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/
Honestly, Quix, I don't expect you to understand. As I said a few thousand posts over the years, Marian Devotion isn't for Protestants, at least not most of you folks. If it were, you'd either be Orthodox, Latin, Anglican or perhaps Lutheran. I suppose I could get all sarcastic about 2000 years of Christian praxis and belief as opposed to modern psychology, but I'll stick with "OK".
Honestly, Kolo, I don't expect you to understand. As I have implied or said a few 100 times, psychological understandings of the geography of beliefs and values isn't for dyed-in-the-wool !!!!TRUE BELIEVERS!!!! at least not most of such folks. If it were, you'd either be saying such things first or applauding. I suppose I could get all sarcastic about 2000 years of Christian praxis and belief being all bogged down in traditions of men and doctrines of men as opposed to following Holy Spirit more faithfully, but I'll stick with "OK".
Your post is a superb summary of Orthodox mariology, and the quote above is a meet icing on that cake.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
But there are greatly differing views as to which angel represents which hypostasis.
Cool. I was sure I was supposed to be able to figure it out, but couldn't. :)
The middle angel occupies a special place in the icon: it is set apart not only by its central position, but also by a "regal" turn of its head towards the left angel, and by pointing with its hand towards the cup on the table.
That's interesting. Why is an angel referred to as "it"?
This amazing and perhaps purposeful encoding of these two persons of the Trinity by Rublev does not give us a clear clue for a single interpretation.
Well, for the interpretations offered, I at least feel good that mine was somewhere in the ballpark. :)
The third angel does not bless the cup and does not participate in the conversation, but is present as a Comforter, the undying, a symbol of eternal youth and the upcoming Resurrection.
However, I did not recognize that the angel on the right was not included in a conversation. Oh well, I'm still in class. :)
Kolo: Let me add that theologoumenna are generally the sort of speculations which may be held so far as the Church is concerned. ...... The best example of a theologoumennon which is acceptable is likely the belief in the bodily assumption of the Theotokos after her death. This is not a dogmatic belief among the Orthodox as it is among the Latins ...
OK, so they are speculations that may be held by the laity without being prohibited by the Church. I.e., the "holding" is not by the Church, but by members of the laity. So, when I see the word "theologoumenna" the first thing I should do is not assume anything as to whether it is a widely held belief among the Orthodox. It may be, or not, (and that is all well and good :). For Orthodox, I can understand why Mary's assumption would not be dogmatic, because it was not in one of the seven councils. I'm not sure if the consensus patrum has ruled on doctrine since those times, or if they continue to make rulings today.
If all doctrine came from those seven councils, then my question is answered. If not, then knowing that the RCC had made a big deal of the Assumption, then why did the Orthodox not follow suit? It seems to me to be an idea that pretty much stands alone, unprovable in either direction.
And you are repeating yourself.
I never said that what they said represented Orthodox doctrine.
What I said is that your church had high officals in it that believed as do the Protestants in many areas.
Philaret's canonical crap, excuse the expression, was never accepted by the (pan-Orthodox) Synod of the Orthodox Church!!! Philaret's canonical opinion remains a short-lived aberration that never became orthodox doctrine except for the poor Russioan orthodox who were forcefed his fallacy.
And again, never said that it did but there were high Orthodox officals who believed it and it was in a major catechism.
Russian Church also believes in "Toll Houses." They write about them as if they are dogma. Since Russian is a "major" Church (in fact 80% of Orthodox Chirstians are Russian Orthodox), it must be true. No it isn't. That's not how the concilliar Orthodox Church Community works; all the patriarches must be of the same mind to balidate a doctrine or a dogma.
Did not say that it was Orthodox 'doctrine' and if you actually read what was posted, neither did Schaff.
Those later creeds were certain Orthodox responses to the Protestant/Catholic clash.
Some favored the Protestant side, others the Catholic one.
The Orthodox Church recognizes St. Auhgustine as a Saint, but you will not find any of his "original sin," "total depravity" or proto-Protestant redemption doctrine taught in any Orethodox church, even though Cyril Lucas would have loved to do. The Church is coonciliar. The whole Church must consent or else it is not official doctrine. What Philaret claimed is not, never was, never will be Orthodox canon.
And did I say otherwise?
Yet that catechism was a major one, and a strongely leaning 'Protestant' one.
the Church of Constantinople didn't include Revelation into the canon until after the 9th century. You are looking at this from a legalistic mindset which is alien to eastern orthodoxy. We establish dioctrine by consent of all patriarchs, not one.
And you are just trying to blow smoke as usual.
Your church had high placed officals and theologians who believed and taught 'Protestant' doctrine, including issuing a major catechism.
Thus, when you attempt to brush those views aside being 'Protestant heresies' they were in fact embraced by some of your own theologians and Greek Church Fathers
The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use I have read his brilliant work many times and it is as clear as a bell. But, then again, one's mind must not be Deformed to see it that way.
The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantioniple' is a anti-Reformed response, while others such as the Catechism is a pro-one Protestant one.
Lucas was a heretic and was booted out of the Church. His satanic craftiness got him where he was and, like the satan in the desert, he hoped to fool God and destroy His Church. He failed. There is no winning with satan and his angles.
The Longer Catechism was a major one and it was accepted as legimate by the Orthodox church.
As for Satan and his angels, you are correct, that is one needs to separate from both the Orthodox Churches and RCC since both reject the only way to salvation, faith alone in Christ alone.
Yes, I am sure Satan (and the Jesuits) saw him as a threat.
People would actually be saved if they believed what he wrote, instead of remaining mired in dead, useless works.
Yea, it helps. I have the free Sword software, which is OK, better than nothing. But often, I find myself looking up stuff by hand because the words I am thinking don't match in the Bible versions I have from Sword.
Regards
Now why on earth would the Church switch to an unbiblical notion such as "faith alone"? Can you give me a verse that says we are saved by faith ALONE? James 2 specifically says the OPPOSITE!
Regards
Are the psalms prophecy? When In the psalm, the Lord said to my Lord, would you have thought of that as a Messianic psalm?
The approach to Scripture, with Form,literary, textual and all the r est of it criticism, which was in vogue when I was in Seminary was somewhat embarrassed by the way our Lord approaches Scripture. My admittedly superficial conjecture is that Jesus looked at the OT in a manner similar more to the typological method of the Fathers than to other subsequent methods.
Is that any less poorly expressed? (It's the codeine, I swear!)
Here's a related observation, based on my limited experience as a Calflick. It's as though (I don't mean this disparagingly) "you all" (he says, gesturing vaguely) are the princess and the pea.
I mean I go to Mass and I hear prayer after prayer after prayer after prayer addressed to God in three persons, or to The Father (through the Son, in the Spirit), or to the Son or to The Spirit. And you all are tossing and turning all night, because once out of every three Sundays, one of our priests includes a Hail Mary after we do our intercessory prayers. I wish I could remember exactly how he says it.
WE have Lots of things, Church, secular leaders, sick, dying, poor oppressed, unevangelized, etc to pray for. Those prayers are led by a lay person normally and usually. At the end the Priest says something like, "Heavenly father we offer to you our intercessions, asking you to hear them in your love for us and to respond according to your gracious will. We offer them in the Holy Spirit and through your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, [and one of the three clergy usually adds] and through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary to whom we now pray, 'Hail Mary ... [everybody joins in].. .'" What I'm trying to say here is that MY EXPERIENCE, liturgically, and certainly that of most of the people in our congregation is that Mary doesn't get NEARLY the "air time" that God gets.
And yeah, a daily Rosary is part of my personal deal, but again, my experience in praying it is that I slip into addressing myself to our Lord or to the Father readily, before, during, and after -- and the meditations are more about Our Lord's life and work than about our Lady.
Just this weekend I learned of something evidently done by some German Catholics: They insert some phrase or clause having to do with the mystery after "Jesus" in the ave. For example, the mystery is the agony (or, as I prefer, "the struggle") in the garden, So the leader would say, "... and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus, who obeyed the Father and gave His life for us."
One parting shot: Have you read anything by J2P2? Read "Veritatis Splendor" in your nonexistent free time. If you can read that and still tell me that this is not a Christ centered guy or assert that his devotion to our Lady is about self-aggrandizement, I'd be, well, distressed.
Or I am slowly slowly working through Salvifici Doloris, which he wrote as he recovered from being shot. It's not so beautiful (to me) as Veritatis Splendor. But this is not a guy who is about political or monetary gain.
The only thing that was decreed as regards to Mary by the first Seven Councils was that she is the One who Bore God (Theotokos), in response to Arian heresy claiming Christ to be a creature of God, the Son lesser to the Father, and in response to those heresies that called her Christotokos.
As for her death and assumption, the Orthodox always believed that she died and was assumed bodily into heaven on the third day of her passing. Many Catholics believed it as well, but the Latin Church was silent as to her death and assumption which would bring up other issues if she never died. (I guess we could say the same thing about Elijah, but he is supposed to come back from heaven and then die!)
I believe that the Catholic Church may still not teach specifically whether Mary did die. The reason for this is of course the Augustinian concept of the original sin which the Orthodox recognize but not as is understood in the west. If she had been cleansed of all sin at her own conception, and lived a sinless life (by choice, as she was 'equipped' to do so by special Grace), then she would have no reason to die any more than Eve would not have died had she not sinned.
St. John Chrysostom theorized that Mary could have sinned at the wedding in Cana, which would be enough to condemn her to die, but at the same time then it would be contrary to his own liturgical elements praising her as "pure."
I am not aware of any other father theorizing about her death and assumption. The only thing regarding consensus patrum one can say is that the East believed she died and was assumed bodily to heaven all along.
Yes, and my Church also had patriarchs who subscribed to Arain heresy, to Montanism, to Monophysitism, etc. There were always heretics in the Church. Lucas Cyril was no exception. Heresies of the Patriarch of Constantinople stud the entire 2,000 year-old Church history!
Why the 20th century bore Meletius Metaxakis (1920-1923)!
Thus, when you attempt to brush those views aside being 'Protestant heresies' they were in fact embraced by some of your own theologians and Greek Church Fathers
Luckily the Church will always prevail over satanic attenots to destroy it.
The Longer Catechism was a major one and it was accepted as legimate by the Orthodox church.
Russian Orthodox Church (the entire Orthodox Church is a ocmmunity of 14 or so independent Churches), under imperial decree, and short-lived, thank God.
As for Satan and his angels, you are correct, that is one needs to separate from both the Orthodox Churches and RCC since both reject the only way to salvation, faith alone in Christ alone
I would say that most Catholics and Orthodox are firmy convinced that Reformation was not God-inspired.
Sola Fide is directly contradicted by James 2, where a long passage is dedicated to this; nowhere in Paul is Sola Fide taught, even though there are some passages that indicate the lack of salvific quality of circumcision, works for reward, or works for social recognition. Given the emphasis the scripture puts on love, the greatest virtue, an independent mind will arrive at some form of works cooperating with grace theology, and not with Sola Fide. The very fact that the Portestants need to "painstakingly detail" their invention points to it not naturally arising from the scripture.
Sola Scriptura is not even remotely scriptural. Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him. The Christian scripture lacks for most part the prophetic tone; much of it is written for private consumption. The quotes form the scripture that you would cite in support of this superstition are where we have no argument: that the scripture is inspired, useful to teach and to settle disputes, takes precedence over unwritten word, etc. There is no scipture that would say that the scripture alone is sufficient for the discovery of all the truth necessary for salvation. There is no scripture that would support the perspicuity of the scripture, but there are passages warning against just such assumption.
It also matches mine, of one getting a car repaired after a crash. It is true that God leads His Elect, but He does not do so against their free will. If they fail on their will, they, -- being elect -- will reconcile with God also on their free will, and through the ministry of His Church:
if we have known Christ according to the flesh; but now we know him so no longer. 17 If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new. 18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. 19 For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. 20 For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God.(2 Cor 5)
the passage has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
Yeah, right. "bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" cannot possibly be about the Eucharist. What a thought.
did eating the manna have anything to do with their spiritual salvation?
The manna had everything to do with their physical arrival to the Promised Land, it prefugured our arrival to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which the Eucharist has everything to do.
some examples [of perseverance being guaranteed for the elect]
Yes, these verses say exactly that: that the work of Chist in the elect will be carried to completion. This is the Catholic teaching, and it is a trivial by-definition, axiomatic truth: the elect are these who will persevere to the end. God knows them; we don't. This does not negate the work of sanctification, outlined in 2 Peter 1, necessary to "make the election sure", that is to transform the initial call to Christ into eternal election.
salvation is not earned through works
I would agree that salvation is not earned through works outside of grace, but, as Peter writes, the heroic work of growth in virtues is necessary for it, once we know Christ.
have no assurance of their own salvations, even though it is objectively there
A fresh-eye reading of 2 Peter 1:2-11 does not allow for the interpretation that all this work on the virtues is only there to remember something his reader forgot. If that were the meaning, St. Peter would simply say, "don't forget to partake of that divine nature you've received when you got saved; it's in the kitchen cabinet on the right...".
St. John the Revelator says differently.
Of course; and indeed, if we did not have Matthew 1-1, Luke 1-2, John 2, John 19, we probably would have a difficulty developing marilogy solely on Genesis 3.
Never heard of this author before, but that quote in itself is perfectly Catholic. To be Catholic one must acknowledge that works of free will, under grace, contribute to faith and hence to salvation; there are many ways to express it.
He was a 17th c. abomination who, embracing Calvinism, through the help of the craftiest master of lies, managed to worm his way into the Patriarchy of Constantinople like some many other satanic servants before him, and tried to change the Orthodox Church into a Protestant folly.
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.