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/
Right. Because of their nature, the angels could only chose once. Their choice is permanent and cannot be repented of or changed. That is because, ss I understand it, they see the essence of goodness and neither act nor will agains it unlike we, who can chose the good and later chose evil because, well, Original Sin.... Up until the moment of death we can choose good or evil. That truth demolishes the idea of onced saved always saved
I do this for a living. The absence of evidence of this teaching for 300 years is evidence that it was not taught for 300 years. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence, and in the absence of such evidence those with the burden of proof, i.e., those asserting that it was the teaching of the Church during those 300 years, must overcome that evidence or they have no evidence at all.
So the absence of evidence of this teaching is circumstantial evidence that it was not taught. Those are the rules of evidence. Deal with them.
The burden of proof lies with the one asserting the fact. You assert that this was Apostolic teaching, that this was doctrine from the time of the Apostles.
Prove it.
We trust the church in such matters only insofar as they agree with Scripture. Such doctrines are in fact demonstrable and supportable from Scripture and plain reason.
As you may know, these and many other beliefs were hammered out over many years by bishops and other men poring over Sacred Scriptures AND the Apostolic Tradition passed down (read this as "correct interpretation of Scriptures). Why is it that you decide that the Church is right on such matters as the contents of Scriptures (which point to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth) and many doctrines defined many years later, but NOT on such matters as Mary's virginity?
What the Creeds and Councils primarily did was formally and clearly define and defend what was already accepted as orthodoxy. The supposed inherent infallibility of the church had nothing to do with determining for instance which books were and were not Scripture. The church formally recognized as Scripture those which were reasonably and commonly understood as such.
If we believe that the Church infallibly tells us the contents of the Word of God, then we should believe that the Church ALSO infallibly tells us an explanation of the Word of God.
And there we have already met a point of divergence between us, because I do not believe that the Church "infallibly tells us the contents of the Word of God." Does that mean that I deny God's immutable will in ensuring that only His true Word was canonized? No. I simply do not look to the infallibility of the Church as the source of trustworthiness.
This is where I am lost regarding the Protestant mindset. It is a contradictory stance. Either determine the Scriptures for yourself and invent any sort of idea you want, or believe that God has revealed Himself through ONE Body. I don't see how you can have it both ways except by special pleading.
There is an glaring logical flaw in your reasoning here though, because the ultimate source appealed to for the very notion of God revealing Himself infallibly through one body is Scripture.
To what authority to you appeal in your claim of the Catholic Church as the one true infallible body of Christ? If you appeal ultimately to Scripture, then you must necessarily recognize that you are simply promoting your interpretation of Scripture over and against another. If you appeal to something other than Scripture, then what is it that supercede's the Word of God in terms of revelation? The Church? That is a self-reinforcing argument. Christ? What direct, lasting and objectively receivable Word do we have from Him apart from Scripture?
I am in the same position as Luther on this issue. If you can convince me from Scripture and plain reason that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true infallible body of Christ on Earth, then I will believe it.
Unnecessary exclusion. There is also the possibility that we don't find Christians talking about Mary's virginity (beyond the fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ) because she did not remain a virgin.
The fact that Mary was MARRIED to Joseph is prima facie evidence of the fact that she did not remain a virgin. A marriage (by catholic tradition) is not official unless and until it is consummated.
Further the scripture clearly implies that her virginity was not perpetual;
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25 KJV)
So the chances are that there was no teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary is simply because the scriptures state that she wasn't. It wasn't an issue because it wasn't an issue.
It think we can assume that Mary was always chaste. We cannot logically or scripturally assume that she was always a virgin.
Some of those are artificial divisions. But the point is that there are some seriously diverse, even, diametrically opposed verses in different OT canons. The EOC uses "Septuagint" (LXX) as authoritative. The problem is that there are at least three major version of this Book, Sinaiticus (the oldest, 4th century), Vaticanus and Alexandrianus (most recent, 5th century). The last one, which is closer to the Masoretic Text (Hebrew version) is the least reliable.
The problem of authenticity of the Septuagint is no different than of the whole Bible, as additions and deletions, transcriptual errors and other things really make it impossible to determine whose version is the "original" (since we don't even have a complete "original" save for the Sinaitucs (which also contanes books of the NT no longer considered canonical, such as the Epistle of Barnabas).
Compared to the KJV version of the OT (based on the Hebrew OT) you encounter such amazingly different verses as Isaiah 9:6
LXX (Vat) "For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called The Messenger of Great Counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him."
or 9:8
LXX (Vat) "The Lord has sent death upon Jacob, and it has come upon Israel."
as one of numerous examples. Some of these differences are blamed on absence of vowel markings in the pre-rabbinical Judaism. That, however, does not establish one as authoritative and the other as not with any certainty.
For instance, in the New Testament, the words "fasting" or "fast" have been added in several places, etc. and some of +John's verses have been added at a later date as well. The thing, of course, to look for is the context, but always mindful of the thin ice we are stepping on.
Angelic rebellion is more serious because they are not tempted by flesh. Their rejection of God is purely spiritual in nature and therefore cannot be excused.
That's why I suggested one reads the whole text of the Council (I have just finished my second cup). You are absolutely right, but that is not obvious from a superficial glance at the title itself. The context of the whole Council (convoked over a heresy) was profoundly Christological in content with the express goal of affirming that Christ is One Person, two natures, two wills, perfect God and perfect Man, inseparably united but not confused.
Well, then you would know that your evidence is incomplete, as we cannot bring forward witnesses who have not previously testified. We cannot say "something didn't happen" because it is not recorded in the very few writings that we DO have. The burden of proof lies with the one asserting the fact. You assert that this was Apostolic teaching, that this was doctrine from the time of the Apostles
I think it is up to you to prove that the Church is NOT the pillar and foundation of the truth. If the Church says something within its realm of infallible teaching is true, then it is true. If you can prove that is not the case, then do so.
Regards
It is your assertion that the [Catholic Church] is the pillar and foundation of the truth. So it is your obligation to prove that assertion.
It is you who are claiming that the {Catholic] Church's teachings are infallible, so it is your obligation to prove it.
The burden of proof lies with the party who is alleging the facts to be true. I do not accept your assertions, therefore it is your burden to prove them or to admit that you do not have any proof. You are not willing or able to do either.
As far as this perpetual virginity idea, you have no contemporary evidence to prove that it was taught in the first 300 years of the Church. If you will admit that this is something that needs to be accepted entirely on faith, then I would have no argument with you. You get into trouble when you assert it to be a fact and you have no evidence to support that assertion.
Just admit to the fact that you don't have any evidence and then we can move on. Or prove it. The choice is yours. The burden is yours. The ball is in your court. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. The grass is always greener on the other side.
I am starting to wonder if we have entirely different ideas as to what is holy.
Mary was full of Grace. That which God touched is considered holy. She was holy. Touching that which is holy would desecrates it.
I can't believe you don't see the connection when you insist that there's nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having sex post partum. There is nothing wrong with marital sex per se, but not when the sex object is someone purified by God. Anything else that touches it will make it less pure, less holy, "damaged goods."
For God, only the pure and without blemish was to be offered. You think Mary could just have sex and bear other children in the same womb that carried Christ? How bizarre! We are worlds apart, indeed. God is not your next door neighbor who borrows your new tool and then you continue to use it. But I am beginning to believe that some Protestants see God as just the Good Ole Old Man next door that we can be "buddies" with.
Now, why would God suddenly drop His guidance of His established Church?
This is where I am lost regarding the Protestant mindset. It is a contradictory stance. Either determine the Scriptures for yourself and invent any sort of idea you want, or believe that God has revealed Himself through ONE Body. I don't see how you can have it both ways except by special pleading.
Hi jo kus ...
Protestants believe that God guided the formation of the Canon infallibly.
Protestants choose to make this infallible "Word of God" ... the basis for what we believe.
It is a faith issue.
We trust the Apostles.
We trust the canonized record of their writings.
We trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We trust that the universal Church of Jesus Christ ... will never forsake the necessary truths of the Gospel.
We do not place any similar faith ... in any contemporary human institutions.
Protestants have, simply, concluded that the Scriptures (as interpreted to us through the Holy Spirit) are the One utterly reliable guide to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But why do you accept his canon? Or accept Rome's caveat contra the Bishop of Alexandria...
If one is truly Sola Scriptura, how does one start?
For God, only the pure and without blemish was to be offered. You think Mary could just have sex and bear other children in the same womb that carried Christ? How bizarre! We are worlds apart, indeed. God is not your next door neighbor who borrows your new tool and then you continue to use it. But I am beginning to believe that some Protestants see God as just the Good Ole Old Man next door that we can be "buddies" with.
Mary was pure and undefiled (in the sanctified sense that you are posing) ... when she offered herself to God for His purpose.
Afterwards, God left her with us ... as a continuing blessing to us ... to Joseph, to Jesus, etc.
God is not our buddy ... but He is our Father ... who gives every good and perfect gift unto His children.
Then why go through the charade of betrothal and marriage. The command even before sin was that (Gen. 2:24,) "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." One flesh is one flesh.
Do you think God selected Mary to bare Jesus after she was betrothed to Joseph? If before, and it was God's plan all along that she was to remain a virgin, then Joseph was defrauded because he didn't find out she was pregnant until after the betrothal and there is no scripture that says he was told she was eternally a virgin.
Touching the holy makes one holy it does not desecrate the holiness.
No, we trust in the Church PERIOD, since IT is the Body of Christ, not the Scriptures! The Scriptures themselves are only trustworthy in the sense that we trust the community they come from. Otherwise, how do you know that you have the "correct" Word of God? How do you KNOW that the Gnostic Scriptures are not REALLY from God? You know because you have been taught by the Church and the witness of others who vouch for it.
Now, naturally we are to judge whether something is true or not. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict. But the virginity of Mary is NOT contradicted by Scriptures. It is just not related in Scriptures because it was not a pressing issue when Paul was writing to the various communities spread throughout the Mediterranean.
What the Creeds and Councils primarily did was formally and clearly define and defend what was already accepted as orthodoxy. The supposed inherent infallibility of the church had nothing to do with determining for instance which books were and were not Scripture. The church formally recognized as Scripture those which were reasonably and commonly understood as such.
So what "ruler" did they use to judge whether the Gospel of Thomas was not from God? Apostolic Tradition. They were TAUGHT a particular way of reading the Scriptures and had already worshiped God in a particular way. Thus, when they came together to define what was Scriptures, they already had an existing paradigm that was taught by both oral and written manner.
I simply do not look to the infallibility of the Church as the source of trustworthiness.
Oh. so you judge for yourself what is Scriptures. And when if someone comes along and disagrees with you? Which one is full of it and which one is full of the "Spirit"?
There is an glaring logical flaw in your reasoning here though, because the ultimate source appealed to for the very notion of God revealing Himself infallibly through one body is Scripture.
Where exactly in this Scripture does Scripture make that claim? Protestants have invented this as if it is an axiom, but I have yet to find this written down. Thus, your logic is self-defeating. You PRESUME that this is who God reveals Himself - solely through a book. Yet, the Scriptures themselves tell us to hold onto the teachings given, BOTH ORALLY and WRITTEN. Why do you go against THAT teaching? Where does the Scripture abrogate that teaching? If anything, YOU are going AGAINST Scriptures by demanding everything must be written in the Bible before we believe something.
Until you can give me one verse from the entire Bible that says we are to ignore all future apostolic teachings because they are in the already compiled bible, I will go along with you. Otherwise, you need to analyze the logic of your own position.
Regards
Even though I never married, I always had a deep respect for the Covenant between man and woman, I really did. Each time I came close to doing it though, I began to experience panic attacks because I thought it a kind of prison. I could never contemplate divorce being an option if things didn't work out. I just couldn't. This was a Vow I'd be taking before God, and that really scared me.
When I was 24 and seriously contemplating it for the first time, I sought the advise of a priest because I was worried about a few things. He gave me some really good advise, though I have no idea how I got through that conversation.
The man I was going to marry was a Protestant and nominally Christian, but not averse to marrying in the Catholic Church which my parents would not have insisted upon but would have preferred. He was a marvelous impressionist; he was as good as Rich Little, I kid you not. I really loved him a lot. We didn't argue very often, we were very compatible, but the few times that we did I'd get sick to my stomach that's how much I hated being at odds with him.
Now, at 50, I see that embracing the Covenant isn't a matter of certainty at all, and that it's the uncertainty that gives the Covenant it's deepest meaning, and it's the uncertainty that holds the possibility for holiness on the part of each, and that instead of it being just your being moving in His, it then becomes a matter of that one being of husband and wife moving in His.
For the first time in my life I can say that I'd like to marry, and I ask God to give me just one more chance, if it be His Will. If it never happens you'll hear nary a peep from me because God gave me more than my share of opportunity and I was disobedient in the extreme, and though I never denied God in my mind and in my heart, disobedience and atheism are at bottom, indistinguishable. Calvin was right when he asserted that Adam and Eve's true unbelief. A Father's patience is not inexhaustible, after all, and sometimes the only way a lesson is truly learned is if it's made permanent.
I think it was Billy Graham's wife who when asked what the secret to a successful marriage was, replied "both need to be really good forgivers."
Lately, I've just descended into a pit of darkness and the unforgiven (We all got it 'comin!) and the person it's wounding most is me. Forgiving maybe better for the forgiver than for the forgiven, as selfish as that sounds. My sins are legion, who am I not to forgive?
I think it's probably a good idea that I take a hiatus from FR, as I seem to only be capable of picking at a wound. A wound that if I leave alone will surely heal. I told Dr. E this a few days ago but persisted all the same.
I really do have an ether affection for you all, so a Blessed and merry Christmas to each of you, and to all on the thread as well. It's Christmas!
Oh Holy NightMy apologies to any one on the thread who I may have offended, and a special Merry Christmas to you, RM. Must be a thankless job, but you really are fair, and I think that should be appreciated by all.The stars are brightly shining
It is the night of the dear Savior's birth!
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
Till he appear'd and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn!Fall on your knees
Oh hear the angel voices
Oh night divine
Oh night when Christ was born
Oh night divine
Oh night divine
On a separate note, Dr. E., I think I did pretty well on my test. I'll know just how well in a couple of weeks, and thanks for the vote of confidence.
Finally, Freedom of Conscience is essential to taking God's Hand as He extends it to you. Freedom is of God and not subject at all to the dictates of man. Let me leave my Reformed brothers and sisters with a quote from Jeremiah Burroughs, one of the leaders of the Westminster Assembly (1642-49), and a heartfelt thank you for your fellowship.
Godly people are divided in their opinions and ways [but] they are united in Christ. Though our differences are sad enough, yet they come not up to this: to make us men of different religions. We agree in the same end, though not in the same means. They are but different ways of opposing the common enemy. The agreeing in the same means, in the same way of opposing the common enemy, would be very comfortable. It would be our strength. But it cannot be expected in this world . . . . [O]ur divisions have been and still are between good men; there are as many godly Presbyterians as Independents.
Being married doesn't require one must consummate the marriage, 2000 years ago. You are being anachronistic.
I would suggest you read the following link, which will answer your questions regarding marriage and celibacy in Jewish tradition:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm
Among some of the items in this link is the following:
"We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus" (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35).
By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For "to lay one's power (reshuth) over a woman" (Targum to Dt 21:4) was a euphemism for "to have a marital relationship with her."
Likewise "to overshadow" (Lk 1:35) by spreading the "wing" or "cloak" over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 39.7; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him "I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, "wing": kanaph) over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin" (Ruth 3:9).
Tallith, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from tellal = shadow. Thus, "to spread one's cloak (tallith) over a woman" means to cohabit with her (Kiddushin 18b, see also Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8). Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: "I am married to you" (Jr 3:14) and "your Maker is your husband"? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: "You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew... you were naked... and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you... I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God" (Ezk 16:7, 8).
Mary prohibited to Joseph
Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship."
You certainly are not the first person to question such a teaching of the Church. The fact remains that this was all carefully thought out by the Church many many years ago when they first pored over the Scriptures and the meaning behind the surface of Scriptures.
Regards
Yes, it is a matter of faith. Catholics have faith that the Church was established by Christ and that He continues to guide it, to include the formation of the Scripture canon. We do not believe that the Catholic Church is a mere human organization. We realize that there are weeds among the wheat. God will harvest when He is ready. Thus, the Church on earth consists of not only those who are "true" believers, but also those who are nominal believers, such as Christ discusses in Mat 7:21. Now, who are the elect? We won't know that answer until we stand before Christ and are judged.
Perhaps that is the difference and why we talk past each other. Many Protestants consider only "true" believers as members of the Church, which is synonymous with the elect (which would be an invisible body), while Catholics consider a person baptized as part of the Church (making the Church visible to the world) - while again, the elect are unknown in this life. The Catholic view takes into account the parables of Jesus and discussing the Kingdom, consisting of weeds and wheat, good and bad fish, and so forth.
Your comments?
Regards
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.