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/
Compare Matthew 16 with 18 regarding binding and you'll see that the keys are not unique to Peter, all Christians have them.
A claim that shows you know very little about the development of doctrine. Chose ANY subject promulgated at Nicea or beyond as dogma. In EVERY case, we find Christians writing about their various opinions on topics that were not quite clear, as the Body of Christ wrestled over the meanings of the teachings of the Apostles, whether given orally or in written form. People were writing about Mary's Immaculate Conception 1000 years before it became dogma...
Regards
I just went through the entire writings up through Irenaeus...approximately the first 150 years of the church.
There is no hint of the immaculate conception AND there is no hint of any assumption nor of any perpetual virginity nor of any perpetual hymen.
The huge bulk of the comments about Mary are that she was a virgin when she gave birth to our Lord, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah.
And there was one point in Justin Martyr, IIRC, where it would have been a perfect fit to mention it.
But, alas, nary a hint of any such doctrines.
LOL!!! I remember when my wife went into labor I started "coaching" saying, "Breath in, breath out." She grabbed my shirt and yelled, "Just get me an epidural." So much for the Lamaze classes and my $20 bucks.
Tradition ought not to be the source of ANY doctrine.
I don't think something should be enshrined in teaching books just because the previous generation did it that way.
On the other hand, I have no problem studying history to see if one can match up the Bible with early church history and thereby demonstrate if or how a particular doctrine was being taught.
Can you buy into that?
As long as whatever doctrine is taught is firmly grounded in scripture. Paul marvelled at how quickly the Galatians slipped into error. They began teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:6-9 KJV)
This whole Mary thing is based on tradition and yet these people act as if the fact that Mary might have had other children is somehow centrally anathema to the gospel. They focus on Mary instead of focusing on Christ. They elevate Mary thus diminishing Christ. They focus adoration and veneration (which is objectively indistinguishable from worship) on Mary when the commandment of God is that you should worship God alone.
Other than that tradition is just peachy.
Flame suit on.
There is no hint of the immaculate conception AND there is no hint of any assumption nor of any perpetual virginity nor of any perpetual hymen.
Later Catholics, such as Jerome, write that it was an "ancient" belief from apostolic times that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Apparently, as I have said before, not EVERYTHING was written the first few years of Christianity.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Regards
Yes, and my point is that our current state does not define what a "man" is. Jesus Christ does.
Regards
That is an untrue truism. Obviously you are not a lawyer.
It's clear that the hierarchal structure did not emerge until well into the second century and even then was not fully adopted for at least another 50-100 years after that. One example is St. Athansius using his position of authority, on his own, to instruct churches under him what the Canon was. He did this without first clearing it with Rome. Today that would not happen.
The point being that the authority structure emerged after the end of the Apostolic Era, it was not a product of it. Now if you were to argue that it was the result of divine intervention that would make for an interesting discussion.
BTW, I really enjoyed the posts on this topic. I think it's a very exciting area to study.
Some of your answers grieve me. we do not need a human being to legislate on matters of salvation. Salvation is the Father's to give and the Bible says whom the Father has given Christ in salvation, Christ will lose nothing.
Friend, Rome has you brainwashed. I looked at your link before. It MAY give evidence to Peter's having been in Rome, but no contemporary sources speak of it.
The saddest part of your answer is concerning the Holy Spirit. He most certainly DID give the Holy Spirit to every believer.
John 7:38-40
38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.
Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise
Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
1 Thessalonians 4:8
He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Now, be honest did you really mean it? ;-)
I was with my wife for the birth of our children and I wouldn't want to go through what she went through.
Jo: I would presume because we are as one man in Adam, just as we are as one man in Christ. We are born in sin through Adam and reborn in grace through Christ
So, if you grandparents committed something that caused disgrace to the family, your parents, you and your children and grand children, and all your generations should be disgraced because you are all "one in them?"
Don't you see, these are neatly minted phrases that sound right but are terribly off the target.
If Adam's sin caused him and all subsequent generations to be disgraced, then Christ's loving sacrifice should have restored all subsequent generations to Grace. But we still sin and we still die. Why?
Because, as Kolokotronis says, our ancestral sin changed not only our own nature, but the whole Creation, and made it corrupt.
Those who live in Christ are promised a new and ever-lasting life, in a world to come, a world that does not yet exist. In other words, everything that is corruptible (material) will be remade. The old house will be torn down, razed with the ground and a new one built.
So, as through one man sin entered the world and through sin death, the same is not true in reverse – through one Man's sacrifice Grace re-entered the world but through Grace sin and death did not disappear.
Why does a parent punish their child?
That's not the right question, Jo! The right question is why does a parent punish all future generations for something only his children did?
The answer is simple – what they did was not just disobedience; it was a life-changing mistake. If we turned from innocent children into poisonous snakes, and all our children were poisonous snakes, we would be cast out of the house and all our generations along with them.
Our sin is poison that has no place in the House of God, for we are no longer the children God created, but something utterly incompatible with God. Thus, the Orthodox hold that it is our altered, fallen, disgraced nature that has condemned us and that continues to condemn us. Baptismal Grace does not make us sinless and immortal. We are still poisonous snakes.
Just as Adam's sin was a conscious exercise of his will to disobey, the reverse must be a conscious exercise of the will to submit and obey. But that has to come from the heart and not from fear. In order to be saved, we must defeat our own fallen nature, die unto the world, die unto ourselves as poisonous snakes, before we can be reborn, indeed re-created as children of God.
Concupiscence and all that comes along with our poisonous nature is only a manifestation of it and as such irrelevant. Eliminating evil and lustful thoughts does not make us less poisonous, less sinful, less mortal. It has to include our hole life, our pride, our arrogance, our love for the world, money, even our own family. F or none of us is ready to give everything to God. Of that I am sure of.
Concentrating on the manifestations of our fallen nature and not on overcoming all of our fallen nature is like seeing one tree in the forest and believing that going around it is finding a way out of the forest.
But then there is another question of the world yet to come. I presume that we will enjoy the same freedom that God gave Adam and Eve, freedom to choose. It is that freedom that corrupted the whole Creation by Adam's and Eve's choices, and thus we have the possibility of the new world becoming corurpt and fallen again.
But, then, as Agrarian once reminded me (although woithout references), the choices in the world to come shall only be good choices, so the possibility of another Fall will not exist. But, then, neither will freedom. The question that inevitably comes to mind is: why didn't we have it that way from the beginning?
The excellent book that covers this topic in detail is "Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor," published by St. Tikhon's Seminary Press. The author (J.P. Farrell) wrote the book as a doctoral dissertation at Oxford under the supervision of Bp. Kallistos (Ware)
Didn't Luther recognize his error and put Hebrews and Revelation in the Bible they taught from? Also, I remember on this thread one of the EO posters telling me that the EO were not supportive of Revelations being in the Bible until the 1500's.
It seems that the only question about the Canon revolves around the OT Apocrypha. You might not be aware, but the first authoritative list of what comprised the Canon by an individual using his position of authority was St. Athansius. He did this as Bishop of Alexandria, without direction from Rome. He did include the OT Apocrypha with the citation that "to be read only as devotional literature not as canonical authorities".
Knowing the history helps to explain why Luther would not include the OT Apocrypha.
"My point is that from the Catholic perspective, unless I misunderstand this difficult subject, there is no superhumanity because baptism removes the original sin."
Except that the doctrine of the I.C. also states that she was filled with every grace -- to such supercapacity that she was, from that moment, able to give away her extra grace to others.
I don't know about you, but I didn't get that at my baptism.
LOL!!! That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me this week. See, I knew there was a reason I came back to Free Republic...
Regards
I don't.
As a Christian, I've searched for error and other books that should have been included, as all Christians should.
How does a fallible organization make an infallible decision on what is the contents of Scriptures???
I have no expectation that a fallible bureaucracy, subject to the political pressures of the day, would get it right. History shows that our Canon emerged, not because of any organization, but in spite of it. It's obvious that the Holy Spirit guided the process.
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.