Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
I wish more of us were able to part in such manner, rather than continuing on and on and on.
In Christ
Sorry, but Genesis 12 is discussed as an act of righteousness BEFORE the event of Genesis 15. The faith of Abraham in Genesis 12 is the same faith expressed in Genesis 15. Paul uses identical language in Hebrews to describe both incidents as instances of faith in the same manner. Thus, Hebrews 11:10 and Hebrews 11:14-16.
Is it surprising that so few Protestant commentaries address Genesis 12 and the subject of justification, although Paul uses the very same language to describe BOTH Genesis 12 and 15? You are placing artificial definitions upon what Scripture describes as similar events.
Regards
This is, of course, also true, this is why Mary is co-redeemer but not a redeemer. At least this is what my Church teaches.
how can anyone 'keep the Word' as Mary carried Christ in her womb?
We can be likewise faithful to Christ and place ourselves at the foot of the Cross with St. John and Mary the Mother of God. We can let our soul magnify the Lord and let our spirit rejoice in God our Saviour. We can, in short, pray to her often, and ask for guidance.
Christ is clearly turning people away from venerating His mother
The slight rebuke you detect in Jesus's voice is directed at those who might venerate Mary as purely a vessel, a breeding apparatus for God. This is, of course, a defect of Protestant, not Catholic, mariology. Still, veneration He approves, but He directs it at the true essence of Mary as the first and most faithful disciple, one without sin.
addresses her as 'woman'.
He does, doesn't He? This echoes "the woman" whose seed will crush the Serpent (Genesis 3:15). It certainly has no connotation of disrespect, as historical scholarship showed, -- Forest Keeper made a post recently about this.
Romans 4 does indeed teach that salvation does not come from ceremonial law such as circumcision, which Romans 4 mentions specifically. You have repeated what the Catholic Church teaches. If you object to something I said, please try again.
Not at all. If he falls short, he is not of the elect, even though he is called. If he is among the elect, he will do what St. Peter tells him, repent, grow in virtues, remain elect, and sin no more.
we both know immediately that interpretation is required, since neither of us condones cannibalism
There is no cannibalism. Christ is present in the Eucharist and tells us to eat it, which is his real body. He also tells us that this is food to profit our spirit rather than out flesh (John 6:64), which alone would discount any cannibalistic fantasies. No interpretation is required, and none is contemplated in this passage by my Church.
The flesh counts for nothing.
This is not interpretation, this is mistranslation, designed to tell you lies about the gospel.
One of our differences is in seeing God as a true leader, or as just a consultant
A true leader leads free men who know what they are doing as they follow. What you see is a slave runner.
10 For wisdom came forth from God: for praise shall be with the wisdom of God, and shall abound in a faithful mouth, and the sovereign Lord will give praise unto it. 11 Say not: It is through God, that she is not with me: for do not thou the things that he hateth. 12 Say not: He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of wicked men. 13 The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear him shall not love it. 14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. 15 He added his commandments and precepts. 16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.(Ecclesiasticus 15)
Still a lens. You take the political model of Montesquieu and Jefferson and read the gospel with it. You program yourself for misapprehension of the gospel, and so, ultimately, of freedon itself. "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel" (Ecclesiasticus 15); "Christ has made us free", Gal. 4:31.
The passage (1 Timothy 2:1-5) calls for intercession done by Timothy (for example) for the king (for example) to Christ, Who is the sole mediator to God the Father. The "sole mediator", therefore, does not prohibit mediation of Timothy to Christ, but if so, then also by Mary or any other saint to Christ.
This is why I argue from scripture all the time, while you show me Spurgeon and Calvin.
No. Just you. Who else do you have in mind?
THY CAN SPEAK FOR THEMSEVES.
There' a wide variety of ways to SCREAM INTENSELY . . .
AS WELL AS TO SCREAM INTENSELY *AND* OFFENSIVELY.
Sometimes, it's just word choice and phrasing. Sometimes it's tone. Sometimes it's eveything.
Some screams are a multi-noted 'symphony' while others are a numbing droning of perseverating jackhammers.
Oh, I don't assume anything. It seems to me that you do.
Having a head covering will NOT make us more holy
+Paul thinks not wearing any covering will make you less holy. You choose to dismiss the Scripture.
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
That is your belief, as you say, but it's not scriptural. There is no scriptural evidence that this was meant as a "fad." Now, it seems you are making things up as you go along. You also keep repeating that it's "my legalism." It's not! It's in the Bible.
It's a heart issue, kosta.
That is another example of a banal, worn-out, meaningless chliché imo. What exactly is this so-called "heart?"
Yes, this is a great concern of mine. It seems that some have an attitude of "Share the wealth, there is plenty of glory to go around between men and God". But then we remember who is really, truly deserving of any and all praise. I think our friends on the other side believe we are selling mankind short. We, OTOH, believe there is wisdom in knowing one's place in the universe and just exactly what it is that we bring to the table. True humility is with a bowed head and a heart of thankfulness.
and he is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Eastern Church
So is Saint Augustine and the Orthodox teach absolutely nothing from him. So is Saint Gregory of Nyssa, who believed in universal salvation and was Origen's disciple.
Athanasius was one of the people responsible for finializing the Christian canon. The Church chooses to look the other way about his methods and behaviors. It is only concerned with the correctness of his theology, especially vis avis Arianism.
And, most importantly, the Church did NOT accept his sola-Hebrew OT formula.
And where does it say that he is celebrated solely because of his stance on the Trinity?
His opposition to Arianism, a major heresy that plagued the early Church and tore deep into the heart of Christology, was and is the central event for which he is best known.
Now that is funny.
(;
And how convenient it is for you to have left out the entire view on the subject.
However, there are also many modern historians who object to this view and point out that such hostile attitude towards Athanasius is based on an unfair judgement of historical sources.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria
and he is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Eastern Church So is Saint Augustine and the Orthodox teach absolutely nothing from him. So is Saint Gregory of Nyssa, who believed in universal salvation and was Origen's disciple. Athanasius was one of the people responsible for finializing the Christian canon. The Church chooses to look the other way about his methods and behaviors. It is only concerned with the correctness of his theology, especially vis avis Arianism. And, most importantly, the Church did NOT accept his sola-Hebrew OT formula.
I didn't say that the Orthodox church did accept His view of the Old Testament Canon, the point that I was making (and have made) is that there were Greek church fathers who held Proto-Protestant views.
And where does it say that he is celebrated solely because of his stance on the Trinity? His opposition to Arianism, a major heresy that plagued the early Church and tore deep into the heart of Christology, was and is the central event for which he is best known.
That was not the question, the question was where does it say that was the only reason he was well respected by the Orthodox faith.
Clearly, he was also held in high esteem for his work on the Canon.
THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH Another contributing source to the knowledge of the orthodox Faith are some outstanding Fathers of the Church who wrote discourses and homilies on subjects of faith, which the Ecumenical Synods accepted as canonical teachings. These prominent Fathers are: Athanasius the Great (c.295) for his letter enumerating the canonical books of the Bible; http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article7064.asp
Moreover, it seems that Athansasius' view on the Apocrypha, as being less then Canonical is shared by Orthodox scholars.
most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament. http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=39
Paul is not speaking Romans about only the ceremonial law, he is talking about all the law which reveals sin(Rom.7:7)
Paul is talking about trying to keep all of the law in order to be saved, not the 'ceremonial law'.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law(Rom.3:28)
But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.(Rom.4:5)
The passages are very clear-no works necessary for salvation-period.
And where did you get the notion that she was any kind of redeemer?
Not from the Bible!
how can anyone 'keep the Word' as Mary carried Christ in her womb? We can be likewise faithful to Christ and place ourselves at the foot of the Cross with St. John and Mary the Mother of God. We can let our soul magnify the Lord and let our spirit rejoice in God our Saviour. We can, in short, pray to her often, and ask for guidance.
That is not keeping the 'word' as Mary did keep the 'Word' in her womb.
Christ is clearly turning people away from venerating His mother The slight rebuke you detect in Jesus's voice is directed at those who might venerate Mary as purely a vessel, a breeding apparatus for God. This is, of course, a defect of Protestant, not Catholic, mariology. Still, veneration He approves, but He directs it at the true essence of Mary as the first and most faithful disciple, one without sin.
And where is Mary ever addressed as one without sin?
addresses her as 'woman'. He does, doesn't He? This echoes "the woman" whose seed will crush the Serpent (Genesis 3:15). It certainly has no connotation of disrespect, as historical scholarship showed, -- Forest Keeper made a post recently about this.
Christ doesn't call Mary, 'the woman' he calls her 'woman' instead of mother.
Moreover, I didn't say the term 'woman' had any connotation of disrespect, but neither does it have any connotation of superior respect either.
In fact, when Mary and Christ's brothers came to get Him, Christ said 'who is my mother or brethren'(Mk.3:33)
For There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1Tim.2:5)
From Hebrew 11:8-19 we have Abrahams walk of faith that showed that he had believed what God said (Gen.15:6)
It was his faith that resulted in his salvation and that faith revealed itself by its obedience.
That is made clear by Paul in Rom.4 where Paul states that Abraham was not saved by any works, but by his faith and to be children of Abraham, the father of faith, we must do likewise.
Is it surprising that so few Protestant commentaries address Genesis 12 and the subject of justification, although Paul uses the very same language to describe BOTH Genesis 12 and 15? You are placing artificial definitions upon what Scripture describes as similar events.
Gen.12 shows the Convenant that God made with Abraham.
Gen. 15:6 shows the faith that Abrhaham had in what God said about that Covenant and that was imputed to him for righteousness and Gen.15:6 is what Paul is referring to.
'therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace (Rom.4:16)
And there you have it. One's faith shown by their works. Without works of love, you have dead faith, worthless for salvation. Without faith, you cannot be pleasing to God. Really, you haven't shown how we are saved by faith alone, and James quite clearly says we are not saved by faith alone.
end of story.
Regards
No, one's faith is shown by his works, but it is not the works that save them, it is the faith that saves them, the works only show that faith.
If the faith is dead, then men cannot see it.
So, what James is saying matches what Paul is saying, but James is saying a faith to be seen must be seen by works, but Paul is saying that the faith that saves is without works.
In Heb.11 we see that faith that saved Abraham in Gen.15 (without works-Rom.4) grow into a more intimate relationship with God (friend of God-James 2).
Salvation is an event,(1Cor.1:18) growth is a process.(2Pe.3:18)
Works are rewarded at the judgement seat of Christ and there will be dead works that will receive no rewards (1Cor.3).
He that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
So clear even a Roman Catholic can understand it-but refuses to.
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.