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/
Oh, I think after 38 years of being a Christian, I can pretty much tell the difference, so please do NOT assume I don't. I believe Paul was talking to the women of his time so please don't lay your legalism onto me or other women of our time. Having a head covering will NOT make us more holy. Many women who wear head coverings, and I am making a generalization here, are no more holy than those who do not. It's a heart issue, kosta.
What Paul writes is very clear, and nowhwere does he state that works have anything to do with salvation.
If one does not show charity, then one may not be saved, but showing charity does not add to one's salvation, a Christian shows charity because he is saved.
Charity is a fruit issue, not a salvation one.
The English language does not support your theology. Just because Paul says that works of the law do not save, that does not automatically mean that NOTHING saves except works!!! Paul could have just have easily said "we are not saved by works of the law, but we are saved by works of love." Such a statement IS in line with the rest of his writings - not your idea. Paul is ONLY excluding works of the law from the formula. Thus, dietary rules and circumcision mean nothing, as Paul details in many other places, to include Galatians and Romans.
What Paul excludes is anything that can be added by man's efforts and he makes that very clear in Rom.4.
To prove your point, you would have to find a place where Paul says that you need to do something but believe in order to be saved.
Paul never says that anyone has to do anything but have faith in the Risen Saviour in order to be saved (Acts.16:31)
Footnote from the RCC NAS Bible.
Jas.2:24 appears to conflict with Paul's statement. However, James combats the error of the extremists who used the doctrine of justification through faith as a screen for moral self-determination. Paul discusses the subject of holiness in greater detail than does James and beginning with ch.6 shows how justification through faith introduces one to the gift of a new life in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
James and Paul agree. We are saved by faith and works of love. Without either, we are not saved.
James and Paul do agree, works cannot save anyone, they can only show if one has been saved and that is only by faith.
Faith will produce good works, they cannot mix with it to produce salvation.
But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. (Rom.4:5).
Nothing could be clearer.
Amen!
Scripture interprets Scripture.
Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:8-10"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
It can't be stated any clearer than that!
Nowhere does Paul ever associate works with salvation, they are always associated with rewards at the Judgement Seat of Christ (Rom.14:10, 2Cor.5:10)
Well please tell him how proud this 60 yr old psychologist is of him, too.
Amen! We have His promise that at the moment of our death we will join Him in heaven because Christ has already paid for every sin His children have committed or will ever commit. By the grace of God alone.
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
I was fortunate to have an exposure to both Hebrew and Greek, and consider myself very lucky, especally since both times the reasons for studying the language were somewhat frivolous.
This being said, there is a big difference between, figuratively speaking, sitting in the lap of the Church, and taking potshots at it from the outside. Most American Catholics (Orthodox are different as they tend to be more closely connected to their ethnic culture) do not know even the language of their own church, Latin, let alone Greek, and they do just fine insofar as they have trust in what the Church teaches them. I am sometimes asked how come the translation used in the English liturgy, NAB, is so bad -- or at least so bad for analytical scripture study. Well, but we do not get our theology from the NAB, or from any other scripture in a raw form. We get it from the priest, Catholic literature, magisterial teaching, etc. I am not saying it is altogether good, -- I would rather see literacy in Latin and liturgical use of Latin, or at least the faithful to Latin Douay translation -- but it is a tolerable situation. What is not tolerable is using particular translations in order to find fault with the doctrine, -- something that is the main substance of this and similar threads. Once you are one that path, a degree of fluency in Greek, -- not even in Latin -- becomes necessary.
AMEN!
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." -- Ezekiel 36:26
Right on, just what I tried to say in my previous post.
Athanasius of Alexandria (Greek: ÁèáíÜóéïò) (also spelled "Athanasios") (c.293 – May 2, 373) was a Christian bishop, the Bishop of Alexandria, in the fourth century. He is revered as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, and regarded as a great leader of the Church by Protestants. Roman Catholics have declared him, earliest living, one of 33 Doctors of the Church, and he is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Eastern Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria
Those fathers who wrote in Latin are called the Latin (Church) Fathers, and those who wrote in Greek the Greek (Church) Fathers. Famous Latin Fathers include the Montanist Tertullian, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Jerome; famous Greek Fathers include St. Irenaeus of Lyons (whose work has survived only in Latin translation), Clement of Alexandria, the heterodox Origen, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, and the Three Cappadocian Fathers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers
And where does it say that he is celebrated solely because of his stance on the Trinity?
LOL. So we're "extremists" if we believe Jesus Christ has paid in full for our redemption so that we now stand acquitted of our sins by the work of Christ upon the cross -- the only work that saves anyone.
And who's really "morally self-determining?" The one who rests on Christ's justification alone or the one who says he's working to earn his salvation?
No Roman Catholic or Orthodox will ever say that he is saved despite what John states in 1Jn.5:13.
Salvation is not a process, it is an event!(1Cor.1:18)
I criticize the Catholic Church all the time. The Church is terribly lax in defending the faith (getting better though), it has lead so many Catholics in the West astray, it implemented the ideas of the Second Vatican Council dreadfully badly, it is not forceful enough in condemning the fruits of sexual revolution and generally modernity, it should have excommunicated all pro-abort ideologues thirty years ago, it should have closed down or thouroughly reformed the Catholic in name only colleges, it should have instituted a full scale Holy Inquisition at the first whiff of the pederast priest scandals, -- should I go on?
The Church Militant is an institution of fallible men, who benefit from criticism like anyone else.
But she is also the beautiful bride of Christ, the communion of Saints who pray for us and sustain us in our journey. Insult them, and you insult Christ Who chose His Church and brought her to be with him in Heaven. What is so difficult to understand? If you insult my wife or my chidlren, you insult me. Do you think the love of Christ for His family is somehow of thicker skin than the love with which a man loves his family?
26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. 28 And God indeed hath set some in the church...(1 Cor. 12)
AMEN! to the man who taught me just how off some translations can be. 8~)
Yes, and James is emphasizing the fact that one must show his faith by works, not be saved by works.
We see the same issue put forth in 1Jn.3:18,
My little children let us not love in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth.
The general rul eis that it is the Catholic (also Orthodox) Church that teaches about Christ. For some parts of that teaching the Church gave us the scripture. for other parts the Church gave us bishops and doctors of the Church. It is all good to read the scripture, but if the reading leads one away form the Church, it is not the Church's faul and it is not the scripture's faul, -- somethign is wrong with the man doing the reading.
In 11766 I gave a detailed analysis why in the disputation on the Eucharist in John 6 the eating of bread and drinking of blood of Christ is not an allegory. I don't think anyone will disagree that "I am the gate" is allegorical. In both cases a clear reasoning from scripture alone is sufficient. When someone disagrees with the Catholic explanation of John 6, he does so not because John 6 does not say so, but because of some other considerations, -- for example, that allegorical imagery is used elsewhere, or because he doesn't think that sacraments can be salvific in general, or because cannibalism would not be acceptable to Jews, etc. In other words, he who sees the discourse on the Eucharist in John 6 allegorically does so not because of John 6 as text, but because of some interpretation he prefers over the literal reading.
Something similar happens with James 2: one disagrees with the role of good works in salvation despite the plain text of James 2:24 not because anything in that text, but because he has an interpretation that he prefers over the literal reading. He would typically expand what St. Paul says about circumcision or works of social reward into a generalized concept of "sola fide" and then minimize what St. James says about works. I read, he interprets.
The Catholic reading is the literal reading, both when we see an allegory and when we see plain commandment or plain doctrine.
It is possible that other cases exist where there is no single literal reading that prevails over some other. For example, much in Catholic mariology is not based on anything read literally in the scripture. It becomes very important then to simply do what the Church asks you to, as the Holy Spirit Who leads her will also lead you.
In doing so you go to those who themselves refuse to do what the Scripture said.
No, because both St. James and St. Paul refer to Abraham but they refer to the different parts of the story of Abraham. When St. Paul says that Abraham was saved not by works he speaks of circumcision instituted by God through Abraham; and when St. James speaks of Abraham saved by works, he speaks of the sacrifice of Isaac. This is the plain reading of the parts that seem to be in conflict only because you theorize too much about God's sovereignty -- which neither James or the Catholic Church deny.
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.
Yet, Christ did say that He sends the apostles as Himself; St. Paul does speak expressly with authority of Christ, and he does instruct Timothy who to ordain (supporting scripture available on demand). Under your theory the Church went rudderless as soon as the last apostle dies. Not so.
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?
I believe that the evangelists, St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter and St. Jude clearly expressed very many clear theological truth lead by the Holy Ghost, both in the scripture and through tradition. What I don't believe is that they meant the scripture to be sufficient alone outside of the Church or open to individual interpretations.
In the same breath you decry "private interpretation" you champion "private revelation".
Really? Where? Private revelation is to remain a private affair, the Church teaches, -- one may take it or leave it.
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 is a strange belief. Is it common to all the Reformed? This sounds like that comical "In the Bible we learn about the Ten Suggestions".
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
It is in the Holy Scripture that Pauline Epistles are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16), but so is much of the Scripture. There is nothing un-Catholic in any of St. Paul's writings, or in any other scripture. This is why we are Catholic: we don't pick and choose which scripture to believe. We also do not believe that all scripture is perspicuous, and I gave you a scriptural prooftext for this Catholic belief.
I don't know anyone who'd like to send you to the racks of the Inquisition
because
you dearly love and revere what you believe to be the most correct of the expressions/factions of Christ's Body.
But a lot of us are fiercely offended and just as quick to defend what we construe to be the most correct expressions/factions of Christ's Body with just as saintly a motivations as work for you.
All the more so when your characterizations of our spiritual groups, persons and practices are ranked as demonic, hell bound etc. Some of us feel the same about some of your cherished group's institutions, habits, customs, rituals and even individuals.
Screaming "OUT FOUL SPIRIT" is not likely to advance anything overly useful on these forums though it might clean the ranks out in reverse.
Some of us SCREAM intensely in response. There's some faint assumption that when the shoe is on the other foot, there might be a faint hint of insight eventually. And, if not increased insight, perhaps a slightly increased aversion or reluctance to be so obnoxious in the first place. Perhaps before Jesus comes again. Though given the era and rapidly increasing march of the end of history as we know it, perhaps not.
As has been demonstrated, we can post titles of threads that are baiting or tweaky of RC's etc.
However, in my biased observation, you folks are much more given to posting threads with REALLY TWEAKY TITLES BEGGING FOR A FIERCE RESPONSE. And then you wail when you get it. Wellllll excuse me!!!!
Some folks seem to persistently post REALLLLLLLYYYYY outrageously offensive, outrageously illogical; outrageously untrue vile stuff that super begs a fierce response. And some of us are not too good to deliver it. Yet again . . . the wail goes up as though the triggering posts were pure as the driven snow. Hogwash.
Reaping what you sow is alive and well in it's unwellness on the religion forum.
I have variously taken great umbridge at various points in history at things Dr. E has said, Mad Dawg has said and somewhat even at what Kolo has said. But I don't rail at them anything near like I was once prone to do. They have demonstrated a capacity to be real and Biblical and Biblically broad minded enough that we can consider one another Christian Bretheren and Sistern regardless of our stark differences.
That's theoretically possible with anyone on the forum. It's certainly preferred. I don't prefer to rail at anyone except satan and his destructive notions and habits.
But I just may well slap some outrageous nonsense down as forcefully and intensely as I can yet again. Sometimes it seems even too weak a response. But since the jaw bone of a donkey is not so functional nor allowed, it will have to do.
But I prefer collegial discourse. Some seem genetically predispositioned such that it appears impossible for them. We on my side would love to see that proven wrong.
"...and somewhat even at what Kolo has said."
HeHeHe!
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.