The Tolkien Forum

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

The Passion of the Christ

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Mrs. Maggott said:
....much more including the filioque in the Creed - have been "added on" in the Western Church since the schism.
The concept that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son (filioque) was developed in the West from earlier times, and became generally accepted there by the eleventh century, when it became one of the major causes of the Great Schism.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Malbeth said:
....no Pope, no matter how corrupt, has ever taught anything ex cathedra that was repudiated by a later Pope, or repudiated any earlier Pope's teachings....Considering how bad those Popes were it is really something that they never taught any heresy.
Not such a big surprise really; the first Pope was told on the best authority that he would never teach heresy ex-cathedra,
and his successors, regardless of their personal qualities, have been granted the same authorisation to this day.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Oh my, yes! When the final persecutions begin, then Christians will learn what Benjamin Franklin once so cogently voiced to his fellow revolutionaries: "Gentlemen, we must hang together or we will surely all hang separately." Of course, it won't save the remnant of the Church except for those who manage to survive until the Lord comes again, but at least it will put an end to our infernal (and that is the right word, don't you know!) bickering.

Interestingly enough, as early as the "Golden Age" of the Church (the 4th Century), the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostem, was heard to lament that even at a time when everybody went to church, only 1 in 10 was being saved. I believe that that same figure is fairly constant throughout history and probably will not change even when Biblical events begin to play out openly for all to see. However, there will be one difference today: many of those whom one would consider "sure bets" for salvation will choose another path while those who seem utterly disinterested in God will find Him even though they never sought Him. Go figure!
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
14
Mrs. Maggott said:
That is so "not true". What do you think the Old Testament is all about? It was about "setting up a family" for the woman God was going to use to bring His Son into the world! Thus, He tells Abraham that all mankind will call him (Abraham) "blessed". Why? Because he is the ancestor of the woman who made redemption possible. God didn't just "choose" someone to be His Mother! He set apart a man - Abram - and his descendents - the Jews - as the means in which His Mother comes into the world. Furthermore, He sets forth one of Jacob's sons - Judah - and Judah's descendent David - as a further delineation of the line from which His Mother would descend! .....To suggest that Mary was just "picked" to be the Theotokos - the Mother of God and not just the mother of the man Jesus (for that is what the Church has determined her to be), is ridiculous in the extreme.
First of all, you assume too much. Abraham was told by God that He would be blessed because of His obedience and faith. This blessing was identified through all the promises. Abraham would be blessed by being the father of two great nations (Jews and Arabs), his name would be honored among the earth, those who blessed him would be blessed and those who cursed him would be cursed, he would inherit the land he was asked to go to. Where does it say that he would be specifically blessed because his nation would father the Messiah? Regardless, the Messiah coming from Abraham's lineage doesn't concern Mary specifically because the 'heir's come from the male side of the family.

The Son of David and descendant of Abraham was Joseph, not Mary. Mary was picked, not because of her lineage but because of her character. Mary could have disobeyed, descendant of whomever. She did not and that is why God picked her. She had an obedient character and wanted to serve God.
Mrs. Maggott said:
Mary is not "sacred". She is venerated and properly so. One holds in veneration those individuals whose goodness and/or bravery makes them "special"...Mary is asked to "intercede" with God on our behalf the same way the saints are. Heavens! We ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to "pray" for us so why should we not ask those of us who are alive in Him (though they are no longer on the earth) to do so as well? What is wrong with that? We do not pray to anyone other than God for redemption or forgiveness, merely that they take our part before The Throne of God and intercede on our behalf.
Well, I think the line is pretty fine, Maggott. Mary is given great importance in intercession. Why not my dead brother or mother? Because Mary gave birth to Christ? So God favors her prayers over any other saint who has "run the good race"? We are not to be praying to anyone, period. Asking someone to pray for us is not the same as making a prayer to them, honoring and praising everything about them under the sun and calling them holy. This implies this is the reason they have every right to go to God for us. It is idolatry in another form. The Bible says that man may boldly approach the throne and give our petitions to God through Jesus Christ. The church comes along and places Mary in that intercession position and has priests forgiving sins. Sarcedotalism was the old practice no longer needed because as the Bible says, "We have a High Priest". Yet man comes along and places themselves in the gap. Don't get me wrong. I do believe in intecessory prayer. However, I think the issue with Mary goes deeper than that.
Mrs. Maggott said:
I saw nothing in The Passion that made of Mary anything more than a loving mother who knew who her Son was and His ultimate fate. I certainly saw nothing to suggest that Gibson "worshipped" her or wanted anyone else to do so.
To some extent I agree with you and the Catholicism is lost on those who are ignorant of it. However, it is there and intended to be there.

1) Peter kneeling in front of Mary asking for forgiveness and moving away from her saying "I am not worthy", when she is about to lay her hand on his head shows the power of the "Mother of God" that sinners can go to. (After all, sinning against the Son cannot be good for relations with the mother. If I kill a mother's son, I should ask forgiveness from the family (mother) as well. The meaning goes deep.

2) Mary going up to Christ saying, "Let me die with you", while getting His redeeming blood on her face as well, implies the 'co-redemptrix' heresy of Mary being part of the salvation experience.

3) Her holding the body of Christ on display to the world while looking straight into the camera is symbolic of her 'offering' her son to the world.

For the most part, it does seem simply a mother agonizing over the suffering of her son, that is true. The part of Mary running to Jesus and it flashing back to when He was a child was incredibly moving and potent. However, the important of Mary was not made to be just that way, even by Gibson's own words.

(Just to let you know, so you don't think I am totally anti-Mary; one of my favorite choral pieces is "Totus Tuus", written by Henryk Gorecki and done for Pope John Paul II (the most Marian pope there has been)). It is as Marian as you can get but it is fantastic!

Totus Tuus sum Maria
Mater nostri redemptoris
Virgo Dei, Virgo pia
Mater mundi, salvatoris

If those words don't get any Protestant's ire up, I don't know what would. Sounds pretty close to worship to me. However, I must be hypocritical at this moment and say that if I knew that I wouldn't get crucified or tossed out by my church for doing it, I would have my highschool choir perform it! I am too much of a purist, and respecter of music to go and change the words. Absolutely gorgeous for those who like choral singing!
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Mary is of the House of David. The genology of Christ which goes back to Joseph was given for the Jews who did not consider the genology of a woman to be sufficient. However, Joseph married within his own "family" which was usually the case except in very extreme circumstances. So Joseph's geneology is also Mary's, albeit her family did not come from Solomon but from one of David's other sons. Still, she was of the lineage of David.

Why on earth would the Old Testament be contained in the New if the whole point of God's relationship first with Abraham and then with the Jews down through the ages had nothing to do with the fact that they were the people from whom the Messiah would come???? If it were otherwise, then the Old Testament would have continued delineating God's relationship with the people of Abraham; it doesn't. If it were otherwise, there would have been prophets after John the Baptist (who is called the "last" prophet of the Old Testament). There are none! The fact is, God knew when He considered creation at all what the outcome was going to be and the plan was already in place when "the earth was without form and void". Mary wasn't just a nice Jewish girl! She was the culmination of all of humanity from Adam and Eve. However, the preparation for the actual Incarnation of God vis a vie who among the peoples of the earth would be God's "family" began with Abram who took his family and his followers and his goods and followed God into the wilderness. There he was met by Melchizadec, a High Priest who seems to come out of nowhere and disappeared as quickly. This startlingly holy person is definitely a representative of God Himself. Indeed, St. Paul says of Christ that He was a High Priest after the order of Melchizadec (rather than Aaron, the Levite and the tribe from which all Hebrew priests came thereafter). There can be no doubt that Abraham's loyalty and obedience made him much loved by God, but the reason that he was told that all nations would call him "blessed" had nothing whatsoever to do with the founding of the Arab and Jewish peoples. It was, in fact, because he was to be the ancestor of God Himself (on His Mother's side, of course!).
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Tar-Ancalime said:
....the definition of Immaculate Conception was Mary being born sinless....
Obviously, the Catholic Opinion has been rebuked politely.
A lutheran minister spoke to us (my class) about the small differences....That evidence makes it not seem so different....
Yes, remember Mary at Lourdes to Bernadette: "I am the Immaculate Conception"?
I've lost you on that next statement; what are you saying there?
"Small" differences, "not so" different? The list you gave looks pretty impressive to me. We have an awfully long way to go, but that doesn't mean we should give up the idea!
As Mrs M reminded us, a whole Schism was caused - almost! - by one word, "filioque"; and the word cropped up again five hundred years later; what will it take to put the whole lot back together again? I don't think there's an answer down here.

A couple of general personal comments:
Gibson has at least done us one definite favour, in producing these valuable exchanges of facts and opinions on our faith.
On the other hand as reports of details in the film filter through I am coming more and more to think that he has done worse than Jackson, in inventing new scenes and lines for it; though his motives are no doubt more respectable than Jackson's, I shall continue, as with TLOTR, to respect the original material and to reject the new.
 
Last edited:

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
It is quite understandable that God would "speak" to Roman Catholics according to the way they understand Him and their particular understanding of His Church. There can be no doubt that Bernadette Soubirous is a saint. She looks as she did when she died in the 19th Century; her body has remained uncorrupted which is one of the Church's "proofs", if you will, of sainthood.

The filioque is a HUGE problem in the unity of the Church. Actually, it was rejected by Pope Leo of Rome when it was "added" to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which was defined in the 1st Great Council. Actually, it was supposed to address the Arian heresy which had suddenly appeared in the West after being defeated in the East. Arius said that Jesus of Nazareth was only a man who was "used" or "possessed" by God; that in fact, he was NOT God. The monks who postulated the filioque were attempting to "prove" Christ's divinity by changing the progression of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, to the Father and the Son (hence, the Latin filioque - from or through the Son). The older Apostles Creed which predated the Nicene, had used the words that the Holy Spirit had proceeded from the Father and "rested" in the Son. The Nicene Creed merely said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and, "who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified..." Once the Nicene Creed had been "ratified" by the first two Councils, the Church declared anathema on anyone who attempted to change it. Pope Leo went so far as to have the original Creed without the filioque engraved on silver tablets and nailed to the doors of the Vatican. Later on, however, other Popes adopted the phrase and the Church was on Her way into schism.

It may not seem "important", but it is. By having the Holy Spirit proceed from both the Father and the Son, it somehow "devalues" the Third Person of the Trinity, making Him in essence, a lesser Power. When that happens, the very foundation of the Faith is shaken. Indeed, one of the great Fathers of the Church (whose name escapes me) wrote a book declaring that the entire schism and divisions within the Church could be traced back to the filioque!

Anyway! God bless all and good night! :eek: ;)
 

Tar-Ancalime

Dark Queen of Mordor
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana
Joxy: It just seems a bit daft that with all those similarities that the Catholic and Lutheran Religon should seem so hostile.For example, my Latin teacher is ALSO a Lutheran Mimister. We have monthly masses and so on. He used to be able to conduct a sort of Reconciliation for those in are school who are from the protestant sector. The system worked well, but....a parent complained about the issue, and my latin teacher can no longer administer such services. I'm sure there are more examples.

That is why I fail to understand the hostility betwixt the two religons, but it just goes to show you that a few grumpy, proud and not so pure clergymen against a man with no real intention to split can do to a once united church.
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Thorin said:
We are not to be praying to anyone, period. Asking someone to pray for us is not the same as making a prayer to them, honoring and praising everything about them under the sun and calling them holy. This implies this is the reason they have every right to go to God for us. It is idolatry in another form.
Hehe. As you opened your post, Thorin,

First of all, you assume too much.
;)

To say that Catholic reverence for saints is idolatry makes as much sense as when someone accuses Christians of being polytheists. The proper answer to that is

"You don't know what you're talking about. We do. So there. I suppose you should look it up."

The whole problem between you and the saints stems from your belief (which is NOT clear in the Bible) that the souls of the saints are not in Heaven. You're free to believe in anything you want to, but then again we're free to consider St. Paul's "cloud of witnesses" as, well, witnesses. Not sleeping people.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Tar-Ancalime said:
....all those similarities....
....a sort of Reconciliation....
But T-A, you have told us all those differences, and, with the best will in the world, you can't call them "small"! Let's hear now what the similarities actually are, and let's hope that our Authorities will continue working on them as ways to bring us together.
And this is an example of just what sort of problems we are still faced with. You and I know that Reconciliation is the name of a divinely instituted Sacrament with specific purposes. Your teacher was conducting a "sort of" something which, though no doubt thoroughly worthy and valuable, was something different. Some officious person - in the teacher's church? - decided that the name and/or the content of what he was doing was too close to ours, and had it stopped. While things like that are happening at local level between individuals, what hopes have we for the reconciliation of whole "churches"?!
 

Tar-Ancalime

Dark Queen of Mordor
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana
Joxy: It's hard to believe, but I acutally had a point linking those two statments together last night ^_^;; Lets see if I can remember it. The main arguments stated in the 95 Theses was Anti-indulgences and linking directly to that justification by faith alone.

Whatever mistranslation occured in the aftermath of that was the fault of the church officials who failed to see that nothing of which luther said opposed the catholic belief.

1) The way indulgences were being sold by tetzel was remarkebly similar to a heresay battled by the church in its early days, Pelagarism (or something like that).

2) "...Justification by faith alone" has its unsaid similarities. My Latin Teacher stated that to live by faith alone means to act by the way of faith (Respecting others and so on). Its not blatant brownie points, neither was the case in the catholic church. Sadly, the church realised this too late and the damage taken was already lethal.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
That's OK, T-A!
I'm beginning to wonder whether the Latin teacher is the best person to be teaching the details of Lutheranism, still less of the history of our Church.
There were a thousand years between the Pelagian heresy - about human nature and original sin - and Mr Tetzel's efforts to raise money to pay off his boss's debts!
Of course, the Church had some lessons to learn, from that apocryphal church door in Wittenburg, but few of the 95 items on the list affect the present day division between us and the organisation that bears their writer's name.
Perhaps the case for the Church abandoning Latin really was stronger than I thought!
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
14
Eriol said:
The whole problem between you and the saints stems from your belief (which is NOT clear in the Bible) that the souls of the saints are not in Heaven. You're free to believe in anything you want to, but then again we're free to consider St. Paul's "cloud of witnesses" as, well, witnesses. Not sleeping people.
And the other problem is that until you can prove that there is immortality of the soul, you cannot logically show that souls are in heaven. The Bible preaches wholism and resurrection. To try and make the Bible prove that the souls are in heaven is contradictory. Until you prove the first, the next is not logical to consider. That means all the ambiguous 'stand alone' texts like the one you mentioned and the other few that most people build a theology on without cross reference or proper exigetical study, CANNOT be interpreted to mean souls in heaven for it would be contradictory.

As far as the verse you are talking about. Most logically, the word 'witness' means 'example'. Why? Because Paul went to great lengths to show each person mentioned as examples of faith. Then he concludes "SO", (or 'therefore' or 'in the same manner of' as the Bible sometimes translates it) with such a great cloud of witnesses (examples), let us run the race...etc". In other words, let's be like they were as they paved the way and set the example. The context of the verse and chapter agrees with this reasoning. You assume too much if the word 'witness' here is speaking of someone looking on and watching every move, and it cannot be supported anywhere else. Whereas Paul and Christ make blatant, numerous reference to the resurrection and eternal life given then, not at death (1 Corinthians 15:13-28, 39,42-45,51-55; Acts 2:29-34;1 Thessalonians 4:13-16; 2nd Corinthians 5:1-8; 2nd Timothy 4:6-8; Revelation 22:7; John 6:39,40; John 5:28,29)

Your problem and others, as previously mentioned, Eriol, is that you cannot take one verse and study it with a preconceived idea and ignore its context or not cross reference it. Half the theological differences and problems could be solved if people studied properly.
 

Tar-Ancalime

Dark Queen of Mordor
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana
*did not enjoy that mean remark*

Most of that came from my Church History class, and he (Latin Teacher) left the 'Offical' Lutheran Church and has joined an offshoot of it. So, what you are say is, that most of what stands between the Lutheran Faith and the Catholic Faith is not even derived from the original reasons Luther split?

Either your saying the bitterness of persecutions that happened during the 17th century between catholic and protestants, or there are some other reasons that illude me?
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
"Mean remark" - was that something I said?! What was it?
I didn't mean to be unkind to you, or to any of your teachers, or to Latin!
Remember, Luther was always catholic; he just got upset about a lot of the things that human beings were doing that didn't have anything to do with the essentials of our Faith. He was right, of course, and the Church put those things right - they're nothing to do with us today, and I don't think they are the things that divide us from the people who use his name.
You've already shown us some of the present-day divisions - the number and the nature of the Sacraments, "justification by scripture alone"; those are important relevant factors, which are not going to be resolved easily.
Again, I don't want to be unkind to Luther, but a look at the sort of man he was might be a useful exercise. There are some ideas on that subject in earlier posts in this thread.
The "bitterness of persecutions" had as much to do with politics as it had with religion - that certainly applies in this country, regarding the royal succession, and with similar problems all over Europe.
 
Last edited:

Tar-Ancalime

Dark Queen of Mordor
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana
*sigh* Politics make such a mess of things don't they, but I'm not going to go into that. It would ignite too many people.

It was brought to my attention that Luther had no real intention of splitting from the Church. All he wanted to do was gain some insight from those in higher positions why certian things were the way the were. (Yes, that sounded horribly redundant.) It was really more the times and evident curroption in the Church that drew those who found Luther's teachings logical away. Wasn't Luther excommunicated anyway?

If he was, It was a great thing when the Papal States were disolved (excluding the ever tiny vatican city), as i said, politics make such a mess of things.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
The term "sola scriptura" - by Scripture alone - is fallacious. It was the Church which chose those books to include in Scripture and which to discard. So the Church predates the New Testament and the sacred Tradition (with a capital "T") is every bit as true and necessary to an understanding of the Faith as Scripture. Furthermore, Scripture is not a "slam dunk"; it is possible to "justify" a great many things by taking verses of Scripture out of context and that is why the Fathers and the Councils interpreted Scripture within the context of the Church and did not leave it for each individual believer to draw his or her own conclusions.

As for why there so much hostility among different Christian groups: it's simple. One is seldom able to work up a lot of hostility regarding strangers - but family! :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:
 

Tar-Ancalime

Dark Queen of Mordor
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana
Thank you for clarifying that, Mrs. Maggot :) . That was confusing me. Wasn't the bible expanded in the council of trent from the original 66 to the current 73 which is used by the catholic church to back up the teachings that caused malcontent amoung the protestants?
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Tar-Ancalime said:
It was brought to my attention that Luther had no real intention of splitting from the Church.
It was really more the times and evident curroption in the Church that drew those who found Luther's teachings logical away. Wasn't Luther excommunicated anyway?
Yes, quite right, and my apologies for a misleading statement in my last posting - he was excommunicated, in 1521.
The kings and minor princes of Europe were the politicians of their day, and they took full advantage of the ammunition Luther provided for them!

And yes, one of the achievements of Trent was to settle the contents of the Bible, though I'm not sure that the purpose of including the obscure additional books was to help in refuting the "reformers"!
Mrs M confirms the importance of that difference I quoted between us and the Lutherans, the matter of "justification by scripture alone"; this is one of the many areas where we are on common ground with the Orthodox.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
So far as the books of the Bible are concerned, the current "Catholic" Bible is no different from the Bible used by the Orthodox.

Trent defined the 72 books which were to be "sacred and canonical". The Protestants had 66; they excluded Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and 1 and 2 Maccabees and parts of books such as Esther and Daniel. These texts had been edited out of the Jewish editions of the Mazaritic texts of the Old Testament. The Mazaritic text was a "rewrite" of the Old Testament which took place at about 600 AD which removed references to the Messiah that could have been attributed to Christ. The Council also declared the Vulgate (Latin translation) for the New and Old Testaments to be used for sermons and disputations.

The Orthodox Church uses the Septuigent version of the Old Testament which predates the Mazaritic text (indeed, it goes back to the Babylonian captivity) and was, in fact, the Old Testament that Jesus Himself read. The Church also uses what is called the "Received Text" which was just that: the documents of the actual period in their original language - Greek - with some Aramaic texts as well. This was the Bible given by the Russian Patriarch to those who translated the King James version; the Septuigent was a Greek translation from the earlier languages.

I shall look into the matter a bit more and see if I can come up with anything else.
 

Thread suggestions

Top