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/
This is not a trick answer. I am simply repeating what's in the Bible without reading into it. To me it means what it says: "I did not come to abolish but to fulfill the Law or the Prophets."
For the fourth time, what was the Law that Christ fulfilled?.
Get to the point. You know which Law He was referring to. As to what was the Law implying about Jesus, if anything, that depends on who's reading the Bible.
Who are you trying to kid?
I saw what you tried to present as proof, the tired old, defunct W/H theory.
You didn't even know that the Nestles had gone back to the TR in a many readings.
You have no proof that any reading in the King James is incorrect.
What you guys always have is assertions, hoping you won't get called on them.
Christ never taught that. There is no love in slavery. People are captivated with pleasure. They keep coming back for more. That holds true for the 'saved' and 'unsaved.'
My understanding of your theology is that ... God's will is that all men be saved.
The Bible says it plainly that it is God our Savior "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." [1Tim 2:4]
Obviously He doesn't compel them, and that is His choice.
And you have provided — zilch.
Excellent post!
The conflation theory is dead.
The Majority text goes back to the 2nd century and is considered a legimate texual line, not an invented one.
So where is your proof?
You better get the up to date information, you are way behind.
Get this work, the author proves that the Byzantine Text type is from the 2nd century.
Free will is an illusion if one thinks it can trump God's will. His will is what reigns over and controls everything. People who believe that they are in control are indeed living under an illusion. For example:
Prov 16:9 : 9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps .
Prov 20:24 : 24 A man's steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand his own way?
The Bible clearly speaks of our slavery:
Rom 6:6 : 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin —
Rom 6:16-18 : 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin , you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
---------------
That one can read scripture and come to this conclusion should amaze us and it emphasizes that anything is possible with sola scriptura as the foundation.
What conclusions do you come to in reading these scriptures? What amazes me is how desperately people need to feel they are in control of their lives, even when God is being discussed. People push God away because, apparently, they know better than God what is best for them. I suppose I am not as smart as those folks. Not only am I content to have God be in control of me, but I praise His Holy name for it. I am proud to be an eternal exemption on God's taxes. :)
Kosta, you were the one who made the statement Christ came "to fulfill the law." We have agreed Christ speaks of this in Matthew 5:17.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." -- Matthew 5:17
I have asked you FIVE times what did the Law say that Christ fulfilled.
I would have thought the EO would know what the law demanded which Christ fulfilled. If I was a seeker looking to understand what your faith offers and came to Matthew 5:17 which seems to be at the center of the Gospel message, I would certainly expect an Eastern Orthodox adherent to give a cogent statement as to what the law said which Christ declared He fulfilled.
Specifically, what did the law say which Christ fulfilled?
I'm not sure if this is a yes or a no? If God wishes us to have free will, I don't know how this trumps Him rather it would seem to be God's will that we do and that it's not an illusion.
What conclusions do you come to in reading these scriptures?
I see a nice parallel rhetorical construction of sin and righteousness. I see an exhortation to choose God as Lord and be truly free. I see it in conjuction with all scripture and in context of my personal experience of freedom in Christ.
I do not see it as losing my personality or my will, rather aligning my will with God, dying to self as in order to become what I was created to be. True repentance is key, but saying the sinner's prayer is not the last choice we make.
What amazes me is how desperately people need to feel they are in control of their lives, even when God is being discussed. People push God away because, apparently, they know better than God what is best for them.
Yes, this is a very poor choice, pride is a killer. However, true humility is different from slavery.
Thanks very much for your reply.
LOL. Amen. Gratitude is our correct orientation.
Christ never taught that. There is no love in slavery. ...
You keep saying that as if the only words that count in the NT were directly quoted from the mouth of Christ. The WHOLE Bible is either GOD'S word or it is not. Is what Paul said God's word or isn't it?
People are captivated with pleasure. They keep coming back for more. That holds true for the 'saved' and 'unsaved.'
I disagree. The saved are not captivated with pleasure (sin). Christ has set them free:
John 8:34-36 : 34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
---------------
The Bible says it plainly that it is God our Savior "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." [1Tim 2:4] Obviously He doesn't compel them, and that is His choice.
If we take the verse as a decree, then God fails. I don't believe that God can fail. I agree with you that it is God's choice not to compel all men. I would say rather that He only gives irresistible grace to His elect. For example:
John 6:44 : 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Notice that the only ones who are raised at the last day are the ones drawn by the Father. The Father does not inwardly draw all men.
John 6:65 : 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
2 Cor 4:6 : 6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Who does "our" and "us" refer to? Surely it does not refer to all men. It only refers to believers. Finally:
John 5:21 : 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
This stresses that it is God's sovereign choice as to who gets life, not that God is a rubber stamp to the wishes of man.
Why do you deny God's right to give men free will? Deuteronomy makes it clear that the Jews understood it that way and certainly the Apostolic Church has all along.
That sets the stage and the basis. Without it anyone could say anything he wanted and claim it came from Christ.
I disagree. The saved are not captivated with pleasure (sin).
So, pleasure is sin? I guess that makes displeasure, by necessity, a "blessing?"
If we take the verse as a decree, then God fails
Only in the Protestant mindset. Once you recognize that God gave us free will, He doesn't fail; we do. He would like all ment ot be saved, but many of us will do our darnest to resist being with God (arrogance and pride).
Notice that the only ones who are raised at the last day are the ones drawn by the Father. The Father does not inwardly draw all men
Everyone is raised from the ground (cf. Rev 20:12); and the seas gave up its dead and they were judged according to their deeds (cf. Rev 20:13) — all (believers and nonbelievers) are judged according to their deeds. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire (cf. Rev 20:14)
I'm not sure if this is a yes or a no? If God wishes us to have free will, I don't know how this trumps Him rather it would seem to be God's will that we do and that it's not an illusion.
In this sense, if it was God's will for us to have free will, then it would necessarily mean that God is surrendering a permanent part of His sovereignty and authority. He would be transferring authority to man, and thus allowing man to go against His wishes. Of course, this is only true if God cares which of His creations are saved. If God didn't care, then it would make much more sense to me if God actually did transfer this power. In any event, the verses I posted, and there are many others, do not lead to this conclusion. They show an all powerful God who does care and is in control, a God who decides for Himself whom He will save.
FK: "What conclusions do you come to in reading these scriptures?"
I see a nice parallel rhetorical construction of sin and righteousness. I see an exhortation to choose God as Lord and be truly free. I see it in conjunction with all scripture and in context of my personal experience of freedom in Christ.
Does this mean that you do not believe we are born as slaves to sin? Can a person do good in God's eyes before he has accepted Christ? None of the four passages I posted dealt with independent choice. The closest was Rom. 6:16, but that is immediately clarified in 17: "Thanks be to God ...". The choice was made by God, not us. And 18 does not say we have set ourselves free with our choice, it is God who set us free. ...... The quotes from Proverbs are categorical.
However, true humility is different from slavery.
How so? True humility is a commitment against service to one master in favor of service to another. IMO, true humility is also not possible from the individual apart from God. This is slavery to righteousness. God caused it and maintains it.
I don't deny any of His rights. I just don't think His word tells us that God chose to exercise that right. Rather, the verses I posted, and many others, tell us that God retained His sovereignty and is truly in control. ...... If you are referring to the Mosaic Covenant in Deuteronomy 28, then it is certainly true that many have misunderstood this to mean that free will works translate into salvation. But that has never been the case. God-given (grace through) faith has always been the only way to salvation. The Mosaic Law did not erase the Abrahamic Covenant (God's promise). It was Christ's work that served as atonement, not the free will works of man.
Gal 3:16-19 : 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. ...
Your descriptions are beginning to seem a bit like we're in The Matrix. All is an illusion?
Of course. Some may not know the name or even have a wrong concept of what someone has told them of Christ, but still do good. Religious formation and theology can help, but they're not absolute requirements.
True humility is a commitment against service to one master in favor of service to another.
Humility is knowing one's true place. I don't get the paradign of servitude. Love, compassion, charity.. yes. Dying to self, loving others as ourself. Service in love, yes. Servitude? I don't get that God wants slaves. So I think we're on different pages here, though maybe not, maybe different phrasing or something else.
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.