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/
I think you are missing the point of obedience, Mary. We don't say "well, I'll obey God because His command sounds OK and I was going to do that anyway and it won't make me look foolish" and so forth.
If Jesus took that approach, would He have obeyed His Father? What would He say?
When we believe we have heard the Word of God command us, we don't ask if it is a silly command or not. Love "demands" we do what our beloved asks.
Now, the question is whether Paul's writing about women covering their head was meant to be an eternal command or a personal opinion. Elsewhere in that section, he gives opinions. But if our Church tells us this is to be so, we obey, believing that God speaks through His Church.
Regards
But her assumption would be exactly that adjudication. Having received particular judgment upon her death, she was absolved of everything and assumed to heaven. we also believe that all the Saints of the Church are in heaven and not in an intermediate state.
If she was without sin then she is guilty of nothing, and needs no pardon. Propensity for sin is not sin. Propnesity towards sin implies fault in our nature which leads to (bodily) corurption and death. She could only resist her propensity by cleaving to God, but she couldn't change her mortal nature.
I think the problem arises with the dogma of Immaculate Conception, for if she were born with the same nature as Eve (pre-Fall) all she had to do is not sin to become immortal. Which is why the Catholic Church is silent on her death. From the Orthodox point of view, her death is certain, for it is ordained "that men die once and then judgment," and there is no reason to doubt her assumption given the belief that she resisted sin.
By the way, +Paul obviously was not of that opinion, for he would have qualified his statement that all have sinned. In other words, +Paul did not think mary was pure and blameless.
But, yeah, there's a difference between not believing and not understanding. I didn't get the argument so I went on to other parts of the battlefield.
Here we go again. ;-(
Is this the early theologian who has had his letters forged, so we really don't know which letters are his?
The "magical" was gratuitous and offensive (to me, anyway), and suggests you don't get what we teach.
Matthew 26:26 -- Take, eat, this is my body. (from memory, don't hurt me, please.) Sounds pretty close to "bite me".
The accounts include the instruction to eat and the, at least, identification of the bread and the Body. That is the plain meaning of the various accounts.
I'm not suggesting that that concludes the argument. But it seems to me that the side saying it ISN'T his Body has the burden of proof. We're just saying to those who say we never read Scripture that the text sure LOOKS like He's saying it's His body. Yeah, the blood language is less clear. But it's hard to be told we';re biblically ignorant and then to cite a text and have it tossed aside with the argument that He didn't mean it.
If anybody KNOWS what the meaning of His drinking with us in the Kingdom, I'd sure love to hear it. I have ZERO clue what that's about. SOme musings, but no certainty.
Jesus, himself, ate the bread and drank the wine with them
Is that clear? I wouldn't have been prepared to say one way or the other.
In any event to say the Last Supper is not evidence or is not at least related to the claims we make seems to assume what was to be proved.
If you look at the context, Jesus is explaining that belief on Him and His words bring eternal life.
This is not the entire context, but indeed this is part of the context. The episode, in fact, concludes with the confession of St. Peter "thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God". This is not, however, all that is being discussed, because the controversy is stated by the Jews in v. 53: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?". We do not have a disagreement with your view as regards the life-giving words of Christ; we disagree with both you and the Jews of v. 53 on that particular score, regarding the literal eating of the body and blood of Christ.
Jesus used bread and His body and blood as metaphors explaining that His words are life and to be taken in and digested as necessary food and drink that bring life, unlike physical food.
You do not offer anything scriptural to support his view. You cite vv.27, 64 (your 63) and 69 (68). You nearly omit the entire discourse that is the focus of our disagreement, that starts by the question in v 53: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", and ends in v. 67 when some of the disciples leave. This is the part that most directly addresses the disciples' question, that you do not comment about:
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
Here we see that the Eucharist is an actual food, not a metaphor, strange as it sounds. John expresses the Lord's intent to avoid a metaphorical interpretation by choosing "o trogon mou ten sarka", literally, "he who gnaws at my flesh", in lieu of the previously used "sarka fagein", "flesh to eat".
The context serves to explain a difficult passage. The context cannot be used to avoid the difficulty. You appeal to context simply diverts us from what Christ said with such emphasis in vv 54-57. This is not what the Mother of God told you: "Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye", a few chapters before.
But what of vv. 27, 64 and 69 that you do cite? V. 27 refers to the perishable nature of the loaves: "26 Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you". This passage indeed speaks of the entirety of Christ's teaching that gives everlasting life. However, the disciples ask for a miraculous sign ("What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee?"), and Christ responds by descriving the Eucharist as such sign, or as we would properly call it, sacrament: a visible sign of grace.
V. 64 indicates that the Eucharist, while physical food, as already established, feeds the spirit, unlike ordinary food that "profits" the flesh. Nothign un-Catholic here.
V 69 we already discussed. St. Peter has heard the words and they are "hard saying"; but he accepts them on faith, in their entirety, and so should you.
One would think that if this "salvation by ritual sacrament" was so important to salvation like belief is that it would be mentioned by the other writers or mentioned again by John, however this is the only place in scripture it is mentioned and not until around 85-90 A.D. when John's Gospel was written. John does not even think communion is important to salvation since he does not mention the specifics of the Last Supper as do the synoptic writers, however John, being consistent with his understanding of what Jesus means by "bread" and "flesh" writes extensively about the "words" of Jesus at the Last Supper.
By the way, "ritual sacrament" is like "edible food", a redundancy. Being something visible, a sacrament by definition involves a ritual.
There is no dichotomy between the sacramental life of the Church and discipleship. The Church does not teach that the Eucharist somehow bypasses obedience to the Word. You are raising a strawman. Likewise, the relationship between the Gospel of St. John and the synoptic Gospels is complementary; one must not use one gospel to preach against another gospel. On the Real Presence there is a complete agreement anyway: the synoptic gospels do describe the bread and wine of the Last Supper as Christ's body and blood, and St. Paul again teaches Real Presence in 1 Corinthians:
the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
Here we have everything: the real presence of the Sacred Body in v 24 and 29; the sacrifice of the Mass in v. 26, and the connection to virtuous life of discipleship in v. 27.
Did St. John the Theologian somehow miss the sacramental nature of the Eucharist despite faithfully recording the words of Christ that define it in chapter 6? No, because we have a similar treatment of baptism as a birth of physical water and the Holy Ghost in John 3:5.
1 Cor. 11:23-26, Paul has the same understanding of what Jesus meant about "bread", His "body" and His "blood" when he says the bread and cup are memorials
See above. Memorials they are -- they connect to the same Golgotha -- , but it is not all they are.
It is also illogical to think that Jesus meant His physical body as there is no evidence the disciples partook while Jesus was with them or that they could since Jesus was still in His physical body and still subject to physical death
Just like a Mass today is a connection across time to the sacrifice of Christ, so was the Last Supper such connection.
The key to understanding this is in John 6:37-39
There is nothign in John 6:37-39 that the Catholic Chruch does not teach, along with the Real Presence.
Again, wouldn't it be more appropriate to look at Enoch and Elijah? They were taken home to the LORD without suffering death because they were both pleasing to the LORD. There is no Scripture that says Mary never died and was assumed into heaven.
Mary does provide a wonderful example to us all in staying at the Crucifixion with John, but even there wasn't John at greater risk? After all wouldn't a mother be expected to be there, but a disciple might also suffer the same fate as his leader.
One problem lies in our divergent definitions of "blasphemy."
According to New Advent, blasphemy seems to be a catch-all term for all things unseemly to the RC persuasion --
"Blasphemy - Signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem."
Thus, according to this definition, one could rightly say it is "blasphemy" to criticize Beethoven since he's certainly a person "worthy of exalted esteem."
Protestants tend to accept the more specific dictionary definition of blasphemy as follows in my Websters...
"Profane or contemptuous speech, writing or action concerning God, or anything held as divine."
And here we find our glaring theological difference -- you believe Mary to be divine while Protestants believe that to call someone or something "divine" when only the Triune God possesses divinity is itself "blasphemy."
Exactly. If headcoverings were all that today's churches had to worry about, we'd be plenty fortunate.
You really ought to write a gospel of your own. Till you do, this is what the gospels I have say:
Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. (Mt 26:26)Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body (Mk 14:22)
taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you (Lk 22:19)
my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (Jn 6:56)
giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you (1 Cor 11:24)
"Profane or contemptuous speech, writing or action concerning God, or anything held as divine."
I had never thought it could be anything else.
The fundamental problem may well be that no matter how clear Scripture is if the RCC says it means something else than that's what it means. If I understand correctly what the RC posters have stated in the past, you may lose your salvation if you are in disagreement with the RCC.
I don't think the Catholic Church teaches that Our Lady escapes the Judgement altogether; her immaculate conception, sinless life and assuption into heaven merely mean that, perhaps, her particular judgement occurred at her conception, or else was a mere restatement of her sanctity. At General Judgement her role is seen as advocacy for the souls being weighed, together with St. John the Baptist.
oh, right, I started to and had a series of computer keyboard hassles . . . ahhhh
I realize my pontifcations seem to chronically fall short of the registration I might grandiosely hope for on a variety of intellects.
And I recognize that by many traditions within Israelite culture, God chose Hebrew as a sacred language etc. etc. etc.
Courtesy of Merriam Webster’s website.
LITURGY:
Etymology: Late Latin liturgia, from Greek leitourgia public service, from Greek (Attic) leïton public building (from Greek laos -- Attic leOs -- people) + -ourgia –urgy
1 often capitalized : a eucharistic rite
2 : a rite or body of rites prescribed for public worship
3 : a customary repertoire of ideas, phrases, or observances
LITURGICAL
1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of liturgy
2 : using or favoring the use of liturgy
UHHHHHH, Perhaps you could point out to me . . .
WHERE
In the Sermon on The Mount did Christ display HIS preference for liturgical anything?
Or maybe it was with the woman caught in adultery?
Perhaps in Gethsemene?
Maybe walking on Gallilee?
Maybe sleeping in the boat?
Oh, I know—making water into wine. Wellll, maybe not. “Go fill some water jars” is hardly very LITURGICAL.
Perhaps with the woman at the well? “Yeah, I know, you’ve had 5 husbands.” Naw. That’s not very LITURGICAL either.
On the road to Emmaus? Naw, He was just reviewing some prophecies about Himself. Hardly very LITURGICAL.
Oh, when He told Peter to cast their nets on the other side of the boat? Naw, that’s not very LITURGICAL either.
AHHHHH! ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION! Naw. That was DADDY and HE seemed to be a bit peeved.
Maybe He was LITURGICAL when they were hiding in Egypt and he was playing cowboys and camels with the locals. Naw, that’s not very logical.
Come to think of it . . . I don’t think CHRIST was LITURGICAL in Hebrew or Aramaic. If anything, He evidenced an AVOIDANCE of such things.
Now, THE PHARISEES—I could imagine them being
VERY
LITURGICAL
Even attending to their toilets . . . or pretending to be.
So, are you saying that you believe that the RC &/or Orthy hierarchies are proudly in the tradition of the LITURGICAL PHARISEES?
That I could believe.
Interesting you bring that place name up. I went there in my innocent youth, and what did I find? Not romantic legend of truth, but a tourist trap. The swallows come back all right, just like the geese, the robins, the bluebirds, the sparrows and whatever else migrated south for the winter. The orange groves helped, before Disney chopped them all down. Talk about a disillusionment, lol
I don't recall hiring you as my posting coach or boss.
I also don't recall a LOT of Scriptural posts by you but I'll keep looking for them.
You are welcome to ignore all my posts--if that's what God tells you to do.
Methinks pretentiousness is rather like beauty . . .
The description of a miracle, worked by Christ and described in detail in the Scripture, as "waving hands" I found problematic, like I said, "in tone".
I understand that no real offense was meant, and I said so.
Yes, offense against the saints are offenses against Christ, and it is not coincidental that you, frau doctor, of all people, feel defensive about it.
In the mean time, let's look at some other sayings of Jesus:
“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9
Hmmm, does Jesus have hinges? Do we pass through him as if he were a portal in some Star Trek episode?
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11
Does Jesus have sheep? Is He a Clemson fan?
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1
Does Jesus currently work in a vineyard plucking grapes?
Instead, Christ no doubt knew those seated at the table with Him could follow His teaching by instructing them as follows...
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." -- 1 Corinthians 24-25"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Christ was clearly speaking of His impending sacrifice on the cross. To believe in transubstantiation by priestly invocation is, as Calvin wrote, "an abomination."
2. Let us show, therefore as was proposed in the first place, that in the mass intolerable blasphemy and insult are offered to Christ...""1. By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man; namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins. I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder schoolmen at first received this dogma. I leave them with their puzzling subtleties which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his prophets have imbued the whole world, viz., that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God. And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith. But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, that this mass, however glossed and splendid, offers the greatest insult to Christ, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?
Indeed, some sayings of Chirst are allegorical, while some are not. When in doubt which is which, ask the Catholic Church.
Ah Father Serra, famous for whipping pregnant Indian women and tying their legs shut so they couldn't give birth to punish them for getting pregnant.
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.