Found a bumper sticker:
Actually it's a rubber stamp.
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/
Do you have a specific scripture reference for that statement?
John 10:15
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Thank you Kolo. I do love my COE, and I look forward to my further readings of the Fathers. :) I hope that you and yours had a very wonderful and blessed Christmas. :)
Excellent, BD. In no way does Sola Scriptura support the suggested interpretation.
He made it possible for us to be saved. Again, salvation does not come from crying Lord, Lord, or from going to Church every Sunday, or from fasting, or from confession, communion, prayers, tithing, etc. We cannot buy or earn our way into heaven. Only God, in His mercy, can save us.
We are never good enough, clean enough, Christ-like enough, devout enough, to be worthy of God's richess.
But, we also know that God did not make Hell for mankind. He made it only for satan and his angels. But we also know that many will end up in Hell for following satan rather than God for a number of reasons, some of which have to do with our will and some of it with our nature.
There will be those (possibly a vast majority) who will, fail to attain the likeness of Christ through wrong choices and weakness of faith, and some who will (although baptized) outright reject God, and there will be those who will never know Him because they were never evangelized and, given our nature, are very unlikely to become Christ-like by exercising our will without God's presence in our hearts.
There is no mention of "not one drop of Christ's blood being spilled in vain."
Honestly, bumper sticker slogans like "And, not a drop of Christ's blood is spilled in vain." really should have bumper sticker verses to back them up.
Like this one:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 KJV)
Who did Jesus die for? The sheep. The sheep come to Christ, period. Not a drop of His blood is shed in vain.
Your verse, if understood as a "bumper sticker" is universalism We don't want to go there, do we?
My verse? Gee, I didn't write it, I just quoted it.
So far you have not given a single verse that says that not one drop of Christ's blood was shed in vain.
It would appear that the "universal atonement" verses outnumber the "limited atonement" verses about 2 to 1, maybe even 3 to 1 . And so far you have no bumper sticker verses to back up your bumper sticker slogan. If you find one, let me know. John 10:15 just doesn't cut it. It does not necessarily mean what you (by your slogan) claim it means .
P-Marlowe, I think you are just being argumentative for argumentativeness sake. I gave you my verse. You clearly don't believe in effectual atonement, and I do. I don't do bumper stickers. That was your phrase. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Jesus died for the sheep. His blood doesn't pay for the sins of those who don't believe. His blood reaches its intended target.
Of course I do. I also accept the fact that Christ went to the cross to die, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. God knew who would be saved, so the effect of the atonement is limited to those who believe, but the target of the atonement was the sins of the whole world. There are dozens of verses that point out that fact.
"He paid a debt He did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay".
Pretty good bumper sticker, eh?
Didn't intend to get in on a Calvinism debate tonight. So, we'll just leave it at that.
FWIW a very strong argument can be made that Calvin himself did not subscribe to the current Calvinistic [not one molecule of blood for the reprobates] idea of Limited Atonement. But we'll leave that for another thread.
I certainly do agree with the Fathers on the points you mention above. It is also true that they said it before I said it. So, if that means I rely on them for those ideas, then I suppose I can live with that. :)
I don't rely on Luther and Calvin for my theology. They are among a long line of people who decided to leave the Church.
Calvin and Luther left the RCC, not God's Church.
Don't mention "elect" to me - I am still in counseling over that! I will not argue this, only saying that EVERYONE will have to answer for their response to God - no one is given a free pass. God is not a respecter of persons.
OK, fair enough. :)
... When we plant an acorn, we are expecting an oak tree. Same with Christ. Being God, He KNEW what was to become of Peter and the Apostles and the type of church government it would become. To suggest otherwise is to say that God guides EVERYTHING EXCEPT the direction of His Church. A ridiculous statement... Can a Calvinist make such a contradicting statement?
Christ knew everything that was going to happen with His Church. He knew the Reformation was coming. The question is whether that was a rebellion against God's Church, OR whether the Reformation was God actively correcting His Church. :) The OT tells us that God corrected His Church all the time.
And yet, conspiracy theories abound. Perhaps not on the presidency of George Washington, but on many other issues. Who shot JFK?
Why, it was Kristin Shepard, of course. Everyone knows that. :)
Thus, it will certainly take a leap of faith - albeit a small one - in my opinion.
I fully agree. Our faith need not be baseless.
Yes, that is why one needs an objective standard - just like the Supreme Court exists as an interpreter of the Constitution. However, in the case of the Church hierarchy, we believe that this objective standard is guided from above.
We both know how "objective" our Supreme Court has been, especially over the last 40 years or so. I would see the hierarchy of any organization (excluding the Apostles) headed by fallible men to be just as subject to error. If fallible men truly have free will, then they can choose to not follow God's guidance.
Thus, the infallibility that we have come to rely on to KNOW proper theology to those who wish to find it. This is not the case in the Protestant world. One relies on their own judgment and interpretations.
Do you think it is just luck that so many Reformers agree on at least as much as Catholics (respectively) do? I do not.
For example, Romans 3 cannot possibly mean ALL men literally are evil, because the very Psalms that Paul quotes ALSO discusses righteous men! In the same Psalms!
Romans 3 does not say that all men only do evil from birth to death. It says that all HAVE sinned. Paul would say that ALL righteous men have sinned. Paul knew all about David, a righteous man who sinned. It is perfectly consistent with Psalms.
Clearly, you are viewing Scriptures through a particular interpretative lenses - namely, that ALL men are entirely evil - something that the Church had NEVER held.
I admit to having a particular interpretive lens. I don't know enough to say if the Church ever taught that all men are evil, but I do think the Church teaches that all are in need of a Savior. With a distinction, these ideas go hand in hand. IOW, they are not opposites.
Secondly, how is your interpretation of John 6 and eating the flesh of Christ? How do you spin that one?
Christ was either speaking of cannibalism, or He was speaking metaphorically. There is no mention of cannibalism among the disciples, so we have our answer. Christ compared Himself to the manna in that both were from Heaven, not that both should be literally ingested in the physical sense. We are to take Christ inside of us spiritually, just as the Israelites took the manna inside them physically.
So how do you know HE [Calvin] is wrong and you are right? Sorry for having to say this, FK, but doesn't that sound a bit pompous?
If I automatically thought that everything Calvin ever said was infallible, then he would be my pope. Even though you disagree, we don't do the pope "thing". The disagreements I have with Calvin are absolutely minor. He could have been right about all of them and that wouldn't change my faith.
How does a person such as yourself DECIDE which letters and books belong? Trust me, many Protestants have tried to come up with something that ignores the Catholic Church. But in the end, even Martin Luther admitted that he had to thank the Catholic Church for preserving and compiling the Canon of Scriptures.
If that was really Luther's view, then I would disagree with him. I don't need to ignore the Catholic Church, they got it right in the sense that the Holy Spirit was correctly followed. My thanks go to the Holy Spirit for ensuring that a correct Canon was created. Had modern day Protestants been "in charge" at the time, then I wouldn't give them any personal credit either.
Have you not read Matthew 16:16-20? Or do you think heaven itself is wrong? The other possibility, I suppose, is that the Apostles made up Matthew 16 and it is not from God...
Heaven is not wrong, you and I disagree on the meaning of the passage. I don't think that Christ would build His Church upon a single fallible man, I think He did it upon a faith that Peter expressed. The credit goes to God for giving Peter his faith, not to Peter himself. Within the passage, Christ was using "rock" in two different ways.
All Protestants are subject to error, regardless of their backgrounds. While Wesley was a Protestant, he was no Calvinist, so I would disagree with him on a great number of things. I think the greatest single divider among Protestants is between Reformed theology and Arminianism. Wesley was an Arminian.
Wow! That's amazing. Congratulations to your parents. My wife and I were exactly those ages when we married. That was 18 years ago. I can't imagine 70 years. :) Is that the titanium anniversary? :)
Can you show me from Scripture that the People of God split? What does Numbers 16 tell you about such matters? The precedents clearly tell us that reform is part of the Church, but not divisiveness, discord, and certainly not schism. Luther would have been a great reformer if he could have stayed within the Church's teachings and not refute her authority given by God. Many Catholic saints have argued with Popes and the heirarchy to correct abuses. Luther went too far by inventing a false gospel and personally refuting the authority that the Church had been given 1500 years ago.
We both know how "objective" our Supreme Court has been, especially over the last 40 years or so. I would see the hierarchy of any organization (excluding the Apostles) headed by fallible men to be just as subject to error. If fallible men truly have free will, then they can choose to not follow God's guidance.
I used the Supreme Court as an example. But it is certainly not imbued with divine power to bind and loosen, given it by God Himself. The Supreme Court is NOT guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Supreme Court does not claim infallibility for its decisions, unlike the Church. The use of the Supreme Court was merely an illustration.
Do you think it is just luck that so many Reformers agree on at least as much as Catholics (respectively) do? I do not.
You are kidding yourself if you think Reformers agree as much as Catholics. I go to other forums and there is a wide disparity of beliefs on even whether God is a Trinity or not... Luther said there are as many Protestant religions as heads. Perhaps an exaggeration, but not far from the truth when Protestants are only subject to their own conscience in interpreting the Sacred Writ (which they accept without question from the Catholic Church...)
Romans 3 does not say that all men only do evil from birth to death. It says that all HAVE sinned. Paul would say that ALL righteous men have sinned. Paul knew all about David, a righteous man who sinned. It is perfectly consistent with Psalms. You got to be kidding me... "There is not any man just. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery in their ways: And the way of peace they have not known" Romans 3:10-17
Where EXACTLY does this speak about righteous men who sinned occasionally? You sure you have the same bible? The entire section has NOTHING to say about righteous men, but wicked ones. Where do we see righteous men spoken of in this manner in the Psalms?
I do think the Church teaches that all are in need of a Savior. With a distinction, these ideas go hand in hand. IOW, they are not opposites. Yes, the Church teaches we need a savior. On the surface, you may say it has little difference. But it makes ALL the difference whether we say a man is totally corrupt or man is wounded. A totally corrupt man has NOTHING to give, not even if it is something given to him by God. A wounded man can, with aid, become righteous as a result of God's work. Luther makes this clear when he says that man is a beast, whom either God or the devil rides. This is totally foreign to the Catholic mentality. This is where one must invent "imputed" righteousness. This idea effects our ideas of salvation - to include sanctification...
Christ was either speaking of cannibalism, or He was speaking metaphorically.
That's what the Jews who left Him thought, as well. However, the fleshy mind will not understand what is spiritual. Apparently, the first disciples of Christ understood Him to mean another choice then you give...
Even though you disagree, we don't do the pope "thing".
Actually, there are millions of "popes" running around the Protestant world.
Heaven is not wrong, you and I disagree on the meaning of the passage. I don't think that Christ would build His Church upon a single fallible man, I think He did it upon a faith that Peter expressed.
LOL! Why do you separate the faith of the man from the man??? The fact of the matter remains that SIMON is now called KEPHAS. Not Simon's faith! Paul doesn't refer to Simon's "faith" as Kephas, but his person. WHAT was called Kephas in the Scriptures?
The credit goes to God for giving Peter his faith, not to Peter himself. Why are you so uptight about giving honor to a person? Is God going to get envious of His own creation??? Of course everything we do is a gift from God! But God is love. Love shares itself. God GLADLY draws men into His salvation plan. Perhaps you have detected this in Scriptures? God didn't have to use men, you know. But He did. And so we honor God's choice and that man's positive response to God's calling. Same with Mary and the other saints. They were all part of God's plan. I suppose this "need" to give God "ALL" the credit is a result of how you look at God - a jealous and envious Being who creates things for the specific purpose of destroying it and causes men to do EVERYTHING. As I have said before, this is a caricature of the Christian God of Love Whom I am familiar with. A meditation on the Blessed Trinity and how it operates might help you discover your error on your view of God. God is a humble God. Understand that. Why WOULDN'T He desire to share the "credit", as you say???
Regards
Christ knew everything that was going to happen with His Church. He knew the Reformation was coming. The question is whether that was a rebellion against God's Church, OR whether the Reformation was God actively correcting His Church. :) The OT tells us that God corrected His Church all the time.
Can you show me from Scripture that the People of God split? What does Numbers 16 tell you about such matters? The precedents clearly tell us that reform is part of the Church, but not divisiveness, discord, and certainly not schism. Luther would have been a great reformer if he could have stayed within the Church's teachings and not refute her authority given by God. Many Catholic saints have argued with Popes and the heirarchy to correct abuses. Luther went too far by inventing a false gospel and personally refuting the authority that the Church had been given 1500 years ago.
We both know how "objective" our Supreme Court has been, especially over the last 40 years or so. I would see the hierarchy of any organization (excluding the Apostles) headed by fallible men to be just as subject to error. If fallible men truly have free will, then they can choose to not follow God's guidance.
I used the Supreme Court as an example. But it is certainly not imbued with divine power to bind and loosen, given it by God Himself. The Supreme Court is NOT guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Supreme Court does not claim infallibility for its decisions, unlike the Church. The use of the Supreme Court was merely an illustration.
Do you think it is just luck that so many Reformers agree on at least as much as Catholics (respectively) do? I do not.
You are kidding yourself if you think Reformers agree as much as Catholics. I go to other forums and there is a wide disparity of beliefs on even whether God is a Trinity or not... Luther said there are as many Protestant religions as heads. Perhaps an exaggeration, but not far from the truth when Protestants are only subject to their own conscience in interpreting the Sacred Writ (which they accept without question from the Catholic Church...)
Romans 3 does not say that all men only do evil from birth to death. It says that all HAVE sinned. Paul would say that ALL righteous men have sinned. Paul knew all about David, a righteous man who sinned. It is perfectly consistent with Psalms. You got to be kidding me... "There is not any man just. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery in their ways: And the way of peace they have not known" Romans 3:10-17
Where EXACTLY does this speak about righteous men who sinned occasionally? You sure you have the same bible? The entire section has NOTHING to say about righteous men, but wicked ones. Where do we see righteous men spoken of in this manner in the Psalms?
I do think the Church teaches that all are in need of a Savior. With a distinction, these ideas go hand in hand. IOW, they are not opposites. Yes, the Church teaches we need a savior. On the surface, you may say it has little difference. But it makes ALL the difference whether we say a man is totally corrupt or man is wounded. A totally corrupt man has NOTHING to give, not even if it is something given to him by God. A wounded man can, with aid, become righteous as a result of God's work. Luther makes this clear when he says that man is a beast, whom either God or the devil rides. This is totally foreign to the Catholic mentality. This is where one must invent "imputed" righteousness. This idea effects our ideas of salvation - to include sanctification...
Christ was either speaking of cannibalism, or He was speaking metaphorically.
That's what the Jews who left Him thought, as well. However, the fleshy mind will not understand what is spiritual. Apparently, the first disciples of Christ understood Him to mean another choice then you give...
Even though you disagree, we don't do the pope "thing".
Actually, there are millions of "popes" running around the Protestant world.
Heaven is not wrong, you and I disagree on the meaning of the passage. I don't think that Christ would build His Church upon a single fallible man, I think He did it upon a faith that Peter expressed.
LOL! Why do you separate the faith of the man from the man??? The fact of the matter remains that SIMON is now called KEPHAS. Not Simon's faith! Paul doesn't refer to Simon's "faith" as Kephas, but his person. WHAT was called Kephas in the Scriptures?
The credit goes to God for giving Peter his faith, not to Peter himself.
Why are you so uptight about giving honor to a person? Is God going to get envious of His own creation??? Of course everything we do is a gift from God! But God is love. Love shares itself. God GLADLY draws men into His salvation plan. Perhaps you have detected this in Scriptures? God didn't have to use men, you know. But He did. And so we honor God's choice and that man's positive response to God's calling. Same with Mary and the other saints. They were all part of God's plan. I suppose this "need" to give God "ALL" the credit is a result of how you look at God - a jealous and envious Being who creates things for the specific purpose of destroying it and causes men to do EVERYTHING. As I have said before, this is a caricature of the Christian God of Love Whom I am familiar with. A meditation on the Blessed Trinity and how it operates might help you discover your error on your view of God. God is a humble God. Understand that. Why WOULDN'T He desire to share the "credit", as you say???
Regards
We will leave it to another thread.
Found a bumper sticker:
Actually it's a rubber stamp.
Hey! Are you one of these last word kinda guys? ;o)
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.