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/
Do you think the Latin Vulgate is full of Hebrew errors? Do you think it was constructed on erroreous text?
BTW-Why pray for the salvation of anyone, if they have the right to choose if God will not override their will? Is the hand of the Lord so short that He cannot save? In the end God no longer is all powerful
Sometimes I think we don't speak the same language, FK. In fact, I am certain we don't. You said "we owe all our faith to God." If something is a gift we owe nothing.
I was using a common expression. Many times we say that we "owe" something to someone as an acknowledgment of receipt of a gift. There is never any expectation of payback by the giver and no intention of paying by the receiver. For example, if you save my life I might say "Thanks, I owe you my life". I have no intention of forfeiting my life in front of you and you have no expectation of my slashing my throat because I said what I said. It's an expression, and it applies in the case of faith. The true believer (receiver of true faith) has no intention of attempting to return the gift, and God has no expectation of any such attempt.
FK: "ALL, 100% of the birds God sets free come back to Him. Birds are not more powerful than God either."
What does more powerful have to to do with that? If you set something free the only power you are exercising is in freeing something, not controlling it.
I'm not sure of the difference for these purposes, but apparently you are talking about "givebacks" instead of "takebacks". I always thought that the Orthodox view was that a gift wasn't really a gift unless it was accepted. If so, then it would seem that God would have to accept a "giveback" in order to make it valid. If men can use their free wills to force God to accept their "givebacks", then men are, once again, more powerful than God. This is what I was arguing against.
Grace is a 'state' (like life and death); it's your current condition (like guilt or innocence). You can believe it or not believe it, it is your state regardless of what you think or believe. Your faith is something you can use or not use. You have no control over your state of grace.
If will is not involved, and grace is not a gift, then to what do we credit whatever state of grace we might find ourselves at any given time? Does it change during life, and if so, how? With no merit and no gift, I don't see how you have a lot of room to operate in here. :)
I suppose a valid use of "grace" can be to describe a state, but it also describes God's gifts to us. When we say "grace" at the dinner table, what are we doing? Are we not thanking Him for His gifts? Do you all never talk in terms of God having graced you with this or that spiritual gift, etc.?
But of course he would say that, but the fact remains Christ never taught what +Paul preached about circumcision, the Law and the dietary laws, as well as taking the Church to the Gentiles, so whoever was speaking "through" him was not repeating what Christ taught before him.
Now wait a minute. :) On the one hand Christ taught more than what was in the Bible, so Tradition has legitimacy. On the other hand, Christ didn't overtly teach what Paul taught word for word in scripture, so Paul was wrong!!! Unbelievable. :)
Theology? I thought sola fide is all you need?!
I could have faith alone in a head of lettuce for my salvation, but that would not be all I need. The faith must be a true faith by true grace for sola fide to have any meaning.
All of the goats. The meaning of the term 'goat' in the Judaic biblical sense is associated with demons,.
The Bible tells us that God created the lake of fire for the devil and his angels (the 'goats'). It also says that the goats will be separated from the sheep and commanded to depart into the lake.
In other words, some are 'goats,' devil's angels, those who, like Faustus, sold their soul to the devil the way Esau sold his birthright. This is clear from 'your father is the devil'(cf Jn 8:44), for the devil did not create them; God, the maker of everything and all, did. They turned to the devil. They are not saved because they are the unrepentant.
We absolutely do have choices, more so after we are saved. But even then, we have choices, but they are subject to parameters. With my age and experience, I cannot "choose" to be a professional baseball pitcher
You are mixing apples and oranges, FK. You cannot change your corruption (aging), but your soul doesn't 'age.' The only choice in your heart is to cling to God or not. You can make that choice at the very end of your life even. There is never a 'parameter' on that choice.
God imposes a changed heart upon His elect and then they are free to love Him as He intended
God does not impose, FK.
I keep getting the impression that you all use the Father-child Biblical analogy to refer to parents with adult children
How about just adults?. Is your own flavor of Protestantism not based on adult baptism? When you can accept Christ, and you can recite the sinners prayer?
God creates us rational and capable of being moral beings. Through our faculty of reason and a heart that forgives and loves. You have this idea that we are just a bunch of toddlers running around in God's playpen like a bunch of little morons.
God expects us to be able to forgive before we can ask for forgiveness. God expects us to be pure in heart, merciful and humble, to understand that loving those who love you is no feat but rather loving those who persecute you is. Are children like that? No they are not.
This is not a fairytale, FK.
"The same is with the creeds handed down from the "Chair of Peter". Keep in mind the Nicene Creed was developed well before the great Orthodox/Roman schism of 1000AD (give or take a few centuries) in which they excommunicated each other.
The Creed was established a the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, not by any pope.
"Yet ask the Orthodox if they agree with the Nicene Creed and watch the fur fly."
Of course we agree with it. Eastern Bishops wrote it. If you mean the filioque innovation, no, we don't agree with the traditional Latin Church explanation of that clause nor with the actions of that church in inserting it in a council decreed Creed. Theologically, things have changed and the Agreed Statement on the Filioque seems to have put the issue to rest. The Creed without the filioque is "normative".
"I find it interesting that our Catholic/Orthodox friends will pick and choose their quotes from the fathers that support their cause and ignore other text that doesn't."
I can't count the number of times I have cautioned everyone not to "proof text" the Fathers. The Fathers were not infallible. Quoting the Fathers like you Protestants quote the scriptures is misleading and improper. What is important from a theological pov is the consensus patrum, not random texts here and there. Blessed Augustine's writings are a classic example of this. He can be quoted in isolation as being a sort of proto-Calvinist. Whether he was or wasn't is beside the point. Those various writings are outside the consensus patrum. The West is fond of quoting Origen, yet one could also quote Origen in support of Gnosticism. The same goes for Tertullian and Montanism or +John Chrysostomos and the perpetual sinlessness of The Theotokos.
" I'd like to know why the Orthodox don't use the Latin Vulgate but I haven't received an answer on that."
Because we have the Septuagint and the Greek NT. Why would we need a Latin Bible?
Some of these are direct quotes and others were paraphrases. The apostles were not just showing how well they could quote OT passages verbatim, but they were using those OT passages to make points, explain things, and as a foundation for the new testament.
I also note that so many of these citations in the NT come from the book of Isaiah. Many who admit that the Pentateuch in the Septuagint is generally well done, also find that the translation of Isaiah in the Septuagint is bad. Perhaps that explains why so many citations of Isaiah in the NT are found in the Septuagint's Isaiah --- because the original translation was poorly done and they relied upon the NT to try to fix it.
Ante-Nicene writers of the Septuagint would have had the NT in their hands as they translated the OT, so finding a similarity in wording would be no surprise. And putting NT passages directly into the LXX would be in keeping with Origen's M.O. anyway.
Dear God, impose upon me and never stop.
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
I brought this out to refute your opinion that only with Trent did the Catholic Church accept the OT Deuterocanonicals. That is wrong. As to the "Hebrew Fathers", you have yet to give me one such charecter that did condemn the Septuagint.
Do you think the Latin Vulgate is full of Hebrew errors? Do you think it was constructed on erroreous text?
I do not know, honestly. I have not done much reading into that. I try not to give public opinions where I know little about something.
The point is that we are told to do so and it's a matter of obedience; much like we're commanded to correct our brothers when they are in error knowing full well that God must give understanding and they may not see the truth. It's terribly frustrating but I'm sure God has a divine purpose in all of this.
And what would that be, given the "reformed" mindset? Does our obedience to God "change" His already "pre-disposed Mind?
Why pray for the salvation of anyone, if they have the right to choose if God will not override their will? Is the hand of the Lord so short that He cannot save? In the end God no longer is all powerful
As you know, we Catholic and Orthodox do not believe that our prayers are useless and are indeed part of God's plan of salvation. Is the "hand of God" so short He cannot save? I don't believe I ever made such a comment. Note, there is a difference between what God CAN do and what He DOES.
Regards
Which Hebrew Fathers are these?
Hawaii, I asked Harley about this several weeks ago on this thread and he didn't answer with one single Father. Let me know if he has found one yet...
Sometimes, Harley, I think you just like to make things up as you go.
Regards
Haven't we been through this before???
If I had to come up with some I'd say moses and aaron. But methinks the 'Hebrew Fathers' Harley really means are the pharisees.
I thought only Root Beer froathed.
It is not for me to judge another person. I'm simply suppose to tell people where I believe they're in error. They are free to tell me where I'm in error and I'll check it out. I don't run to the nearest priest and ask if Protestants are right. I can imagine what response I'll get.
well if you see women praying uncovered your not doing what you said in your post; correcting those you feel are in error.
why don't protestants do that? because on the scriptural buffet they only need to address the scriptural issues they like, the rest just sit at the buffet.
Based on scripture, that is the husband's responsibility, not mine. Now the question you should ask is if I make my wife cover her head. The answer is no because her hair is long. If she were to appear as the most recent photos of Britney Spears, I can assure you I would have her cover her head.
Why should it matter to the Orthodox? They don't even believe the scriptures to be inspired based on what I read. Why are you so concerned with women covering their head and not allowing bishops to marry?
strange i don't seem to recall Paul writing a letter addressed to the husbands of corinthian women.
btw FWIW theree's a fair amount of bishops with wives.
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.