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

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

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."

All I said was that I didn't know of any SCRIPTURE supporting Paul partaking. I have no doubt that you can show me Tradition that it was later practiced by some/many Christians.

Doesn't it make sense that the Christians of the 100 AD time frame were merely following what they had been taught by Paul and the rest of the Apostles? Where is the outcry from all of those "real" Christians who said "hey, those Catholics got it all wrong" Where are the "reformed" Christians???

Why would Christ want to keep offering His life over and over? Wasn't once enough? To me it just diminishes the accomplishment. BTW, is this the thought behind the crucifix, vs. the empty cross that we use?

First of all, Jesus is in eternity, the eternal NOW. Thus, His human act is united with His divine self and brought into the eternal NOW. Thus, we of the 21st century can have access to this one-time sacrifice, offering ourselves united with Christ to the Father. Christ continues to intercede for us, says the Scriptures. As to the corpus, Western Tradition sees the death of Christ as the ultimate act of love for mankind.

I agree, and we don't. In addition, we view all scripture as equally inspired and true.

Most of your Scripture quotes come from Paul. I see you don't have much to say about James or John or Peter or the Gospels. Why is that?

It is diminished because one must go THROUGH a man.

I always thought that that was PRECISELY HOW GOD REVEALED HIMSELF! Through the Word made flesh. God took on flesh, thus uniting Himself TO man...

Regards

It's not because we have great faith or we have a "special need" (as if others don't).

That assertion is NOT congruent with scripture nor with my experiences as a Christian the last 60 years. Having a broken and contrite heart before God does move Him as Scripture indicates. In part because our desperation triggers utter heart rending authenticity toward and utterly desperate dependance ON GOD. That allows Him to do a LOT more with us than otherwise seems to be the case.

It is based upon His sovereign will to effect His divine plan.

Certainly God works His sovereign will out any number of ways in response to our choices and behaviors. BUT GOD HIMSELF CHOSE TO MAKE PRAYER EFFICACIOUS. GOD HIMSELF CHOSE to enable man as individuals to have an impact on His great plan(s). GOD HIMSELF insured that He moves Heaven and earth according to our prayers.

Besides that--HE'S OUR LOVING DADDY. HE IS DELIGHTED TO GIVE GOOD GIFTS TO HIS CHILDREN--when they won't choke on too much candy, so to speak.

People insists on miracles from God, as if it's something that is due us or that we need some external proof that God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives. I haven't yet heard an explanation as to why we need miracles.

We need miracles because:

1. We are just as fallen and desperate as those crowding around for Jesus' touch along the dusty paths.

2. GOD SET IT UP THAT WAY--THAT WE WOULD HAVE DESPERATE NEEDS AND HE'D BE DELIGHTED TO MEET THEM AS WE WALKED IN FELLOWSHIP, SUBMISSION AND OBEDIENCE in good faith and heart attitudes before and with Him. HIS DOING. HIS DESIGN. HIS REQUIREMENT that miracles were & are part of that. You have a complaint about that--talk to THE BOSS.

3. THE LOST are drawn to God very powerfully through miracles. Particularly certain personalities; folks with certain sequences of life experiences . . .

4. Folks plagued with demonic forces have no where else to turn with the effectiveness of the Blood and Power of Christ's Spirit through His kids to facilitate deliverance.

5. Miracles are kind of God's dress-up parade. He gets to SHOW HIMSELF MIGHTY IN OUR BEHALF. DADDY LOVES THAT. He gets to rub His power in satan's face as well as the face of all satan's followers here on earth. He gets to ring bells and blow whistles and set off spiritual fireworks declaring His majesty in ways that wholesale benefit His kids in nitty gritty practical ways. He loves that--as long as it furthers their spiritul walk--which it typically does quite powerfully and lastingly.

6. Miracles can kind of give a jump-start; kick start--leg-up--super boost to a beleagured spiritual walk that's on the verge of falling into the gutter, long term.

7. Miracles confirm God's Word in emphatic ways that nothing else can match. This fosters a lasting devotion to The Word as typically, little else can.

While I haven't studied it yet, I have scanned Kosta's response and he appears to say that there are only three points of dogma in all of Orthodoxy.

I would venture to say there are more than that. I think he is defining by broad categories, such as the "sacraments" as one, where I would be more specific and look to the individual sacraments regarding Baptism, the Eucharist, and so forth. Since our dogmatic belief is nearly the same, I would say his categorizing is just different.

I don't know, but I would assume that somewhere along the line a dogmatic belief on the Bible was pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Is that right?

Oh boy. It has been the ordinary, constant teaching of the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, whether you would define that as "dogmatic", I don't know. Something doesn't need to be officially defined at a Council to be considered a belief of the "entire Church, everywhere and in all times". However, it is not part of our faith, part of the Creed. The matters of our faith, dogmatic items, include:

The Unity and Trinity of God, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, God the Sanctifier. This theology can be broken down further:

God the Creator to include the work of Creation, the nature of man, the fall of man, and angels.

God the Redeemer to include the two natures of Christ, the work of man's salvation and the mother of the Redeemer.

God the Sanctifier to include teachings on grace, justification, the Church, and the sacraments.

You could add the Doctrine of "God the Consummator" which would discuss the next life.

This is all from the teachings given by the Apostles, the Rule of Faith. Regarding the Bible, we see it as part of the entire revelation given by God to men. Vatican 2 continued the teaching that Sacred Writ is from God and is inerrant. However, it is not PART of our faith, if you understand what I am saying by what I listed as those things that have been revealed by God to us.

I probably muddied the waters.

Somewhere recently I read that the Pope (or a very high Church official) made a public statement warning that pro-abortion politicians potentially face excommunication. I didn't think it likely that opposition to abortion was dogmatic, so I figured it must be doctrine.

The community (Church) is a voluntary organization. As such, its rules should be followed voluntarily to maintain membership. The authority of this organization has the right to cast our voluntary members who refuse to follow the rules. Thus, in 1 Cor 5, Paul saw that he had the right and DUTY to cast out the sexually deviant man out of the community. Throughout the latter books of the NT, the Church has realized a responsibility to guard its teachings and the flock from false teachers or those who are bad examples morally. This is the idea in mind when the Church warns pro-abortionist politicians that they tread on dangerous ground. They can no longer call themselves "Catholic" and flout something diametrically opposed to our beliefs. And the defense of life is very important to us. While it is not a dogmatic belief, it is an ordinary and constant teaching of the Church. As such, it is to be held with religious assent, as the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Obedience to the Church on such matters is obedience to God.

To those who disagree with these Catholic teachings, the question remains "why are you still Catholic"? It ignores the foundation of our faith - that Christ established a Church and has promised to guide it from all falsehood. As such, if we believe that, then we submit our wills when the Church has taught something for 2000 years as truth. Those who prefer a more democratic approach or "to follow my conscience" must look deep down at their committment to God and their dissent. One can hold dissent privately on issues that have not been defined. But politicians can bring scandal to the community. As such, the Church feels that their obstinate public dissent is grounds for excommunication.

Regards

You know because someone told you.

Everything you know about Jesus and the gospel you know because someone told you.

There is no scripture to back any of this up.

So? You apparently are working under the assumption of 'sola scriptura' which is not itself taught anywhere in Scripture.

It's "infallible" because you guys say it's "infallible".

That is not *why* it is infallible; that is how we know it is infallible. It is infallible because Christ gave it that charism.

In my mind it wasn't very infallible when it declare people could pay they way out of purgatory and then retracted it 150 years later.

That was never a dogma of the Church, and infallibility applies only to dogmas.

If that is the case, how do you know that an infant doesn't know they have been elected. An infant can't talk. Perhaps they know they've been elected and have that assurance. You just don't know. Dr. E. position could be completely correct.

The issue in question had nothing to do with whether an infant knows it is elected for glory, or whether an infant can have assurance. You may want to go back and read the discussion again.

If you are assured, then wouldn't you know that you are elect?

No. I can see that you are unfamiliar with the Catholic conception of assurance. You are working with the Calvinistic conception of assurance, which requires that one knows that one is elect [for glory]. The Catholic conception of assurance is the present knowledge that if one were to die now one would [eventually] enjoy the eternal vision of God. The Calvinistic conception of assurance is the present knowledge that one will die in such a state that one will enjoy the eternal vision of God.

-A8

The very idea that experiencing miracles warrants a lack of concern about heresies is itself heretical.

Miracles are evidence of the power of God. Assurance comes from knowing Him. To repeat what I said at post 14961:

So, no, I am not concerned about heresies – either my beliefs or those of my beloved Catholic relatives. I have cast all of my burdens on Him, I have thrown all caution to His wind. My fate is in His hands. I choose to believe Him, to trust Him, to count on Him.

My Catholic relatives are not heretics. My Protestant relatives are not heretics. I am not a heretic.

We have some differences on the details – much like we would see different things if we were facing different facets of the same, seven faceted diamond. But we all know that it is the same diamond and the same Light.

You cannot love Christ and not love Truth. If you love Christ, you will hate false teaching about Him.

There is no hate in me to muster. But I am always quick to speak up when something or some one is being glorified above Him. And, of course, I speak up any time the Spirit leads me to do so.

Do you remember that old cartoon of the little Chihuahua boldly barking when he stood between the legs of the big Bulldog?

Metaphorically speaking, why would I hate or fear or get offended by or attack what is in front of me when I know Who is behind me?

Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This [is] the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts. – Zec 4:6

FK: While I haven't studied it yet, I have scanned Kosta's response and he appears to say that there are only three points of dogma in all of Orthodoxy

Jo: I would venture to say there are more than that. I think he is defining by broad categories

Dogmas of the Orthodox Church are those issued by the undivided Church of the first millennium. These dogmas were issued in response to emerging heresies and include the Holy Trinity (Three Hypostases, One Essence), Christology (Two Natures, One Person) and Theotokos (Birthgiver of God).

After the Great Schism the Orthodox Church did officially accept hesychastic (Palamite) teaching as offical doctrine in the 14th century regarding uncreated Grace.

This doctrine was established in response to a challenge from a Latin priest who crossed over to Orthodoxy (only to cross over again after he lost) but I am not certain that it can be consdiered "dogma" as it was canonized only in a Pan-Orthodox Synbod instead of the synod of the whole Church.

There was never a dogmatic pronouncement specifically regarding Scriptures, as far as I know.

The Church truths are contained in the Holy Tradition that is not explicitly written down but believed everywhere and always as one faith once delivered. We know of these truths from the writings of Church Fathers, the Scriptures and the litugical life.

No one specifically wrote a dogmatic pornoucement that everything Apostles wrote was scriputre. The Church simply accepted that as something sine qua non. Determining exactly what was actually written by them was another matter.

So, from the start, the Church believed the scriputres as containing God's truth. One must likewise assume that the Church knew the Holy Trinity and Christology, as well as Mary as the Birthgiver of God because otherwise the Church would not be able to know what is heresy and what is orthodoxy.

So, in the undivided Church, the authoirty is not in the dogma; the dogma is simply a statemnt of faith the Church believed everywhere and always, in response to emerging heresies that distort that which the Church knew everywhere and always.

In other woreds, the Church did not "develop" or "discover" dogmas, but simply stated them as something that waas believed everywhere and always.

A heresy is, by definition, an internal distortion of the Holy Tradition. It is not something non-believers say or teach. Heresy is an inter-ecclesial departure from the normative faith regarding absolutely essential elements of that faith. Accepting such heresy means literally changing the faith in its essence and transforming it into something essentially different.

After the Western and Eastern churches stopped communing in 1054, the Latin (aka "Roman Catholic") Church eventually started to issue dogmatic pronoucements that were not in resposne to challenges to doctrinal orthodoxy of the Holy Tradition, but rather as unquestionable affirmations of long-held beliefs. Thus one of the first was the dogma of the Purgatory. The two famous dogmas in the 19th century were the Immaculate Conception (IC) and Papal Infallibility (PI). The the third dogma issued in the 1950's was affirming bodily Assumption of Mary (AM).

Again, the IC and the AM were long held beliefs in the Church is, but neither is scriputral. So, not only were these dogmas issued sans any threat of heresy within the Church, but they are not even biblical. The IC is based on +Auigustine's (4th century) doctrine of the original sin. The assumption of BEV Mary is apparently something both Catholic and Orthodox Churches always believed on their own.

The AM was not dogmatized in the first millennium or ever in the East simply because it was never challenegd within the Church and because the scriputre is silent on it.

Now, dogma may not be questioned. Those who question either the Holy Trinity, the Christology or that Mary is the Birthgiver of our Lord and God, Jesus Chirst, are anathematized because by belieeing those errors they have exocmmunicated themsleves form the Church.

Doctrine is a theological statement based on the Holy Tradition and must be in harmony with Holy Tradition (and that includes Scriputre). In the undivided Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches today, doctrine is based on consensus patrum, teachings of the Church Fathers based on Holy Tradition and consensually accepted by the whole Church as such. Doctrine is not what any individual Church Father/Doctor writes as theologoumennna or theological hypothesis.

Disagreeing with any individual Father is not heresy. being critical of someone else's interpretation that has not been dogmatized is permitted.

Thus, individual Fathers could challenge papacy (as +Cyrpian did at one time), but one must always be ready to defer to the consensus patrium and Church dogma as the final truth and one's disagreements as inability to see the truth.

Echoing what Kolo once said regarding +Paul, I don't particularly like him but the Church tells me he is important for my salvation, so I defer to the Church and hope that, I too will one day come to see it correctly.

The Orthodox Church has three dogmas in short : (1) Triune God, (2) dual nature of Christ in one person, (3) Theotokos the Mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, our Savior. ...... Outside of those three dogmas and scriptures, the Orthodox Church teaches patristic doctrines. These teaching are based on consensus patrum and not on the teaching of any one individual father. While they can become more detailed as new understanding develops, they are not dogmatic in nature; individual fathers have been wrong.

Latins make a distinction between doctrine and discipline. I can't remember if Orthodoxers do. ...... In the way you are phrasing this, I get the impression that to be a good Orthodoxer you must agree with dogma, but not necessarily doctrine. Is that right? I ask because I figure there must be some Orthodox doctrine about the Bible itself, and if so, then if you MUST also believe in doctrine (contrary to my supposition above), then I am confused based on the history of this conversation.

One bottom line question is at what level (dogma, doctrine, discipline) does heresy come into play?

BTW, I have a sneaking suspicion that "they can become more detailed" really means "they can change", even though no one wants to admit it. :)

My faith and my opinion are not one and the same. :)

This is exactly the crux of the mystery I am trying to discover. :) I don't understand how this is not a "house divided". I mean, my faith is concrete, and I have opinions in some areas, such as a young earth. However, they never directly contradict. This is why I don't understand when you say that your opinion on occasion conflicts with Church teaching.

No, the consensus patrum reads +Paul differently than I or the Protestants. I know what my impressions are, but I defer to the consensus.

Yes, you'll defer, sort of as if that is how you would answer on a test to give a teacher what he wanted. Meanwhile, you really think something else. This is what I don't understand.

If no Church knows the truth fully, then there is no true Church. If you are church shopping then you can't believe your church is a true church but a man-made institution.

I respectfully disagree and say that not only does MY local church not know the truth fully, but that God's Church does not know the truth fully (unless it is unknowable to the individual). Otherwise, there is no more growth and sanctification ceases. The good work that God began in us would no longer be needed ...... "until the day of Christ Jesus".

Presumably, if the Orthodox Church knew the truth fully, it would have said so and published so in order to witness to the rest of us. That would be the Christian thing to do. Yet, you just told me that in Orthodoxy there are only three dogmas, all of which any Christian could readily agree to. Do those three dogmas constitute the "truth fully"? If so, then I would think that you, the Catholics, and us would all be in communion together. So that can't be what it means.

Brass tacks: If you believe that the Orthodox Church is in possession of the truth fully, and if your last council was over a thousand years ago, and if you have three dogmas, and if every holding of the consensus patrum is searchable and learnable by any Orthodoxer today, then, have you stopped growing spiritually?

There is no hate in me to muster. But I am always quick to speak up when something or some one is being glorified above Him. And, of course, I speak up any time the Spirit leads me to do so.

= = =

INDEED.

Though such a state seems so foreign to so many. Hate is so common in so many lives—even believers.

I do pray to Love God and His priorities with His passion. And, to hate what He hates. And He hates sin.

Hate is a particularly tricky and largely poisonous emotion, in general. Christians do well to be strict with themselves about it . . . though . . . of course . . . under guidance of Holy Spirit vs flesh driven trying to purify ourselves by our own whatevers.

Thankfully, given enough fiery furnaces and long dark nights of the soul . . . the typical fleshly, devilish hates just drain away as chaff and not worth the bother.

Life is precious. People are precious. God and His priorities are certainly precious. And time is short. If we saw from God’s perspective, I think time would be far too short for much negativity at all—particularly hate.

Thankfully, HE IS THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH AND OF US. As HE conforms us to the image of His Son, even our negative stuff becomes purified IN HIM.

Comment #1: There are too many people on this thread. I can't tell the good guys (those who agree with me) from the bad guys (those who presume to question what I say). What makes it worse is that some people sneakily agree with me on some things and still presume to disagree on others! (For the humor impaired: that's a joke.)

Comment #2: Have we had a thread on miracles lately? or does the protean quality of this thread allow us to go into them in some detail?

Comment #3: I see we are back in long-ruminative-discourse-punctuated-with-polemics-mode. The only problem with that is that comfusers and ADHD/Dyslexia don't go together real purty.

Comment #4 (more edgy and maybe an intro to the rest of my ~~rant~~ long ruminative discourse): How come RC miracles don't count? (rephrase: is there a kind of canon for miracles and their interpretation so we can tgell the good ones from the bad ones?)

Comment #5: What is the thinking on the relationship between faith and miracles? Why does IHS sometimes but not always attribue the miracle to the faith of the beneficiary - or, in the case of the centurion's servant, to the faith of a third party?

I agree that in my experience contrition, even a kind of desperation, is kind of a prelude to wonderful acts of God. Turning, changing/renewing the mind,and thinking again, all of which come down to repentance, seem to me to be a habit which God seeks to cultivate in us, and He trains us in a very Skinnerian way. "Sit, beg," He says, and after we try everything other futile measure we finally sit and beg, and He gives us the treat. "Heel," He says, and when we fail to be alert and run out to the end of the leash and our chain is yanked, slowly we learn to be alert to Him and His movements. To be a Mad Dawg and associated with Domini Canes is good for me, at any rate.

I agree that in His mercy God has let our prayers be efficacious. Usually I try to avoid saying "prayer works," because it is God who works. If a beggar by the gates of a generous King prided himself on his begging how silly that would be! It's the King's generosity that rewards the begging, not the begging itself.

But the King has made us members of His family, 'houoi', and if sons then heirs. And He seems to want us to enjoy His society and conversation. And since all we seem to do is ask, in His love he responds to our asking. And then we praise, and He rewards that as well. We are slow and froward, but He is patient and generous.

I agree with (1) We have needs. Some needs are met through miracles. God therefor performs wonders with mighty hand and outstretched arm, dividing seas and drowning fears.

I agree with (2) with the addition that sometimes miracles are done in response to needs of which we are unaware, and sometimes just to remind us and to show the gentiles the God still has His chops.

So I agree with 3. A long time ago there was an 8 year old with a benign pituitary tumor as big as a lemon and growing. When, after we had given her up for dead, the tumor just flat disappeared, it was very nice to see the nursing staff and the docs all slack-jawed with amazement and gratitude -- even if some weren't very clear about whom to thank. Signs and wonders are not very specific, but they do strengthen the faint hearted and give the faithless sometning to consider ....

Number 4:Yeah, some problems are demonic. The solution will have to be at least angelic, and we know who cuts the angels' paychecks.

Your number 5: Yeah, the psalms are full of splendiferous manifestations: hailstones and coals of fire! And while some will just say,"It thundered," others will finally, maybe for the first time, be prepared to recognize the LORD.

(6) We call that "consolation" - which didn't always mean "there, there, you poor dear," but rather had to do with giving strength and boosting confidence.

And that goes for (7) as well. Still and all, "If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, they will not hear even if someone were to rise from the dead." When it is the Spirit in our hearts which recognizes and responds to the activity of God in signs and wonders, then sooner or later that same Spirit also speaks to us in sunsets and rainy days and occasionally even bird-poop on the windshield of your just-washed car.

So why is it that so many -- and I was among them for years -- just cannot abide things like the miracles which attend the so called miraculous medal? I think of myself as skeptical, wanting to check things out, walk around them, sniff them, paw them gingerlily, go home and think about them. YES there's lots to fret about in the RC church. But I look around and see the miracles that we were told to pray for and to expect. Lots and lots of manure, indeed, but some absolutely splendid roses growing from it.

In other woreds, the Church did not "develop" or "discover" dogmas, but simply stated them as something that waas believed everywhere and always.

Agreed. It is a definition that filters out what the Church does not believe about a particular issue. It is usually in response to heresy. Have you read Pelikan's "Development of Doctrine"? It is a very interesting read, seeing how the Christian theologians of the time make the effort to put into words what we believe through our actions in the liturgy and daily practice.

I think the Latin church was responding to heresy in the cases you mention. Material creationism vs. the Immaculate Conception, Totalitarianism and communism vs. the Assumption, and Counciliarism vs. the Papacy. The first two are pernicious philosophies that we are still dealing with, still pulling people out of the faith. I don't think the Latin Church lightly considers defining doctrine. But in the West, there are a lot of "free thinkers", if you get my drift.

What is ironic about St. Cyprian (and St. Chrysostom later) is that they fully supported the papacy, calling upon it when in need - but "fighting against the goad" when they were pushing their own particular understanding of the Faith when the Pope didn't agree. They both recognized the office and always remained within the Church. If only Martin Luther would have considered that option...

Regards

That is because the Protestant mindset is to defer to themselves and their own opinion, while those of the Church defer to the Church. The Church doesn't "know" the entire Truth. Just the fullness of Revelation. God has not necessarily revealed EVERYTHING about Himself, nor every angle of theological understanding. Thus, in time, we see the Fathers "learning" more about what God has revealed, further delving into the mystery. However, if your foundation is built on sand (our clouded intellect because we are torn by sin and its effects), there will be problems. We are told in the Gospels that certain truths CANNOT be learned by the "flesh", but only by the Spirit within the Church (John 6 and Mat 16, for example). Build upon rock and you can be sure of more advanced theological expressions later.

Sanctification is not "knowing about" Christ, as if you are studying for a test on your Bible Commentary. Kosta will no doubt agree that the holiest and most saintly are often the simplest of people, people who could care less what were the various theological explanations of grace vs. free will and the Scripture quotes that back up each side. This makes your faith strictly intellectual. Becoming Holy, as God is Holy, is about growing in love through experience of Christ's love within us. This "school" begins at the Cross, at the foot of Calvary, not in your books on textual criticism and commentaries on the Bible.

If you believe that the Orthodox Church is in possession of the truth fully, and if your last council was over a thousand years ago, and if you have three dogmas, and if every holding of the consensus patrum is searchable and learnable by any Orthodoxer today, then, have you stopped growing spiritually?

Spirituality, again, is application of what God has revealed to mankind. Spirituality doesn't stop just because God has finished writing Scripture or the Church has not been defining doctrine in over 50 years.

Regards

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.