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/
"While the "nationalistic Jews" may have controlled the Temple, it doesn't follow that they were not Hellenistic or had Hellenistic tendencies."
That's not necessarily true when you look at the early church Acts 6:1-4, "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word."
One of those named a Deacon was Stephen who in verse 9 was disputing with the leaders of the Hellenistic synagogue, "Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen."
The leaders of the church that met in the Temple area were decidedly Hebrew Jews. Now if the church mirrored the religious population of Jerusalem, and the Hellenistic Jews had their own synagogue, there was a distinction between the Hebrew Jews and the Hellenistic Jews.
our old testament matches the copies dated to 2 bc in qumran
yours dates to the 8th century and after being modified by Jews it had vowles added to futher confuse nuances in the language.
i'll take the original thanks.
http://www.lxx.org/
Anything else you'd care to lie about?
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
the temple controlling hebrew Jews were PHARISEES.
i've already given Harley the link to the Orthodox translation of the septuagint, continuing to say that the orthodox are not translating it after being given the link seems deliberatly posting false information that the post knows to be false.
Calling another poster a "liar" is "attributing motives" and therefore is "making it personal."
There is no problem however in saying that the statement made by another poster is false, misinformed, incomplete, inaccurate, etc. There is also no problem in pointing out that the poster is repeating the same false statement.
you know full well from links i've sent you in the past that the orthodox are translating the septuagint into english and that they've translated it into several other languages.
your statement that the orthodox have no translations of scripture is false which leads one to question whether other statements within your post are equally false.
(BTW when Cyril and Methodius translated the bible into local languages GERMANS ARRESTED THEM AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE POPE for translating the Bible into local language)
"the temple controlling hebrew Jews were PHARISEES."
And Jesus held their righteousness up as a high standard that must be exceeded if one is to enter the Kingdom, so not all of His opinions of Pharisees were negative, in fact, two of His bravest followers, when His disciples were cowering in fear, were Pharisees.
fact: the pharisees twsited scripture. check out Matthew where the pharisees are rallying behind divorce and Christ is challanging them.
and these are the folks you go to for scripture? a bunch of Jews who denied then and now that Christ was the messiah and who perverted scriptures?
nuff said.
seems like they've 'gotten around to it' then. Which is the exact opposite of what you said.
noting that the angry europeons you hold in such high regard are the same folks who locked up orthodox Christians for translating the bible into local languages.
I did noticed that it's a "study" bible. One has to wonder what a study bible would constitute within the Orthodox framework.
1 Bishop Fred interprets that Jesus actually wept. After putting forth his findings at the 935AD Council of Pizzarea, the majority of members felt Bishop Fred's interpretation to be correct. Guided by the Holy Spirit, Bishop Fred interpretation was confirmed.
Addedum: In 1597, Bishop Fred was declared +Fred for his interpretative work of scripture.
so are you saying that only english speakers are Christians now? Not only must one read a book to be saved but they have to read it in English?
sounds just like the pharisees...
Well, if Heaven was the USA in your metaphor, and I was in a little dinghy off the coast of France, then salvation for us would be God pushing the boat all the way across, protecting it all the way. The ocean could throw multiple "perfect" storms at the dinghy and God would simply splash them all away while we were worshiping, rejoicing and singing in the boat. No one who is saved could possibly fail to safely make the trip. So, it is much more than a Visa. Things can go wrong with Visas, nothing can go wrong with salvation. There is no chance involved.
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).
I don't see how it could refer to only demons. The analogy would fall apart because it is so clear that sheep refers to people. We are told that the sheep and goats need to be divided, which means there must be some base thing in common, such as being four-legged animals. It would make no sense to divide the sheep from the trees. Therefore, if we already know that sheep are people in Christ, then goats must be people not in Christ.
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.
To the extent we are both Christians, we ARE on the same page of music. While the Bible is a very complex book, its message is relatively simple, such that a 5-year-old can understand it. It doesn't make any sense that God wouldn't want us to know Him. How could He love us and not want that?
The Jews do not believe man needs to be saved.
The Jews believed in Messiah. Many of them may have had the wrong idea of it, but I think the OT righteous did have it right. They had faith, which is all that is needed.
By following the Law, Jews make themselves 'acceptable' to 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.
The Law is also the standard against which all men are proved unworthy. The early sacrifices literally "fixed" nothing. They were simulations of the one and only sacrifice that WAS worthy.
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 (Scripture) and the Church (doctrine).
Yes, faith leads us to do proper things, but those things are no more salvific now than they were in the OT, no matter what many Jews believed. To believe that works are salvific (i.e. that more is required than faith) is to diminish what Christ did for us. One response might be to say that your view is all God intended for Christ's death, but since we both agree that He died, under your view it was worth less (not worthless :).
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 ...
Of course that's not how it works, and I'm surprised that you still think Protestants "figure" that way at all. For certain, Reformers do not figure this way. Not only do we say so, we live it. And Paul has nothing to do with the attitude you describe. How many times does he have to say "By NO means" for you to believe him?
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.
Was this God adjusting on the fly? :) God made a New Covenant because it was time for the Incarnation, planned from the beginning, and Christ was to bring it. If the OT animal sacrifices really WERE good enough to justify a man before God, then the cross was unnecessary.
From your website:
The scripture is the infinite through the finite, rather than a dictation of God. It is finite in that it is in time and written, read and understood by finite man.The distinction here would include the difference between the Bible and, say, the tablets of Moses written with the 'finger of God'. This has key ramifications for our religion versus Islam as the Pope and others have pointed out.
It's also finite in that it is within the constraints of words and concepts. Much of what we know of God cannot be fully expressed in language.
We (RCs) do believe the Bible is the word of God. It does not contain ALL the Word of God, but those revealed truths that the Divine wished to be transmitted in writing. I think the Protestant view may be different on this score. And of course, Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God. We can't reduce the Word of God to just the scriptures.
Then, of course, scripture did not come with an imprimatur. Some one or some group chooses which are canon and which are not. The Church Councils did this, Luther did this and others discussed and disagreed on various books. They did this based on their inspiration, or we say the Holy Spirit working through them did. Since we end up with different canons and the Holy Spirit is unchanging...
My personal view is that it is important to trust whom you trust with important matters of scripture and interpretation. While I agree with the Protestant principle of the value of reading scripture as a spiritual exercise - akin to our lectio divina - I still view it as a spritual practice, and as with all spiritual practice requires spiritual direction. A large portion of scripture can be understood by an intelligent reader; however, the total human being is much more complex and benefits greatly from the assistance of a spiritual doctor when undergoing the long term treatment of our soul.
This is how I see the Church. Not only as the authority on what is scripture but how it is applied in our spiritual life. Of course, this is different from Protestantism today.
Thanks for your reply, sorry for my length.
...Making such vicious attacks without any basis, just because you love to hate.
Well, if you think that attacks your person, then I apologize. Please forgive me, it was not my intention to attack you, but your argument. Unfortunately, it often appears that anything Catholic is often open to unwarranted attacks, so perhaps I overreacted.
Regards
You are probably correct. And this proves your point how? Most Jews were Hellenistic and spoke Greek. Most Jews accepted the Septuagint. The writers of the New Testament accepted the Septuagint, as they quote from it over 3 times more often then the Hebrew version. I do not see how this line of thought does anything but take us on a wild goose chase regarding the Deuterocanonicals. The Pharisaical sect was not considered superior by other Jews as the keeper of the Canon. And if you read the history of the times, many of the Pharisees were indeed Hellenistic. This influence is undeniable - and naturally, the Jews who converted and followed Christ make it plain that they also thought that the Septaugint was Scripture.
Regards
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.