why the practice of re-ordaining convert clergymen has subsisted. Anglicans, however, have always resented this practice, and maintained that the Holy See could never have sanctioned it had the facts been properly presented.

In 1894 this contention was pressed upon the notice of some French ecclesiastics by some Anglican leaders who were discussing with them the prospects of corporate reunion. The result was that the French ecclesiastics brought the matter to the notice of Leo XIII, assuring him that this impression prevailed among many well-disposed Anglicans, who felt that they were being unfairly treated. The Pope was moved by what he heard, and determined that he would have the whole question re-investigated thoroughly. Accordingly, he selected eight divines who had made a special study of the subject, and of whom four were known to be disposed to recognize Anglican orders and four to be disposed to reject them. These he summoned to Rome and formed into a consultative commission under the presidency of Cardinal Mazzella. They were given access to all documents from the archives of the Vatican and the Holy Office which would throw light upon the points at issue, and they were bidden to sift the evidence on either side with all possible fulness and care. After sessions which lasted six weeks, the Commission was dissolved, and the acta of its discussions were laid before a judicial committee of cardinals. These, after a two months' study, in a special meeting under the presidency of the Pope, decided by a unanimous vote that Anglican orders were certainly invalid.

After an interval for prayerful consideration of this vote, Leo XIII determined to adopt it and accordingly published his Bull "Apostolicae Curae" on the 18th of September, 1896. In this Bull he begins by expressing his affectionate interest in the English people and his desire for their return to unity, and by reciting the circumstances which had led to the issue of this solemn decision. He then calls attention to the action taken in the same matter by his predecessors.

In the reign of Mary, when she and Cardinal Pole were engaged in reconciling the kingdom, letters of direction were sent to the latter, which, as their text shows, required him to treat those who had received orders by a form other than "the accustomed form of the Church" — a phrase which, says Pope Leo, can only refer to the Edwardine Ordinal — as needing to be ordained or consecrated afresh. At that time, then, the Holy See judged the Anglican form to be insufficient, and that it persisted in this adverse judgment is manifest from the fact that for more than three centuries it has sanctioned the practice of re-ordaining absolutely the holders of orders obtained through this form; for "since in the Church it has always been a firm and established rule that the sacrament of Order ought not to be repeated, it never could have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom", had it deemed the Anglican form to be in any way sufficient.

Moreover, continues the Bull, the Holy See not only acquiesced in the practice, but on many occasions gave it renewed sanction by express judgments, to two of which, the second being that of John Clement Gordon, it calls particular attention, repudiating in connection with this latter the allegation that the rejection of Gordon's previous orders had been motivated by any other cause than the character of the Anglican rite (a copy of which was procured and examined by the judges), or even that in judging of the rite the essential point considered was the omission in it of any tradition of the instruments.

This account of the practice of his predecessors forms the first part of the "Apostolicae Curae", and in view of it Leo XIII observes that the question could not really be considered still open. He has wished, however, "to help men of good will by showing them the greatest consideration and charity," and he proceeds to expound the principles on which the Anglican Rite is judged by himself, as well as by his predecessors, to lack the conditions of validity.

"In the examination", he says, "of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, usually called the "matter" and "form". All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter" and "form", it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the "form". And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Orders, the matter of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which indeed by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several orders and for confirmation. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination — namely: "Receive the Holy Ghost" — certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Can. 1) in that sacrifice which is "no nude commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross" (ibid., Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Miss., Can. 3) . . . . The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop" etc., added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different from that which they bear in the Catholic rite."

In this passage the Bull sanctions the principle that a sacramental rite must signify definitely what it is to effect, and that this definite signification must be in the essential "form", or words in proximate connection with the "matter"; also that, in the case of Holy Order, what must be definitely signified is, in the ordination of priests, the Order of the Priesthood or its grace and power, and similarly in the consecration of bishops; the grace and power in each having reference to the accomplishment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This principle accepted, it follows at once that the Anglican Ordinal, at least as it stood till 1662, lacks the essential conditions of sufficiency. But the Bull further examines how far the remainder of this Ordinal, or the circumstances under which it came into being, can be held to determine the ambiguity of the "essential form". And here it sanctions the judgment which the Catholic writers had already formed. "The history," it says, "of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from heterodox sects; and as to the end in view . . . . Under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the Reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, but every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character — or spirit, as it is called — of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it should become sufficient, since it remained always what it was (i.e. of vitiated origin) . . . . For once a new rite has been initiated, in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Orders is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (the Spirit, namely, which is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament) no longer holds good, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like, no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted."

Likewise in regard to the defect of intention, the Bull endorses the judgment adverse to Anglican ordination which Catholic writers had always urged. "When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due "form" and "matter" requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of a sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to, and destructive of, the sacrament."

These are the defects in the Anglican Succession, on the existence of which the Bull bases its decision. It will be noticed that they are of the most fundamental kind, and are independent of any defects that may be thought to arise out of the omission in the Ordinal of a tradition of the instruments, or of the doubt about Barlow's consecration. To examine into the nature and bearing of the latter when a sufficient basis for a certain conclusion had been supplied by the former would have been a superfluous task, and for the same reason it is unlikely that even for the private inquirer these other considerations will retain in the future the interest they had in the past. At the same time the Bull has in no way pronounced them to be frivolous or unfounded, as has been suggested. It remains to give the formal definition of the Bull, which is in the following terms: "Wherefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and void."

The publication of the "Apostolicae Curae" caused, as was to be expected, much excitement in England; nor did the Anglican party, for whose sake it was intended, show any disposition to accept either its arguments or its decision. It was deemed, however, to have created a crisis sufficiently serious to require that it should be met by some formal reply. Accordingly, in the early part of 1897 there appeared, in both a Latin and an English edition, an "Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII on English Ordinations", which was "addressed to the whole body of Bishops of the Catholic Church". This answer, which came to be known by its Latin name of the "Responsio", is a distinctly Low-Church document, of which the leading contention is that the Pope has misjudged the Anglican Ordinal through failure to recognize the right of national Churches to reform and revise their own formulas, and by applying to this Ordinal a false and untrustworthy rule. The true rule to which an ordinal should be conformed, it urges, is the rule of Holy Scripture, and it is in this rule that the Reformers sought their guidance. They found an enormous accretion of sacerdotalist ideas embodied in the words and ceremonies of the older Ordinal, whereas, in the New Testament, the sacerdotalist conception of the Christian ministry was altogether absent. And, on the other hand, they found that the aspects of the Christian ministry on which Our Lord and His Apostles had laid the most stress — those, namely, which concerned the pastor's duty to go forth in His Master's name as His steward, His watchman, His messenger, to tend the sheep, and, if need be, lay down his life for their sakes, to preach the word, to convert sinners, to remit offences in the Church, to render mutual services to one another, and much else of the same kind — were very insufficiently set forth in the Pontifical. Accordingly, in drawing up their new rite, they endeavoured as far as possible to eliminate the former element and give prominence to the latter, while in their "forms" they assigned to the priesthood the words which, according to the New Testament, Our Lord used in promoting His Apostles to this office, and to the episcopate the words of St. Paul which "were believed to refer to the consecration of St. Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus". Nor, in following precedents so lofty, could they reasonably be charged with having endangered the efficacy of their rite. This is in brief the defensive argument of the "Responsio". But it also charges the Pope with having, in his zeal to condemn the orders of the Anglican Church, overlooked the contradictions in which he was involving the position of his own Church. In condemning the Anglican "forms" as wanting in definite signification, he condemned, by implication, the orders of his own Church, since the Roman Pontifical in its pre-medieval text was not a whit more definite than the Elizabethan Anglican; and in attaching the sacramental virtue to the imposition of hands and the connected words he was condemning by implication his predecessor, Eugenius IV, who attached that virtue to the tradition of instruments and the words connected therewith, not even making mention of imposition of hands among the requisites. One thing was made clear by the "Responsio", and by the other criticisms of the "Apostolicae Curae" which poured forth from the Anglican press, namely, that the character of the Bull and its arguments had been greatly misapprehended. Hence, Cardinal Vaughan and the English Catholic Bishops, in the early part of 1898, published a "Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae'", in reply to a letter addressed to them by the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York." In this "Vindication", after some preliminary observations on the extrinsic reasons which the Bull had given for its decision, attention is called to the false standpoint from which the two Archbishops had judged the arguments of the Bull. In their "Responsio" they are mainly occupied with challenging the soundness of the principles on which the papal decision had been based. They urge that it rests on a false and unscriptural conception of the priesthood, and that, if for this the more scriptural conception expounded by themselves had been substituted, the decision must have been different. But this, the "Vindication" points out, is ignoratio elenchi. Of course the Pope considers that the Catholic conception of the priesthood is in conformity with Scripture; but that was not the question under consideration. The Anglican grievance was that those of their clergy who came over to us were re-ordained; and to complain of this was to contend that even on our principles their orders ought to be recognized; while no doubt the particular section of the Anglican communion which took most to heart this practice of re-ordination was in substantial agreement with us as to our conception of the priesthood. Hence the Holy See, in examining the question, necessarily assumed the validity of its own principles, and inquired only if they had been duly applied. The "Vindication", however, to facilitate the understanding of the Pope's reasons, sets itself to expand, explain, and vindicate by reference to the facts those points which the Bull, after the manner of legal documents, gives only in a highly condensed form. It is not necessary here to epitomize the "Vindication", but mention may be made of its study of the opinions in regard to the Eucharistic Presence, the Mass, and the priesthood of Cranmer and his associates, as likewise of the opinions on the same subjects expressed by a series of Anglican divines during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which showed that the tradition initiated by Cranmer persisted.

(Anglican Orders; the links will work at source).


14,334 posted on 05/09/2007 10:01:27 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14316 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; fortheDeclaration
I do not see the point in continuing

Wise decision. Do not feed the trolls.

14,335 posted on 05/09/2007 10:03:13 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14321 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; lightman

With apologies to Lightman, let me explain that my pun on his screen name had to do with Kolokotronis’ inadvertent omission of him on the To line in 14,282.


14,336 posted on 05/09/2007 10:07:44 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14284 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg

You know, I really like that, after all Elijah went up bodily, never died, and let all with ears to hear, hear


14,337 posted on 05/09/2007 10:29:42 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings ("The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." Andrew Jackson, President of U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14332 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
So very true. Thank you for your encouragements!
14,338 posted on 05/09/2007 10:32:26 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14337 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl
[.. I don't see any Apostles on this thread. If there are any, please identify yourself. ..]

Identify what you mean by apostle.. beyond just a "sent one"..

14,339 posted on 05/09/2007 10:33:30 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14326 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Actually, it is true that God loves all . . . even those who reject Him.

Is that what happened to the Egyptians who drowned in the Red Sea? Or the Baal prophets that Elijah hacked to bits? Or the people Christ said they were sons of the devil? Or what about the horrors that will come on judgment day? It is a humanistic notion that God love all. God hate sin. Man is sinful. It's rather simple logic. The only difference in this equation is that God makes an effort to find fellowship with us.

Dismissive rejection of God’s Promises to His Buddy Abraham is a shocking denial of Biblical truth, to me.

No one is denying God's promise to Abraham. What is being argued is whether that promise has been fulfilled. I say it was fulfilled with Christ.

14,340 posted on 05/09/2007 10:38:50 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14317 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 14,301-14,32014,321-14,34014,341-14,360 ... 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