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 ... 2,561-2,5802,581-2,6002,601-2,620 ... 16,241-16,256 next last
To: Blogger
"If Osama Bin Laden walked into your living room today and decided to torture and decapitate you, would that be wrong?"

No, because I really wish he'd give it his best shot.

If you're asking in general regarding the moral code. It is wrong to violate someone's life and sovereignty of will. As I said, that moral statement protects the essence of man. No one is justified to take another's life, or violate their right to sovereignty of will w/o just cause as in sanction, or to protect the rights of others against imminent violation.

2,581 posted on 12/20/2006 10:43:16 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2578 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Who says it is wrong to violate someone's life? You? Sorry. You don't choose the rules for society in your world. Society's conventions choose the rules. If I am in Indonesia in a radical Muslim community, they believe it is right to take your life and will enter into bold celebrations as they parade your lifeless head around their community. The community actually has determined, by their convention, that having you dead is what's right for them. You have no basis to say they are wrong. Right and wrong can not exist in your world. Only opinion. You may not like it that you are being tortured and killed, but you can not say it is wrong. Society's convention already dictated that it was okay.
2,582 posted on 12/20/2006 11:03:37 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2581 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

I agree with this whole heartedly.
Can't beleive I missed this thread!!!!!


2,583 posted on 12/20/2006 11:04:20 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diva
Deuteronomy 5:28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.

How is this a command about celibacy?

2,584 posted on 12/20/2006 11:14:03 PM PST by skr (We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.-- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2446 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
'Nevertheless, you are making a choice because you value enjoyment."

There's no choice, it's simply an observation. I also do not value enjoyment for it's own sake. I value life, because I enjoy it. I'd find enjoyment in the midst of what I don't enjoy.

"If this choice is to be based solely on reason, you must have a reason why enjoyment has value. Else, it's not a choice based solely on reason."

What choice? As I said I find enjoyment in life. That means it's an observation and the cause for the enjoyment need not even be known for it to be a valid rational motivator. There is no identifiable cause for enjoyment in general. The causes are numerous, particular and varied. Enjoyment is like temperature, it's always positive.

"Now, you may wish to say, "just because it does." In which case, you have an unconditional value statement - which cannot be know by reason alone. "

Everything can be known by observation and reason. It's apparent that you don't know what reason is. Reason is a logic process used to uncover the truth and logical relationships. It is not an adjective to be applied to motivating causes such as generalized concept of enjoyment.

"So.. does enjoyment have value to you because..., or "just because.""

There's no way to answer the question, because enjoyment in general includes too many things to go over. I find enjoyment in life, that is sufficient rational reason to live. What the particulars are in mind, at any moment are irrelevant, there's still enjoyment in there somewhere. There is nothing at all to be observed when one is not alive.

2,585 posted on 12/20/2006 11:26:46 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2576 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
"Who says it is wrong to violate someone's life? You? Sorry. You don't choose the rules for society in your world."

Your respect for the rights of others is noted.

"Society's conventions choose the rules."

No. The rules either involve the respect for the life, sovereignty of will and the rights of others, or there is arbitrary authoritarian rule by some through deceit and coercion. There is no other possibility.

"If I am in Indonesia in a radical Muslim community, they believe it is right to take your life and will enter into bold celebrations as they parade your lifeless head around their community."

Rule by a few, by deceit and coecion.

'The community actually has determined, by their convention, that having you dead is what's right for them."

Others simply jail their victims. Same thing, different crowd of clowns and buffoons.

"You have no basis to say they are wrong. Right and wrong can not exist in your world. Only opinion. "

My basis was given above. The only other choice is arbitrary authoritarian rule by some, using the methods of deceit and coercion.

"You may not like it that you are being tortured and killed, but you can not say it is wrong."

I'll say whatever I want and I'll also fight them.

"Society's convention already dictated that it was okay."

I suppose they justified it with a vote. Now where have i seen that before? ...

2,586 posted on 12/20/2006 11:42:46 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2582 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Yes, I fully believe that those that are from the early Church and the approved later ones are Mary. It is consistent with her desire to bring the entire mankind to do what she did, and say: let Your will be done.


2,587 posted on 12/20/2006 11:49:49 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2543 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Thanks Buggman. I can always count on you for real insights into the scriptures and putting the old testament in context with the new testament.

Did you ever finish your book?

2,588 posted on 12/20/2006 11:53:39 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2577 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
You are missing the original point.

What choice?

The choice to get out of bed (Q-1) remember?

the cause for the enjoyment need not even be known for it to be a valid rational motivator.

A) Activated pleasure centers do not a logical motivator make.
B) Who's talking about causes? I'm asking why you choose to make your decisions based on enjoyment. What is the logic behind living for enjoyment? If it feels good, do it? You know this is not logic. Surely a rational man who values his sovereignty of will is deeper than that.

Enjoyment is like temperature, it's always positive.

I've got a morphine drip for you.

Everything can be known by observation and reason.

Except perhaps why you got out of be this morning?

What's the real reason - or is it that underneath all the reasoning, there is something else?

2,589 posted on 12/21/2006 12:22:37 AM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2585 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Yep. I'm down to editing typos and a couple of appendixes, but aside from that the book's in its final form. I should probably put it in the files section of Neener Central or something.


2,590 posted on 12/21/2006 12:38:53 AM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2588 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; adiaireton8; P-Marlowe
Look, you are taking the word out of context.

Which word?

To say that she gave birth to man Jesus is just plain not true.

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh . . ." (Rom. 1:3).

The Apostle Sha'ul (Paul) had no problem making the distinction between Yeshua's lineage "according to the flesh"--which is to say, according to His human nature--and His eternally existent Divine nature. Why do you find it troublesome that I make the same distinction?

2,591 posted on 12/21/2006 12:46:39 AM PST by Buggman (http://brit-chadasha.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2579 | View Replies]

To: skr
How is this a command about celibacy?

It is a part of oral tradition concerning the Torah. Here is the link: http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=427

2,592 posted on 12/21/2006 1:29:41 AM PST by Diva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2584 | View Replies]

To: skr; TomSmedley
The very word "celibacy" traces back to the rites of self-castration practiced by the devotees of Cybele, the prototypical suffering mother goddess.

Christ said that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12). And remember, St. Paul regarded marriage as an option and not necessarily the best one.

2,593 posted on 12/21/2006 1:46:21 AM PST by Diva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2379 | View Replies]

To: Diva
Christ said that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12). And remember, St. Paul regarded marriage as an option and not necessarily the best one.

And some of us got married "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." In God's design, the norm is marriage, family, childrearing. This is what He expect the vast majority of the time, and is His highest calling for the vast majority of people. Granted, there are exceptions that "test" (the older meaning of the word "prove") the rule, but their vocation is different, not better, not higher, not "more spiritual." Paul, I believe, addressed a specific era, a time of intensified persecution. Those are not normative times. Like newspaper headlines, they get attention for deviating so far from the normal rhythms of life.

2,594 posted on 12/21/2006 4:12:30 AM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2593 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
What outside claims or sources are you talking about? Are you saying that an observer of religion cannot give a report about it because his report might be biased? Then history has no value to us because we cannot trust it...

I interpreted your argument to be that since you relied on the "outside sources" of the Magisterium that your position was more credible because Protestants just "make it up". I was trying to say that you agree with the views of some men who went before you and so do we. IOW, we are doing the same thing, so there is no extra level of credibility in agreeing with the Fathers. They were fallible men, just as Luther and Calvin were.

In still other words, if your argument had been "I think the Fathers were right and your guys were wrong", then that would be fine. I thought you were trying to say that the Fathers somehow counted as an unbiased and independent source.

With this basic notion, I think we have enough to "prove" the notion that Christ established a Church to continue His teachings.

Yes, and I agree with your 1-5.

If God, then you will have to answer to Him on your continued rejection.

True for the non-elect.

Now, if you set the bar of proof so high, what can you absolutely prove that occurred before 1900 AD? Only very general things.

Yes, that's right. This is where faith, reason, common sense, and accepted measures of historical textual accuracy come in.

As such, we have a relative degree of certainty that history proves the above 5 things - which leads one to see that the Catholic Church is the continuance of the Church established by Christ.

If by "Catholic" you mean Roman Catholic, then I would disagree because of the differences I claim exist between the teachings of the RCC and the scriptures, using the criteria I suggest above. I do believe that Christ continued the Church He founded, but I also think that the Church is composed of all believers. Even today, on the really, really, super-important stuff you and I agree. Christ has preserved His Church.

FK: "The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president."

How do you know that? You know I could easily invent a conspiracy theory behind why someone would want people to believe that Washington was president...

I know that because both those who loved and hated Washington all said he was President. Those who had nothing to gain agreed.

But since I know you to be a reasonable man, I am certain that you would never do that because you would be immediately outed as a fraud. You would be the only one or among a very few. The greater weight of other accounts would be suffocating to your position. Of course, there are SOME madmen who don't care and spew idiocy anyway, such as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You and I can easily dismiss them. A reasonable man would not put himself in that position.

Theology, OTOH, is much different from a fact like "who is President". Theology "can" be much more subjective, so bias and personal interest matter more since only those who have power can declare "facts".

You aren't going to be able to prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt. History is a matter of faith in the recorders.

I agree.

Where is the evidence of ANY "unsubstantiated errors" among the Church Fathers and what we call "apostolic tradition"?

I am generally referring to all of these discussions across the different threads. To me, of course, "substantiation" can only mean through the scriptures. For example, I am referring to things like when the Bible talks about which of us humans are sinners and says "all" the Fathers say "most", or when the Bible says "eternal" the Fathers say "conditionally eternal", or when the Bible says "saved by grace" the Fathers say "saved by grace plus cooperation", or when the Bible says "brothers and sisters" the Fathers say "cousins". That sort of thing.

Rather than approaching unbiased, you come with your Reformed thoughts. So thus, what about Calvin's "unsubstantiated errors that multiply exponentially" today?

Yes, I am biased toward Reformed beliefs now. However, it is interesting to me that I was in fact a 90-95% Reformer before I had even heard the term before. :) I really did not know that my views were part of some "system".

I certainly do disagree with Calvin on some subjects, such as baptism and some of the Marian doctrines. But that's OK with me. He was just a human being, and not my infallible leader. And I don't mean to sound pompous. If he was around today, I KNOW that I would have a lot more to learn from him than he from me. :)

First, you presume that the Bible is the Word of God, based on its own internal word. Sorry, the Bible isn't self-authenticating.

While I do believe the Bible is self-authenticating, I also believe that God's Church recognized the validity of (what we now call) "the Bible". Many of those among God's Church who did recognize it were Roman Catholics.

And secondly, you are presuming that YOUR interpretation of said book is correct. Thus, I hardly would consider you a person to give me a lecture about self-proclaimed authority...

I say that my interpretation is correct generally, but I don't claim infallibility. But your guys DO CLAIM INFALLIBILITY. That is self-proclaimed authority that I do not claim. Big difference. :)

Your previous argument from bias rules you out - and no one I know outside of Reformed theology considers Calvin of any consequence.

As a military historian, you know of no non-Calvinist who thinks Calvin was of any consequence on history???? Yikes! Where have my tax dollars been going? :)

Merry Christmas - and thank a Catholic for it. You'd have no "Mass of Christ" without the Church.

:) Thank you, Joe. I wish you and your entire family a very merry and blessed Christmas.

2,595 posted on 12/21/2006 4:13:11 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1899 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
I interpreted your argument to be that since you relied on the "outside sources" of the Magisterium that your position was more credible because Protestants just "make it up".

When first exploring Christianity, I saw the claims, both internal and external (Catholic and Gentile) sources, had a continuity with what was found in Scriptures. The question of authority and leadership developed, part of that is related in the Bible, part of that is related in the many extra-biblical sources, whether writings by hostile or friendly sources, archeological sources, and so forth. Thus, I was able to accept the claim that the Church makes; that it is the natural successor of the biblical church.

IOW, we are doing the same thing, so there is no extra level of credibility in agreeing with the Fathers. They were fallible men, just as Luther and Calvin were.

The problem with that argument is that we BOTH rely on the Fathers to have accurately presented the Bible whole and unadultered. I don't rely on Luther and Calvin for my theology. They are among a long line of people who decided to leave the Church. You rely on the Church Fathers for much of YOUR theology: Christ was God, there is a Trinity in the Godhead, Christ rose from the dead, etc...

I thought you were trying to say that the Fathers somehow counted as an unbiased and independent source.

No, I didn't say unbiased. Of course they were biased! The question is whether they related accurate history, despite their bias... Did the Apostles REALLY witness the Risen Lord?! Naturally, they were biased - but does that make them suddenly unreliable? An axiom in historical research is that "we trust the historical records until proven wrong" ("innocent until proven guilty", in legal terms). I do not believe that the Apostles have been proven wrong (despite being biased!) - thus - their recordings (found in the bible) are reliable. This means that their claim to be Scriptural (from God) would have to be true and believed, in my mind. I feel the same about those who followed the Apostles, the next several generations. I believe that they, too, were given a mission by God - I believe their witness.

I wrote: If God, then you will have to answer to Him on your continued rejection.

You responded: True for the non-elect.

don't mention "elect" to me - I am still in counciling over that! I will not argue this, only saying that EVERYONE will have to answer for their response to God - no one is given a free pass. God is not a respecter of persons.

If by "Catholic" you mean Roman Catholic, then I would disagree because of the differences I claim exist between the teachings of the RCC and the scriptures, using the criteria I suggest above. I do believe that Christ continued the Church He founded, but I also think that the Church is composed of all believers. Even today, on the really, really, super-important stuff you and I agree. Christ has preserved His Church.

The Catholic Church was not called "Roman" until the next millenium. However, a rose by any other name is still a rose. An acorn becomes an oak tree. The Catholic Church of 100 AD became what we now call the Roman Catholic Church. This, I believe, is beyond refute. Did Jesus "build" the Catholic Church? Yes - but from heaven. What He did in His unglorified Body was NOT to form the Roman Catholic Church. But there is no doubt that what He built grew into what we now recognize. When we plant an acorn, we are expecting an oak tree. Same with Christ. Being God, He KNEW what was to become of Peter and the Apostles and the type of church government it would become.

To suggest otherwise is to say that God guides EVERYTHING EXCEPT the direction of His Church. A ridiculous statement... Can a Calvinist make such a contradicting statement?

But since I know you to be a reasonable man, I am certain that you would never do that because you would be immediately outed as a fraud. You would be the only one or among a very few. The greater weight of other accounts would be suffocating to your position.

And yet, conspiracy theories abound. Perhaps not on the presidency of George Washington, but on many other issues. Who shot JFK? And so forth. In the end, it takes faith, even on such issues that have been thoroughly researched and documented. We are dealing with events that occured 2000 years ago, not 50. Thus, it will certainly take a leap of faith - albeit a small one - in my opinion. I believe a reasonable man, when examining the evidence, will conclude that the Church set up by Christ grew into what we now call the Catholic Church today.

Theology, OTOH, is much different from a fact like "who is President". Theology "can" be much more subjective, so bias and personal interest matter more since only those who have power can declare "facts".

Yes, that is why one needs an objective standard - just like the Supreme Court exists as an interpreter of the Constitution. However, in the case of the Church heirarchy, we believe that this objective standard is guided from above. Thus, the infallibility that we have come to rely on to KNOW proper theology to those who wish to find it. This is not the case in the Protestant world. One relies on their own judgment and interpretations. I do not think God requires that man hold a PhD in Theology to find the truth.

I am referring to things like when the Bible talks about which of us humans are sinners and says "all" the Fathers say "most", or when the Bible says "eternal" the Fathers say "conditionally eternal", or when the Bible says "saved by grace" the Fathers say "saved by grace plus cooperation", or when the Bible says "brothers and sisters" the Fathers say "cousins". That sort of thing.

Quite plainly, EVERYONE must make such provisions. Otherwise, the bible would contradict itself over and over again. For example, Romans 3 cannot possibly mean ALL men literally are evil, because the very Psalms that Paul quotes ALSO discusses righteous men! In the same Psalms! Clearly, you are viewing Scriptures through a particular interpretative lenses - namely, that ALL men are entirely evil - something that the Church had NEVER held. It is a new invention that causes you to misunderstand Scriptures. Secondly, how is your interpretation of John 6 and eating the flesh of Christ? How do you spin that one?

I certainly do disagree with Calvin on some subjects, such as baptism and some of the Marian doctrines. But that's OK with me. He was just a human being, and not my infallible leader. And I don't mean to sound pompous. If he was around today, I KNOW that I would have a lot more to learn from him than he from me. :)

So how do you know HE is wrong and you are right? Sorry for having to say this, FK, but doesn't that sound a bit pompous?

I do believe the Bible is self-authenticating.

Impossible. Get that out of your head immediately! Most of the Scriptures do not even call themselves the Word of God. The seperate letters by themselves are not related in of themselves internally. We don't even know if some of the letters are fraud - without the Church's witness! How does a person such as yourself DECIDE which letters and books belong? Trust me, many Protestants have tried to come up with something that ignores the Catholic Church. But in the end, even Martin Luther admitted that he had to thank the Catholic Church for preserving and compiling the Canon of Scriptures.

I say that my interpretation is correct generally, but I don't claim infallibility. But your guys DO CLAIM INFALLIBILITY. That is self-proclaimed authority that I do not claim. Big difference. :)

We don't claim it for ourselves. The Scriptures themselves say it. Have you not read Matthew 16:16-20? Or do you think heaven itself is wrong? The other possibility, I suppose, is that the Apostles made up Matthew 16 and it is not from God...

As a military historian, you know of no non-Calvinist who thinks Calvin was of any consequence on history????

An overstatement! I was speaking more of his theology, not of his effect on such things as American capitalism or his place in the history of Genevan politics.

Regards

2,596 posted on 12/21/2006 5:25:56 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2595 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
BAC, you are setting a pretty good straw man up, and some are taking the bait. But that isn't what Sola Scriptora means (though some take it that way).
2,597 posted on 12/21/2006 5:59:21 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2524 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
FK, I don't think we speak the same language; words don't mean the same thing. I am sure you don't mean to, but when you respond it seems to me that you twist what I said.

I am glad you do not think I ever do anything like that intentionally, and I apologize for any time that I do unintentionally twist what you say.

[Kosta in 1890:] "Mary was destined to be the Mother of our Lord and nothing else, for anything else that she would be remembered for would diminish not only her special place in God's Plan but our Lord as well."

FK: "Should we not remember Mary for her faith?"

She was meant to be remembered as the one who gave birth to our Incarnated Lord and Savior, to be the bearer of God, Christ, our Lord and God. It is an awesome task that she was given. Being faithful is not all of it.

I took your statement to mean that Mary should be remembered only for her PERFORMANCE of a task, that of bearing Jesus. I was trying to point out that Mary should also be remembered for her faith, which was an outstanding example to all of us. Simply "being" a mother does not indicate faith to me.

If she had other children, most of them were "unholy," and even if James and Jude were saints, are they on the par of our Lord? Your sense of "holiness" befuddles me.

In an attempt to be fair, I'm going to say that I think when you say "unholy" you mean simply "not actively holy", as opposed to "actively evil", which is a common use of the term. (At least I'm trying. :)

Nevertheless, I'm afraid you've completely lost me. :) Which of Mary's other hypothetical children would not have been unholy? James and Jude? You must know what kind of swamp this would open. :) I can debate the argument that Mary was ever-virgin. I can argue that she had a raft of kids in accordance with God's plan. But I don't understand the argument that it was NOT theoretically possible for her to have had three kids who grew up to be holy men, and others that didn't. Virtually every mother in the Bible would have been in that same boat. One (or more) of their children turned out to be selected by God to be holy in life, and other children were not. There are a zillion examples going WAY back. :)

Of course James and Jude were nothing compared to their big brother. Concerning regular "men", my sense of holiness is just as we see in the Biblical examples. All men designated "holy" were nonetheless sinners and in need of a savior. Such were James and Jude. What am I saying that befuddles you?

2,598 posted on 12/21/2006 6:03:55 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1913 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
That's heresy, either a form of Sabellianism or Monarchianism.

Was trying to remember which was which last night, but was to tired to get my brain to think.

2,599 posted on 12/21/2006 6:05:16 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2539 | View Replies]

To: xzins; kosta50; Marlowe; adiaireton8; spunkets; Blogger; Buggman
However, many of us believe that the 2d person of the Trinity made pre-Incarnate appearances.

Ah yes, the Theophany (sp, need more coffee). Read a few good articles about that.

2,600 posted on 12/21/2006 6:10:15 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2566 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,561-2,5802,581-2,6002,601-2,620 ... 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