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/
***In His Church, not all are equal.***
In his eyes, we are all equal. We are all sinners who have been chosen by him to receive grace through his Son, Jesus. We are now all equally his children.
In his church, we are not all equal. Some are called to more difficult tasks, others to different types of service. We are even equal there in that we are all called to do his will.
The Church, for example, does not teach Pauline doctrine of atonement; the Protestants do.
+Paul was needed to save the Church from extinction. That is not an Orthodox doctrine; it is my view.
The "agreement" among the Apostles is not so clear if you read +Paul's version, rather than +Luke's version. The followers of +James never reconciled with giving up Jewishness.
+Paul created a new religion that ceased to be Judaism. The Church doesn't teach that either; but only someone in complete denial could claim otherwise. Christianity is not Judaism. But Christianity was Judaism until +Paul.
By the time the Gospels and the rest of the Christian canon were written (after 65 AD), the Church was clearly on its way out of Israel and seeking to survive in diaspora in the pagan world.
Judaizers became a liability for the Church's survival. It was either accept +Pauline version of Christianity or perish. The Church in Jerusalem refused yo accept and perished in 69 AD.
We do not differ on that at all. I never said or implied that you 'buy' your righteousness. Such a claim would mean that God can be 'bought.'
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
We view the works as a consequence of faith, none of which assures us of salvation. We will all be judged, at the end, according to our deeds. The Bible is clear on that. Faith without works is a dead faith.
Thank you for being kind and accepting of our differences in good faith.
Wed don't know. These books are part of the Septuagint and were therefore used by many (Greek-speaking) Jews (including the Apostles) as Scripture. Therefore no one considered them 'idolatrous.' The Jews of jesus' times used the Septuagint to a large extent.
However, Pharisaical/rabbinical Judaism rejected the Septuagint and all its books in Jamnia, 100 AD.
This is where the Protestant logic escapes me: your OT canon is that of the Christ-denying Jamnia Jews, the Pharisaical "Hebrew Bible" which contains none of the demonoglogy found in Septuagint (which predates Christ), which is in agreement with what is in the New Testament?
If they were part of Septuagint, then they were Scripture, which is why the nascent Church kept them.
Which version and whose theology? There are many, many people doing what you suggest, and they are not all correct, except maybe in their own minds.
One must beware of self-delusions. They usually give one an inner 'high,' and a 'feel good' sensation, but that of an in itself is not a proof of anything.
And was He surprized? Apparemntly he was 'unhappy' for having created man and decided to drown everything living. I am sorry, I fail to see the reason for anger.
Why did the Spirit (the Giver of Life!), on the Passover killing spree, need a blood 'marker' on every Jewish home if He knows what's in our hearts, and therefore knew who was a Jew and who wasn't?
We can say that Adam and Eve rebelled and that God foreknew that. But it was still God who scripted the play before He even created Adam and Eve, the way He created the "everlasting lake of fire" for the devil and his angels [Mat 25:41] and into the "everlasting punishment."
So are we to understand that there was someone being punished from before aeons [aiwnioV]?
In the OT, Satan is mentioned by name in I Chronicales, Job, and Zechariah, and Psalm 109.6 among other things. There is nothning to identify the King of Sydon with Satan nor the King of Babylon.
The New testament is very clear that Christ considered Satan tre fallen angel also known as the devil, but that's not what the subject was about.
I have probably been told this before, so please forgive me that I cannot remember the Orthodox answer. Given that: (1) the Orthodox do not believe in original sin, (2) you practice infant baptism, (3) babies have not committed any sin, and (4) you do not believe that baptism covers future sins, how is baptism the forgiveness of sins in Orthodoxy?
We believe that sacraments are accomplished by the Holy Spirit. They are not rituals.
But you use your free will to perform them. I can't possibly mean "ritual" in a pejorative sense, since we practice baptism (and the Lord's Supper) also. What does "ritual" mean to you?
To a Muslim or a Jew, the New Testament is "just a book." To you it's a word of God. To us a sacrament is grace; to you it is an empty ritual.
Rituals don't imply emptiness at all. We derive meaning from our rituals, albeit different from the meanings you take. I wouldn't call your rituals empty, my point was just that I don't think rituals are salvific, and I don't think the Bible teaches that they are. Faith is salvific. They are two different things. IOW, the Bible doesn't say we are saved by grace through ritual.
Don't try to be 'logical' when it comes to blind faith, FK. Any faith is a presumption.
Faith certainly involves being certain of what we do not see, but I do not think this means faith must be blind at all. While there are truths in Christianity that we accept without being able to fully explain, I think logic and reason can be found all over Christianity. When I read the red letters in my Bible I see a high order and consistency to it. Some things I did not see (understand) on a first reading, but then further logical explanation based on other scripture brought it back into focus. I really think the Bible was written so that we may understand to the fullest extent of God's intentions. Perhaps Reformers believe those intentions were comparatively higher.
[On Lev. 17:11] I thought the law was not salvific.
It isn't and it wasn't. Those laws were ceremonial, they literally saved no one, and the coming of Christ proved it. Only the blood of Christ was salvific. The OT righteous did not have the blood of Christ yet, in time, so the best they could do was "imitate" it with ceremony. After Christ, there was no more need for animal sacrifice. No one was ever saved because he followed the law.
FK: "Yes, the Law required rituals, but are we saved by rituals now? Do you think that the OT Jews were actually saved through rituals?"
The OT Jews did not feel a need to be saved. Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. The messianic era of Judaism a century or so before Christ was not seeking to 'save' individuals but to restore the Kingdom of Israel.
Well actually, my question was irrespective of what many Jews thought, I was referring to how it worked in truth.
But even in the way you took it, I don't think I can agree. A Savior is clearly prophesied, even if many wrongly interpreted what that meant. I believe the OT righteous knew it correctly. In addition, the OT Jews certainly believed in a need for atonement. What were they afraid of if they did not atone? Even among those who had it wrong, can't it be said that they felt a need for "salvation" through atonement?
If Moses says that burnt offerings atone for your sins, and +Paul says that faith makes you just before God, why should I believe +Paul any more than Moses?
The Bible says that both are telling the truth as revealed to them by God. Burnt offerings, and the like, were symbolic of what was to come. It was a preview of the real thing. Christ's revelation through Paul was a fulfillment.
FK: "Sure Christ taught that. Right through Paul. ..."
That's not the only possibility.
That's right. The other possibility is that Paul was not teaching in accordance with what Christ revealed to him, and was therefore in the service of satan! :) I happen to discount this "possibility".
FK: "But this does tell me something. Does it tell you anything? :)"
Let me guess: it's a riddle?
It's the same idea as what I just posted. :) If the Church does not teach everything that Paul taught, then the Church purposely does not teach all of scripture. By definition, this means that the Church does not accept all of the inspired word of God. I have been contending this for some time.
But Paul commended the Berians for doing just that. Testing everything with scripture. Can it be wrong? I don't think so.
scripture is not both the means and the end.
I am absolutely certain that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
The last part of the finalized Nicene Creed, which we sing or recite at every Divine Liturgy says:
Baptism, however, is also a sacrament of adoption into the Church, that is to say the Body of Christ, where the infant can begin to participate in the life of the Church (we give Communion to infants and children without confession).
As to 'how' is Baptism forgiveness of sins, the NT is clear on that.
But you use your free will to perform them
Not we, the priest does. He has been given the keys, so to say, to call the Holy Spirit and petition Him to perform the Sacrament. Even some Protestant sects require 'ordination,' since not everyone was meant to be an apostle, prophet or a teacher.
But the priest never presumes that he has the 'right' to demand or to feel worthy of God's presence. As the Divine Liturgy enters the section reserved only for the faithful (after the catechumens have been ceremonially dismissed), the priest reads in a low voice (while the choir is signing):
Enable me by the power of Your Holy Spirit so that, vested with the grace of priesthood, I may stand before Your holy Table and celebrate the mystery of Your holy and pure Body and Your precious Blood.
To You I come with bowed head and pray: do not turn Your face away from me or reject me from among Your children, but make me, Your sinful and unworthy servant, worthy to offer to You these gifts.
For You, Christ our God, are the Offerer and the Offered, the One who receives and is distributed, and to You we give glory, together with Your eternal Father and Your holy, good and life giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.
Not for one moment does the priest believe that we have any control in when the mystery is performed; all we ever ask for from God is — mercy.
I wouldn't call your rituals empty, my point was just that I don't think rituals are salvific, and I don't think the Bible teaches that they are
But that has to do with your (Protestant) definition of 'salvation' as a singular event. To us being saved is a life-long process of becoming Christ-like, even if it happens on the last breath. So, every step in that direction, every cleansing, ever blessing is a step closer to being saved.
You would call being 'saved' getting a visa to come to America. We look at it as a chance of mercy. All you have is a little dinghy at a coast of France and a vast and violent ocean you have to negotiate in it to get to America. Many tribulations and reasons exist why some never make it.
I really think the Bible was written so that we may understand to the fullest extent of God's intentions
We can understand God to the extent that we can describe Him, which is not even close to what He really is. In addition to that, the Bible was written at various times with various realities at hand, and with various cultural influences playing a role in the way the biblical scrolls are expressed, the terminology used, etc.
Even more so importantly, the Hebrew numerology is very important, yet it is completely lost when translated into other languages. Thus, a goat in Judaism also means 'demon' in some contexts, just as 'sheep' mean people.
Reading Mat 20, one wonders if the sheep and goats were used in that context as well at the Final Judgment. The 'goats' could be all the people who reject Christ or only the demons, for the verses clearly state that the eternal lake of fire was created specifically for the devil and his angels. But it could also mean that 'goats' are also those (humans) who do not repent (since there is no repentance for the fallen angels).
It's thins kind of material that doesn't allow even a five-year-old to read and understand the Bible. I submit that NO ONE understands the Bible, let alone logically comprehend it.
If the Bible had a clear-cut meaning in it, we would all be on the same sheet of music, FK. It seems to me that God did not want us to 'understand' Him very well at all. It always leaves way too much room for 'personal' interpretation, cultural differences (i.e. 'brothers of Christ'), linguistic differences, numerology, historicity, and so on.
No one was ever saved because he followed the law.
The Jews do not believe man needs to be saved. They do believe that man should make himself acceptable to God. We owe Him that. He is our Father.
By following the Law, Jews make themselves 'acceptable' top God. In other words, they make themselves 'righteous' in the eyes of God who knows our intentions and recognizes those whose hearts are filled with love.
The Law was the rule how one should act and think. As you know, we must be taught everything,including the language, manners, mercy and forgiveness, no different than our traffic laws (and cops) remind us of what is the 'proper' way to drive.
In Orthodoxy, we combine that with faith: God is inscribed in our hearts and the faith leads us to do 'proper' things we learn from God (Scriputre) and the Church (doctrine).
The Protestants get a driving license and figure no matter how they drive and how many times they get a ticket, their license will never be taken away because Christ took all those violations on His shoulder and paid all our fines.
That's not the way it works, FK. It may be very comforting and cozy, but that's not it. Again, +Paul had a lot to do with that attitude, even though the Church will never admit it because +Paul is the only thread of legitimacy the Church holds on to. Without +Paul, there would be no Church left.
Burnt offerings, and the like, were symbolic of what was to come. It was a preview of the real thing. ,P> That sounds like something the neocons would come up with. There is no indication whatsoever that laws governing burnt offerings were temporary.
The only reason God made a New Covenant was because the Jews went back and forth worshiping idols until the Babylonian captivity, not because animal sacrifices were something 'temporary' or 'foreshadowing' anything.
No, not necessarily. The Bible is full of instances where unsuspecting individuals, sometimes unbeknowns to them, serve God's purpose, or for that matter any purpose.
Let's be brutally frank: without +Paul there would be no Christianity. But, by the same token, Pauline Christianity is not the Judaism preached by Jesus Christ.
The Church does teach everything +Paul taught, except with a different interpretation than the +Paul taught by the Protestants.
Herein lies the rub, FK. Everyone who calls on Christ's name claims to teach the 'right' faith. God is a riddle we cannot solve, but if God revealed Himself to men we presume that He did so that men would 'know' Him and would know what God expects from us.
That is not the case. Many if not all those who teach anything the Bible says claim to have the Holy Spirit as a Guide. That's not possible, because the teachings differ so much they are unrecognizable in some cases.
What could be the cause of that discord? The Holy Spirit teaches everyone something else or men fail to understand the essence of faith? I would say the latter.
Just because the same-minded people or even individual readers agree with themselves doesn't mean they are right! The Old World Order was based on the geocentric theory (earth at the center, everything revolves around us) based on the Bible (man is God's central creation), philosophy (Aristotle) and science (Ptolemy).
They all came, independently, to the same concordant conclusion: earth is at the center of all creation and everytyhing revolves around us. The knowledge couldn't be more solid than the concordance of three powerful fields of man's knowledge coming to the same conclusion independent of each other! Yet, they were wrong.
Western Christian 'confidence' is an expression of this rationalistic dogmatic mindset that believes man can solve every enigma and explain everything through reason. That might be true if man (a) had all the information necessary and (b) the capacity to process it. We don't. So, no matter what we do, we can only 'hope' in God's mercy because we can never be sure that we really 'know' anything for certain.
The intention is not wrong (after all, it's the intention that counts!), but we obviously do not all read the Bible the same way (yet everyone claims the same Holy Spirit as the Guide).
I think it seems plain that we neither possess the language nor mental capacity to fully understand God; nor do we have the knowledge and the feel for the history, the culture and the language of the times when different books were written.
What would you put in place of scripture?
Then neither does the Pope, the Cardinals, the elders, the Bishops, etc. If we can't trust the Holy Spirit, then we are lost.
I look for the simplest meaning first. Then, if that is not satisfactory, I look to others who have knowledge and seek their input. I test it all to scripture. Scripture has to be the final arbitor in all things. It IS the Word of God.
Just as the Holy Spirit who knows our hear speaks to the Father with inexplicable moanings, He also reveals to each believer all elements of faith and belief which we receive.
He paces us, knowing exactly the best way to provide for us as had been predetermined from eternity past.
There might be a gradation of fellowship in the environments surrounding us. We know that it isn't what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of him.
We might test things by worldly standards. I could go into a strip tease bar and ask the waitresses for advice, but will likely be more influenced by corruption than by holiness.
Using Scripture as a guide when discerning issues is an outstanding source of discernment, provided one remains filled with the Holy SPirit in all things. For this reason I see nothing wrong with 'sola scriptura' as a practical policy. This doesn't exclude other methods God might employ to effect His plan or will, but it is an outstanding policy, sepecially since no previous generation prior to the Church Age has available to them what God has provided us today in knowing His will so explicitly via Bible doctrine.
In a nutshell, none of us have any capacity to understand God separate from the enabling ministry of God the Holy Spirit. His ministry though is more than a soulish exercise. He supernaturally reveals things to us in our human spirit which through faith in Christ we are able to perceive.
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.