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/
The "fallen" angels are from Gen.6:2, 2Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Why would a woman need "power on her head" because of good angels?
There are no fallen angels in Church. According to Paul, a woman needs power on her head the way angels need it in front of God. Paul does not consider men and women to be equal in their roles and standing before God. He says that man is the head of a woman, as Christ is the head of man.
Call it sexist, or whatever, but it's in the Bible. We can't just dismiss it because we don't like it.
One of my favorite Spurgeon sermons is the following which I gave to my son once when he was worrying about his inconsistent faith...
Beware, my dear Christian friends, of living by feeling...He that lives by feeling will be happy today, and unhappy tomorrow; and if our salvation depended upon our feelings, we should be lost one day and saved another, for they are as fickle as the weather, and go up and down like a barometer. We live by faith, and if that faith be weak, bless God that weak faith is faith, and that weak faith is true faith. If thou believest in Christ Jesus, though thy faith be as a grain of mustard seed, it will save thee, and it will, by-and-bye, grow into something stronger. A diamond is a diamond, and the smallest scrap of it is of the same nature as the Koh-i-noor, and he that hath but little faith hath faith for all that; and it is not great faith that is essential to salvation, but faith that links the soul to Christ; and that soul is, therefore, saved. Instead of mourning so much that thy faith is not strong, bless God that thou hast any faith at all, for if he sees that thou despisest the faith he has given thee, it may be long before he gives thee more. Prize that little, and when he sees that thou art so glad and thankful for that little, then will he multiply it and increase it, and thy faith shall mount even to the full assurance of faith... It is another sweet and consoling thought that God the Son does not despise the day of small things. Jesus Christ does not, for you remember this word, "He shall carry the lambs in his bosom." We put that which we most prize nearest our heart, and this is what Jesus does. Some of us, perhaps, have outgrown the state in which we were lambs, but to ride in that heavenly carriage of the Saviour's bosom--we might well be content to go back and be lambs again. He does not despise the day of small things... Spend and be spent, for who hath despised the day of small things?"
"...Your discernment, however, seeming so small, need not afflict you. It is by reason of use, when the senses are exercised, that we fully discern between all that is good and all that is evil. Thank God for a little discernment--though you see men as trees walking, and your eyes are only half opened. A little light is better than none at all. Not long since you were in total darkness. Now if there be a glimmer, be thankful, for remember where a glimmer can enter the full noontide can come, yea, and shall come in due season. Therefore, despise not the time of small discernment...
What was answered and what previous post?
Is a being brought into existence sinless divine? Well, we have Adam, Eve, the angels, and rocks and trees and even monkeys. All created sinless. Thus, the argument that "Mary must be divine if Catholics think she was born without sin" is a useless argument.
Regards
Thanks for your excellent argument concerning women and headcoverings.
Re: women in authority in church, I like what Calvin said to Knox...
""Two years ago, John Knox in a private conversation, asked my opinion respecting female government. I frankly answered that because it was a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature, it ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction of his rights just like slavery — that nevertheless certain women had sometimes been so gifted that the singular blessing of God was conspicuous in them, and made it manifest that they had been raised up by the providence of God, either because he willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men, or thus show more distinctly his own glory. I here instanced Huldah and Deborah." (John Calvin in a letter to William Cecil, 1559)
Only ONE MAN (Jesus) by his obedience to God, changed this. Mary did not change it and Mary did not atone for us.
Amen, 1000S! Your Scripture Generator comes through again. 8~)
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:7-18"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
No mention of any co-redemptrix.
My pastor used to say, "If God blesses their ministry who am I to question it."
There will be. All part of his great deception and a scarf won't keep them away. We must have His truth in our hearts so we know not to follow Satan when he comes disguised as Christ.
He says that man is the head of a woman, as Christ is the head of man.
I agree Kosta but please take it deeper.
Gen.2:24. ......and they shall be one flesh.
When you are one flesh all parts are necessary. Could you remove the heart and still live? A wife should go to her husband for advice, if he is knowledgeable in that field. A husband should go to a wife for advice, if she is knowledgeable in that field - otherwise, they would both be stupid. My husband would never ask me about a mathematical problem and I would never ask him about a paint color. We are one flesh and use those pieces in harmony and hopefully with intelligence and respect.
If a woman in your family, or church, was truly gifted by the Holy Sprit with knowledge and an ability to teach it in such a way that many gained understanding, would you let a lesser teacher teach and make her remain quiet? That can't be what God wants.
I don't dismiss what you are saying Kosta I just believe it requires more thought then first glance. It's like that scripture about "you must hate your mother and father". It's written like that but it just doesn't fit. One of the 10 commandments is to honor your father and mother so how could you do that and hate them? The phrase means you must love them less than Christ.
So, my belief is this "women not speaking in church" and going to their husbands for everything under the sun can't be what was intended. At least that is my interpretation. That said, please understand that though I don't agree with you I do respect your thoughts on this.
Thank you. I just posted something similar to this to Kosta but wish I had read yours first. It says it much more succintly. Perhaps he/she will read both.
What a shame it would be to quiet a woman who was filled with knowledge of God and an ability to teach.
That does seem like the true test doesn't it? There are times though that I wonder. I see some ministries on television that astound me. They seem to be blessed with huge crowds, huge churches, etc. but when I listen I don't learn anything. I just hear one or two scriptures then the rest of the hour is music, passing the plate, selling items and telling stories about their great aunt Hattie - just a big show.
Oh well, one day I'll understand what it's all about.
By the way, your name has always caught my interest. I've gone to Is.7:23 and I'm afraid I still don't understand. Can you explain it to me please?
Well, likewise. Very much so.
Could be but that is a mere indication that western modern culture is profoundly at odds with Christianity.
the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. (John 3:19)If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you (John 15:18f)
the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. (1 Cor. 3:19)
Transliteration matters aside, the word missing from your text is "klomenon" (kappa lambda omega mu epsylon nu omicron nu). Without it the phrase is incomplete:
"and having-thanked he-broke and he-said this my is the body the unto you [WHAT?] thus do in the of-me memorial" (annalexus refractus)
"Klomenon" is missing in Westcott/Hort and Tischendorf, present in Byzantine/Majority Text and Textus Receptus. See http://unbound.biola.edu (it does not give URL to individual searches, so you/'ll have to search for yourself. Excellent tool otherwise).
And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns.
Yes, Isaiah is speaking of a future land, historically Galilee,where oxen and sheep will graze.(For those with ears to hear) A remnant will return and the land will be abundant for them though it looks like briars and thorns to others. Previously there were one thousand vines worth one thousand pieces of silver, or conversely, the vines put forth put forth a thousand silvery shoots in fertility.
Note the whole chapter for understanding. We have a prophecy from a great prophet to the House of David. The message is also to put your trust in the Lord, not in men.
Beware, my dear Christian friends, of living by feeling...He that lives by feeling will be happy today, and unhappy tomorrow; and if our salvation depended upon our feelings, we should be lost one day and saved another, for they are as fickle as the weather, and go up and down like a barometer. We live by faith, and if that faith be weak, bless God that weak faith is faith, and that weak faith is true faith. If thou believest in Christ Jesus, though thy faith be as a grain of mustard seed, it will save thee, and it will, by-and-bye, grow into something stronger.
My goodness, that's so beautiful, Dr. E. Thanks for posting it.
Pastor Leithart had a piece a while back it was called The Cross of Reality. I found it at google, but all I got was a blank screen when I tried to access. I wanted to post some of it. Anyway, he says that ERH points out that we Christians live much of our lives in a state that vacillates between unbelief and belief. And he mentions that we are pulled in opposite directions (like Christ is on the Cross), not so much by naked unbelief but by life and those things that press upon us day in and day out, and that many times it is crisis that brings us back to that state of vibrant belief. Pastor Leithart did a much better job of getting ERH's point across though.
Spurgeon's piece here makes me think of the holiness of the ordinary too. I've always loved to make and bake bread because for whatever reason it becomes a holy undertaking to me.
The reason for this is that English, as is true of most other languages, is not a liturgical language. What does that mean? It means that it is not structurally developed enough to express certain concepts, and tense, as a liturgical language can. Perhaps it can, but in a roundabout way that leads to awkward sentences and difficult reading.
Well, I will certainly stipulate to the Greek having concepts and words that do not translate well to English word for word. I'll even volunteer a big one, the word "love". IIRC, the Greek has several words for different kinds of love and the English comparatively doesn't. That is well and fine, but even given this I do not think Christianity "in English" has suffered a great loss of identity because of it.
On our side, we distinguish between the different kinds of love in our Bible studies and worship services, etc. The point is that we are aware of them. I don't put that in the same category as having an honest disagreement among scholars as to what was really the "original" intent of the Greek in a given passage. I don't think that a scholar who happens to be a Protestant is automatically disqualified.
Reading the NT from cover to cover will not lead to correct interpretation because it is read out of context.
Well it certainly CAN be read out of context, as can any literary work. Correct interpretation is in the eye of the beholder between us. What I gather here is the admission that the scripture is not readable without the interpretation of the Church. --- I know I harp on this a lot, but I feel some strange inner need to highlight it every time I see it. :)
The Holy Tradition ... avoids the pitfalls of interpreting the text through the lens of modernism, relativism and other isms that are current in our cultural and temporal consciousness.
I've seen this "modernism" charge a couple of times recently, so I would have to ask you for some specificity, remembering that "Protestants" who accept homosexuality, female clergy, etc., don't count. That is, they don't count as regards the Reformed Protestants I have seen you deal with regularly on FR. I am more than willing to accept criticism on some issues such as contraception, but on things like women's coverings and silence in church, I see a legitimate difference in interpretation. Overall, I think that if I brought my wife to an Orthodox service, I don't think she would be shocked by how repressed women are, and likewise, if you brought yours to my church, I don't think she would be shocked at how "rampant" our women are. :)
In addition, I would note that the Apostolic faith has not completely escaped the trappings of modernism either. :)
Latin (and English especially) is completely incapable of conveying the same concept involved in the Greek term used for the procession of the Spirit (ekpouremai), which implies an origin. The Latin word procedure can mean originating or not originating from something. This small difference has been one of the factors that resulted in the unfortunate Schism in the 11th century and still exists.
Word for word, I have no problem in accepting this as true. However, I can't believe that using additional words of clarification cannot solve the problem. This is how many different Protestant teachers distinguish the different "loves". The difference in translation, it seems, is based on a difference in interpretation of meaning. IOW, a difference beyond intellectual academic disagreement.
In CS the concept of brothers/cousins is maintained by the similar cultural reality that exists to this day, as calling first cousins 'brothers' or 'sisters' is perfectly normal and has a very (genetically) protective function since one does not marry his 'siblings' (and first cousins are "blood" siblings by definition).
But that involves interpretation too, since different Greek words are used in the NT for "cousin" and blood brother. It's not that simple.
If Latin is once removed from Greek, English is twice removed. It often requires descriptive translations that still don't capture the original concept — take Theotokos (Bogoroditsa in CS).
OK, but yet you all have given ME a pretty good idea of Theotokos (for an outsider) in English, and for millions of even the faithful, the English idea is the best they'll ever get. If a paragraph in English is what is needed to explain a single phrase in Greek, then why not just do it? I would SCREAM for that as an English speaking Orthodoxer. :)
Thus, there is no doubt that reading something in the original is the only way to fully grasp it.
Sans a lens, sure. My whole argument is that the interpretation issue completely trumps the translation issue.
Thus, it is obvious that such literary dimension cannot be translated into any European language and that the only way to capture the meaning and the drama of the literary piece is to read it in the original.
But for "general" works of art, free interpretation is encouraged. However, in appreciating particular genius, I see what you're saying. Nonetheless, for something as important as the Bible, it still strikes me as odd that Orthodoxy has not seen it fit until now to attempt to create an English-true translation for its millions of faithful. I would expect the response to be that the need was not deemed urgent since the truth was always there on Sundays, but given your comparison to art, I get the impression that your less educated brothers and sisters in English-speaking countries have been getting gypped. :)
So, to put is simply: yes, the only complete way to understand Christianity is to be fluent in biblical Greek.
Well, I do appreciate the directness of your conclusion. :) I would say that a fluent knowledge of Greek is of EXTREMELY high value in reading the scriptures. I really wish I had it. AND, I do not think that anyone without it is necessarily shut out from true comprehension.
By my own standards, God chose Greek for the vast majority of the NT so I can't whine about that. :) (Nor do I even want to.) But, if we are to believe that His word is a revealed faith, then we must also believe that the essence of the faith survives in multiple languages. Some translations are clearly false, but I don't believe there is a de facto barrier to true understanding outside the Greek. That would be a restricted faith, as far as the word is concerned.
Solomon had a vineyard at Baalhamon; he let out the vineyard unto keepers; every one for the fruit thereof was to bring a thousand pieces of silver.
From this verse I think it is meant to show the high value of the Lord's people, for we are the fruit of the vineyard. In Isaiah, before the invasion of Ephraim by the Assyrians, the land was doubly blessed.
How beautiful and how perfect the sentiments - saying just precisely what needs to be said here and now.
I love you, too, dear sister in Christ! But I am not your mentor. If ever there is anything good in what I've said then it cannot be me but Christ.
"If a paragraph in English is what is needed to explain a single phrase in Greek, then why not just do it? I would SCREAM for that as an English speaking Orthodoxer. :)"
If you became an Orthodoxer, FK, we'd see to it you learned Greek! Trust me on this one! :)
Alex and I had a long chat the other day, off this forum, about how knowing a language lets one get "inside" the mind of a culture and leads to a fuller understanding of that culture. As it happens we were both speaking about Greek, but its a pretty obvious observation no matter what the language. Its implications are, however, huge if one's religious belief is going to be based solely in writings done 2000+ years ago in a language one doesn't understand, or understand well and set in a culture which bears virtually no likeness to the one the believer lives in. Most non-Orthodox Christians live in such a world, but the majority of them, Roman Catholics and traditional Anglicans, worship liturgically and the centrality of the various liturgies in their lives provides a context for the translated words they read in scripture. The greater part of Protestantism is not liturgical and thus even that aid to understanding is missing.
Thank you for your answer but I don't have the depth to understand this yet - I'm trying but I don't have the ears.
I read the chapter and agree that on one level it is to put our trust in the Lord. It shows problems with leaders over our nation and others.
The level you are also speaking of, The House of David, or Judah, returning - Does this mean those that returned to that region in 1948 - The nation of Israel or future yet, the millennium? Now it looks like briars and thorns but it is where the House of Judah wants and fights to be. Are they the remnant or are you speaking of the the millennium where His sheep will graze? Is that the reason many are now putting out those silvery shoots of fertility - to plant seeds for those that will be there then?
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.