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/
Well, now that we've been told to go to "heck," what really is the point of discussion with kawaii? So we can enlighten him? he us? Ain't gonna happen.
Well done. And exceedingly correct, imho.
Thx
Indeed.
However . . . as a foil for truth to the lurkers . . . LOL.
Have been pondering the fractious distinctions so many of us seem to obsess so much over with so much noise hereon . . .
It occurs to me that . . .
Probably what . . .
85-95% of the emotional noise arises NOT REALLY out of Biblical interpretational differences . . .
I mean IF we really took THE BIBLE THAT seriously, we'd not make SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH INTENSE NOISE over SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MANY very or RELATIVELY minor points of difference. We be MORE CONCERNED about being MORE LOVING.
So what is the 85-95% of the intensity generated by or about?
Seems to me it's the old IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP STUFF fostered, triggered, motivated, sourced by/from
REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER stuff the first 6 or so years of life . . . childhood insecurities.
THE GROUP--OUR PRIMARY REFERENCE GROUP--however we RELIGIOUSLY CONSTRUE THAT has somehow usurped God's place
AS OUR SECURITY, DEFENSE, HIGH TOWER, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, OUR ALL IN ALL.
Somehow, for too many, THE GROUP has taken on all that aura, all that emotion; all that intensity; all that PLACE, POSITION, PURPOSE, ROLE.
I can't believe God is very impressed with that.
Perhaps He has partly allowed such distinctions amongst Christian groups to not only challenge us to Love regardless but to TRUST HIM WITH EVEN TRUTH regardless . . . as well as with ourselves.
RELATIVE TO MY LAST
RE REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER [SOMEONE(s) you know desperately needs this information in order to begin to improve their adult relationships more effectively]. . . some links:
http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001547.htm
http://www.hmh.net/adam/encyclopedia/hhe%20articles/001547.htm
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/60/67162.htm
http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?ss=15&doc_id=7012&nbr=4221
http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=10105&cn=28
No, I really don't see every problem as a nail for my hammer. But I am learning to respect more and more the far reaching impacts of this very central problem that fosters so many ills in our society.
FK, there was no "New Testament" as you so put it until much later in Christian history. The writings of Paul and the Gospels were considered as SCRIPTURE - and not differentiated into two separate sets until later. I have already given enough historical basis for the Deuterocanonicals being considered in the same sentence by the Fathers as the Protocanonicals, using verses from both in the same sentence to prove a point - and calling them BOTH Scripture.
Your differentiation is anachronistic and not historical given the time period we are discussing (first century)
I think their view deserves some weight.
As I said before, the SAME "Council of Jamnia" determined that the Christian Gospels were heretical. You be the judge if you want to follow their determinations. Next, you'll be telling me that because the Jewish Pharisees didn't believe that Christ was the Messiah, we shouldn't either.
See where your logic leads on this subject?
Regards
Being called Satanic or the AntiChrist or Whore of Babylon.. or the result of Satan's plan...
I think we all, both sides and all sides, have experienced this from others about our faith. And I think we're bound to respond to it.
However, it would be better if we did not charge it to begin with. It serves no useful purpose to our church, ourselves or others.
It's particularly damaging to meaningful discussion on the thread. Maybe as a whole the forum can agree to refrain from this line.
"Promoting abortion under the guise of helping the poor. Saying that a Christian church can have homosexual clergy. Saying that Christian churches can bless homosexual relations."
You are absolutely wrong about this as far as the Calvinist/Arminian believers who are participating on this thread are concerned. There is not one whose church participates in, is a member of, or contributes to an organization that promotes those things. But the Orthodox Church does belong to and contributes to an organization that promotes just those things; the World Council of Churches. So I suggest that we see which church is being deceived by Satan by the fruits of their relationships.
"I have already given enough historical basis for the Deuterocanonicals being considered in the same sentence by the Fathers as the Protocanonicals, using verses from both in the same sentence to prove a point - and calling them BOTH Scripture."
From the following web site (I only wish I had the time to research it):
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/apocrypha.html
Why isn’t the Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible?
http://www.gotquestions.org
Apocrypha (‘hidden’, ‘doubtful’) most commonly refers to disputed books rejected by Protestants and accepted by both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church. In 1546 the Council of Trent declared the apocryphal seven books and four parts of books in the Old Testament as part of inspired Scripture, stating that anyone who did not accept the said books as sacred.. “Let him be anathema”. (The four parts of books are integrated into Esther and Daniel). Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent but were generally placed in a separate section, as they were not considered of equal credence.
There are several main reasons for the rejection of the Apocrypha.
Non-acceptance by the Jewish canon.
The Jewish Canon does not include the Apocrypha. This is significant as it was to the Jews that the OT was entrusted (Rom 3:1,2) and they are the custodians of the limits of their own canon. (Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek, not Hebrew).
The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (ca. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of divinely inspired canon.
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.- A.D. 40) quoted extensively from virtually every canonical book but never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired.
Josephus (A.D. 30-100), a Jewish historian explicitly excluded the Apocrypha, speaking of the number of Jewish books which are divinely trustworthy, not leaving a place for the apocryphal books. . He numbered the OT books as 22 (the equivalent of the 39 books in the Protestant Old Testament). Josephus expressed the common Jewish perspective when he said that the prophets wrote from the time of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, and that no writing since that time had the same authority.
The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, both of whom lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.
There are several statements by Rabbis that prophecy ceased in the fourth century B.C. acknowledging that the Apocrypha was written in a period when God had ceased giving inspired writings.
Seeming Exclusion by Jesus Himself.
When Jesus or the apostles appealed simply to "the Scriptures" against their Jewish opponents, there is no suggestion whatsoever that the identity and limits of such writings were vague or in dispute.
Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation" (NKJV).
Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers. The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already established in his day.
(The order of books as they appear today is taken from the Septuagint (second century BC Greek translation of the OT).
Lack of reference to the Apocrypha in the NT.
While the NT quotes mainly from the Greek Old Testament (LXX) it is uncertain as to whether the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. No direct quotations from any Apocryphal books appear in the NT although they were aware of these books and alluded to them at times. However Hebrews 11:37 may very well refer to 1 Kings 17:22 and not 1 Maccabees, as is often claimed. But none of these allusions rise to the apostles using the Apocrypha as an authoritative source. On the other hand there are literally hundreds of quotations in the NT from the ‘Law and Prophets’ which Jesus called “all the Scripture”. Luke 24:27).
So with the lack of authoritative quotes from the Apocrypha in the NT, it appears the NT writers, and Jesus Himself, did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Not every book of the Hebrew canon is quoted in the NT (such as the Song of Solomon, or Canticles as it is named in Catholic Bibles). But every section of the OT as Jews divided it is quoted from (i.e. the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings).
The absent of any quotes from any of the Apocryphal books is rather striking. This is especially so given that many of the OT quotes in the NT were actually taken from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew text (It is for this reason that if you compare OT quotes in the NT with their OT counterparts they don't match up exactly). In any case, what this means is, the Bible text the NT authors had before them had the Apocrypha in it; but they seem to have completely ignored the Apocrypha when they were looking to support a statement with an authoritative source.
So the evidence of the NT strongly suggest the writers of the NT did not accept the Apocryphal books as canon.
Rejection by many early church fathers.
Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.
In 382 Bishop Damascus had Jerome (the greatest Bible scholar of the early Medieval period) work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world though Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the rest. He stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. More damning was his statement that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture” (Preface to Vulgate Book of Solomon,) He initially refused to translate the apocrypha into Latin but later made a hasty translation of a few books.
But Augustine (c. 400 AD) did recognize the Apocrypha. So it was mainly from his influence that the Apocrypha eventually became accepted. However, the Catholic Church itself did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500's. (Called as a response to the Protestant heresy by the Catholic Church) Before that, there was always debate as to their inspiration. Some of the Church Fathers, for instance, quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture but others didn't. But however it is looked at, the official acceptance of the Apocrypha occurred well after the NT was written and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews.
The reformers were also forced to face the Canon issue. After the Reformation the books of the canon were widely agreed on. Instead of the authority of the Church, Luther and the reformers focused on the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.
Test of Propheticity.
One of the tests of whether writing was seen as inspired or not was propheticity. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. Only books written by a prophet or accredited spokesperson for God belong in the canon. The people to whom the prophet wrote knew which of the prophets fulfilled the requirements for god’s representatives and authenticated the writings by accepting them. Moses’ books were accepted and stored in a holy place (Deut 31:26) as was Joshua’s writings (Joshua 24:26). Daniel already had a copy of Jeremiah and Peter had a collection of Paul’s writings, equating them with the OT as Scripture. False prophets were weeded out if their prophecy did not come true (Deut 18: 20-22) and alleged revelations that contradicted previously revealed truths were rejected as well. (Deut 13:1-3.).
Additionally Moses’ writings are cited through the OT beginning with Joshua all the way to Malachi. (E.g. Josh 1:7, 1 Kings 2:3, Ezra 6:18, Jeremiah 8:8, Malachi 4:4.
Later prophets cite earlier ones (E.g. Jer 26:18, Ezek 14:14, Dan 9:2, Jonah 2: 2-9).
On the NT Paul cites Luke (1Tim 5:18), Peter recognizes Paul’s Epistles (2 Peter 15-16)
Revelation Is filled with imagery largely from Daniel.
On the other hand no Apocryphal book claims to be written by a prophet and there is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha. Not once is a an Apocryphal book cited authoritatively by a prophetic book written after it, nor is there any supernatural confirmation of the writers of the Apocrypha as there is for prophets who wrote the canon.
Errors in the Apocrypha
The books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors. For instance, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7). Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)!
The theological errors are equally significant. Wisdom of Solomon teaches the creation of the world from pre-existent matter (7:17). II Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead (12:45-46), and Tobit teaches salvation by the good work of almsgiving (12:9) -- quite contrary to inspired Scripture (such as John 1:3; II Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11).
Conclusion.
The apocryphal books were sometimes highly regarded or cited for their antiquity or for their historical, moral, or literary value, but the conceptual distance between "valuable" and "divinely inspired" is considerable. Roman Catholic apologists sometimes jump to canonical conclusions from the simple fact that the books of the Apocrypha were copied and included among ancient manuscripts or from the fact than an author draws upon them. But obviously a writer can quote something from a work, which he takes to be true without thereby ascribing divine authority to it (for instance, Paul quoting a pagan writer in I Cor. 15:33).
Roman Catholic apologists often misunderstand the Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha, thinking it entails having no respect or use for these books whatsoever. Calvin himself wrote, "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books"; his objection was to "placing the Apocrypha in the same rank" with inspired Scripture ("Antidote" to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68). Likewise, Luther placed the Apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible, describing them in the title as "Books which are not to be held equal to holy scripture, but are useful and good to read."
To sum up, Jews, apparently the NT writers and Jesus, some Church Fathers, and Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha all of which is strong evidence against the inclusion of the Apocrypha.
Exactly. Or as Quix pointed out, grounded in nothing more than personal idiosyncrasies or psychological weaknesses.
This is the vigor of the Reformation -- we must base everything we know about God and His plan for our lives on His written word because we have faith the Holy Spirit guides us in our learning.
And when we disagree, we open our Bibles and thrash it out, comparing Scripture to Scripture and context to content, thereby understanding God's will more deeply than before we sat down to read and discuss and debate.
But all this is predicated on Christ's assurance that the Holy Spirit does indeed lead God's children in all righteousness and truth. If we disbelieve that, we are lost.
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" -- John 16:13
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." -- Colossians 3:16-17
Further, Paul doesn't say to do anything in the name of anyone other than Jesus Christ.
I have to disagree. It sounds to me like you are bringing together anger and surprise. That happens with us all the time, but as I said in the prior post, of course that never happens with God. Are you saying that God never had anger, or that He was surprised and did have anger?
Think of the most dramatic example. What do you think God's reaction was to watching Jesus die on the cross? Was it sadness or grief or anger, as those concepts are described to us in the Bible? Was it surprise? Was it indifference? I'm not equating God's "emotions" to our human emotions, but the Bible says what it says, and there has to be a reason for so many scriptures to use those terms in describing God. His plan is the ultimate good. If that plan can include such things as the death of His Son, then it shouldn't be surprising that other parts of His plan also caused anger.
I have thoroughly researched this, and right off the bat, you have made a mistake - APOCRYPHA... You and your quotes of the Fathers refer to the properly-called "Apocrypha", such as the Gospel of Thomas. Why the Protestants removed the Deuterocanonicals is obviously theological. And by calling them "Apocrypha", they place them in a category of "hidden" or "doubtful". Sorry, the majority of the Deuterocanonicals were not "hidden" or "doubtful". The Book of Wisdom was very well known by the Fathers, as they refer to it over and over again. The Septaugint was widely circulated throughout the Diaspora - more Jews lived OUTSIDE of Palestine, so it was the Bible of the Jews. They certainly WERE aware of the books within!
And can you please drop the silly argument "the Jews didn't accept the Apocrypha, so neither will I". REMEMBER THE JEWS DIDN'T ACCEPT CHRIST, EITHER...
Regards
Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness. For His anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." -- Psalm 30:3-5"O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.
Works for me.
Thanks for the terrific post.
What theology? I have read them, doesn't seem to be much there other than dreams and visions, angels and anecdotes. I do remember one famous quote from supposedly Jesus, "If God had wanted you to have a foreskin, you would have been born with one."
if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.(Matthew 18:17)
14 I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. 15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church. 18 As if I would not come to you, so some are puffed up. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will: and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power. 21 What will you? shall I come to you with a rod; or in charity, and in the spirit of meekness?
(1 Corinthians 4)
You are right that it is not a gift like a book or a piece of jewelry. It is a gift, or "thing", of infinitely greater value, freedom. When a master releases his slave from bondage, do you think the slave perceives that a gift has been given to him? I certainly think so. The former slave will absolutely carry his freedom with him for the rest of his life. Likewise, the recipient of God's saving grace will carry his freedom, salvation, the Holy Spirit, and more with him for the rest of his life.
Matthew 12
23And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Bump
"Blessed" is one stage below "saint" and is St. Augistine's station in the Orthodox Church. He is a canonized saint of the Catholic Church. If I called him "blessed", my apologies, I should not have.
More to the point, all he says and I have read I like. He is a major father of the Western Church, no doubt. I do not like how he is misinterpeted. The East does not like his teaching on original sin, and the East has never fully embraced him. So, he has a regional appeal. He is undoubtedly late, AD 354-430.
Any father of the Church is authority if he is speaking in consensus with the rest of the Church. Almost in all of them you can find something that is not of consensus. This is why they are not inspired scripture, but they are -- inasmuch as speaking with one voice -- a necessary part of underastanding the Deposit of Faith.
Unless the human ritual of Eucharist is salvation itself, isn't death a pretty harsh sentence to proclaim against all non-Apostolics?
The Eucharist is not a human ritual. Humans cannot turn wine into blood, and rituals cannot save. It is a sacrament ordinarily necessary for salvation, yes, and avoidance of it is death: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54).
Probably most of the writings of the Fathers which survived I disagree with [...] My point was to note that Protestant ideas DID exist from early on
So, you disagree with the early Church, period. You find something in Augustine that you use a s a jumping off point. Your beliefs are completely ahistorical.
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.