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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[xzins]

Luther and Calvin are mere men, and they were still processing the Reformation of the Church. At the time they were more concerned with primary doctrines like justification and salvation.

The perpetual virginity is not necessary from the text, but it a while before the Reformation got around to it.

[Kolokotronis]

"Now you might ask Kolo why the Orthodox reject the Nicene Creed as written or the infalibility of the Pope (which I believe has a curse attached to it as well)."

We don't reject the Nicene Creed as written by the Ecumenical Councils.

"Does that make him nervous?"

Anathemas from Popes whom I don't believe are infallible? Nope, they don't make me nervous. Anathemas from Ecumenical Councils? Yup!

[xzins]

Yeah, but that's what's being presented here. You can read backward and see it presented.

I've always taken it to mean that she didn't ever have sex.

I'm being told that I'm wrong.

BTW, if adelphos is brother, then the literal sense of "brother" is one that must be investigated.

[spunkets]

Re: There is no scripture saying that Mother Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her days. And if she slept with her husband Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus, it doesn't diminish her in any way.

" But, you see, Mary did what we can't do – love God with all her heart and mind and soul. There was no other devotion in her life, but God."

If no one is capable of obeying the commandment, then why did God give it? Matt 22:36-38
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[Deut. 6:5] This is the first and greatest commandment.

There's no scriptural reference for, "no other devotion in her life", so that's irrelevant. Loving a spouse does not detract from loving God anymore than loving one's neighbor detracts from it.

[Kolokotronis]

"Luther and Calvin are mere men, and they were still processing the Reformation of the Church. At the time they were more concerned with primary doctrines like justification and salvation.The perpetual virginity is not necessary from the text, but it a while before the Reformation got around to it."

Fair answer; my understanding has always been that Protestantism has with varying speed at various times over the past 500 years rejected much of what The Church dogmatized in the 7 Ecumenical Councils. It is for this reason, primarily, that neither Orthodoxy nor the Latin Church consider Protestant assemblies strictly speaking to be true churches, except perhaps for some Lutherans and some Orthodox Churches argue that Anglicanism, at least at one time, qualified.

What other canons of the Ecumenical Councils of The Church do Protestants reject and who decided to reject them?

[Kolokotronis]

"I've always taken it to mean that she didn't ever have sex.

I'm being told that I'm wrong."

Not by me you're not! :)

[P-Marlowe]

[sitetest]

Thank you for your post.

[xzins]

For what it's worth, we don't study the ecumenical councils....except perhaps in church history classes. It's sort of like, "Such and such came about because of the XYZ Council in 472 AD."

And then the test question is, "In what year did the XYZ council, blah, blah, blah...."

That's the extent of it really. Sort of like a Jeopardy Question or Trivial Pursuits.

It's an interesting question, though.

It probably dates from the Reformation itself. It seems everything was set to the side and it all had to pass through the test of scripture. What came through would be accepted. What failed that test was fit to be burned.

And rightfully so. I am a sola scriptura Christian. It is that which we can know has been God-breathed.

[Kolokotronis]

You expected something different from the evil Greek? :)

[Kolokotronis]

"And rightfully so. I am a sola scriptura Christian. It is that which we can know has been God-breathed."

That's certainly always been my understanding of what Protestants believe. I got the impression somewhere along the way that Protestants, at least soome of them, accepted the canons of the 7 councils in toto. But I also suspected that that was a wrong impression.

I take it that it is your own God origined understanding which allows you to interpret scripture sua sponte, which is to say without reference to what anyone else might believe?

[Gene Eric]

>> The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ,...

Pain and suffering was a fundamental characteristic of Christ's life and no less an attribute to those close to him, especially Mary. I fail to understand how the 'true' birth of Jesus is equated with a painless delivery. If in fact Mary did experience pain during the miraculous birth, are we being foolish to suggest she didn't?

[xzins]

I don't think our understand of sola scriptura permits a spontaneous interpretation.

There is a hereneutic that is strict.

There is of course the vocabulary and grammar that so many focus on when they think of "literalists," but that is just the beginning.

Every verse has a variety of contexts. It's place within the paragraph, section, book. It's place within the writings of the author in question. It's place within the NT. It's place within the history of the time. Textual issues are, of course, important.

Any derived theology or doctrine will study others opinions on these things. Perhaps that's the best way to view church councils (other than the Jerusalem Council, of course.) They are another opinion of significant others that must be incorporated. They are not automatically authoritative simply by virtue of bearing the title, "Church Council."

[Kolokotronis]

"They are not automatically authoritative simply by virtue of bearing the title, "Church Council.""

For 1500 years before the Reformation, well, at least until the Great Schism, The Church believed that the dogmatic pronouncements of the Ecumenical (not local) councils were authoritative. After the Schism, of course, Rome felt it could "go it alone" so to speak under a Pope who claimed infallibility. As an Orthodox Christian I, like you, do not accept the pronouncements of Popes as dogmatic in se nor do I believe that the local councils of the Latin Church are binding on me or infallible in their pronouncements. Considering the course followed by the Latin Church after the schism and through the Middle Ages in Western Europe, I can certainly understand why the reformers decided to break with Rome. What I have yet to understand is why the Reformers chose to create a totally new and different theology and ecclesiology which in most respects is at odds with what the One Church, I think admittedly, had always practiced and believed. And that Church, the One Church, was by definition infallible and invincible. So how come you threw out the belief that the councils were infallible? Why was that necessary? I have my own theory but I am curious about yours.

[blue-duncan]

"Your method is common to the Protestant analysis in general: take a short passage, use the vernacular translation literally, do not look at context, do not look at the related passages elsewhere"

I gave you the context of the passage I used and in previous posts gave you related passages and below there are more. I have yet to see any scripture that supports your position. I have seen conjecture and outside sources but no scripture. Here again is the passage in context.

Matt. 13:53 "And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"

The statement is clear. The officers of the synagogue, no friend of Jesus and yet familiar with His family, familiar enough to identify the work his father does, his mother's name and his brother's name and that the family lives in the same community. They recognize Jesus as;

the carpenter's son,
Mary's son,
brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon,
brother of his sisters.

Then they say that the family "all" is still with them i.e. living among them. An outsider would not use the familiar term "brethren" to refer to Jesus' entourage.


"Still this passage is equally consistent with the officers of the synagogue referring to Christ's cousins, once we realize that the word adelphos applied to cousins, and even more distant relatives"

Nowhere in the New Testament is adelphos used to mean cousin or distant relative. In Luke 1:36, "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." the word for cousin is suggenes.

Jesus is referred to as the "firstborn" son which implies there were more children. If He was Mary's only son it would refer to Him as the only begotten, or only son as He is referred to when He is spoken of in relation to God the Father.

Matt. 1:25, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Luke 2:7, "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

Now we have shown that there is a Greek word for cousin, not adelphos, and it is used in reference to Mary, here are the verses that clearly distinguish Jesus' brothers from the Apostles and disciples.

Acts 1:13-14, "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

John 7:3-5, "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him." (This verse is especially telling for how can they be followers if the did not believe Him. Only family could be called brothers and not believe Him)

Luke8:19, "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."

John 2:12, "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."

Gal. 1:19, "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (If Apostles were "brothers" why was it necessary to add to the identity of James "the Lord's brother"?)

1 Cor. 9:5, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

[Dajjal]

Hi, guys!

I don't have the time to read the ennntiiirrre thread, but I did a word search and noted that none of my fellow Catholics seemed to cite the proof-text for the miraculous nature of Christ's birth "as light passing through glass."

Matthew 1:23 "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Cf. Isaiah 7:14.

The noun "virgin" is the subject of both verbs.

Has anyone pointed out that by conceiving Christ within the womb of the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Spirit took on the role of "actual" spouse, while Saint Joseph adopted the role of "lawful" spouse in the eyes of men? Saint Joseph would therefore have honored and respected her as the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

I remember that the Association of Hebrew Catholics once had a newsletter article explaining how these roles of the Holy Spirit and Saint Joseph were covered in Jewish Law.

The Douay-Rheims Bible has a nice footnote regarding that "until" in Matthew 1:25.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47001.htm
"Till she brought forth her firstborn son"... From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

[blue-duncan]

"There you go rationalizing again. I thought the knoweldge of the Apostles was inspired, and not acquired through school."


Inspiration and education are not incompatible. Paul certainly demonstrated that. God used thw writers where they were and the personalities they had.

[Blogger]

Respectfully, Mary was a very holy and blessed woman. But, she was a mere woman. The Bible does not say her childbirth with Jesus was painless. Protestants are people of the book. Catholics are more people of tradition. If you don't like it, don't go. The focus of the nativity should never be Mary. The real Mary would point to Jesus rather than some dispute that draws attention from Him. He's the reason for the season. Not Mary.

[Pyro7480]

Respectfully, Mary was a very holy and blessed woman. But, she was a mere woman.

First part is right, second part is wrong.

Protestants are people of the book. Catholics are more people of tradition.

Partially correct. Catholics are people of tradition, both biblical and extra-biblical.

If you don't like it, don't go.

Kind of like, "if you don't like abortion, don't have one"?

The focus of the nativity should never be Mary. The real Mary would point to Jesus rather than some dispute that draws attention from Him. He's the reason for the season. Not Mary.

Catholics have never said that. But if you get your idea of Mary wrong, you can quite easily get your idea of Christ wrong.

[xzins]

So how come you threw out the belief that the councils were infallible?

I think the Reformation looked at the past and looked at the present. In the present, they were being hounded by the Holy Roman Empire on behalf of Rome. War was being waged against northern Europe by southern Europe to put it bluntly. That anger about the present made the PAST look that much more horrific. The abuses that Luther had identified were not piddling. The entire idea that one could buy himself out of sin or buy a future get-out-of-jail-free card for future sin was demonic. All of this to build a big cathedral in Rome. This is to say nothing of all the other inquisitions and abuses by Rome perpetrated against other reformers.

I think that disgust with the church of that era led the reformers to throw out all the past as well.