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/
Yes, it is a revealling. Like a screaming tantrum during a discussion.
Back to the grindstone of daily duty.
Take care, and God's peace to you..
I would suggest going back and reading through the posts. We have gone from knowledge to good works to good decisions. These are all different things and require different responses. When you stated "choose to do good" this implies that can Christians choose to do good [works].
People do not have good "knowledge" which I stated sounded very Gnostic and was condemned by the early Church as heresy. Nor can people make alway make good decisions; Adam found that out even being perfect. As far as works, I posted what the Confessions state.
Eze 28 refers to the overthrow of the king of Tyre. Isa 14 (in Hebrew) talks about the Babylonian god Helel who is associated with Venus, the morning star, dawn/light. There is no connection in either of your quotes to the OT Satan, whom Judaism considers a faithful servant of God with no powers of his own.
In Greek the verse calls him fwsforoV that is phosphoros (i.e. the one who shines, light-bearer, morning star), which +Jerome translated into the Vulgate as Lucifer (from the Latin word lux for light).
It is only in the NT that the Christians are being introduced to the concept that Satan and Lucifer/devil are one and the same. This connection apparently existed in some common classes among 1st century Jews, and is mentioned in various books which are not part of the Pharisaical Hebrew OT. However, the concept does appear in OT Septuagint, which is the source used for most (over 90 percent) of OT verses quoted in the NT by the Apostles.
Because the Apostles treated Septuagint as Scripture, the Church included those books in the Christian canon. Martin Luther threw them out and accepted the Pharisaical OT of the Christ-denying rabbis of Jamnia, which the Protestants use to this day.
Revelation (of John) is part of the New Testament (although for a long time it was considered 'apocrypha'), so it is expected that Satan/devil shall be treated as one and the same, since this concept is introducted scripturally in the New Testament. Its roots, however, pre-date the NT and can be found in OT deuterocanonical (aka 'apocryphal') books and pseudoepigraphical books which are not part of the Phariaiscal Hebrew Old Testament, but are included in the Septuagint OT used by the Apostles.
+Paul claims his authority precisely on that kind of knowledge. He also uses very Gnostic concepts when he claims that God reveals Christ in Him and not to him.
And the Lord said "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they do."
That throws out the whole theory of guilt and the need for punihsment out the window. Rather mercy and forgiveness is what God's justice is all about: mercy triumphs over judgment.
PS I just find it very funny that Luther would say something like that, then turn around and say pecca fortiter...
But they had to come to that. It was a process of theosis, not a one-time event. Even +Peter denied Christ three times and sank when walking on water. The saints give us hope because they also had to mature in their faith, and they also had moments of weakness and doubt. But they persevered.
2) The entire Church including the Apostles accepted Paul's writings as inspired and scripture.
3) Paul's writings agree with and is consistent with other scriptural teachings.
4) Paul gave evidence that he was truthful based upon miracles he performed.
"The elect do not add works to their salvation and are saved by the grace of God alone. So therefore, the hypothetical is something that would not happen."
My point exactly, B.
"In "my system" which frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it being called for "my system" is held by Reformed Christians everywhere."
My apologies.
"So, it is not "my system" any more than Orthodoxy is "your system"."
But Orthodoxy is, among other things, a theological system. That's what I meant by the term system. Truthfully, I meant no offense by it. When I mean to be offensive I am much more obvious, B.
"Anyway, it is a mischaracterization of what I have already explained concerning Reformed theology. God knew that man would rebel. He allowed the rebellion. He did not force the rebellion. He gave free will to Adam and Eve. They chose, freely, to sin. Knowing this from all eternity God also knew that all of Adam and Eve's proginy would refuse to come to Him. All of them. Romans 3 is clear. None seeks God. So, he chose, because He is GOD and can do that, to choose many to salvation. The rest, He allowed to exist and go THEIR OWN WAY - not because He didn't choose them but because of their own choice. God does not OWE mercy. Yet, in His design of things He allows the ungodly to exist to teach us about sin, wrath, holiness, and mercy."
But this is more, in part, like +John Chrysostomos' foreknowledge than predestination, if I am reading you right. Where your explanation falls, however, is in the way you have explained the election part and couple that with the verses from +John's gospel. For example, you write: "Yet, in His design of things He allows the ungodly to exist to teach us about sin, wrath, holiness, and mercy." To what end, B? If the elect are already in and aren't getting out, what's the point of the lesson?
As for the progeny of Adam & Eve refusing to come to God, well yes, He foresaw that. He also foresaw that the reason for that refusal was that because of sin people couldn't conform themselves to His likeness and were in bondage to death. Now God doesn't "owe" anyone anything. We don't make deals with God, bargain with Him any more than Reformed Protestants do. We do believe that God's grace falls equally on all of us because we are told that God loves His creation. All of us have an equal opportunity to become like God and thus fulfill our created purpose. Does God have foreknowledge of who will become like Him and who won't. Well, our language is necesarily limited when speaking of the One Who creates existence, Who doesn't "exist", except through the Incarnation, in any way we comprehend, but to the extent we can know the mind of God, yes, He knew. But we can't and don't have that foreknowledge. It is for that reason that we can say that God knows who is in His hands for keeps, or will be in His hand for keeps. But that doesn't mean that any human is predestined to attain theosis.
I do think that in part you are right about God allowing evil people to exist as an object lesson. I also believe that their continued existence is an example to us of God's "respect" for free will. God has given us, in the Incarnation, everything we need for theosis, He has lead the horse to the water, but He won't force us to drink. In many ways the same can be said about natural disasters. While it is clear that God has caused some as a sort of didactic "punishment" to get rid of overwhelming sin, it is also clear that such disasters are also the result of the distortions in creation caused by our sins, the accumulated burden of sin.
"Your becoming Christ-like, in Orthodoxy, requires that YOU do certain acts. YOU adopt certain attitudes."
Yes, we are taught that in order to become like God we need to have a metanoia, to accomplish which God has given us freely all the grace we need and that is found within The Church. What The Church does is take a spiritually sick person and nurse him/her to a point where he/she is freely willing to respond to God's grace and be healed of their spiritual sickness. That's what we believe the purpose of The Church and the scriptures is.
"Scripture indicates that it was His sacrifice alone that saved us."
Indeed it does. So does The Church. It restored a potential which was lost in The Fall. Theosis is becoming like God, B. Before the Incarnation we belonged to death, a state we put ourselves in. Scripture says none seek after God. Left to our own devices, that's likely true. But despite what the NT says, the OT is filled with examples of the Righteous. Christ freed them from the bonds of death when He descended to the place of the dead. Similarly, by God's grace the baptized Christian likewise seeks God. We see it everyday. Because, as +Paul wrote, "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." The "hope", B, not the dead on certainty of becoming like God.
"Without the blood-sacrifice of Christ Jesus, our sins were not atoned for and our salvation was not obtained. It was not blood-lust. It was God's justice and mercy in action. If you don't like it, your argument is against Scripture."
This atonement theory is distinctly Western as you have expressed it. Indeed Christ's sacrifice reconciled man to God, but not because God demanded a sacrifice to Himself. Christ's death reconciled us to God because it freed us from our self created bondage to death caused by our sins. We became free to become what God created us for, to be in the image and likeness of Himself. The "ransom" was paid to "death", not to God and death got cheated. "Hell took a body and found God!". "Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!"
I never should have made that crack about the West lecturing Eastern Christianity about Mohammedanism, though I truly believe it. It necessarily leads to a foreign policy discussion which is way off point here and I shouldn't have gotten into it. I am sorry. I will only say this. I have never in any substantial and extended way personally found myself in a state of dhimmitude. I have dealt with Mohammedans in the context of their own religious cultures. I have encountered and dealt with in various places in the Mohammedan world people we would consider today (and then for that matter) a pretty bad bunch. Because of that "stuff", its best that I don't go to certain places in the Mohammedan (and communist too) world. But I have never personally, unlike a number of Eastern Christians on FR, ever had my parish church burned or been driven from my home nor have I, save in one place, been forced to worship in secret. Finally, you write,
"But, what you do not know about American culture is a lot.
"
Gee, I had a grandmother whose family came to Massachusetts in 1623, two of my sisters are members of the DAR and I qualify for membership in the SAR (I've had the forms for admission for years; I just never got around to filling them out). I have an ancestress who was tried three times for witchcraft in 17th century Massachusetts and beat the rap all three times. Another was the first published poet in the English New World (17th century) and, I believe the first published poetess in the English language. I have two others who were "saved" after one of Jonathan Edwards' sermons. I have another who was scalped in the first Indian war and another who was carried off to Quebec by the Indians. Others who fought at Louisburg and still others whose homestead was burned flat by the Indians three times during the French and Indian wars. Does that count? :)
As the revelation of Jesus Christ, we get confirmation in the Book of Revelation and in the NT that Satan is Lucifer, Satan is the Prince of this world, Satan is that old serpent in the garden.
For you to make the assertion that the Jews had no concept of him falling from heaven is incorrect and scripture proves it.
Its hilareous to watch folks dance around the FACT that the quotations the apostles have in the new testament from hebrew scripture do NOT match the maeoretic text (made in the 8th centruy and subsequently had vowels added to it further distorting it) but rather with a different version of hebrew scripture which we've found at the qumran caves and dated to well before Christ coming.
show me where muslims convert to Christianity in droves due to protestants.
in Russia Orthodox Christians convert Muslims in astonishing numbers.
Maybe Muslims simply are not moved by a false faith (protestantism)
As I said I was referring to the formation of conscience, "law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness".. Conscience is not gnosticism nor heresy.
Nor can people make alway make good decisions..
The question was ever "choose to do good."
I would suggest going back and reading through the posts.
That's ok. The discussion was with Forest Keeper, when he catches up, we'll continue if he wishes.
Thanks for your reply.
What a great way to start catching up, by being reminded why we should so boldly proclaim the good news.
Amen, Amen, Amen!
We really have radically different views of justification. I don't think you can do anything to buy our justification.
I do appreciate your direct response to this issue. As I believe you know, Protestants and Baptists believe works reflect the indwelling Holy Spirit working in the regenerate believer, so we view works as a product of salvation not the cause of it.
"Your arguments are with Judaism."
No they are not with Judaism. Where do you think that the anonymous writers of the apocryphal books got their ideas of Satan/Lucifer, devils, evil spirits, familiar spirits? Although some of the occult religions had fully developed concepts, the Jews in the intertestimental period were not occultists and were not idolators after returning from the exile. When Jesus taught a fully developed understanding of Satan/Beelzebub, devils, evil spirits it was not from the occult religions or an idea alien to Judaism. He was teaching something they were familiar with from their tradition, not from questionable books not acepted by Judaism.
No, I didn't think that at all. I do think your concept of what constitutes "works" is odd, but that's another issue.
"That you think that since the elect are saved and can't be lost, then they will sit back on their laurels and wait for their death or the return of Christ."
Yes, that seems a likely result of your theology and yet it is apparent that at least good Protestants don't do that at all. That has me baffled if your theology holds to predestination and not to foreknowledge as Orthodoxy does. My following comments presuppose a predestination theology. God's foreknowledge of who will attain theosis and who won't I take as a given, to the extent, as I have said, that we can actually understand what God's foreknowledge is.
"Getting us saved is only one small part of the equation that God elected us for. Salvation is only part of the great commmission. Discipleship is a key part of what God planned for us from before the foundation of the world."
OK
"Matthew 28:19 (NASB)"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It was God's plan for us to do this."
I assume God has His reasons for this, but clearly in your theology it cannot be to bring people to Christ for santification since the elect are in from before all time and all the preaching in the world won't profit the damned one bit. And yet it is exactly this end, bringing people to Christ, which is the purpose of the Great Commission, is it not?
"As a result of the LOVE that Christ gives me for Him, I want to know all that I can about Him and want to know about how I may please Him. He is my God. He is my Savior. He revealed Himself to me in His Word. Would I not be an ungrateful twit if I decided 'oh, Gee, I've got the fire insurance now. Thanks God, I'll just be living my life the way I want now. See ya in heaven.' Such are not the thoughts of an elect person. That person has a heart-felt genuine desire for knowing Jesus more and wants to please Him."
In your theology, however, none of this matters for santification or being saved, if I understand you correctly. The elect are the elect. Reading scripture, learning all you can about God is surely edifying, but by definition it can contribute nothing at all to where you end up.Do I understand you to say that the scripture is given to the elect because being the elect they will want to know about God for their personal satisfaction? No doubt, having come to understand that God loves the elect more than any earthly father loves his children, the elect will want to please God. Are you saying this makes a difference to God? If so, in what way? Is the "reverse" true, which is to say, if the unelect read the scripture and try to please God they will always fail to do so. Clearly personal edification is no more salvific to the elect than to the damned and in any event, God doesn't "need" to be pleased by any of us.
"Finally, why do we study? Because the Word of God is key in drawing others to Him. Would they come if we didn't preach/teach them? If we were silent, the rocks would cry out. But what a blessing to be a part of God's drawing others to Himself. We study to have a ready answer for the hope within us in order that others may know the same God that we know."
Again, the elect are the elect. They don't need your preaching or mine or anyone's to be the elect. They only need God's election.
"Rather than quelling a missionary zeal in the way that we know that salvation is already a done deal for the elect, we preach and teach the gospel with a zeal KNOWING with assurance that there will be people who will respond."
But the damned can't respond and the elect are the elect. Their "response" is in no way salvific. Monergism says that there is no response, just the action of God. What good is the preaching?
"In the Orthodox system, there is no such assurance."
You've got that worng. We absolutely know that theosis is found within The Church. What we don't know is who will attain it or whether it can be attained outside The Church.
"In the end, it is not about us. It isn't about well, I'm saved now so I don't have to do anything. Would you still be saved if you took that tact? Yes you would."
I suppose that if one were to attain perfect theosis in this life, which we believe to be rare but not at all unheard of, your comment would be true. There are stories of saints like this. They reached a point where they didn't have to DO anything, though they did pray unceasingly. But I believe that when you say "saved" you mean something quite different from what I mean when I say attained perfect theosis. +Mary of Egypt is a good example of what I mean about someone who has attained theosis in this life. Here's a link to her life by Pat. Sophronius of Jerusalem:
http://www.monachos.net/library/Mary_of_Egypt,_Complete_Life_by_Patriarch_Sophronius_of_Jerusalem
The works of the Fathers, especially the Desert Fathers, have many stories of people like this and to this day there are such people, several at Mount Athos, others in various places around the globe. In Western hagiography, +Francis of Assisi is a sort of example of this state.
"But Christ saved us in order to become His workmen. We work, we study Scripture, we grow more Christ-like because it is what He designed us for. And we are blessed indeed.
There is nothing Holy Orthodoxy would not endorse in the foregoing but we do believe there is more in God's plan. Its interesting that you would make the above comment. Just this morning at the Divine Liturgy I was the one who intoned the Epistle in Greek. As I did so, I thought of you, honestly, when I chanted this:
"Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; οὐχὶ ᾽Ιησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑώρακα; οὐ τὸ ἔργον μου ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ; εἰ ἄλλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος, ἀλλά γε ὑμῖν εἰμι· ἡ γὰρ σφραγίς μου τῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ."
"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord."
For us, this is Judgment Sunday. The Gospel reading was Matt 25:31-46. Appropriate to our discussion, wouldn't you say? Here are the Apolytikion and Kontakia from the Divine Liturgy today which coincidentally are likewise quite appropriate:
Resurrectional Apolytikion in the Second Tone
When You descended unto death, O Lord who yourself are immortal Life, then did You mortify Hades by the lightning flash of Your Divinity. Also when You raised the dead from the netherworld, all the Powers of the heavens were crying out: O Giver of life, Christ our God, glory be to You.
Resurrectional Kontakion in the Second Tone
You rose from the tomb, O Savior all-powerful, and Hades beheld the marvel and was struck with fear, and the dead were rising up, and creation beholds and rejoices with You, and Adam is also exultant; O my Savior, and the world ever sings Your praise.
Seasonal Kontakion in the First Tone
O God, when You come upon the earth in glory, the whole world will tremble. A river of fire will bring all before Your Judgment Seat and the books will be opened, and everything in secret will become public. At that time, deliver me from the fire which never dies, and enable me to stand by Your right hand, O Judge most just.
***Self-test is no test.***
But test with the Bible. Are you growing the fruit of the Spirit in your life? Do you share the gospel with others? Are you counting on the work of God and his Son Jesus, instead of your own efforts to cleanse you from your sins? Are you savouring the words of the Lord... or do you really need to watch that re-run of CSI?
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.