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

Apparently, you think Jesus erred in sending His Apostles to Teach the world.

St. Vincent of Lerens (400-450 AD)

On Development in Religious Knowledge.

"But some one will say, perhaps. Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else.

The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant… In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits…

This rather should be the result,--there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind--wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth…

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

Heretics appeal to Scripture that they may more easily succeed in deceiving.

Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,--through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.

But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison.

It was for this reason that the Saviour cried, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." What is meant by "sheep's clothing"? What but the words which prophets and apostles with the guilelessness of sheep wove beforehand as fleeces, for that immaculate Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world? What are the ravening wolves? What but the savage and rabid glosses of heretics, who continually infest the Church's folds, and tear in pieces the flock of Christ wherever they are able? But that they may with more successful guile steal upon the unsuspecting sheep, retaining the ferocity of the wolf, they put off his appearance, and wrap themselves, so to say, in the language of the Divine Law, as in a fleece, so that one, having felt the softness of wool, may have no dread of the wolf's fangs. But what saith the Saviour? "By their fruits ye shall know them;" that is, when they have begun not only to quote those divine words, but also to expound them, not as yet only to make a boast of them as on their side, but also to interpret them, then will that bitterness, that acerbity, that rage, be understood; then will the ill-savour of that novel poison be perceived, then will those profane novelties be disclosed, then may you see first the hedge broken through, then the landmarks of the Fathers removed, then the Catholic faith assailed, then the doctrine of the Church torn in pieces…

Heretics, in quoting Scripture, follow the example of the Devil.

BUT some one will say, What proof have we that the Devil is wont to appeal to Holy Scripture? Let him read the Gospels wherein it is written, ‘Then the Devil took Him (the Lord the Saviour) and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and said unto Him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, that they may keep thee in all thy ways: In their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perchance thou dash thy foot against a stone.’ (2) What sort of treatment must men, insignificant wretches that they are, look for at the hands of him who assailed even the Lord of Glory with quotations from Scripture? ‘If thou be the Son of God," saith be, "cast thyself down.’ Wherefore? ‘For,’ saith he, ‘it is written.’ it behooves us to pay special attention to this passage and bear it in mind, that, warned by so important an instance of Evangelical authority, we may be assured beyond doubt, when we find people alleging passages from the Apostles or Prophets against the Catholic Faith, that the Devil speaks through their mouths. For as then the Head spoke to the Head, so now also the members speak to the members, the members of the Devil to the members of Christ, misbelievers to believers, sacrilegious to religious, in one word, Heretics to Catholics.

But what do they say? ‘If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down;’ that is,. If thou wouldst be a son of God, and wouldst receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast thyself down; that is, cast thyself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of God. And if one should ask one of the heretics who gives this advice, How do you prove? What ground have you, for saying, that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? he has the answer ready, "For it is written;" and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the Prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. Then, with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise, that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labour, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, have such a dispensation from God, that, borne up by angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended.

What Rule is to be observed in the Interpretation of Scripture.

BUT it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? HOW ARE THEY TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred canon according to the traditions of the universal church and in keeping with the rules of catholic doctrine, in which catholic and universal church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity, the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a very few they must prefer, first of all, THE GENERAL DECREES, IF SUCH THERE BE, OF A UNIVERSAL COUNCIL, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they arise. [St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch. 23-27 (c. A.D. 434)]

*My, my. The great St. Vincent didn't mince words :)

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth. Nowhere does the Bible say the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth. As history reveals, and common sense nods in agreement, the Church preceeded the Canon of the New Testament.

Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you

*All of the New Testament must be read, not just cherry-picked to support the oral traditons of the protestant revolutionaries.

One of the biggest myths on the planet is that protestants know and follow the Bible. The fact is, they are slaves to the oral traditions of the protestant revolutionaries and they read into scripture (eisegesis) the oral traditions created to supplant the authority established by Jesus and they understand scripture in opposition to the orthopraxis of hundreds of millions of Faithful Christians.

Worse than being an enemy of the Church, the protestant revolutionaries were enemies of Christ Himself.

Worse than being an enemy of the Church, the protestant revolutionaries were enemies of Christ Himself.

Apparently, Christ does not agree ...
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

"And I think that is also true if we each go by our own determination of the "Apostolic Faith". Without a living authoritative judge of what is the "Apostolic Faith", views will be all over the map."

Surely you don't believe that Orthodoxy is "all over the map" and we certainly have no single living person as the authoritative judge of what the Apostolic Faith is and never have. The authoritative judge of what is The Faith is The Church, the hierarchy, the clergy and the People of God acting together in a synergy. That hardly qualifies as each of us making a private determination of what The Faith is.

Certainly, the role of the Pope of Rome has been an important one in the history of The Church. On more than one occasion, before the Great Schism, it was the Pope and the Church of Rome which preserved Orthodoxy while much of the East went into the darkness of heresy. There are a number of Popes who are great saints in Orthodoxy as there are Patriarchs who are great saints of the Latin Church. I have always found it disingenuous, however, for the Latins to claim that no pope ever, ever erred on a matter of faith or morals. In Orthodoxy we have absolutely no problem whatsoever accepting +John Chrysostomos' comment that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. He said that no merely because worldliness got them there, but more importantly because they have lead the faithful astray. For us, the ascribing of infallible powers to any bishop is a presumption against God's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against The Church, not +Peter. The danger posed by an infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth is that one can confuse The Church with the Pope.

I have found it fascinating how well The Church worked when it was united in its Orthodoxy. On so many occasions, as I said, it was the Pope who held things together for Orthodoxy and it was the theology and spirituality of The East, most especially the consensus patrum of mostly the Eastern Fathers which tempered the influence of the Arian and pagan tribes which came gradually into The Church in the practical Latin West. Once the Great Schism took place, I think the East found that without an Orthodox pope presiding at Rome, dealing with heresy and heterodox opinions became more difficult, or perhaps better said, more cumbersome than in the past. The East lost something but it has lurched along pretty well for the past 1000 years or so with no major heresies troubling The Church. What we have found is that +Ignatius' definition of The catholic Church actually works well in the "real world", even the quite hostile real world where much of Orthodoxy has existed over the past centuries.

The Latin West, however, lost big time after 1054. Almost immediately after the schism the Dictatus Papae were written, something which the East never, ever would have tolerated. The Latin Church in its ecclesiology became distorted, a sort of top down pyramid which became increasingly authoritarian. Patristics became confused with pagan philosophy by a group of bookish monks who, at least in my opinion, misinterpreted +Thomas Aquinas and scholaticism was born, a method foreign to the theology of the pre-schism Church. Eventually matters were perceived as being so bad that the Reformation took place and like so many revolutions, went far, far beyond any reasonable reforming ends. Western Christianity plunged into a century and more of religious wars among people all claiming to be Christians and eventually Christianity in the West became the fractured disgrace we see today. If the Pope's role is as a unifier, it hasn't been effectively fulfilled. And there can be absolutely no claim made that his reputed infallibility has been rejected soundly, even by Roman Catholics. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Church of Rome abides, just as the East does because God's promise was a true one.

I think both A and The Reader are right when they speak of what the witness needs to be to the Protestants. Some, as A certainly knows from personal experience, will be attracted by the centralized authority of the Latin system. They've seen what happens when "every man's a pope" and not understanding how Orthodoxy works, they perceive there, wrongly, a very ethnic apparently dangerous religious anarchy; what they are leaving except in a foreign language. On the other hand, some Protestants will read the Fathers, eventually even the Desert Fathers, attend a Divine Liturgy or two, maybe even a Pascal Liturgy after spending Great Week praying at the services and recognize in those devotions the very Faith The Fathers write of, preserved and lived out through 2000 years without any central infallible authority. And decide that's what they want. I must say to both of you, whose pasts certainly qualify you to have your opinions, that no matter where any given Protestant ends up, Rome or Orthodoxy, I don't think we need to loose any sleep about their potential for theosis.

Final point; A you have commented that the issue of the proper exercise of the Petrine Ministry will be decided by people way above our pay grades. Maybe that's true for you. It absolutely is not true for The Reader and me. In the end, in Orthodoxy, that decision will be made by all the Orthodox People of God which will include all sorts of folks just like the two of us. Any basic assumption that the likes of us will accept a central individual infallible final word authority in The Church will inevitably lead to a big disappointment.

A Blessed Feast of the Nativity to both of you.

"Are you the church that you are now correcting him?"

As TRD pointed out, he has received the holy order of a subdeacon, a humble order to be sure, but an order nevertheless. In fact, his tonsuring, like my own, was specifically to proclaim the scripture readings during the Divine Liturgy and other services and devotions. By virtue of that he absolutely can proclaim (indeed he is obligated to proclaim) what The Church teaches in both a didactic and a corrective fashion. But beyond that, B, all Orthodox Christians, as the guardians of Orthodoxy, have that duty.

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Christ's discourse after his last supper. (Said to THE APOSTLES, not us laity)

16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, (Protestant revolutionairies) because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live. In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

"Paraclete"... That is, a comforter: or also an advocate; inasmuch as by inspiring prayer, he prays, as it were, in us, and pleads for us.

"For ever"... Hence it is evident that this Spirit of Truth was not only promised to the persons of the apostles, but also to their successors through all generations.

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid. You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it comes to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe. I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing.

26 "Teach you all things"... Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error.

*So, one either trusts the promises of the Christ, Jesus Our Lord and Saviour, and believes His word went out and did not return void, OR, one is forced into the ineluctable position of having to confess he does not trust the promises of Jesus - in fact, - he is compelled to believe Jesus established a Church and sent the Holy Spirit upon it - and the Church failed.

That is the sole consequence of the protestant ideology. One has to believe Jesus' promises failed. His Church He established fell into error and led innumerable Christians into Hell with its lies and deceptions. Far from Jesus remaining with the Church, far from the Holy Spirit guiding it in all truth, the protestant premise is Jesus established a Church and did not stay with it. He abandoned it. He abandoned His Bride and broke his vows. He let His Bride become a Whore. Not only did He break his vows, He,Jesus, sent the Holy Spirit, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, upon His Church to teach the Church heresies, and lies.

The ineluctable consequences of the protestant ideology is Jesus is Satan.

Well, you are welcome to that ideology. I just don't see how that leads anyone to salvation....

Luther taught his followers to ignore scripture and follow his oral traditions.

That shall serve you as a true rule that whenever the Scriptures orders and commands to do good works, you must so understand it that Scripture forbid good works.

*The 16th century vow-breaking liars were mini-me's of Satan. Inversion of truth is always a mark of Satan

*So, one either trusts the promises of the Christ, Jesus Our Lord and Saviour, and believes His word went out and did not return void, OR, one is forced into the ineluctable position of having to confess he does not trust the promises of Jesus - in fact, - he is compelled to believe Jesus established a Church and sent the Holy Spirit upon it - and the Church failed.

The Church of Jesus Christ has not fallen ... it is, and has always, been with us.

Members of the church have failed, but the Church goes on.

And as Christ Himself says ... we needn't all follow the same human leadership, ... following Him is enough.
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
I believe Him.

The ineluctable consequences of the protestant ideology is Jesus is Satan.

In your conclusion, you find yourself at odds with your leadership, ... which views Protestants as "separated brethern" ... in incomplete communion with your Church ... much more like Christ Himself.

*The 16th century vow-breaking liars were mini-me's of Satan. Inversion of truth is always a mark of Satan.

Interestingly ... this most readily brings to mind some of your popes ... and bishops ... and priests.

So, what did Fr, Mueller have to say about the Heresiarch, Luther?

Heresy arose in all its strength; Martin Luther was its ringleader and its spokesman. Martin Luther, an Augustinian friar, a bold man and a vehement declaimer, having imbibed erroneous sentiments from the heretical writings of John Huss of Bohemia, took Christ had abandoned it, and that it wanted reforming, as well in faith as discipline. Thus this new evangelist commenced that fatal defection from the ancient faith, which was styled "Reformation." The new doctrines being calculated to gratify the vicious inclinations of the human heart, spread with the rapidity of an inundation. Frederick, Elector of Saxony, John Frederick, his successor, and Philip, Landgrave of Hesse became Luther's disciples. Gustavus Ericus, King of Sweden and Christian III., King of Denmark, also declared in favor of Lutheranism. It secured a footing in Hungary. Poland, after tasting a great variety of doctrines, left to every individual the liberty of choosing for himself. Munzer, a disciple of Luther, set up for doctor himself, and, with Nicholas Stark, gave birth to the sect of Anabaptists, which was propagated in Suabia and other provinces in Germany, in the Low Countries. Calvin, a man of bold, obstinate spirit, and indefatigable in his labors, in imitation of Luther, turned reformer also. He contrived to have his new tenets received at Geneva, in 1541. After his death, Beza preached the same doctrine. It insinuated itself into some parts of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, and became the religion of Holland. It was imported by John Knox, an apostate priest, into Scotland, where, under the name of Presbyterianism, it took deep root, and spread over the kingdom. But among the deluded nations, none drank more deeply of the cup of error than England. For many centuries this country had been conspicuous in the Christian world for the orthodoxy of its belief as also for the number of its saints. But by a misfortune never to be sufficiently lamented, and by an unfathomable judgment from above, its Church shared a fate which seemed the least to threaten it. The lust and avarice of one despotic sovereign threw down the fair edifice, and tore it off the rock on which it had hitherto stood. Henry VIII., at first a valiant asserter of the Catholic faith against Luther, giving way to the violent passions which he had not sufficient courage to curb, renounced the supreme jurisdiction which the Pope had always held in the Church, presumed to arrogate to himself that power in his own dominions and thus gave a deadly blow to religion. He then forced his subjects into the same fatal defection. Once introduced, it soon overspread the land. Being, from its nature, limited by no fixed principle, it has since taken a hundred different shapes, under different names, such as: the Calvinists, Arminians, Antinomians, Independents, Kilhamites, Glassites, Haldanites, Bereans, Swedenborgians, New-Jerusalemites, Orthodox Quakers, Hicksites, Shakers, Panters, Seekers, Jumpers, Reformed Methodists, German Methodists, Albright Methodists, Episcopal Methodists, Wesleyan Methodists, Methodists North, Methodists South, Protestant Methodists, Episcopalians, High Church Episcopalians, Low Church Episcopalians, Ritualists, Puseyites, Dutch Reformed, Dutch non-Reformed, Christian Israelites, Baptists, Particular Baptists, Seventh-day Baptists, Hardshell Baptists, Softshell Baptists, Forty Gallon Baptists, Sixty Gallon Baptists, African Baptists, Free-will Baptists, Church of God Baptists, Regular Baptists, Anti-mission Baptists, Six Principle Baptists, River Brethren, Winebremarians, Menonites, Second Adventists, Millerites, Christian Baptists, Universalists, Orthodox Congregationalists, Campbellites, Presbyterians, Old School Presbyterians and New School Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterians, United Presbyterians, The Only True Church of Christ, 573 Bowery, N. Y., up stairs, 5th story, Latter-day Saints, Restorationists, Schwenfelders, Spiritualists, Mormons, Christian Perfectionists, etc., etc., etc.All these sects are called Protestants because they all unite in protesting against their mother, the Roman Catholic Church.

Some time after, when the reforming spirit had reached its full growth, Dudithius, a learned Protestant divine, in his epistle to Beza, wrote: "What sort of people are our Protestants, straggling to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, sometimes to this side, sometimes to that? You may, perhaps, know what their sentiments in matters of religion are to-day, but you can never tell precisely what they will be to-morrow. In what article of religion do these churches agree which have cast off the Bishop of Rome? Examine all from top to bottom, and you will scarce find one thing affirmed by one which was not immediately condemned by another for wicked doctrine." The same confusion of opinions was described by an English Protestant, the learned Dr. Walton, about the middle of the last century, in his preface to his Polyglot, where he says: "Aristarchus heretofore could scarce find seven wise men in Greece; but with us, scarce are to be found so many idiots. For all are doctors, all are divinely learned: there is not so much as the meanest fanatic who does not give you his own dreams for the word of God. The bottomless pit seems to have been opened, from whence a smoke has arisen which has darkened the heavens and the stars, and locusts have come out with stings, a numerous race of sectaries and heretics, who have renewed all the ancient heresies, and invented many monstrous opinions of their own. These have filled our cities, villages, camps, houses and nay, our pulpits, too, and lead the poor deluded people with them to the pit of perdition."

"Yes," writes another author, "every ten years, or nearly so, the Protestant theological literature undergoes a complete revolution. What was admired during the one decennial period is rejected in the next, and the image which they adored is burnt to make way for new divinities; the dogmas which were held in honor, fall into discredit; the classical treatise of morality is banished among the old books out of date; criticism overturns criticism; the commentary of yesterday ridicules that of the previous day, and what was clearly proved in 1840, is not less clearly disproved in 1850. The theological systems of Protestantism are as numerous as the political constitutions of France -- one revolution only awaits another." ( Le Semeur, June, 1840.) It is indeed utterly impossible to keep the various members of one single sect from perpetual disputes, even about the essential truths of revealed religion. And those religious differences exist not only in the same sect, not only in the same country and town, but even in the same family. Nay, the self-same individual, at different periods of his life, is often in flagrant contradiction with himself. To-day he avows opinions which yesterday he abhorred, and to-morrow he will exchange these again for new ones. At last, after belonging, successively, to various new-fangled sects, he generally ends by professing unmitigated contempt for them all. By their continual disputes and bickerings, and dividing and subdividing, the various Protestant sects have made themselves the scorn of honest minds, the laughing-stock of the pagan and the infidel.

These human sects, the "works of the flesh," as St. Paul calls them, alter their shape, like clouds, but "feel no blow," says Mr. Marshall, because they have no substance. They fight a good deal with one another, but nobody minds it, not even themselves, nor cares what becomes of them. If one human sect perishes, it is always easy to make another, or half a dozen. They have the life of worms, and propagate by corruption. Their life is so like death that, except by the putridity which they exhale in both stages, it is impossible to tell which is which, and when they are buried, nobody can find their graves. They have simply disappeared.

The spirit of Protestantism, or the spirit of revolt against God and his Church, sprung up from the Reformers' spirit of incontinency, obstinacy, and covetousness. Luther, in despite of the vow he had solemnly made to God of keeping continency, married a nun, equally bound as himself to that sacred religious promise; but, as St. Jerome says, " it is rare to find a heretic that loves chastity."

Luther's example had indeed been anticipated by Carlostadtius, a priest and ringleader of the Sacramentarians, who had married a little before; and it was soon followed by most of the heads of the Reformation.

Zwinglius, a priest and chief of the sect that bore his name, took a wife.

Bucer, a member of the order of St. Dominic, became a Lutheran, left his cloister and married a nun.

OEcolampadius, a Brigitin monk, became a Zwinglian, and also married.

Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, had also his wife.

Peter Martyr, a canon-regular, embraced the doctrine of Calvin, but followed the example of Luther, and married a nun.

Ochin, General of the Capuchins, became a Lutheran, and also married.

Thus the principal leaders in the Reformation went forth preaching the new gospel, with two marks upon them: apostasy from faith, and open violation of the most sacred vows.

The passion of lust, as has been already said, hurried also Henry VIII. of England into a separation from the Catholic Church, and ranked him among the Reformers.

Those wicked men could not be expected to teach a holy doctrine; they preached up a hitherto unheard-of "evangelical liberty," as they styled it. They told their fellow-men that they were no longer obliged to subject their understanding to the mysteries of faith, and to regulate their actions according to the laws of Christian morality; they told that every one was free to model his belief and practice as it suited his inclinations. In pursuance of this accommodating doctrine, they dissected the Catholic faith till they reduced it to a mere skeleton, they lopped off the reality of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the divine Christian sacrifice offered in the Mass, confession of sins, most of the sacraments, penitential exercises, several of the canonical books of Scripture, the invocation of saints, celibacy, most of the General Councils of the Church, and all present Church authority; they perverted the nature of justification, asserting that faith alone suffices to justify man; they made God the author of sin, and maintained the observance of the commandments to be impossible.

As a few specimens of Luther's doctrine take the following: "God's commandments are all equally impossible." (De Lib. Christ., t. ii., fol. 4.) "No sins can damn a man, but only unbelief." (De Captiv. Bab., t. ii., fol. 171.) " God is just, though by his own will he lays us under the necessity of being damned, and though he damns those who have not deserved it." (Tom. ii., fol. 434, 480.) " God works in us both good and evil." (Tom. ii., fol. 444.) " Christ's body is in every place, no less than the divinity itself."(Tom. iv., fol. 3;.) Then, for his darling principle of justification by faith, in his eleventh article against Pope Leo, he says: " Believe strongly that you are absolved, and absolved you will be, whether you have contrition or no."

Again, in his sixth article: "The contrition which is acquired by examining, recollecting, and detesting one's sins, whereby a man calls to mind his life past, in the bitternesses of his soul reflecting on the heinousness and multitude of his offenses, the loss of eternal bliss, and condemnation to eternal woe,-- this contrition, I say, makes a man a hypocrite, nay, even a greater sinner than he was before.

Thus, after the most immoral life, a man has a compendious method of saving himself by simply believing that his sins are remitted through the merits of Christ.

As Luther foresaw the scandal that would arise from his own and such like sacrilegious marriages, he prepared the world for it, by writing against the celibacy of the clergy and all religious vows; and all the way up, since his time, he has had imitators. He proclaimed that all such vows " were contrary to faith, to the commandments of God, and to evangelical liberty." (De Votis Monast.) He said again: " God disapproves of such a vow of living in continency, equally as if I should vow to become the mother of God, or to create a new world." (Epist. ad Wolfgang Reisemb.) And again: " To attempt to live unmarried, is plainly to fight against God."

Now, when men give a loose rein to the depravity of nature, what wonder if the most scandalous practices ensue. Accordingly, a striking instance of this kind appeared in the license granted, in 1539, to Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, to have two wives at once, which license was signed by Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, and five other Protestant preachers.

On the other hand, a wide door was laid open to another species of scandal: the doctrine of the Reformation admitted divorces in the marriage state in certain cases, contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, and even allowed the parties thus separated to marry other wives and other husbands.

To enumerate the errors of all the Reformers would exceed the limits of this treatise. I shall therefore only add the principal heads of the doctrine of Calvin and the Calvinists: 1. that baptism is not necessary for salvation; 2. good works are not necessary; 3. man has no free-will; 4. Adam could not avoid his fall; 5. a great part of mankind are created to be damned, independently of their demerits; 6. man is justified by faith alone, and that justification, once obtained, cannot be lost; even by the most atrocious crimes; 7. the true faithful are also infallibly certain of their salvation; 8.the Eucharist is no more than a figure of the body and blood of Christ. Thus was the whole system of faith and morality overturned. Tradition they totally abolished; and though they could not reject the whole of the Scripture, as being universally acknowledged to be the word of God, they had, however, the presumption to expunge some books of it that did not coincide with their own opinions, and the rest they assumed a right to explain as they saw fit.

To pious souls, they promised a return to the fervor of primitive Christianity; to the proud, the liberty of private judgment; to the enemies of the clergy, they promised the division of their spoils; to priests and monks who were tired of the yoke of continence, the abolition of a law which, they said, was contrary to nature; to libertines of all classes, the suppression of fasting, abstinence and confession.They said to kings who wished to place themselves at the head of the Church as well as of the State, that they would be freed from the spiritual authority of the Church; to nobles, that they would be emancipated from all dues and forced services.

Several princes of Germany and of the Swiss Cantons supported by arms the preachers of the new doctrines. Henry VIII. imposed his doctrine on his subjects. The king of Sweden drew his people into apostacy. The court of Navarre welcomed the Calvinists; the court of France secretly favored them.

At lenth Pope Paul III convoked a General Council at Trent, in 1545, to which the heresiarchs had appealed. Not only all the Catholic bishops, but also all Christian princes, even Protestants, were invited to come.

But now the spirit of pride and obstinacy became most apparent. Henry VIII. replied to the Pope that he would never intrust the work of reforming religion in his kingdom to any one except to himself. The apostate princes of Germany told the papal legate that they recognized only the emperor as their sovereign; the Viceroy of Naples allowed but four bishops to go to the council; the king of France sent only three prelates, whom he soon after recalled. Charles V. created difficulties, and put obstacles in the way. Gustavus Vasa allowed no one to go to the council. The heresiarchs also refused to appear. The council, however, was held in spite of these difficulties. It lasted over eighteen years, because it was often interrupted by the plague, by war, and by the deaths of those who had to preside over it. The doctrines of the innovators were examined and condemned by the council, at the last session of which there were more than three hundred bishops present; among whom were nine cardinals, three patriarchs thirty-three archbishops, not to mention sixteen abbots or generals of religious orders, and one hundred and forty-eight theologians. All the decrees published from the commencement were read over, and were again approved and subscribed by the Fathers. Accordingly, Pius IV. in a consistory held on the 26th of January, in 1564, approved and confirmed the council in a book which was signed by all the cardinals. He drew up, the same year, a profession of faith conformable in all respects with the definitions of the council, in which it is declared that its authority is accepted; and since that time, not only all bishops of the Catholic Church, but all priests who are called to teach the way of salvation, even to children, nay, all non-Catholics, on abjuring their errors, and returning to the bosom of the Church, have sworn that they had no other faith than that of the holy Council.

The new heresiarchs, however, continued to obscure and disfigure the face of religion. As to Luther's sentiments in regard to the Pope, bishops, councils, etc., he says in the preface to his book, De Abroganda Missa Privata: "With how many powerful remedies and most evident Scriptures have I scarce been able to fortify my conscience so as to dare alone to contradict the Pope and to believe him to be Antichrist, the bishops his apostles, and the universities his brothel-houses; " and in his book, De Judicio Ecclesiae de Gravi Doctrina, he says: " Christ takes from the bishops, doctors, and councils both the right and power of judging controversies, and gives them to all Christians in general."

His censure on the Council of Constance, and those that composed it, is as follows: " All John Huss' articles were condemned at Constance by Antichrist and his apostles," (meaning the Pope and bishops), " in that synod of Satan made up of most wicked sophisters; and you, most holy Vicar of Christ, I tell you plainly to your face, that all John Huss' condemned doctrines are evangelical and Christian, but all yours are impious and diabolical. I now declare," says he, speaking to the bishops, " that for the future I will not vouchsafe you so much honor as to submit myself or doctrine to your judgment or to that of an angel from heaven." (Preface to his book Adversus falso nominatum ordinem Episcoporum.) Such was his spirit of pride that he made open profession of contempt for the authority of the Church, councils, and Fathers, saying "All those who will venture their lives, their estates, their honor, and their blood, in so Christian a work as to root out all bishoprics and bishops, who are the ministers of Satan, and to pluck by the roots all their authority and jurisdiction in the world, -- these persons are the true children of God and obey his commandments." (Contra Statum Ecclesiae et falso nominatum ordinem Episcoporum)

This spirit of pride and obstinacy is also most apparent from the fact that Protestantism has never been ashamed to make use of any arguments, though ever so frivolous inconsistent, or absurd, to defend its errors, and to slander and misrepresent the Catholic religion in every way possible. It shows itself again in the wars which Protestantism waged to introduce and maintain itself. The apostate princes of Germany entered into a league, offensive and defensive, against the Emperor Charles V., and rose up in arms to establish Protestantism.

Luther had preached licentiousness, and reviled the emperor, the princes, and the bishops. The peasants lost no time in freeing themselves from their masters. They overran the country in lawless bands, burned down castles and monasteries, and committed the most barbarous cruelties among the nobility and clergy. Germany became at last the scene of desolation and most cruel atrocities during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648). More than one hundred thousand men fell in battle; seven cities were dismantled; one thousand religious houses were razed to the ground; three hundred churches and immense treasures of statuary, paintings, books, etc., were destroyed.

But what is more apparent and better known than the spirit of covetousness of Protestantism? Wherever Protestantism secured a footing, it pillaged churches, seized Church property, destroyed monasteries, and appropriated to itself their revenues.

In France, the Calvinists destroyed twenty thousand Catholic churches; they murdered, in Dauphiné alone, two hundred and twenty-five priests, one hundred and twelve monks, and burned nine hundred towns and villages. In England, Henry VIII. confiscated to the crown, or distributed among his favorites, the property of six hundred and forty-five monasteries and ninety colleges, one hundred and ten hospitals, and two thousand three-hundred and seventy-four free-chapels and chantries.

They even dared to profane, with sacrilegious hands, the remains of the martyrs and confessors of God. In many places they forcibly took up the saints' bodies from the repositories where they were kept, burned them, and scattered their ashes abroad. What more atrocious indignity can be conceived ? Are parricides or the most flagitious men ever worse treated ? Among other instances, in 1562, the Calvinists broke open the shrine of St. Francis of Paula, at Plessis-Lestours; and finding his body uncorrupted fifty-five years after his death, they dragged it about the streets, and burned it in a fire which they had made with the wood of a large crucifix, as Billet and other historians relate.

Thus at Lyons, in the same year, the Calvinists seized upon the shrine of St. Bonaventure, stripped it of its riches, burned the Saint's relics in the market-place, and threw his ashes into the river Saône as is related by the learned Possevinus, who was in Lyons at the time.

The bodies also of St. Irenaeus, St. Hillary, and St. Martin, as Surius asserts, were treated in the-same ignominious manner. Such, also, was the treatment offered to the remains of St. Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury whose rich shrine, according to the words of Stowe, in his annals, "was taken to the king's use, and the bones of St. Thomas, by the command of Lord Cromwell, were burnt to ashes in September, 1538.

*Yeah, the protestant progenitors were quite the guys - vow-breaking, lying, scripture-destroying, scripture word-changing, heretical antiChrists.

Other than that, they were fine...

Kolokotronis,

Surely you don't believe that Orthodoxy is "all over the map" and we certainly have no single living person as the authoritative judge of what the Apostolic Faith is and never have. The authoritative judge of what is The Faith is The Church, the hierarchy, the clergy and the People of God acting together in a synergy. That hardly qualifies as each of us making a private determination of what The Faith is. . . . Final point; A you have commented that the issue of the proper exercise of the Petrine Ministry will be decided by people way above our pay grades. Maybe that's true for you. It absolutely is not true for The Reader and me. In the end, in Orthodoxy, that decision will be made by all the Orthodox People of God which will include all sorts of folks just like the two of us.

Thanks for your reply. It seems to me that you talk in two different ways, depending on what you are trying to emphasize. Sometimes, as in your comments directly above, you seem to make Orthodoxy out to be egalitarian and individualistic, which [in that respect] is no different from Protestantism. It might as well be a democracy, if every individual's opinion is an equal part of the Church's judgment and "decision" of what the Faith is, unless the clergy's 'vote' is weighted more heavily than that of the laity.

But other times, unlike the Protestants, you speak of the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils. And in practice, unlike the Protestants, you *do* seem to defer to the authority of your Patriarchs, and you even acknowledge that concilliarity implies a primus inter pares.

So from my outside, and rather uninformed perspective, it seems to me that the reason Orthodoxy is *not* all over the map (unlike Protestantism) is precisely because you *do* have a living Magisterium of bishops, and even a head of bishops of sorts. And in practice you treat your authorities as they actually are, authorities. But at other times, particularly when the issue of Catholicism is in view, you seem to talk about yourself very much like a Protestant, as if the laity in Orthodoxy have equal authority (i.e. as if Orthodoxy is a democracy). But I don't believe you. :-) I don't believe that if there was another Council today among the Orthodox, you would, like Congregationalists, just decide matters by having the entire Church vote. I think what has held Orthodoxy together (insofar as it is unified) is the [valid] authority of its bishops. It is not (in practice) as individualistic and egalitarian as you [sometimes] make it out to be; otherwise it would be no different from Protestantism, and each person would be his own pope, and it would be fragmented into thousands of pieces.

Lastly, I see no in principle difference between ex cathedra infallibility of a primus inter pares, and the infallbility of an Ecumenical Council. You accept the latter but reject the former, as if there is an principle difference between them. I just don't see that in principle difference.

I say all this with great respect and admiration, an acknowledgment of my own ignorance of the vast theological treasures of the East, and most of all with a deep desire for the reunion of all Christians.

Advent blessings to you as well.

-A8

I agree.

However, Jesus gave THEM authority. He didn't give any authority to the 16th century Satan mini-me's.

And, what did Jesus Teach about the public and scandalous sinning of those to whom He DID give authority..

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

* IOW, Obey your prelates...Chosen for you by Jesus, Our Lord and Saviour

However, Jesus gave THEM authority. He didn't give any authority to the 16th century Satan mini-me's.

Jesus granted authority to the Apostles to form the foundation of the Church. No others were given such authority.
Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
The calling of Bishops, Pastors, Deacons, etc. all build upon the foundation that the Apostles laid.

Jesus also instructed His followers to test the fruit ... of those which would claim to have authority over us.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
On that note ... the Catholic church has some rotten fruit to clean up ... before meeting this standard which Jesus set.

Ah, A, you don't understand Orthodoxy at all. What you are seeing is no surprise to me nor to TRD, I suspect. Your eyes are Western, rooted in your former Protestantism and informed by your present Latin Catholicism. Orthodoxy is definitely not a democracy nor an oligarcy of hierarchs nor a monarchy of a supreme religious prelate. We don't take votes, and we submit only when our priests and hierarchs preach The Orthodox Faith. And when they don't, we straighten them out. It is, rather, a synergy, as I said; the hierarchs, clergy and laity together, each fulfilling its proper role. It is The Church, centered on the Eucharist which is Christ. This is neither Roman nor Protestant. It is 2000 year old Christian ecclesiology and it works.

and we submit only when our priests and hierarchs preach The Orthodox Faith.

Well, then I don't see how you are any different than Protestants, who mostly don't even pretend to submit anymore. If I am the one deciding whether what the 'authority' is saying is 'authoritative', then *I* am my own authority. The 'authority' is only token, not actual.

But still, I don't believe you. :-) You are not as Protestant as you make yourself out to be, even if you talk about authority just as Luther did.

-A8

"If I am the one deciding whether what the 'authority' is saying is 'authoritative', then *I* am my own authority. The 'authority' is only token, not actual."

Like I said, A, you don't understand and there's really no reason why you should. Orthodoxy is not something you can read about and understand. It has to be lived, day in and day out. "I" am no authority at all. "I" decide nothing. We Orthodox all together know what is Orthodox; TRD and I are, individually, nothing. We live as a liturgical people within a liturgical community and it is that community which is ultimately what is infallible and against which the gates of hell will not prevail.

You see or read from my words is Protestantism (while admittedly knowing better) but what is really there is The Church in its most ancient form.

and we submit only when our priests and hierarchs preach The Orthodox Faith

and

"I" am no authority at all. "I" decide nothing.

That is an example of what I was trying to say in 2833 when I said "It seems to me that you talk in two different ways".

No, it doesn't make any sense to me at all. You *do* decide when to submit, and yet you don't decide anything at all. If that's not a contradiction, I don't know what is. But, like you said, I don't understand.

-A8

To speak of any kind of "conception" as we know it is plain fantasy.

By your definition she could not possibly be the "Mother of God". She was just a "Surrogate Mother"; i.e., "The Immaculate Incubator"