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/
Amen.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
Paul tells us that when we are quickened to the truth our minds are transformed and we can, by the preaching of the Gospel and by the indwelling Holy Spirit, PROVE the good, acceptable and perfect will of God.
At the heart of our understanding is the mystery of God; a seeming paradox; the one and the many. But there is SO MUCH that is rational and knowable, that we could spend a lifetime still declaring in confidence "we truly know whom we have believed."
It's like the concept of evil which we discussed earlier. The Westminister Confession of Faith precisely and accurately gives us as much understanding as possible without contradiction or error...
IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin..."
Of Providence
What does "fullness" mean? Complete? If so, then I don't think any man or any group of men have fullness. I certainly look to my church for guidance, but I always test everything against scripture. ...... I am certain that my God is the true God because He has revealed Himself to me, including by faith and by scripture. My trust isn't in my church, but in God directly.
FK: "Presumably, if the Orthodox Church knew the truth fully, it would have said so and published so in order to witness to the rest of us."
It does, repeatedly, that the fullness of our faith is in the Church. Our Creed reminds us every Sunday that Christ is True God of true God.
OK, then "fullness", as you are using it, is closer to "everything we need to know", rather than "everything there is to know". That is perfectly fine by me. :) Therefore, with my previous explanation, I can say that my church agrees with the Creed. So in your eyes, it should be true that my church has the fullness of the faith.
FK: "Do those three dogmas constitute the "truth fully"?"
Absolutely, God's revealed truth, that is.
OK, I should have read ahead. LOL! Now you know how I answer posts. :)
... which is why all mainline Protestants and Baptists are Christians.
Thank you. I knew you thought that, but it's always nice to hear once in a while. :)
If the Church does not know the fullness of God's revealed truth, how can the Church know what is heresy and what orthodoxy?
Yes indeed. If heresy only means disagreeing with the Dogmas or the Creed, then I'm right with you. I've just seen it thrown against me in a broader sense. :)
How could the Church agree on what is inspired and what is not or have you forgotten that it was the Church that put together the Bible you believe in by discerning, based on orthodox faith, which writings were inspired and which profane?
Well, now you are confusing me again. :) When you say "Church" do you mean to include the people? Or, do you mean the men of the Council(s) who Canonized it? If you mean the former, then I agree that the Spirit was clearly with the Church. The Spirit is always with God's Church. As to the latter, I have been often asked to thank the members of certain Councils for giving me the Bible that I disagree with them so much about! :)
That is because humans interpret that one sacred book. People take different views to the table when they read it. Different things strike their fancy, and so, they emphasize some things while overlooking others. Yes, it is sad that this happens. That is why I find authority personally a comforting thing in this case.
Although it isn't necessary for salvation we must be certain we don't do something that takes or keeps salvation from us.
I totally agree. It is comforting that you realize that salvation can be lost, some do not believe that.
God does not want false teaching in His House. Many may feel they are being very religious, as I'm sure those in Ezekiel 8 were being. It was no excuse to God. He starts with those "ancient men", those that teach in His sanctuary but He does not absolve the others that listened to them, even the little children. He "will not hear them"
So to me, upon reading those verses, I would not trust my eternal life, nor that of my family, friends or anyone I come in contact with, including those on Free Republic, with the teachings of any man or church or religion. This has nothing to do with Protestant or Catholic
Fair enough. Before I analyzed the various sects and beliefs of Christianity, I also felt that way, as well. By nature, I am a non-conformist (which is funny, because now I am Catholic!) and I do not take authority from others lightly. However, when I put it to the test, especially the historical continuity between the Bible and Catholicism, I found that I had no choice, if I was to be true to myself, that I must be a Catholic. THAT was how I was to honor and worship God, the Catholic way, the way that I believe Christ established. This does not belittle your particular decision, but that is why I did what I did. I believe I am following my conscience while I kept myself open to the various messages coming from the different sects.
I think we must follow our conscience that is properly trained. We should learn as much as we can about other means of coming to God and be willing to move there if we find there is more truth there. Because I believe that the Church is the continuation of Christ's Church and is guided by the Spirit, I trust that God will CONTINUE to guide the Church into all truth. Thus, I have a reliable guide.
I suppose the different interpretations just make it all the more interesting. Perhaps we should remember, as we search the scriptures and listen to our teachers, that if it does not agree with His Word - get away from it, no matter how much you love the interpretation or the one giving it.
As long as we are not so stubborn to admit that HE may be correct and I am wrong! This is what happens in religious pride, one of the worse and most difficult sins to realize one is committing. The Pharisees really thought they had the correct interpretation and were following God, but in hindsight, we realize that they adhered to the letter of the Law rather than the Spirit. Who can say if we are doing the same thing? Thus, we should be open to Truth and be prepared to become humble if we find something makes more sense or if we feel God calling us to accept a teaching.
What we should keep in mind is that the first Christians were adamant about keeping the "deposit of faith". They were very wary of people who deviated from the faith once given. Thus, you are correct, we should be wary of false teachers - but we should also realize what the reference point IS for the correct teachings - the Church, not me.
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
Brother in Christ
Amen to that my friend! :)
“When you say “Church” do you mean to include the people?”
Orthodoxy holds that no proclaimed dogma is in fact dogma and true unless the people give their great AXIOS, which is to say their judgment that it is in fact True, by living out the dogma in their lives. Its not simply the province of hierarchs.
The book on The Beast is a washout.
No way Nero fills the bill. Absolutely no Scriptural way. Absolutely impossible.
Yes! :)
The people were not instrumental in determining the canon; the Church hierarchy was. Anything that was read in a church was considered "inspired." From the oldest Christian Bibles we know that this included books which are not considered canonical (Epistle of Barnabas, etc.).
The concordance as to which books were inspired and which were not had to be reached among the very people your Church denies, the hierarchs.
My point was that if they collectively did not know the fullness of revealed God's truth, it would have been impossible for them to know which books were inspired and which were not, and therefore the Bible would be a guesswork.
On the other hand, if they were led by the Holy Spirit in their discernment, then you have no authority to dismiss them or their authority as successors of the Apostles.
LOL! I am laughing because as of today I am actually much much more well-schooled in Catholicism than I am in other Protestant faiths. :) So, I don't have a number, but what you say does sound reasonable to me. I suppose everything would turn on what the "variety" is. For example, if I moved to a new town, I would not have the slightest hesitation in joining an Orthodox Presbyterian church, even though they baptize infants, and I'm a Baptist! :) It is certainly a different denomination, but I still feel in "communion" with them.
Say you have 10 major questions of the faith. You aren't going to have only two groups left that disagree on EACH doctrine. Some agree with "A", while these same folks disagree on "B". Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach a monolithic faith.
In all honesty, I don't know enough about other Protestant faiths to defend what should be my position. :) I suppose it would be the importance of the differences that matters.
Since when does the word "alone" in the phrase "Bible Alone" include the teachings of men?
Since ALWAYS! :) For example, say I was a lost person and you were my teacher. Let's say that you wanted to share with me the meaning of the prodigal son parable. Let's further say that in your judgment, the best way to reach me would be for you to "update" the story and tell it using modern terms and circumstances. So, you "make up" a brand new parable that does that. As long as you are faithful to the Christian teaching, this does not violate Sola Scriptura at all. It is only when the teachings of men are not supported by scripture that Sola Scriptura is violated. And, to be clear, this only applies to theology, not necessarily praxis. My altar call and your making the sign of the cross do not violate Sola Scriptura either.
Paul tells us that he uses oral and written teachings.
Yes, and his oral teachings did not contradict what he taught based on (then) scripture.
How do we know whether the writers meant that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist? From the Bible, one can come up with several answers, but the orthodox, intended answer, according to him, is by following the teachings given, the Rule of Faith.
Now how self serving is that??!! :)
Do you have a verse that states that the Bible swallows up the oral teachings?
There are plenty. First see all the verses where Jesus says "It is written...". Those prove what is true authority for us. Jesus never says "It has been orally taught apart from what is written that ...". Second, we have this:
Rev 22:18-19 : 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Certainly it is plausible to argue that this only applies to Revelation, I would disagree, however, there is more:
John 10:35-36 : 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? ......
As an aside, note I'm quoting John. :) Anyway, if the scripture cannot be broken, then it makes sense that all oral teachings which are Godly must conform with scripture. That is Sola Scriptura for authority. Finally, for now, there is this:
Prov 30:5-6 : 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
The Bible swallows up the oral teachings that were true and faithful to what became the Bible. Certainly, some orally taught in contradiction to scripture, and we are warned to beware of them. But the Bible teaches us that we are not to add man-made tradition to God's own words.
What do you use to interpret the Bible without these oral teachings, this "way" of reading the Bible?
Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation.
God knew what He was doing by implementing leadership that would guard the "deposit of faith".
I do not believe that God abdicated that guardianship, as you apparently believe. I believe God is very active today in guarding the faith, and that He does not need our help.
You are confusing our interpreting the Bible a different way from you as "subverting the Bible", as if you have the sole meaning of the texts all figured out.
I am not confused on this. :) I do not accuse you of "subverting the Bible". I accuse your leaders of error in interpretation of it. And by no means do I say that I, or Southern Baptists, or Reformers, have the sole meaning of the texts all figured out. We do not.
FK: "We do not place a duty on God to grace people and prevent them from sinning."
So how is God in "full control" then? Here, you say God has freedom to allow men to sin. But then elsewhere, you claim that man cannot choose God (even with God's help) because it would offend God's sovereignty. Seems like a contradiction.
I'm afraid I am not following you. God is always fully in control. The LEVEL of His micromanagement is something I am not certain about. However, for anything that matters, God's fingerprints are all over it. Full control is always maintained. I am unaware of where I have said that man cannot choose God with God's help. To the contrary, I say that is exactly how it happens. God's sovereignty is preserved because "the help" is guaranteed to be efficacious.
You tell us that if man has free will, God's sovereignty is overthrown. Yet, if man cannot choose, how can he be judged or rewarded? You have not provided an answer that solves this question.
No, I say that if man is in control, then God's sovereignty is overthrown. We use the term "free will" differently. On judgment, you are applying a reasonable man's standards of fair play. Do you think God owes us this? Tell me what your first impression was when you first read Matt. 20. Mine was "this is a rip!". :) Our notions of fairness are mostly irrelevant. God makes His own rules, because He can. By God's standards, it is perfectly "fair" for Him to create a human who has no chance of winding up in Heaven. That is just a hard reality. It doesn't sound all nice and fluffy, but then neither is God.
And if people are of the elect from the beginning of time, why the need for a judgment for salvation? You have already said you are saved and of the elect. Does that mean you will bypass the "judgment for salvation"?
No, no bypass. All of us will be judged for salvation. For the elect, it will be a ceremony. Do you think high school graduation ceremonies are a waste of time? No, of course not. The outcome is predetermined, but they DO have a purpose. I'm looking forward to it! :) However, there will also be a time when I have to answer for my sins, and that I do not look forward to. Since God provides everything we need, I trust that God buys Kleenex in bulk.
But, er, I am not suggesting that one gemstone is to be preferred over another in the foundation of the New Jerusalem. And obviously God delights in the differences, He designed it that way.
That I am striving to be a diamond only means that gemstone is the best for me. It doesn't mean that among all of the gemstones, it is the most precious to God. God may prefer green as in emeralds (Revelation 4.)
Kind of figured that was your perspective . . .
but wanted to see it with my own eyes! LOL.
LUB
I'm the opposite in that I am a conformist. I like to be part of things and, as a middle child, have always been the peace maker. I do take authority well so when I write opposing views here it does not come easy.
I believe I am following my conscience while I kept myself open to the various messages coming from the different sects.
That is all one can do - if we are honest with ourselves.
We should learn as much as we can about other means of coming to God and be willing to move there if we find there is more truth there.....As long as we are not so stubborn to admit that HE may be correct and I am wrong!.... This is what happens in religious pride, one of the worse and most difficult sins to realize one is committing
Words of wisdom and, as you said, very difficult to do.
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
You are most welcome. I also enjoyed the conversation.
Your sister in Christ
...Ping
Well, that is a way of describing Sola Scriptura that I haven't heard before. I was under the impression that it means that one's theology must come from the bible alone. Thus, there is no room for "implicit theology" or speculations. I have heard people say with disgust that Catholics make the sign of the cross BECAUSE such a movement is not seen in the Bible! I have also heard some Protestants attack other Protestants because of the altar call was "extra-biblical" according to them.
Yes, and his oral teachings did not contradict what he taught based on (then) scripture.
Naturally. They should never contradict. Properly speaking, Tradition should not contradict because they both have God as their source. To us, Tradition is usually refered to as the WAY we read the Bible, not necessarily "unwritten" doctrines. The WAY we read the Bible is "unwritten" - it is a paradigm that has been passed down. When we see Jesus as "subordinate" to the Father in some of the Gospel verses, we do not take that to mean the Jesus was subordinate to the Father when considering the doctrine of the Trinity. THAT is an example of Apostolic Tradition. It is Scriptural, without doubt, but relies on a WAY of reading those Scriptures.
I wrote : How do we know whether the writers meant that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist? From the Bible, one can come up with several answers, but the orthodox, intended answer, according to him, is by following the teachings given, the Rule of Faith.
You responded: Now how self serving is that??!! :)
I am merely refering to historical facts. If one reads the writings of the earliest Christians, they consider the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Christ, not a symbol. Even the Romans knew this, since they accused the Christians of being cannibals. They wouldn't have been accused of cannibalism if the Eucharist was MERELY a symbol, would they? Wouldn't the Christians very easily deny the charge, saying "it's only a symbol! It is just bread and wine!" We never hear that... Thus, by examining the facts, we can discern how THEY interpreted the Bible. Being closer to the Apostles and speaking the language and having access to witnesses who have heard the Apostles teach, they would know, wouldn't they?
This is not self-serving, but following where history leads us. It is the OPPOSITE of being self-serving, because I am relying on someone else's teaching, not my own interpretation! I adjust my own ideas to what the Church teaches. There is our fundamental difference. I accept that I am not infallible when reading Scriptures and need a guide, and you believe that you are infallibly led when reading the Bible and need no help from the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth...
Until you realize that, YOU and your interpretations are self-serving. My interpretations are verified and corrected when necessary by the Church. You are the final authority on yours.
There are plenty. First see all the verses where Jesus says "It is written...".
That proves nothing. Jesus also says "you have heard it SAID"! in Matthew's Gospel chapter 5. Your quote from Revelation clearly refers ONLY to that particular book and ITS prophesies, not a future compilation of books that would be put together 250-300 years later!!! Most Protestant commentaries that I have read admit as much.
I do not find any Scripture that says "we no longer have to listen to oral teachings because everything has now been written down". Nothing like that. We are told to hold onto ALL the Traditions (teachings), whether oral or written. Nothing abrogates that. As I said before, oral teachings are important because they help us INTERPRET the written teachings.
John 10:35-36 : 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken—
I agree, Scriptures cannot be broken. I said that above. But how does that say that ONLY SCRIPTURES are to be followed? Surely, we follow things that are not in Scriptures, but do not compromise Scriptures. For example, the sign of the cross, a pious ritual that helps us remind us of Christ's work. Nowhere in the Bible is it done, as far as I can tell. Yet, it is not a contradiction of Scriptures. I would say this is one example of Apostolic Tradition.
The Bible swallows up the oral teachings that were true and faithful to what became the Bible. Certainly, some orally taught in contradiction to scripture, and we are warned to beware of them. But the Bible teaches us that we are not to add man-made tradition to God's own words.
That is a huge assumption that is nowhere said in the Bible. Can't you even be consistent in your Sola Scriptura beliefs? You state something that is an extra-biblical belief! How utterly ironic that your doctrine rests on sand.
Again, you have nothing that overthrows Paul's words to hold onto ALL Traditions given, both oral and written. He says virtually the same to the Galatians and the Corinthians. I got to tell you, I don't see where oral teachings are abrogated, especially when you cite OT words - when CLEARLY, the people followed oral traditions in both the time preceding Christ's incarnation and the time following His resurrection. The community has always followed oral teachings and will continue to do so, since the Bible never abrogates this practice.
You are assuming that the Bible swallows up ALL oral teachings, but I can tell you that is flat wrong. I can give you many examples of oral teachings that are not in the Bible, but were most CERTAINLY practiced, such as the ritual of Baptism and the Eucharist. NOWHERE does the Bible discuss the entire liturgy involved during these sacraments - but we know they must have said and did SOMETHING!
Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation.
Fiddlesticks... I don't accept that because you have admitted yourself that you have been wrong before! Thus, you do NOT know if you are absolutely correct in any future interpretation. You cannot know WHEN the Spirit is actually guiding you and when you are just interjecting your own opinion, to later be proved to be wrong. This is just plain logic. To say that one interprets the Scriptures outside the Church, the pillar of Truth, and thinks he is led by the Spirit simultaneously, is just fooling himself. The Spirit does NOT lead the Church and the individual in opposite directions. When your interpretation is against the Church's, yours (or mine) is wrong.
I accuse your leaders of error in interpretation of it
Based on your presumption that you are infallible, no doubt. Well, if they claim what you do, that you are "led by the Spirit", then there seems to be a problem, don't you think? WHO does the Spirit lead? Only you? This is why private interpretation MUST fail, logically. IF private interpretation was correct, then everyone who claims that the Spirit leads them would be in TOTAL agreement. They are not...
Regards
LOL! Then we are filling the opposite shoes of our natures!
Take care,
Brother in Christ
I think I understand. Thank you so much for helping me to comprehend all this. :) I am so thankful that this issue really does not lead to a greater disagreement on others. It seems pretty well self-contained.
Indeed dear 'pipe: The observer problem is fundamental, ubiquitous, and so cannot be obviated under any conditions whatever. It extends to every knowledge domain, bar none, including representations of Spirit.
Beautiful post, my friend!
I am sure of it.
While you are at this, tell me why did Jesus pray? Why do we pray?
As you well know, prayer is much more than supplication. It is communication with God, and He commands it out of His love for us. All honest prayer glorifies God and benefits us. Prayer is good in God's eyes. Likewise, Jesus benefited from communicating with the Father. We also benefit from His prayer both directly and because of the example.
FK: "What's the difference? Why is this significant, with the understanding that "He was raised" is not exclusionary of Christ's Divine power?"
It's extremely significant! If he did not raise Himself of His own power, than He is not fully God, but someone who depends on God's power. The trinitarian error of +Paul's is as clear as glass here: when he wrote this he either did not consider Christ to be fully God, or he thought of Christ as a lesser God, a divine Son subordained to God.
Huh? I don't follow your conclusions at all. Why do you prohibit the Godhead from acting at all? That's what you're doing. You are saying that any act of God must be on an individual Person's basis. Where does that come from? We ARE sometimes told that individual Persons handle individual things, but no where are we told that God's essence is incapable of action as a unity. That just makes no sense. In fact, I would say that in reality all actions of any Person are also acts of the Trinity.
If God could harden Pharaoh's heart, He surely could have softened the hearts of the elect without miracles.
Yes, I was imprecise in saying that Jesus performed miracles to convert. God converts by changing hearts inwardly. Of course outward miracles are not required for conversion.
The efficacy of a priest's prayer or sacrament is not affected by his character flaws. For no priest is free from sin. Whether a pilot is a rotten character and a wife abuser does not invalidate his piloting skills. he may be a rotten human being but he may be a perfect pilot.
Why does the year 1998 immediately come into my mind after reading this? :)
The priest has no power of his own to bless or to forgive. It is the HS that blesses and forgives and not the priest. He can only petition the HS to bless you and forgive you. The priest does not change the bread and wine; the HS does.
Now THIS is significant! :) I thought that Orthodoxy leaned in this direction, and my understanding is that the Latins have a VERY different view. My learning has been that Roman Catholics believe that God literally transferred the power to forgive sins and "transubstantiate", etc. IOW, once the power transfer takes place, then they DO accomplish it "on their own".
It's so pathetic that you believe God changes our hearts unilaterally, "enslaving" us without us knowing it...You truly believe that we "want" God when in fact he merely reprogrammed us and we have nothing to with it whatsoever.
Do you have a question? :)
Is 1 Peter 3:21 Bible?
Let's take a look:
1 Peter 3:18-21 : 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ...
This is a matter of interpretation, as it usually is. As an aside, I note that the bolded part is 100% antithetical to Catholic teaching. Be that as it may, we have an honest disagreement as to the underlined part. I see this as baptism by the Spirit, which in my view is the only thing that counts, and you see it as referring to a physical baptism with water. I would say that the symbolism in this passage is self evident.
So, then, I suppose you don't pray for it, do you?
Why do you prohibit the Godhead from acting at all? That's what you're doing. You are saying that any act of God must be on an individual Person's basis.
In the Divine Economy of our salvation, that's how it is in the Bible. Otherwise, why send Holy Spirit, as in the HS leading Christ into the wilderness? Or HS descending on the Gentiles? Or HS indwelling in us? Why not just say "God" and not have to "worry" which Divine Persona is accomplishing the task?
no where are we told that God's essence is incapable of action as a unity.
Again, in the Divine Economy of our salvation, God accomplishes things in different Divine Personae. It was the Word that took on human nature. It is the Father who knows when the End of Times will be, not even the Son, etc. That doesn't mean that God is not present fully in the Fathers, the Son or the Holy Spirit, regardless which Divine Persona is accomplishing the plan.
That just makes no sense.
I agree there. God makes no sense; His thoughts are not our and His ways are not ours either. He is inconceivable, beyond our logic; the ancient Fathers used to say that God'a sanctity is darkness to our reason.
Yes, I was imprecise in saying that Jesus performed miracles to convert. God converts by changing hearts inwardly. Of course outward miracles are not required for conversion.
The Bible doesn't say they are required, but it sure uses miracles all over the place to make people believe. In fact, it is the leading cause of conversions in the Bible.
Why does the year 1998 immediately come into my mind after reading this? :)
1998? No idea.
Now THIS is significant! :) I thought that Orthodoxy leaned in this direction, and my understanding is that the Latins have a VERY different view.
The Latins do have a different teaching. To us a priest is an icon of Christ; to the Latins he is an alter-Christ. As you know, we do not worship an icon of Chirst, but the Person it reminds us of. God causes things to be, we only plant and water because he gave us a chance to do so. (cf 1 Cor 3:5-6)
Thus a priest does what he is supoosed to do, and the rest is done by God. That's why, as long as a priest is does what he is supposed to do (he is a servant after all!), the quality of his character cannot affect the sacraments any more than a waiter's charater can affect the quality of the food prepared by the Chef that he brings to you, as long as he is doing what he is supposed to be doing, namely serving you.
My learning has been that Roman Catholics believe that God literally transferred the power to forgive sins and "transubstantiate", etc.
We do not know what transubstantiation is. We do not know how the HS changes the pre-sanctified Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ.
My own "understanding" of it is that the HS purifies the Gifts to the same pristine quality that is found only in, and identical to His body and His blood, without changing the matter itself, just as the HS changes people into something "unrecongizable" after they are "saved," to use your terminology. Same people, different quality. From beastliness to sainthood.
It is not antithetical. In fact, it is antithetical to Calvinism, but it is 100% Catholic. Also, the reference to "prison" is another prooftext for the doctrine of purgatory.
the underlined part [and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also]. I see this as baptism by the Spirit, which in my view is the only thing that counts, and you see it as referring to a physical baptism with water.
The verse (the translation you offer leaves some to be deisred) says that baptism saves. It also says that the Ark of Noah in the flood symbolized it. I go by what it says: Baptism saves. You interpret and hypothesize.
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.