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

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

[HarleyD]

The reference was, obviously (I made a precise reference earlier in my posts to you) to 1 Timothy 1:19-20, about the loss of faith.

Ohhhhhhhh......
1Ti 1:19-20 Having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

There have been many who have made a mess out of their Christian testimony. One has to wonder what would be the point of Paul teaching them a lesson if he felt they weren't saved? And, if I understand the Catholic position correctly, as long as one is baptized into the Catholic Church and never have been excommunicated, they are saved although they may have to spend a great deal of time in purgatory.

Of course I did notice that you've backtracked from the early comment that the "seed of faith" comes from God. At the very least you have not explain your position. Would you care to explain what is faith and where it comes from?

Gill's commentary is either dull or obfuscatory, since he ignores the fact that Christ urges His followers to do works beyond obligation

Well, I think he makes perfect sense if one wishes to see that without Christ working through us we are nothing. Of course if you feel that YOU must work for your salvation then I guess this would be a bit confusing.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes to St. Bob, but St. Fred is a known legalist. His aunt, St. Harriet, wrote much more neatly though not as often, due to her rheumatism.

[HarleyD]

Yes to St. Bob, but St. Fred is a known legalist.

LOL!!! You're just sore because you voted for St. Bob's points and lost on St. Fred's.

[Kolokotronis]

"The bottom line is that I worship Jesus Christ, second of three persons in the holy Trinity of the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, all the same in substance, and equal in power and glory, while you worship the vessel through which God chose to bring Jesus Christ to earth."

Won't say it will you? Lets see, are you Nestoria or Aria?

"At your peril"

LOL! That's rich! You claim to be a woman "preacher" and you preach the one of the oldest heresies and I'm in peril?! Wow! You and I have nothing more to say to each other.

[Mad Dawg]

Questions for the class:

All those on this thread who worship the Virgin Mary, raise your hands. Yes, As I thought. Nobody is raising his or her as the case may be hand.

All those on this thread who don't see a difference between worship and veneration, explain if there is anybody whom they respect at all, and if there is anybody for whose prayers they ask.

Finally a riddle in two parts: (1) We say A is B. We say C is the mother of A. Can we say C is the mother of B?
(2) We say Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Can we say Mary is the mother of God?

Discussion: If not, if we can't say Mary is the Mother of God, does that affect the interpretation of the statement A is B? How?

Comment: To say Mary is the Mother of God is, to me, PRIMARILY a statement about the wonder and incomprehensible mystery of the Incarnation.

Nother comment: Finally, I wonder if Mary was nice, as somebody said. "He has filled the hungry with good things," "He has lifted up the lowly" that's nice. "But the rich he has sent empty away,""He has scatterd the proud in the imagination of their hearts," That's not nice. Good, but not nice. Good is often frightening, at least to this sinner.

[Mad Dawg]

The very word "celibacy" traces back to the rites of self-castration practiced by the devotees of Cybele, the prototypical suffering mother goddess.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that etymology. The "y/upsilon" to ae and then to "e", the exchanging places of the l and the b -- I just don't think so. Can you give some documentation or refer me to someone who can?

[Kolokotronis]

"That sounds very much like a Clitonism."

It does, doesn't it!

"Sorry, if I understand you correctly, that's the old Catholic argument; "The scriptures are infallible because we say it so."

I think you misunderstand. The Church recognizes Truth and the scriptures as we have them in the canon are in perfect accord with Truth to the extent we understand it. They are, therefore, inspired of God; every word in scripture is True. Infallibility isn't an attribute of things but rather of The Church. The meaning of the inspired scriptures can be infallibly determined by The Church insofar as that is possible for man. There is much in scripture which is a complete mystery and there is nothing wrong with saying that, especially when it comes to the "nature" of God. The Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and when their writings are within and part of the consensus patrum as determined by The Church, the writings may be said to be inspired. No matter how inspired any individual Father was, each could individually err and many (maybe all of them) did in one way or another. That's why I said that it depends on what you mean by "inspired". Inspired doesn't, at least for us, mean inerrant. The scriptures are in complete accord with the Truth as The Church has been given to know it and thus are "inerrant". The Fathers are not.

"And if memory serves me correctly, the Orthodox are not ashamed to admit they are willing to change teaching and doctrinal positions."

If a teaching of a bishop or a council is not lived out by The Church, then it is error. The history of The Church has a number of examples of this. I guess I miss your point, HD.

"Does that mean what was the infallible position of the Church, like bishops being the husbands of one wife as Paul stated, is no long an infallible teaching? Was Paul out of date? One has to wonder if it was good 300 years later why it isn't good now? It does make one question what the term "infallible" means?"

That's not a dogmatic matter upon which salvation hinges, HD. Those are disciplinary matters. I suspect they can be changed without danger to anyone's soul.

"I guess that makes some of the writings by St. Bob or St. Fred equivalent to St. Paul and St. Peter; at least as long as a few hundred people vote to say it is."

Well, if the writings of St. Bob and St. Fred are written within The Church and are accepted and lived out by The Church, perhaps their writings are inspired. Maybe even the writings of people outside The Church which are consistent with the Truth as it has been revealed to The Church are inspired. If one posits that +JC Ryle, the great Anglican bishop of the 19th century was outside The Church, nevertheless one would be hard pressed to say that his sermons and tracts were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. But are they so inspired that they are the equivalent of the scriptures, no, The Church doesn't teach that at all.

[kosta50]

There is also the clear implication that at some point they did "come together" in marriage

Which version of the Bible says that Mary and Jospeh did "come together?"

[kosta50]

You were talking about "we" (Protestants, Calvinists specifically I imagine) and I was answering to collective "you" (Protestants, Calvinists specifically) following Dr. Eckleberg's statement to that effect, with whom you have in the past expressed complete agreement and compliments.

I think that is obvious from the context, as regards the statements and the follow ups.

[kosta50]

Yup

Lovely. Well concealed from public knowledge I suppose.

[kosta50]

And if memory serves me correctly, the Orthodox are not ashamed to admit they are willing to change teaching and doctrinal positions. Does that mean what was the infallible position of the Church, like bishops being the husbands of one wife as Paul stated, is no long an infallible teaching?

Nonsense. The Lord never taught anything about bishops being husbands of one wife, nor that presbyters and their wives are to be "model citizens." Even +Paul admits on more than one occasion that what he is writing are not God's commandments, but his own.

As far as the Church is concerned, a bishop being celibate is a matter of dicipline, where celibacy was always held to the highest degree, including by Apostle Paul.

The doctrines of the Church concern themselves with the Holy Trinity and Christ, based on the Scripture and what was not reduced to writing but taught by Apostoles verbally.

Show me when and by whom are the Orthodox willing to change their teaching and doctrinal positions?

[blue-duncan]

"As for sola scriptura, please review Acts 10 ....."

Let's pause for a minute. Why would God ask a Gentile to read the Old Testament? They would make no sense to him since the Holy spirit had not come to him as yet. The scriptures weren't complete at that time.

[Blogger]

So? the entire discourse is about a future gift (John 6:52).
First, John 6:52 doesn't signify a future gift. Second, that is a big "so." Jesus is saying, in the present, this is my body. Not this will be my body. But this IS my body.

If it were symbolic, the disciples would not have left, as they objected to the physical eating of His flesh (John 6:53).
If it weren't symbolic he wouldn't have been speaking of a future gift. They weren't physically eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood physically when Jesus said "This is..." It was symbolic then. It is symbolic now.

Gee, Annalex. Here is a million dollars for you to keep. Whoever takes the million dollars gets to keep it. Of course, I don't have a million dollars, but I'm speaking of some future gift which I haven't given yet and telling you here in the present, here it is. SYMBOLIC, just as Passover was.

it is a memorial supper

It is both a memorial supper and a real presence of Christ in the body ("do this in rememberance of me" but also "this is my body"; also see 1 Cor 11 and especially v. 29 where a reference to the real presence is made).
Christ offered one sacrifice for sin and there remains no more. To say otherwise is to destroy the gospel.

we have our works being mixed in with grace

Yes we do. The Bible tells us so.
The Bible says that salvation is NOT OF WORKS. You show your faith by your works. But works do not save you.

Let me ask you a question. If I were a Catholic but did not participate in mass, ever. I didn't like the thought of eating Christ's body and drinking his blood. What would become of my soul when I died?

[Blogger]

Cancel on the future gift part. Your verse number in the Douay Rheims is different from other Bibles.

It doesn't negate the point though. Jesus said "THIS IS" He spoke in the present, AND he spoke in the future. When he spoke in the present He was speaking symbolically for it wasn't His physical body. It represented what WOULD HAPPEN.

Now, I await your answer to my question about what would happen if I didn't like the thought and refused to partake of Mass.

[Forest Keeper]

Mary was the true genetic parent of Jesus, linking him to human lineage all the way back through David to Abraham and to Adam and Eve . He wasn't just "carried" by her; He "took flesh," derived His body and blood from her, and whatever that might mean in genetic and embryological terms.

Please forgive my delay in responding. Yes, what you say above is exactly my view on the subject.

If by "Immaculate Incubator" you mean the proposition that Mary was merely a gestational device, this is a very grave error.

Yes, I believe it is error. "Immaculate Incubator" is an accurate term, IMO, coined by Marlowe to describe the positions being taken by Catholics and Orthodox on this thread. If you haven't already read them, these ideas are much further developed in the 100 or so preceding posts to your 3147. That's as far as I have gotten so far, so there could be more. :)

[blue-duncan]

"Why do you think that the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary is a heresy?"

I got some good news and some bad news. The good news is, if "highly favored" = "full of grace" = sinlessness, then we are all sinless since we have received "abundant grace", "superabundant grace", "exceeding grace", "of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace", "grace abounding", "sufficient grace", "riches of His grace", and "grace according to the measure of the gift of God". Therefore there is no need to wait until we die to find out if we made the grade since we have all the grace necessary to be translated. So, keep your self ready 'cause you never know just like Enoch. I wouldn't drive the car on crowded freeways or with passengers and always drive slowly.

The bad news is "full of grace" is only descriptive of Jesus Luke 2:40 and John 1:14 so keep short accounts with "the One with whom we have to do".

[Forest Keeper]

It is rather strange to me that those who insist that Mary is the "Mother of God" (capital M) are actually arguing that she is not really the mother of Jesus in the genetic sense. Never in my life had I ever thought that Jesus was not genetically related to Mary. While it is true that God could have created an embryo in the womb of Mary with no genetic attachment to her, but then that would not have fulfilled the scripture. The only way the scriptures could be fulfilled is if Jesus were an actual blood relation to Abraham and David.

Amen in all respects, brother. I have never heard of any of this either. It's interesting that you go on to mention the catechism. I still have a ton of reading to catch up on this thread. I wonder now if any evidence is ever offered from a catechism. In fact, even up to the point of your post here, I'm not really sure of what positive "evidence" we've seen in support of their position. :)

[Mrs. Don-o]

It seems pretty clear that what John is describing is that Jesus, the Word, did not "assume" flesh but was an actual living breathing person (flesh) just as we are with all the limitations of humanity including death. If He "assumed" flesh (life), then He "assumed" death and where does that leave our hope?

Please forgive me for jumping in at this point without having read the whole 3,700 posts of context. !!! And if I'm just repeating what others have said (sigh) again I ask you, forgive me.

It seems there's an unnecessary hangup here about the word "assumed."

What's confusing is that, in some contexts, "assumed" means merely to take on an appearance, even for the purpose of deceit, e.g. "he assumed an expression of indifference" "he had a disguise and an assumed name." But in a Christological context, "assume" means "to take up" or "to take upon oneself," "to adopt," or, even better, "to take as one's own."

So that when we say that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, "assumed" flesh or "assumed a human nature," we mean that He, the Son, a living Person from all eternity, co-eternal with the Father, took on as his own a human nature, becoming true Man, becoming what we are, including smallness, weakness, growth and development, hunger and thirst, real desires and real hurts, real pain and real death.

To use a good phrase of the Catholic Conciliar document Gaudium et Spes (para 22), "For by his incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart."

You know, I was just thinking this today. The Gospels are written in Greek, but Jesus spoke Aramaic; so we have very few of his ipsissima verbi, His exact precise words as he said them. Our earliest manuscripts are, themselves, translations of His verbal preaching and teaching.

But offhand, I can think of two places where we do have the unvarnished Jesus-Aramaic: where he says "Abba" (Father) --- expressing his intimate relationship with the Father; and where He says "Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani--- My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken me?" --- his utter abjection as a man in torment and anguish, his utter bereavement.

It's just inconceivable -- isn't it? --- inconceivable, what He did for us.

P.S. Let no one deny that Mary was Jesus' genetic mother. I mean, we don't, can't, know the details about Jesus' human genome, but we do know that Mary was His true genetic link to his human line of descent going all the way back to Adam and Eve. That is beyond debate. Jesus is absolutely, dogmatically, the son (descendant) of Adam according to the flesh.

[annalex]

if I understand the Catholic position correctly, as long as one is baptized into the Catholic Church and never have been excommunicated, they are saved

What? Not at all. You are saved if you are free from unconfessed mortal sin at death. Otherwise, with Hymenaus, you have made a shipwreck of your faith and not saved. I am really surprised you know so little about Catholicism after spending all your time on Catholic threads.

you've backtracked from the early comment that the "seed of faith" comes from God.

I did not backtrack form anything. The seed does come from God. It is up to the faithful to grow it or to wreck it.

[annalex]

the scriptures weren't complete at that time.

This is, by the way, another argument why most putative proofs os "sola scriptura" from scripture fail. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16 the reference is to the Old Testament if you take it literally.