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/
19. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
GLOSS; As soon as the Lord had taken His disciples out of the teaching of the Pharisees, He then suitably proceeds to lay deep the foundations of the Gospel doctrine; and to give this the greater solemnity, it is introduced by the name of the place, When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi.
CHRYS; He adds 'of Philip,' to distinguish it from the other Cesarea, of Strato. And He asks this question in the former place, leading His disciples far out of the way of the Jews, that being set free from all fear, they might say freely what was in their mind.
JEROME; This Philip was the brother of Herod, the tetrarch of Ituraea, and the region of Trachonitis, who gave to the city, which is now called Paneas the name of Cesarea in honor of Tiberius Cesar.
GLOSS; When about to confirm the disciples in the faith, He would first take away from their minds the errors and opinions of others, whence it follows, And he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?
ORIGEN; Christ puts this question to His disciples, that from their answer we may learn that there were at that time among the Jews various opinions concerning Christ; and to the end that we should always investigate what opinion men may form of us; that if any ill be said of us, we may cut off the occasions of it; or if any good, we may multiply the occasions of it.
GLOSS; So by this instance of the Apostles, the followers of the Bishops are instructed, that whatever opinions they may hear out of doors concerning their Bishops, they should tell them to them.
JEROME; Beautifully is the question put, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? For they who speak of the Son of Man, are men: but they who understood His divine nature are called not men but Gods.
CHRYS; He says not, Whom do the Scribes and Pharisees say that I am? but, Whom do men say that I am? searching into the minds of the common people, which were not perverted to evil. For though their opinion concerning Christ was much below what it ought to have been, yet it was free from willful wickedness; but the opinion of the Pharisees concerning Christ was as full of much malice.
HILARY; By asking, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? He implied that something ought to be thought respecting Him beyond what appeared, for He was the Son of Man. And in thus inquiring after men's opinion respecting Himself, we e are not to think that He made confession of Himself; for that which He asked for was something concealed, to which the faith of believers ought to extend itself. We must hold that form of confession, that we so mention the Son of God as not to forget the Son of Man, for the one without the other offers us no hope of salvation; and therefore He said emphatically, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?
JEROME; He says not, Whom do men say that I am? but, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is? that He should not seem to ask ostentatiously concerning Himself. Observe, that wherever the Old Testament has 'Son of Man,' the phrase in the Hebrew is 'Son of Adam.'
ORIGEN; Then the disciples recount the divers opinions of the Jews relating to Christ; And they said, Some say John the Baptist, following Herod's opinion; others Elias, supposing either that Elias had gone through a second birth, or that having continued alive in the body, He had at this time appeared; others Jeremiah, whom the Lord had ordained to be Prophet among the Gentiles, not understanding that Jeremiah was a type of Christ; or one of the Prophets, in a like way, because of those things which God spoke to them through the Prophets, yet they were not fulfilled in them, but in Christ.
JEROME; It was as easy for the multitudes to be wrong in supposing Him to be Elias and Jeremiah, as Herod in supposing Him to be John the Baptist; whence I wonder that some interpreters should have sought for the causes of these several errors.
CHRYS; The disciples having recounted the opinion of the common people, He then by a second question invites them to higher thoughts concerning Him; and therefore it follows, Jesus said to them, Whom say you that I am? You who are with Me always, and have seen greater miracles than the multitudes, ought not to agree in the opinion of the multitudes. For this reason He did not put this question to them at the commencement of His preaching, but after He had done many signs; then also He spoke many things to them concerning His Deity.
JEROME; Observe how by this connection of the discourse the Apostles are not styled men but God's. For when He had said, Whom say you that the Son of Man is? He adds, Whom say you that I am, as much as to say, They being men think of Me as man, you who are God's, whom do you think Me?
RABAN; He inquires the opinions of His disciples and of those without, not because He was ignorant of them; His disciples He asks, that He may reward with due reward their confession of a right faith; and the opinions of those without He inquires, that having the wrong opinions first set forth, it might be proved that the disciples had received the truth of their confession not from common opinion, but out of the hidden treasure of the Lord's revelation.
CHRYS; When the Lord inquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes, all the disciples answer; but when all the disciples are asked, Peter as the mouth and head of the Apostles answers for all, as it follows, Simon Peter answered and said, you are Christ, the Son of the living God.
ORIGEN; Peter denied that Jesus was any of those things which the Jews supposed, by his confession, You are the Christ, which the Jews were ignorant of; but he added what was more, the Son of the living God, who had said by his Prophets, I live, said the Lord. And therefore was He called the living Lord, but in a more especial manner as being eminent above all that had life; for He alone has immortality, and is the fount of life, wherefore He is rightly called God the Father; for He is life as it were flowing out of a fountain, who said, I am the life.
JEROME; He calls Him the living God, in comparison of those gods who are esteemed gods, but are dead; such, I mean, as Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Hercules, and the other monsters of idols.
HILARY; This is the true and unalterable faith, that from God came forth God the Son, who has eternity out of the eternity of the Father. That this God took to Him a body and was made man is a perfect confession. Thus He embraced all in that He here expresses both His nature and His name, in which is the sum of virtues.
RABAN; And by a remarkable distinction it was that the Lord Himself puts forward the lowliness of the humanity which He had taken upon Him, while His disciple shows us the excellence of His divine eternity.
HILARY; This confession of Peter met a worthy reward, for that he had seen the Son of God in the man. Whence it follows, Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonas, and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
JEROME; This return Christ makes to the Apostle for the testimony which Peter had spoken concerning Him, You are Christ, the Son of the living God. The Lord said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonas. Why? Because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father. That which flesh and blood could not reveal, was revealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. By his confession then he obtains a title, which should signify that he had received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, whose son he shall also be called; for Bar-Jonas in our tongue signifies the son of a dove. Others take it in the simple sense, that Peter is the son of John, according to that question in another place, Simon, son of John, do you love me? affirming that it is an error of the copyists in writing here Bar-Jonas for Bar-joannas, dropping one syllable. Now Joanna is interpreted 'The grace of God.' But either name has its mystical interpretation; the dove signifies the Holy Spirit; and the grace of God signifies the spiritual gift.
CHRYS; It would be without meaning to say, you are the son of Jonas, unless he intended to show that Christ is as naturally the Son of God, as Peter is the son of Jonas, that is, of the same substance as him that begot him.
JEROME; Compare what is here said, flesh and blood 'has not revealed' it to you, with the Apostolic declaration, Immediately I was not content with flesh and blood, meaning there by this expression the Jews; so that here also the same thing is shown in different words, that not by the teaching of the Pharisees, but by the grace of God, Christ was revealed to him the Son of God.
HILARY; Otherwise; He is blessed, because to have looked and to have seen beyond human sight is matter of praise, not beholding that which is of flesh and blood, but seeing the Son of God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and he was held worthy to be the first to acknowledge the divinity which was in Christ.
ORIGEN; It must be inquired in this place whether, when they were first sent out, the disciples knew that He was the Christ. For this speech shows that Peter then first confessed Him to be the Son of the living God. And look whether you can solve a question of this sort, by saying that to believe Jesus to be the Christ is less than to know Him; and so suppose that when they were sent to preach they believed that Jesus was the Christ and afterwards as they made progress they knew Him to be so. Or must we answer thus; That then the Apostles had the beginnings of a knowledge of Christ, and knew some little concerning Him; and that they made progress afterwards in the knowledge of Him, so that they were able to receive the knowledge of Christ revealed by the Father, as Peter, who is here blessed, not only for that he says, You are the Christ, but much more for that he adds, the Son of the living God.
CHRYS; And truly if Peter had not confessed that Christ was in a peculiar sense born of the Father, there had been no need of revelation; nor would he have been worthy of this blessing for confessing Christ to be one of many adopted sons; for before this they who were with Him in the ship had said, Truly you are the Son of God. Nathanael also said, Rabbi, you are the Son of God. Yet were not these blessed because they did not confess such sonship as does Peter here, but thought Him one among many, not in the true sense a son; or, if chief above all, yet not the substance of the Father. But see how the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; from none other comes it to confess the Son than of the Father, and from none other to confess the Father than of the Son; so that from this place even it is manifest that the Son is of the same substance, and to be worshipped together with the Father. Christ then proceeds to show that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, And I say to you, that you are Peter.
JEROME; As much as to say, You have said to me, You are Christ the Son of the living God, therefore I say to you, not in a mere speech, and that goes not on into operation; but I say to you, and for Me to speak is to make it so, that you are Peter. For as from Christ proceeded that light to the Apostles, whereby they were called the light of the world, and those other names which were imposed upon them by the Lord, so upon Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, He bestowed the name of Peter (Rock.)
AUG; But let none suppose that Peter received that name here; he received it at no other time than where John relates that it was said to him, you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter.
JEROME; And pursuing the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him as follows: And upon this rock I will build my Church.
CHRYS; That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein showing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd.
AUG; I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. But I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church, as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, You are Christ, the Son of the living God; and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, you art the rock, but, you are Peter. But the rock was Christ, whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.
HILARY; But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death. And to show the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
GLOSS; That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.
JEROME; I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell.
ORIGEN; But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.
RABAN; The gates of hell are the torments and promises of the persecutors. Also, the evil works of the unbelievers, and vain conversation, are gates of hell, because they show the path of destruction.
ORIGEN; He does not express what it is which they shall not prevail against, whether the rock on which He builds the Church, or the Church which He builds on the rock; but it is clear that neither against the rock nor against the Church will the gates of hell prevail.
CYRIL; According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immovably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we, not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.
JEROME; Let none think that this is said of death, implying that the Apostles should not be subject to the condition of death, when we see their martyrdoms so illustrious.
ORIGEN; Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, you are Peter; for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.
CHRYS; Then He speaks of another honor of Peter, when He adds, And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; as much as to say, As the Father has given you to know Me, I also will give something to you, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
RABAN; For as with a zeal beyond the others he had confessed the King of heaven, he is deservedly entrusted more than the others with the keys of the heavenly kingdom, that it might be clear to all, that without that confession and faith none ought to enter the kingdom of heaven. By the keys of the kingdom He means discernment and power; power, by which he binds and looses; discernment, by which he separates the worthy from the unworthy.
GLOSS; It follows, And whatsoever you shall bind; that is, whomsoever you shall judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and whatsoever you shall loose, that is, whomsoever you shall judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.
ORIGEN; See how great power has that rock upon which the Church is built, that its sentences are to continue firm as though God gave sentence by it.
CHRYS; See how Christ leads Peter to a high understanding concerning himself. These things that He here promises to give him, belong to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immovable amidst the storms of so many persecutions and trials.
RABAN; But this power of binding and loosing, though it seems given by the Lord to Peter alone, is indeed given also to the other Apostles, and is even now in the Bishops and Presbyters in every Church. But Peter received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and a supremacy of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand that all who in any manner separate themselves from the unity of the faith, or from communion with him, such should neither be able to be loosed from the bonds of sin, nor to enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.
GLOSS; This power was committed specially to Peter, that we might thereby be invited to unity. For He therefore appointed him the head of the Apostles, that the Church might have one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church should have recourse, if ever they should have dissensions among them. But if there were many heads in the Church, the bond of unity would be broken. Some say that the words upon earth denote that power was not given to men to bind and loose the dead, but the living; for he who should loose the dead would do this not upon earth, but after the earth.
SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE; How is it that some do presume to say that these things are said only of the living? Know they not that the sentence of anathema is nothing else but separation? They are to be avoided who are held of grievous faults, whether they are among the living, or not. For it is always necessary to fly from the wicked. Moreover there are diverse letters read of Augustine of religious memory, who was of great renown among the African bishops, which affirmed that heretics ought to be anathematized even after death. Such an ecclesiastical tradition other African Bishops also have preserved. And the Holy Roman Church also has anathematized some Bishops after death, although no accusation had been brought against their faith in their lifetimes.
JEROME; Bishops and Presbyters, not understanding this passage, assume to themselves something of the lofty pretensions of the Pharisees, and suppose that they may either condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty; whereas what will be inquired into before the Lord will be not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of him that is being judged. We read in Leviticus of the lepers, how they are commanded to show themselves to the Priests; and if they have the leprosy, then they are made unclean by the Priest; not that the Priest makes them leprous and unclean, but that the Priest has knowledge of what is leprosy and what is not leprosy, and can discern who is clean, and who is unclean. In the same way then as there the Priest makes the leper unclean, here the Bishop or Presbyter binds or looses not those who are without sin, or guilt, but in discharge of his function when he has heard the varieties of their sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who loosed.
ORIGEN; Let him then be without blame who binds or looses another, that he may be found worthy to bind or loose in heaven. Moreover, to him who shall be able by his virtues to shut the gates of hell, are given in reward the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For every kind of virtue when any has begun to practice it; as it were opens itself before Him, the Lord, namely, opening it through His grace, so that the same virtue is found to be both the gate, and the key of the gate. But it may be that each virtue is itself the kingdom of heaven.
+++++++++ end of quotes from Catena Aurea +++++++++++++++++
*The words of Jesus are quite clear. However, many, echoing the 16th century revolutionaries, try and reframe them to fit the insane idea they have the same authority as that specifically given to Peter and the Apostles.
And, so, what can one do other than, frequently, post the truth and let the Holy Spirit do His work
*Brother, the KJV was an ideological project. It falsified the words of Holy Writ and it contained about 1000 errors when it first came out.
Also, it was a project of a King and his Sec of State.
What the King did back in the day would be like George Bush ordering Condi Rice to write a new Bible.
Other than a few republicans, most folks would say, "T'Hell is up with George? He's gone right round the bend"
There is only one head, annalex: Our Lord Jesus Christ. Based on what I said, from your point of view perhaps it doesn't look that way. From my point of view, there is no inconsistency, FWIW.
"Because you people left The Church and your leaders have no valid ordinations?"
That brings up a good point. Does that mean that all of the Jewish synagogue leaders, like the one in Corinth with Paul, when they became believers and joined the church, have to turn in their circumcisions since they were no longer valid?
i think its worth looking up what the Jews said regarding Hebrew 'clergy' who converted to Christianity. I doubt the Jews accepted them back on the basis of circumcisions alone.
The majority of patristic writings do indeed take 'the rock' on which the Church is founded to be Peter's confession, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, rather than Peter himself.
Nonetheless, the point bornacatholic was trying to make stands irrespective of whether you accept the Latin papal claims and the Latin reasoning from Peter's confession and 'the keys' to a heritable 'Petrine charism' inherent in the office of Pope of Rome, as bornacatholic does, or reject it as we Orthodox do: Christ established His Church, He did not fix a canon of Scripture, save as that Church, His Mystical Body, later fixed the canon, and, in its members, the Holy Apostle and Evangelists, wrote the part of the canon not inherited from the Jews.
Trusting the canon of Scripture, but not trusting the Church which produced it, strikes me as a bit like the pharisees holding that to swear by the gold of the altar is binding, but to swear by the altar is not. Which is greater? The gold, or the altar that makes it holy? So, which is greater? the Scriptures, or the Church which produced them and fixed them?
The RCC is not The Church.
Thanks BD great point.
Acts 13 is straightforward that the HOLY SPIRIT will call out individuals and after that the church will pray for them and "lay hands on them". Therefor valid ordination can be found anywhere the HOLY SPIRIT is calling out believers. Thus, the theory of Apostolic Succession falls if it's based on the ordination of leaders.
So what is the basis for the THEORY of Apostolic Succession? We already know it's not from Apostles appointing Bishops, they didn't. We also know it's not from the ordination process because that's driven by the HOLY SPIRIT. Is it just "tradition"?
Thank you for the response.
I understand how and some of the reasons why the monobishophoric system developed, especially in response to the threats of Marcionism and Gnostism. However, any Christian sect which fulfills the above would be a part of the universal church.
Thanks that helps.
What I'm seeing, the obvious, duh, is that "worthy" requires a modifying prepositional phrase. In this case: of worship, of exaltation. So exalt, adore, love are the primaray definers of "worship."
And, I believe, we've further qualified adore and love as a matter of degree, with the added quality of "awe" in adore. We could of course be in awe of other people though not to the same quantity and not in the same quality as our awe of God.
Exalt would have a dimension of quantity or degree also, I think. We "exalt" the Heisman Trophy winner for example. Not to the same degree as exalting God though.
Would it therefore be correct to say that exaltation, adoration and love are distinguised as woship by their degree? And that awe has a difference of degree with an added difference of quality?
Well, the same goes for you. You rpoblem is that you just can't accept that some people don't believe what you believe.
For the last time (and this is not challenging your faith, it's the reason why we do things), we believe the Saints are alive and abide in the Heveanly Kingdom, as God does, in our Christian hearts, mystically and miraculously, just as angels do. Since they are "at hand" we believe we can reach them. You don't. That's fine. Hasta la vista baby!
No objection from us Orthodox on that assertion. The problem is, on all the contentious issues on this thread (until bornacatholic had the bad grace to start invoking the Latin understanding of St. Peter's confession and related matters), any understanding of the Church held by Christians prior to the 1500's, East or West (unless you're going to invoke the Assyrians on behalf of Blogger's Nestorianism), speaks against the protestant positions expressed here.
kosta50, a bit up thread, gave a nice description of the praxis of the Fathers, who fixed the canon of Scripture (in an ironic tone in a post of 'if you want to believe. . .that's fine' negations of the actual description). East or West doesn't matter, and you can read the Ante-Nicean Fathers to see that the same praxis was part of the Church's life prior to, and during the persecutions--it was not, as some falsely claim, 'pagan' innovations introduced by St. Constantine when first tolerance, then Imperial favor, was extended to the Church.
Kosta, is there some hope these will be saved? 100 destroyed?! We are asleep to this. I had no idea.
Christianity is in such a dark day in the world. I wonder if the Pope could visit to focus the West on this emergency. Does Europe care?
Thank you for the pictures, I hope you see these monuments too - and your children's children.
Thank you for the post and pictures..
Does Europe care? Europe was and is on the other side: they are still trying to feed Kosovo to the Islamist crocodile, in hope of being eaten last. Have you forgotten that 'the Europeans' were the ones who bought the Islamist lies about a 'genocide' and importuned Clinton to give supply the Muslims with an airforce. The 'Europeans' are still hot for Kosvo to become an independent Muslim dominated state, still believe the International [Kangaroo] Court for the Former Yugoslavia is 'serving justice', . . .
Like my tagline (which doesn't quite fit, really) should say:
"And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about." --Slobodan Milosevic
(Spoken when the kangaroo court wouldn't let him show photographs of Serbs beheaded by Islamists on the monitors visible to the spectators at his 'trial'.)
Based upon your analysis you would have a very difficult time translating the following:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/kosovo/
No Europe does not care.
Unfortunately, the Pope remains silent on these issues. But then again the Serbian Orthodox Church has yet to invite the Pontiff to visit.
Europe does not care. Europe has resigned itself to "enlightened" secularism with, a cocktail of socialism and capitalism (both rendered as very bad imitation of the other). Only 6% of German Catholics attend church services every Sunday, and only 4% of Germany's Protestants (mainly Lutherans). One third of all Germans is either agnostic or atheist.
the world is blind to the peril that Christianity faces from Islam as well as from its own ranks.
I'm afraid you can't get from Christ's approval of St. Peter's confession as the foundation of His Church to an assertion that accepting that confession is sufficient as a definition of encorporation into Christ's Church.
Arius accepted that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but misunderstood His Sonship as the Divine Logos being the first creature. Nestorius accepted His Sonship, but divided the Divine Logos from 'the one from the Virgin'. Eutyches accepted Christ as the Son of God, but denied the reality of His humanity. (I will not continue the catalog of classical christological heresies--you get the idea.)
It sounds like you can't accept us.
Precisely. Textus Receptus (TR) is a retro-translation into Greek of the New Nestament first completed by Erasmus in Holland in 1516, chock-full of errors and omissions (a rush job on top of a very limited number of sources).
His 1522 (3rd) edition now included the (in)famous fraud known as Comma Johanneum, although even Erasmus doubted its veracity. This fraud persisted through the 19th century and spread like the plague in all sorts of NT versions, both Catholic and Protestant.
TR was the very basis for Luther's Bible (why am I not surprised) by Tyndale's, and from him it was incorporated into the KJV, which also contained numerous errors of its own.
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.