'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."

To: Blogger Doctrine does not contradict scripture. You may not like how they've interpreted the Scriptures but there is no contradiction.
I am afraid you are wrong there. You just don't see it because you don't wish to. The Bible forbids contacting dead people. The church proclaims we should pray to saints who have died. (It is a false distinction to say that the dead people in the Old Testament were any different than those in the New for the soul never dies. It either goes to Heaven (or in the Old Testament Paradise), or Hell. We aren't supposed to contact them. The Bible gives no examples of people contacting them in the NT (and the Old Testament example was cursed). It is a contradiction. Christ paid the full price for our sins. So why do penance? Christ's payment wasn't apparently good enough for the church. The Bible says that all but Jesus sinned. Yet, the church proclaims Mary a non-sinner. Such is NOT Scriptural and not even all church fathers agreed upon that but it became dogma so we aren't allowed to even question it. Now she has been given the titles which belong to God alone Mediator and Advocate. Plus she has been made a Co-Redeemer. The RCC pushes people into worship of Mary - but RCs do not want to see that so they call it "Veneration." There are MANY more examples, I am sad to say. But you, being a good Catholic, will not see it so I'll let it sit at this.

I don't see these holy men of God as being "puffed up". I see them as they are, humble servants.
How much do you know of your church's history. Many if not most were in positions of high authority in the Middle ages when these things were being hammered out because it was a power position. They were the second sons of European aristocracy and that is what second sons did. There were a number of unfortunate Popes that were elected to the holy see by this same church. Some having mistress. Some having illegitimate children. And at least one having been said to have had an orgy in the vatican. That same church you trust to tell you right from wrong has produced scandal after scandal in this century with very little done to the perps.

Going back to Scripture to determine scripture seems a bit circular to me.
Of course it is. But so is your reasoning. You go back to the church because the church says that that is where the final decision making resides. It tells you that Christ set it up as the be-all and end all of discourse on matters and you believe it, because the church says so.

Here is my simple view of how this works. Jesus set up the Church on the Rock of Peter. Peter and the apostles went out to spread God's word. As they went along, they ran into contradictions and confusion. In order to settle those problems that arose, they were settled among themselves and written down. This knowledge was passed on to their replacements or those they put in charge in new areas. Doctrine was formed as needed. The main tenets/beliefs of the church have not changed. Why would I not go to the those that have had first hand knowledge passed on to them.
Unfortunately, a lot of doctrines got added and the effect was that the main tenets did change. Paul wanted to know one thing, Christ and Him crucified. Now, there is much more that has been added to that. Unfortunately, I don't have time to finish my answer, but I'll get to it later tonight if you are interested in a response to the rest.

Some of what you say is, I think, untrue, some is distorted, some is pretty good.

ONE reason for the shuffling around of perverts 20-30 years ago was that that is what shrinks were saying to do. The first several cases of sexual misbehavior including predation on the young that I had to deal with one way or another, some professionally, were in Protestant outfits. They never fit the press and one in which I was involved was swept under the rug by two protestant Bishops.

Whenever any serious statistical work is done on ephebephilia and sexual misbehavior on he part of clergy, the RCs do NOT significantly distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack. (However, being as aware as I am of how everybody was sweeping stuff under the rug, I have to doubt these data.) What IS clear is that the idea of clerical celibacy, heck the idea of ordinary chastity, is held by the LameStreamMedia to be risible and probably neurotic. We all know that their technique is to write the story and then find the data. We should not be surprised that they come after the RCs. They hate us.

It is at least debatable whether the OT blessed before the Nativity were in the same place as the virtuous and holy dead after the Resurrection. I don't see that that's a slam dunk.

Instead of drawing conclusions that we hold that Christ's redemption was insufficient (while finessing St. Paul's saying that he made up what was lacking in the suffering of Christ - or words to that effect) you might work the argument like this. Christ's passion is sufficient. Why go to Church, why read Scripture, why do anything? Then see if your answers or something similar MIGHT work for why we do penance. Do you get that the main mood of Dante's Purgatorio is joyful hope? Can you understand why? I LIKE getting stronger, even though it hurts soemtimes.

What the Bible says is that ALL have sinned, there is none righteous, no not one. So by strict interpretation of Scripture, Jesus Sinned. Who holds that? Not holding it cracks the wall though and then I think we can hold that the Virgin was sinless. In any event it's all propleptic eschatology based, IMHO.

SURE we're allowed to question, in the sense of examine, probe, "Try" the de fide matters. In the case of the two controversial Marian issues, I tend to go with more than 1750 years being a pretty good amount of time for examination and questioning. I am reassured, rather than otherwise, that many held otherwise. It is in Buddhism, not Christianity that the Dharma is said to decay is we move away in time from the Appearing of he Silent Sagte of the Shakyas.

So there is room for query. There is NOW not room for saying it ain't so. But I don't think we were excessively hasty on these things.

Has Mary indeed been officially declared Co-redemptrix? Can you direct me to the official declaration? That, I believe, is the one thing you said that just isn't true. I could be wrong. As for the others - a person on this thread asked me to pray for the son of a friend. I was asked to advocate, to interevene, to mediate. I have been asked to pray for others by Baptists! And I have asked Baptists to pray for me or my "intentions". No one involved in these interactions thought we were thereby chipping away at Christ's role as supreme Advocate (along with the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete). I resist the titles for the reasons you have said earlier, they might confuse Protestants (or something like that), but I know the difference between God and a creature. So do most of the Catholics I know. I am sponsoring someone in Enquirer's class I have heard what they're teaching. Not only do we NOT worship Our Lady, but we, in frustration at the pesistence of this slander in the face of more than 1,500 of patiently saying,"NO we don't," we now mock those who make it. What else can you do. I remember a nice Monnoite lady telling me in sereiousness, "They Worship Mary, you know." I didn't know where to look.

You've found a couple of web sites representing a mocked and derided minority who say that in some bizarre sense they want to say that Mary is God. Are there no bizarre Protestants? I'll take that poor wacko if you'll get the Jehovah's witnesses to stay off my porch and stop letting their babies die when they need transfusions. Can we make a deal? Hasn't Sola Scriptura led to some pretty outre stuff?

We PUSH people into Mariolatry? PUSH? I have been Catholic for 12 years. That's 36 major Marian feasts - Conception, Anunciation, Assumption. In EVERY ONE WITHOUT FAIL the preacher has taken PAINS to distinguish between the blessed creature Mary, qua creature, and the Creator. We push people into Mariolatry the way you push people to ignore their Bibles.

What I don't get about the Protestant attitude toward Holy Tradition is the distinction made between the early days and the days right after the early days. Peter, speaking for the Council in Acts, presumes to say,"It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..." As far as I can tell, that's a precedent for the Apostles and their successors to bank on the truth and reliability of Jesus's word about the Paraclete leading the Church into Truth and so forth. Despite the Post Ascension, Post Pentecost turmoil, testified to in Acts and the Pauline letters, among those who called themselves Christians, Protestants look back on that period as a golden age, essentially different from what happened after, say, Peter, Paul, and John fell asleep. On what Scriptural basis, I wonder. It's as though the doctrine is that the Spirit weakens over time - and the "sell-by date" was around 95 A.D.

I think a case can be made that Jesus authorized the Church to develop doctrine and praxis and that Acts and Paul bear witness to that process; that Jesus also promised that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, and Peter and Paul banked on that, as do we. It is the sola scriptura side which seems to suggest that the promises are misunderstood, were not meant in their plain senses, have an expiration date, and that the precedent of Acts is a one-time deal.

I dealt with Church scandals above, but here I'll say that - I would have thought you would have liked this - Peter remained a sinner after Pentecost. But when the Church gathered, prayed, and deliberated, hearing arguments from all sides, they decided that despite Peter's withdrawing from fellowship with gentiles, ... and you know the rest. In other words, YEAH, the guys were jerks and are jerks still many of them. We're ALL jerks! This is supposed to be news? While I greatly admire JPII, I don't agree with everything he said or did, nor do I feel I am less of a splendid fellow (stop gagging) or obedient Catholic for disagreeeing with him on some matters. And While I suspect he was a very holy guy, my confidence in the excellence of Fides et Ratio or Veritatis Splendor would not be shaken by knowing that he occasionally cussed. (My confidence in my ability to guesstimate character WOULD be shaken -- he didn't strike me as a cusser.)

It tells you that Christ set it up as the be-all and end all of discourse on matters and you believe it, because the church says so.

Actually I believe it becasue it seems Scriptural, it makes sense, and I think not only in spite of but in a way because of their grievous faults the RC and EO leadership have done a better job at preaching the Gospel and at living it, and most importantly at helping everyone from the ignorant and superstitious to guys like John Cardinal Newman live faithful and sometimes even holy lives.

In a less one-sided way, I'd suggest that each party to the dispute can make a plausible "probable cause" type argument for cherry-picking by thowse on the other side. My favorite example is the repeated use of one or the other half of the great line from Phillipians, Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, for it is Christ that worketh in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

I will think that we have achieved something wonderful when no one quotes just one half of this line. There is CLEARLY a mystery here, it's not a slam-dunk either way. Devout Predestination Fans will have moments of profound spiritual anxiety or trial, and devout works people will feel born up on Eagle's wings from time to time. We fear, we tremble, we work out as best we can, and it is Christ working in us, both to will and to do.

I guess I was set on what some here would consider the downward path in 1970 when I wrote a long essay (my college required one major anxiety producing essay per year -- a BIG one in the Senior year) comparing Calvin and Aquinas on merit and grace. What I came away with was that Calvin was all neat and tidy -- and that I thought that reality and truth are rarely neat and tidy.

I hold that the Bblical revelation says that God Almighty is AT LEAST personal - certainly not LESS than personal -- and that it is licit and profitable to use personal language and thought about Him: love, wrath, yearning, etc.. There isn't a person on earth whom I understand. I don't expect to have an understanding of God and His ways. What looks like a comprehensive systematic account -- say, The Summa -- is, when all the parsing and dissecting and synthesizing is done, a collection of inadequate glimpses.

Relative to sacrifice, punishment & My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me

I attend a church where every once in a while we say the "Apostles Creed". From my childhood to the present I have included "descended into hell" (now under my breath) - from my upbringing in the old Evangelical Lutheran Church. But those words are omitted in our church: why? I believe they should be included; I just searched “descended into hell” & got this from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics:

Excerpted from:

JOHN CALVIN'S: INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION EDITED BY JOHN T. MCNEILL Auburn Professor Emeritus of Church History Union Theological Seminary New York TRANSLATED AND INDEXED BY FORD LEWIS BATTLES

As published on CD-ROM by Ages Software

8. [CHRIST] "DESCENDED INTO HELL"

But we ought not to omit his descent into hell, a matter of no small moment in bringing about redemption. Now it appears from the ancient writers that this phrase which we read in the Creed was once not so much used in the churches. f431 Nevertheless, in setting forth a summary of doctrine a place must be given to it, as it contains the useful and not-to-be-despised mystery of a most important matter, at least some of the old writers do not leave it out. f432 From this we may conjecture that it was inserted after a time, and did not become customary in the churches at once, but gradually. This much is certain: that it reflected the common belief of all the godly; for there is no one of the fathers who does not mention in his writings Christ’s descent into hell, though their interpretations vary. But it matters little by whom or at what time this clause was inserted. Rather, the noteworthy point about the Creed is this: we have in it a summary of our faith, full and complete in all details; and containing nothing in it except what has been derived from the pure Word of God. If any persons have scruples about admitting this article into the Creed, f433 it will soon be made plain how important it is to the sum of our redemption: if it is left out, much of the benefit of Christ’s death will be lost. On the other hand, there are some who think that nothing new is spoken of in this article, but that it repeats in other words what had previously been said of his burial, the word "hell" often being used in Scripture to denote a grave. f434 I grant that what they put forward concerning the meaning of the word is true: "hell" is frequently to be understood as "grave." But two reasons militate against their opinion, and readily persuade me to disagree with them. How careless it would have been, when something not at all difficult in itself has been stated with clear and easy words, to indicate it again in words that obscure rather than clarify it! Whenever two expressions for the same thing are used in the same context, the latter ought to be an explanation of the former. But what sort of explanation will it be if one says that "Christ was buried" means that "he descended into hell"? Secondly, it is not likely that a useless repetition of this sort could have crept into this summary, which the chief points of our faith are aptly noted in the fewest possible words. I have no doubt that all who have weighed this matter with some care will readily agree with me.

For now I am reading more from Calvin, from the site I mentioned above, on "descended into hell".

Some of what you say is, I think, untrue, some is distorted, some is pretty good.
Ditto.

ONE reason for the shuffling around of perverts 20-30 years ago was that that is what shrinks were saying to do. The first several cases of sexual misbehavior including predation on the young that I had to deal with one way or another, some professionally, were in Protestant outfits. They never fit the press and one in which I was involved was swept under the rug by two protestant Bishops.
I do not doubt this. Which is also my point. We all have too much fallibility within our ranks than to just leave it up by no means claiming Protestants are superior human beings to Catholics. We are ALL sinners. Such is why you do not have a doctrine of Sola Ecclesia in Protestantism. Scripture came from God. Faith comes from God. Grace comes from God. Christ Himself IS God. The teachings of the church are a mixture of human and divine. That's why it needs to be tested. I'm not asking Catholics to consider anything that I am not doing myself. I compare what is said in my own church with Scripture. ALL Christians should do the same.

It is at least debatable whether the OT blessed before the Nativity were in the same place as the virtuous and holy dead after the Resurrection. I don't see that that's a slam dunk.

We know of Abraham's bosom/Paradise as the abode of Old Testament Saints. And we know that now, to be absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord. Since the Lord is at the right hand of the Father in Heaven that's where we go when we die as well.

Instead of drawing conclusions that we hold that Christ's redemption was insufficient (while finessing St. Paul's saying that he made up what was lacking in the suffering of Christ - or words to that effect) you might work the argument like this.
There is an explanation for this which is consistent with Sola Fide Sola Gratia by the way - but I'm sure you have already heard it.

Christ's passion is sufficient. Why go to Church, why read Scripture, why do anything?
Because you love him. Because you WANT to obey Him (not because you HAVE to). Because it is what we were saved for (Ephesians 2:10). Not in order to attain salvation.

What the Bible says is that ALL have sinned, there is none righteous, no not one. So by strict interpretation of Scripture, Jesus Sinned. Who holds that? Not holding it cracks the wall though and then I think we can hold that the Virgin was sinless. In any event it's all propleptic eschatology based, IMHO.
I specifically mentioned that Jesus did NOT sin. We know this because Scripture teaches us this. Scripture does not specifically show Mary sinning (though some of her actions were slightly questionable). But, it does say she needed a Savior. People who have no sin do not need a Savior. People who do not sin are not required to die. God punishes us for our own sin, not Adam's alone. And all of us are sinners, even Mary. But she was ever so blessed to be the mother of the Messiah; and Christians everywhere should hold her as a hero of the faith. However, her place is amongst other humans, not alongside God. She was an ordinary woman - which is what makes the miracle of the incarnation all that more awe-inspiring.

So there is room for query. There is NOW not room for saying it ain't so. But I don't think we were excessively hasty on these things.
Trent makes it seem that there is no room for disagreement.

Has Mary indeed been officially declared Co-redemptrix? Can you direct me to the official declaration? That, I believe, is the one thing you said that just isn't true. I could be wrong.

No formal dogma has been declared yet, though the Pope (JP2) and Cardinals have referred to her as such. It may not be official; but it is certainly a widely accepted doctrine.

From a sermon by JP2

Instead, this doctrine was systematically worked out for the first time at the end of the 10th century in the *Life of Mary* by a Byzantine monk, John the Geometer. Here Mary is united to Christ in the whole work of Redemption, sharing, according to God's plan, in the Cross and suffering for our salvation. She remained united to the Son "in every deed, attitude and wish" (cf. *Life of Mary*, Bol. 196, f. 122 v.). Mary's association with Jesus' saving work came about through her Mother's love, a love inspired by grace, which conferred a higher power on it: love freed of passion proves to be the most compassionate (cf. Ibid., Bol. 196, f. 123 v.). 3. In the West St. Bernard, who died in 1153, turns to Mary and comments on the presentation of Jesus in the temple: "Offer your Son, sacrosanct Virgin, and present the fruit of your womb to the Lord. For our reconciliation with all, offer the heavenly victim pleasing to God" (Serm. 3 in Purif., 2; PL 183, 370). A disciple and friend of St. Bernard, Arnold of Chartres, shed light particularly on Mary's offering in the sacrifice of Calvary. He distinguished in the Cross "two altars: one in Mary's heart, the other in Christ's body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul". Mary sacrificed herself spiritually in deep communion with Christ, and implored the world's salvation: "What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants" (cf. De septem verbis Domini in cruce, 3: PL 189, 1694).

As for the others - a person on this thread asked me to pray for the son of a friend. I was asked to advocate, to interevene, to mediate. I have been asked to pray for others by Baptists! And I have asked Baptists to pray for me or my "intentions". No one involved in these interactions thought we were thereby chipping away at Christ's role as supreme Advocate (along with the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete).

Not the same. You are a member of Christ's church on earth. You are alive and in the flesh. Scripture condones this sort of prayer. Scripture forbids attempts to communicate with the dead.

You've found a couple of web sites representing a mocked and derided minority who say that in some bizarre sense they want to say that Mary is God. Are there no bizarre Protestants?
Absolutely! And the last time I posted that link such was my point but in reverse. People act like Protestants are the only ones with nuts. There are PLENTY of Catholic nuts too! Cause we are all human beings!

I'll take that poor wacko if you'll get the Jehovah's witnesses to stay off my porch and stop letting their babies die when they need transfusions.
I would not classify JWs as Protestant. They are a cult. The Mary is God group MAY be, but in spite of the the church's knowing about it there isn't anything official against the Mary is God group either.

Can we make a deal? Hasn't Sola Scriptura led to some pretty outre stuff?

No. It hasn't. Cherry picking Scripture has. Sola Scriptura does not cherry pick.

We PUSH people into Mariolatry? PUSH? I have been Catholic for 12 years. That's 36 major Marian feasts - Conception, Anunciation, Assumption. In EVERY ONE WITHOUT FAIL the preacher has taken PAINS to distinguish between the blessed creature Mary, qua creature, and the Creator. We push people into Mariolatry the way you push people to ignore their Bibles.

Indulgences offered for veneration of Mary are one example. Marian statues everywhere are another. Hail Marys are a third. Mary is held in a worshipful status. The Rosary is a third, but of course, "Mary" instituted the rosary so we must obey her. If any spirit preach unto you any other gospel....

What I don't get about the Protestant attitude toward Holy Tradition is the distinction made between the early days and the days right after the early days.
Simply put, the early days were much more Scripture based. When man's philosophies and extra-biblical musings got in on the act, you have lost the Protestants.

Peter, speaking for the Council in Acts, presumes to say,"It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..." As far as I can tell, that's a precedent for the Apostles and their successors to bank on the truth and reliability of Jesus's word about the Paraclete leading the Church into Truth and so forth.
Yes, the church. Not a selected group of church leaders. The church is the people. It isn't the leadership. It isn't a man in a tall pointy hat in Rome. It isn't the various apparitions of "Mary." It is the body of Christ made up of ALL believers. That is who will be led by Christ. Various leaders shepherd the flock; but they are not without accountability.

I think a case can be made that Jesus authorized the Church to develop doctrine and praxis and that Acts and Paul bear witness to that process; that Jesus also promised that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, and Peter and Paul banked on that, as do we. It is the sola scriptura side which seems to suggest that the promises are misunderstood, were not meant in their plain senses, have an expiration date, and that the precedent of Acts is a one-time deal.
You misunderstand Sola Scriptura. We are not against the development of doctrine or beliefs or people being led to better explain what Scripture teaches. We have teachers too. However Scripture itself is a harmony. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. The message of the Old points to the message of the New. What we see in Roman Catholicism is a different message. It has some of the original intermingled, but it has been profoundly changed to where grace is no more grace but it is grace plus.

I dealt with Church scandals above, but here I'll say that - I would have thought you would have liked this - Peter remained a sinner after Pentecost. But when the Church gathered, prayed, and deliberated, hearing arguments from all sides, they decided that despite Peter's withdrawing from fellowship with gentiles, ...
In practice, you do not see Peter as the leader of the church in Scripture. He is a major voice. His sermon at Pentecost was certainly a high-point in early Christianity; but throughout the rest of Scripture, there is no emphasis on Petrine primacy. There is no emphasis on Roman primacy. There is no emphasis on a centralized church.

While I greatly admire JPII, I don't agree with everything he said or did, nor do I feel I am less of a splendid fellow (stop gagging) or obedient Catholic for disagreeeing with him on some matters. And While I suspect he was a very holy guy, my confidence in the excellence of Fides et Ratio or Veritatis Splendor would not be shaken by knowing that he occasionally cussed. (My confidence in my ability to guesstimate character WOULD be shaken -- he didn't strike me as a cusser.)
His kissing the Koran bothers me much more.

It tells you that Christ set it up as the be-all and end all of discourse on matters and you believe it, because the church says so. Actually I believe it becasue it seems Scriptural, it makes sense, and I think not only in spite of but in a way because of their grievous faults the RC and EO leadership have done a better job at preaching the Gospel and at living it, and most importantly at helping everyone from the ignorant and superstitious to guys like John Cardinal Newman live faithful and sometimes even holy lives.
But not without accountability. Pastors aren't above firing. Popes not above deposing. And where things go against Scripture, then action needs to be taken.
I guess I was set on what some here would consider the downward path in 1970 when I wrote a long essay (my college required one major anxiety producing essay per year -- a BIG one in the Senior year) comparing Calvin and Aquinas on merit and grace. What I came away with was that Calvin was all neat and tidy -- and that I thought that reality and truth are rarely neat and tidy.
I doubt non-Calvinists would see him as neat and tidy. But it is to your credit to have read Calvin.

Alex, I think this is very apropos your previous question regarding my comments on +Paul. Dr. E, and her random verse generator aka Open Bible, proivde us with plenty to work with:

God presented him [Jesus Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood... [Rom 3:25]

God presented him? Excuse me, but here I read something to the effect that +Paul considers "God" something other than "him."

Now, in various +Paul's works, not all of which are necessarily his, he does say that Christ is God, but how do we know what was really written and what was later added? The phronema of the Apostle here seems to suggest otherwise.

""He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." -- Romans 4:25

I am reading here that +Paul is telling the Romans that Christ was delivered over to death...and raised by some higher authority, obviously, (i.e. God) who, after all, presented him as a sactifice of atonement...

Everything spoken of Christ here is in the passive. None of it is Christ's doing! But in all fairness, even +John uses the same format "This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead." It's as if even +John did not think Christ raised Himself from the dead!

I will tell you, I have serious, serious issues with this language and what it seems to suggest. Again, later supposed +Paul's writings seem to negate his earlier Epistles in many ways and I wouldn't put it beyond a possibility that the Church tried to mend some of the more spectacular statements of +Paul's [such as he didn't need to read and learn – it was all "delivered" to +Paul, later copied by Mohammad, personally by God,/cf Gal 1:12/).

Again, none of the Apostles seems to suggest what he suggests all over the place in his earlier works. One that stands out is that he calls Christ "man Jesus." Not Godman, not God and man, just "man Jesus." [cf 1 Tim 2:5]

It is no wonder that +Luke, who wrote acts as dictated by +Paul says "let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead..." [Acts 4:10]

"much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many..." [Rom 5:15]

Here +Paul is separating the grace of God from the grace of man, Jesus Christ.

And as for being delivered 'by God' to His death, Apostles matthew and Mark state that Christ came to give His life "as a ransom for many." Ransom.

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.