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/
Mary, can you please give it a rest? WHICH Catholic has actually said that Mary and Jesus are equal? Think real hard. Are you sure some anti-Catholic person is not giving you false witness? Maybe a Jack Chick tract? I got to tell you, I don't know any Catholic who puts Mary and Jesus on the same pedestal! Mary is the HANDMAIDEN OF THE LORD! They are not equal. This sort of talk becomes frustrating after awhile, because it is flat out lies.
Mary would be offended at all the attention given to her. She was an obedient child and God used her to bring forth the Christ child but she would be the first one to reject all the adulation given to her.
She herself said all generations shall give her honor. I will presume that means something more than singing "Silent Night" during Christmas... What do YOU do to honor Mary "just enough"?
Mary's place in the Church is quite profound. Perhaps you should read some Catholic writers on the subject on Mary and the Church. Vatican 2 and Lumen Gentium would be a good place to start. It is actually quite eye-opening once you get past the stereotypes that you have been taught by anti-Catholics. You would be amazed by the similarities that we find - all from Scriptures.
Regards
Mary, can you please give it a rest? WHICH Catholic has actually said that Mary and Jesus are equal? Think real hard. Are you sure some anti-Catholic person is not giving you false witness? Maybe a Jack Chick tract? I got to tell you, I don't know any Catholic who puts Mary and Jesus on the same pedestal! Mary is the HANDMAIDEN OF THE LORD! They are not equal. This sort of talk becomes frustrating after awhile, because it is flat out lies.
Mary would be offended at all the attention given to her. She was an obedient child and God used her to bring forth the Christ child but she would be the first one to reject all the adulation given to her.
She herself said all generations shall give her honor. I will presume that means something more than singing "Silent Night" during Christmas... What do YOU do to honor Mary "just enough"?
Mary's place in the Church is quite profound. Perhaps you should read some Catholic writers on the subject on Mary and the Church. Vatican 2 and Lumen Gentium would be a good place to start. It is actually quite eye-opening once you get past the stereotypes that you have been taught by anti-Catholics. You would be amazed by the similarities that we find - all from Scriptures.
Regards
I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, we should test the "spirits" first, correct? Anything that we "hear" in prayer is not necessarily from God.
The first time I recognized it was when I was at the end of my rope and at the worst state I was ever in and it came to me very clearly, "But I will take care of you, Mary." And He has.
Well, that is good to hear that you continue to trust in God. I am happy that you have learned to experience His support for you.
Regards
I always test the spirits. I learned that a long time ago. Nothing He has ever said to me was against scripture or was anything negative. I used to keep a journal but admit to being lazier now than I was then. It was a great spiritual exercise and I may try it again. It's good to see things in print. Later, when they pan out, it's fun to read what I wrote early on.
I've had to trust God for many things, including two heart attacks, diabetic problems, and kidney failure, three kids screwing up their lives (one has returned to the Lord, thank God), an alcoholic husband who died way too young, siblings who died of alcoholism-related illnesses, etc., etc. He has given me the grace to go through it all without bitterness and I'm doing better than ever. He's blessed me with a Christian husband who can't do enough for me, and a church that's always there when anyone needs anything. I've retired from 28 years of working in the same place, with a decent pension, great health benefits, good friends, and we're living the same as we were before we retired. God is good.
I have a lot of friends who are Catholic, plus many acquaintances. My husband and former pastor were both raised in the Catholic church. Many people who now attend our church were Catholic. I've heard about Mary so many times from them. I'm not anti-catholic, but I disagree with some of the church's teachings. I want people to know the truth, not just doctrine or writings from church fathers, etc. We all need to dig more into what God has to say about things. I think most of us are guilty of not doing that and just accepting what priests and ministers have to say without checking it out for ourselves.
No, the point is whether the linchpin of FINAL salvation is based on free will works or God's grace-given faith. The weight of scripture is clear that faith through grace is what ultimately saves. Works are absolutely part of the mix and are indispensable. There is no true faith without works, as James so clearly says. We say that for the elect God causes those good works. I take it that your view is that man's inner goodness and free will is to be credited for those good works. The independent reader will see passages plausibly supporting both sides. However, my assertion is that a major UNDERLYING BIBLICAL THEME is that God is sovereign, and that God's choices are the only ones that count.
[FK as quoted by Alex:] "This statement ["Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him"] speaks for itself and highlights a great difference in mindset"
This statement is plain fact and plain scripture. You don't recognize it?
No, the obvious problem is "as if they were Him". Scripture is clear that when any of the Apostles (or their supporters) sought out higher distinction for themselves, Jesus slammed them down, rightfully so. Christ DID grant authority to some to speak His words with authority. It is a matter of debate whether this authority was magically passed down to both the worthy and unworthy through ritual.
FK: "I believe the scriptures are meant to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary."
"Catholic" is the word you are looking for. Still, again I stated a plain fact: the New Testament for the most part is written to specific churches and individuals and avoid prophetic or theological-academic tone.
I can't believe this. :) This approach makes the NT a patchwork of throw-togethers with no theme. Are you kidding me? :) Do you seriously believe that Paul was not about clearly expressing very important theological truths?
Why, yes, -- perhaps not completely undecipherable, but allowing for multiple interpretations. It is in fact, said so in the scripture: "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11); "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).
This does ZERO to disprove the perspicuity of scripture. In the same breath you decry "private interpretation" you champion "private revelation". We, OTOH, believe that all of God's word was meant to be learned and loved by all believers as relevant to them specifically. This makes me wish that someone had done a study to identify all the passages that were "only meant" for the self-identified hierarchy.
In that passage from 2 Corinthians St. Paul merely says that his previous letter to the same church was clear. It cannot be extended to everything St. Paul wrote because, again, the scripture contains a warning about his lack of perspicuity:
"15 ... our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3).
Is the Catholic position that Paul is not to be taken seriously? I get the distinct impression that your view is that when Paul actually says something that can be construed as supporting Catholicism, then he's great, but for the vast majority of his writings he is basically a code-talker, to later be re-interpreted by people who knew much better than Paul what he actually meant.
In that passage from 2 Corinthians St. Paul merely says that his previous letter to the same church was clear. It cannot be extended to everything St. Paul wrote because, again, the scripture contains a warning about his lack of perspicuity:
You've said this twice recently. Are we to believe that one statement from Peter cancels out everything Paul wrote to the interpretations of men following him? That stance is incredibly weak. Peter did not dismiss Paul, he said that the teachings were difficult. I praise God for that and look forward to my further sanctification.
Regarding the profitability of the scripture versus the interpretation, is it your contention that the scripture remains profitable if it is incorrectly interpreted?
Scripture is profitable, period. If it is not correctly interpreted by a person, then it is not profitable (probably) to him at that time. God, and God alone controls all of this.
As I recall we've been to Church together a hundred times or more.
(: Let's do it again sometime!
Amen to your post!
Paul very clearly states that we are saved without any works,(Now to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteouness.(Rom.4:5) which means that we are saved by faith alone. (see also Gal.3:11)
Faith and works are like oil and water in regards to salvation, they do not mix.
Works are a result of salvation, not part of it.
However, I am addressing James, not Paul. All you are doing is throwing up smoke and mirrors trying to move the topic to another book and another writer. Why? Because it is crystal-clear that the Bible says we are saved by faith AND works. By going to some of Paul's more confusing writings, (as Peter notes in 2 Peter) you are trying to justify your theology by going beyond what Paul wrote.
Those writings are not the confusing ones that Peter was talking about.
Peter was talking about the mystery that was revealed only to Paul regarding the Church being the union of both Jew and Gentile into one Body (Eph.3) in union with Christ.
As for James, he brings up two examples in James 2.
Both show their faith to mankind by what they do.
Unfortunately for your point of view, anyone who can read James 2 will find that one is not saved by faith alone. End of story.
Anyone who can read the Book of Romans and Galatians will see that one is saved by faith alone (without works).
The only way you reach a different conclusion in James is by dropping its context and ignoring what Paul wrote as you have done.
As I stated in my first post and you have proven it, you will not address what Paul writes.
It is clear that you would rather go to hell misunderstanding James then go to heaven understanding Paul.
4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. works Cf. James 2:24. These are two aspects of one truth. Paul speaks of that which justifies man before God, viz.: faith alone, wholly apart from works; James of the proof before men, that he who professes to have justifying faith really has it. Paul speaks of what God sees--faith; James of what men see--works, as the visible evidence of faith. Paul draws his illustration from Genesis 15:6 James from Genesis 22:1-19. James' key phrase is "ye see" James 2:24 for men cannot see faith except as manifested through works.
http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=004
No, Luke shows that Mary gave birth to the Messiah and it was He who brought salvation to men.
Christ rebuked a woman who tried to elevate Mary and redirected the woman to the word of God (Lk.11:27-28) 27 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. What this says is that Mary is to be venerated along with other saints not for the physical work of childbearing but for the word that she heard and the Word that she kept in her womb.
Now, how can anyone 'keep the Word' as Mary carried Christ in her womb?
Read what the verse says, not what you want it to say.
Christ is clearly turning people away from venerating His mother to what they need to do, hear and obey His words.
Christ never even calls Mary 'mother' in the Gospels, but always addresses her as 'woman'.
No, the only thing that works can do is show what one believes, they cannot help in salvation, which is by faith without the works of the law (Rom.4)
No one is harping on anything.
The reality is that catechism was a major one.
If Lutherans reject what Luther wrote, they have to at least acknowledge that is part of their own religious heritage, not attempt to cover it up with attacks on those who hold those views as being 'Roman Catholic propaganda'.
As for being outside the Church, anyone who is saved is part of Christ's body, which is the one true church (Eph.3) and one is made part of that church by the Holy Spirit (1Cor.12)
And you become part of that church by faith alone in Christ alone.
Yes, the real church will, that is the church built on the Rock of the Lord Jesus Christ (Mat.16,1Pe.2), not phony man-made ones.(Mk.7:7) Yes, the Church God gave to his Apostles in 33 AD and not some man-made church by a hysterical rebellious priest in the 16th century.
The 16th century was merely a return to that pure doctrine of justification by faith alone, following what the scriptures teach, not what man added to them.
Nevertheless, the Catechism was a major one, being used in a major branch of the Orthodox faith. If you knew anything even elementary about Orthodoxy you will find that 'catechism' was and still is an alien concept to the Orthodox. No one uses them! Read up on Orthodox so-called catechisms (they are a very recent phenomenon) and you'll find that they are not binding. What is binding are conciliar decisions, 7 ecumenical councils and all pan-Orthodox councils held since 1054.
What you mean is that no one uses them today.
Nevertheless, the fact is that a branch of the Orthodox church did in fact embrace a catechism that was Protestant in nature, written by a high Orthodox church offical.
As for something being 'binding' I am sure that nothing is truely binding for you, and that you can find justification in believing anything but the truth in those councils.
Yes, you are correct, but Satan and his angels know better! I agree. They, too, believe and tremble.
They believe in God and tremble, but that believe in God cannot save them.
The fallen angels have been deceived and are following Satan to eternal damnation.
And many religious people are doing likewise.
I know what the Orthodox follows, but once again, you have access to a major catechism that states the truth and leads you to the scriptures.
I expect to see Cyril at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom.14:10) which is for saved people. I expect many from the Orthodox faith who read and believed what he taught in his Catechism will be there as well So being saved is now tied to a paritcular Protestant sect (Calvinism), or (Pharisaical version of the) Jewish canon? And here I go thinking all along that Protestants tie being saved with just plain faith in Christ, theology notwithstanding!
And that is what I am tying it to since that is what the catechism expresses.
The Calvinist view of election is not relevant to the issue of being saved by faith alone.
As for the Canon, that is the same one that the Greek Church Father Athanasius was supporting, rejecting the Apocrypha books as part of the sacred Canon.
I wish you guys would make up your minds. Or does it change with the days of the week and the medications taken
The only thing that changes are your excuses for rejecting the truth.
But I think that you have just about run out of them.
Your final appeal is only that the Orthodox church doesn't believe it.
I am sure Christ will find that a very convincing argument at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev.20)
And as I predicted, he didn't deal with Rom.4
So, maybe you would like to explain what Paul was saying in Rom.4 that can be reconciled with James?
James can be reconciled with Paul if one understands that James is saying that works show faith, but not that works are part of faith that one needs to get saved.
Until a Roman Catholic does address what Paul said, I will keep laughing.
Laugh all you like. I'm interested in conversation, and I see only taunts. From the very first page of this thread, where we were characterized as demon worshippers and idolaters, right up to now I have "felt the love" and I've had enough, thanks. As James says, more or less, Laugh now, weep later.
So you aren't going to address what Paul says either?
I guess my 'laughter' was justified.
As for weeping later, I know I am saved and if I died I would go directly to be in the presence of the Lord-do you?
These things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God (1Jn.5:13)
You will note the absence of works in the passage for eternal life.
John speaks of the results of the lack of works later in vs.16 when he speaks of the 'sin unto death'.
Would you care to point that out?
Heb 11 lists Abraham's faith from Gen.12 thru Gen.22.
I'm sorry that I haven't replied. My computer has had a serious breakdown. It had to be sent out for repairs and will take two weeks. We're down to one computer between three people who uses them constantly. It's like having 1 bathroom.
But God is indeed gracious. I will be on vacation next week and wouldn't have used it next week anyway, it's one of the few times in my life that I bought an extended warranty on anything, we have the spare computer, and I have everything backed up on an external hard drive. However, I will be out of commission for a while and it will be difficult to post.
We are not sure indeed. This is why 2 Peter speaks of making sure one's calling and election.
Well, in that case, you cannot believe there is even a such thing as the "elect". If any of the elect ultimately fall short, then the concept is destroyed. Obviously, this also means you have no use for the Biblical concept of predestination, even in the Arminian sense. Oh well.
FK: "... not that [...] we take care of our own salvations by choosing to participate in ritual sacraments."
The scripture says the exact opposite: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day" (John 6).
When we read this we both know immediately that interpretation is required, since neither of us condones cannibalism. The symbolism is clearly physical to spiritual, AND NOT physical to physical. What is the clear pattern of our Lord? It is the former: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like....". "Eating" and "drinking" Christ does not refer to mere physical imitation. It refers to something much much larger and more important. Christ is not wasting time here, He is talking about faith and acceptance of Him as Lord. The flesh counts for nothing.
The distinction between the elect working and God working is artificial; however, there is no scripture that says that God violates the free will of the elect as He leads them.
One of our differences is in seeing God as a true leader, or as just a consultant. The elect are led and WILL obey. "Free will" is not violated because God is the one Who formed the (new) will.
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.