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 can see why the Portestants go into electrict-shock spasms."
Kosta, that's nothing compared to "Most Holy Theotokos save us!" Truth be told, I think those paroxysms of rage are kind of funny. But as I have said before, Marian devotion simply isn't for Protestants.
"In my church there are a few people who actually do touch the ground when her name is mentioned! When I asked them where did they get that from the answer was "we feel we need to give her more than just [sic] a sign of the cross."
More than a sign of the cross?"
The Church needs to regulate it. Leaving it up to individual devotees leads to worship-like behavior. The main reason the Divine Liturgy was regulated was the fact that everybody was adding and composing their own set of prayers. Some were kneeling, some were standing, etc.
As you know, the Church found it necessary to prohibit kneeling on Sundays and especially 40 days after the Pentecost, and institutded fixed prayers for the Divine Liturgy. As you know, that is being observed as much as women being covered in church (at least in America).
The people in my church who prostrate for the Theotokos (because they feel they "need" to give her a more than 'cursory' [?] sign of the cross) do not prostrate when the Holy Trinity is invoked. Apparently they feel the Theotokos 'deserves' more than the Holy Trinity! It's absurd! It's blasphemous, and idolatrous!
We tend to excuse such idolatry as "personal devotion." But people are copycats. Others are nubies and do what they see others do. The third and largest group is ignorant of the scripture and history and figure that if the priest doesn't mention something to the contrary it's okay!
The problem is — the priest is facing the altar and never sees what the congregation does! And even if they see it, they may not say anything (because we always want more parishoners, not fewer).
I never did accept or condone asking the Theotokos to save us. I never believed she can save us. I never believed she wants us to believe that she can save us.
Your refrence to the "Most Holy Theotokos, save us" is from the Supplicatory Canon to the Most holy Theotokos and Akathist Canon which seem, to put it midly, idolatorus. (These are not commonly recited prayers, but used during Great Lent when most people are not present). They are not liturgical. The Divine Liturgy makes no such statement.
It's one thing to love her, honor her, even magnify her. It's an altogether another thing to pray to her to save us, to infer that she has the opower to cleanse us of our sins, to bow to her (as some people do in my church), or to say Glory to thee (+Basil's Divine Liturgy).
There is no theological or biblical evidence that saints do pray for us; it is an assumption (even the Church will tell you) that they would, for as we pray for others and all, so would they because we consider them to be (spiritually) alive.
To me, Marian devotion can be summarized with one word: deepest gratitude. Everything else is idolatry.
Finally, some relief from the EO's splashing along the banks of the Tiber. I can AMEN! to just about your entire post.
(Now don't go and retract any of it just because a Protestant high-fived you. After some of these posts, it's really a welcome pleasure to read that the EO actually HAS some disagreement with the RCC.)
The problem is — the priest is facing the altar
That is a problem. The Reformation solved that problem by having the pastor face his congregation, further stressing that the word of God was foremost in our worship, and that Christ was not hanging on a wall, but in every heart of every congregant in the church.
Amen Doctor! When the ancient Hebrews went on the march, Issachar (the tribe of scholars) marched in the front with the tribe of Judah, so highly was God's Word revered.
Amen!
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." -- Hebrews 4:12
Am blessed to read your more Biblical sanity on the topic in this post.
Thanks much.
To me it's a painful confession, but truth sometimes hurts. Mary is a saint, a model for all of us, but she is not divine. We cannot bow to her, prostrate to her, ask her to save us (directly).
In that I am in disagreement not only with the RCs but with my own Orthodox brothers and sisters, but not with the Church. The fact is: the Orthodox Church has only one dogma regarding Mary: that she is the Theotokos. Everything else is not binding.
Kosta: The problem is — the priest is facing the altar
Dr. E: That is a problem. The Reformation solved that problem by having the pastor face his congregation
The problem is only insofar as the priest does not see what the congregation is doing. He is the pastor, leading his sheep, with his back turned toward them, engaged in a dialogue of praising God and asking for His mercy. The cross on the wall is not Christ, but an icon of Christ that makes us think of Him. Nothing wrong with that.
Imeant to ping you to 12167
This is not about the Bible but about human practices. The Jws also went back and forth with their own idolatry and rejected the word of God on may an occasion.
My only point was that Glory goes to none but God, for we have all fallen short of it. Thus, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, in which one verse says about Mary "Glory to thee," prostrations to her, praying to her that 'save' us directly, are torublesome — to me, at least, if not to my Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters.
This seems to be more of an EO perspective. I think most Christians would be in agreement with most of this, except your open door for intercessory prayer.
If this is reflective of the EO. How do you account for the difference with your RC brothers? Could it be attributed to the long years under muslim domination, or the centuries that transpired with little or no contact with the west.
Some posts that I owe a reply to contain questions answered by me on this very thread, and I refer those who asked them to my earlier replies, and the the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I will be back as time permits later in the season.
Peace be with you all.
Yes, JESUS is the way, not the catholic church.
Wmfights: This seems to be more of an EO perspective
It's not. The EO mariology is as intense, if not more intense than the Catholic, but it's different for a variety of reasons.
For instance, some Orthodox traditions go out of their way to void any perception of idolatry. Thus in my (Serbian) Church, the intercessory request in specific canons say "Most Holy Theotokos, through your prayers to your Son , save us." Thus, this is not asking her to save us (directly) but to save us by praying to God on our behalf.
Others, notably the ones I mentioned in post #12,162 only say the 'abbreviated' version "Theotokos, save us." I just don't buy that it is an 'abbreviated ' version. There are many in the Orthodox Church whose Marian devotion borders on idolatry.
Thus, as I mentioned earlier, there are people even in my own church, who will touch the ground (traditional Orthodox churches do not have pews; we worship standing) when her name is invoked, but will not do the same for the Holy Trinity (and both get mentioned a lot in the Divine Liturgy), thereby showing greater reverence for Mary than for God!.
Then, there is the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil (which goes back more than 1,600 years, and in a sense reflects how the early Greek Christians perceived Mary) that is served about 12 times a year in Orthodox Churches to this day, which says "Glory to thee" in reference to Mary! Yet, we all know that glory goes only to God.
But, in all fairness, the early church did not have all these things worked out. The Apostle Paul says that Christ existed in a form of God (Phi 2:6). In the "form' of God!?! Is that like the "image" of God that we are, but not quite?
Saint Paul and others (notably the authors of Acts and 1 Peter) repeatedly state that God raised Christ from the dead. God raised Christ!?!
The Gospels also mention that even though everything that the Father has Christ also has, but Christ is not equal to Father, as there are things only the Father knows (i.e. the exact date of the End of Times). This is docetism, one of the earliest heresies based on a welath of NT references.
In one instance, Christ even admits that the Father is greater than He is. [cf Jn 14:28] This is quote contrary to Trinitarian teaching (see +John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).
However, in defense of the Eastern Orthodox teaching, there is only one dogma regarding Mary: that she is the Theotokos. But that same Church has hymns that glorify her and ask her to save us (directly)!
How do you account for the difference with your RC brothers?
Cultural and historical differences. The EO have believed all along, probably close to 2,000 years, that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven on the third day after her death. The RCs never admitted that she actually died, and only in the last 50 or so years made her (bodily) assumption into heaven a dogma.
Thanks. Important points, I think.
I do feel, Kosta, that the things you see as contradictions in Scripture vis a vis The Trinity--I do not see as contradictions at all.
I see such things as parts of a complex . . . reality, a complex construct which our finiteness does not have all the info on and does not have a perfect perspective on.
I see all the Scriptures about the Godhead being true and without contradiction. I believe any seeming contradictions are merely that--finite appearances . . . A 2D flatlander trying to make sense out of a 3D or 4D or 12D (dimensioned) world. Or different facets of the diamond showing different colors.
And, it seems that many RC folks can support a LOT of Marian hogwash because they cannot see contradictions that are real contradictions that those outside that perspective do see. For them, there are no contradictions.
Anyway, my 2 cents worth.
Thanks for your kind post.
And, it seems that many RC folks can support a LOT of Marian hogwash because they cannot see contradictions that are real contradictions that those outside that perspective do see
It's not just the RCs. We Orthodox are equally involved in this. Our own liturgies which remain unchanged for all practical purposes show that what you call Marian 'hogwash' was very much part of the life of the Church when Christianity was very young.
I believe any seeming contradictions are merely that--finite appearances . . .
This can be true of all religions on earth, indeed of anything human! Since we are all finite, grasping or imitating the infinite is impossible, so we all believe with imperfect knowledge. Heretics claimed Apostles as much as the orthodox Chrstianity has. Montanists claimed +John; Jewish Christians in Jerusalem claimed +Peter and proclaimed +Paul a heretic; Marcion (who rejected the OT) claimed +Paul; Gnostics claimed +Paul as well.
My point is that the idea of the Holy Trinity does not have a strong basis in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles. Rather, the Gospels seem to be more docetic than orthodox in some respects.
Thanks.
Amen. 1Tim.2:5.
At the time of the writing of Timothy, much of the NT was extant, and being read by local chuches.
Neat phraseology, but lacking in substance. The presense of such vaguness through the religious world allows multidues of interpretations and mixes myth with history to create that which cannot be proven and can only be believed.
Not if one follows the manuscript evidence and the evidence from the Church Fathers, who cite the scriptures throughout their works.
A Christian can have far more confidence when he reads his Bible, than can anyone reading any other ancient docment.
So according to your 'reasoning' we can never really be sure we are reading Plato, Aristotle, Ceasar etc because we do not have their 'originals' either and have far fewer manuscripts to compare than we do of the Bible.
Maybe the Gallic Wars are a myth also.
But it matched the MT, not the critical text version.
No, the TR is totally accurate and dependable and has been received by the church for 2000 years You live in denial.
No, I live by the evidence.
See Pickering and the Identity of the New Testament Text.
Based on a correct copy of a copy etc You have no proof that any copy is a "correct" copy. We are talking even fragments dating decades, even centuries after the supposed 'originals.' The oldest complete Bible is mid 4th century and its Gospel of mark ends on verse 9:8 (the critical verses 9-20 were added at a later date).
No, we have the church Fathers who cite scriptures throughout their works that support the manuscript evidence.
As for the ending of Mark, that flawed few of an addition was disproved by Dean Burgon in the 19th century.
The ending of Mark ends with verse 20.
Do you think that a Gospel is going to end with 'they were afraid'?
Nonsense, the local churches had long accepted the books long before the 'father's' got around to 'officially' recognizing them. Dream on. The local churches, even Rome, were reading all sorts of things that are not in the Bible today. And many local churches were not reading what is in the Bible today. For one, the oldest complete Bible (C. Sinaiticus) has two books that have been discarded since then. Constantinople did not use the revelation of John until the 9th century!
Well, I cited a source from the Orthodox Church that stated that the scriptures were being read long before they were officially 'recognized' and FF Bruce states likewise. (also posted)
Saved souls and changed lives. Sorry to burst your bubble, but other religions make the same claim and show the same "fruit." Get real!
Other religions can make any claims they want, but they do not worship a risen saviour-which is what makes Christianity different and our fruit different as well.
No, we have the perfect words of Christ, passed down and preserved, much of it by the Byzantine church Another sweeping myth without a shred of evidence. Nice way to "discuss," isn't it? Just make up the answer.
No, that is the historical fact, the West received many of the manuscripts used by Erasmus when they came to the West to preserve them after the Byzantine empire fell.
No, 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God' Then don't read! Just listen! You may hear something.
Yes, I have the Bible on tapes as well.
No, I accept what is true based on what the Bible says to be true and the evidence that it has indeed been preserved by God led men You seem to accept what you want to be true, since you are not willing to admit what are glaring examples of inconsistencies in the biblical texts and other facts.
Don't you mean 'alleged' inconsistencies?
You have no facts, just a clear hatred for the Bible and its truth.
You will probably tell me that cavemen and dinosaur bones are a lie, and Genesis is not a myth but 'just the way it happened.'
And you are going to tell me you believe in evolution?
Now, why am not surprised.
So I guess according to you, we can't trust any ancient work, since we do not have the originals of them either. Trust is one thing. Believe with all your heart in them as absolute, immutable truth is a differ requirement. I trust that many people wrote the Bible. I trust that even more people copied them, added and deleated and altered them.
No, according to your reasoning, any ancient document you read cannot be held to be true due to the fact that we do not have the originals to check with the copies.
The headings are part of the Greek text No one mentions any of the authors of Gospels by name for over a century. All references to what we find in Gospels are made as "the Lord Jesus Christ said..." until Irenaeus actually (c. 200 AD) began using presumed author's names.
The names of the authors of scripture are stated very clearly in the textual headings.
The way the church knew to accept or reject a work was by it being written by an Apostle or Prophet or someone close to an Apostle.
Ancient books, including those in the Bible, were titled by the first sentence and not by the author. Thus the Hebrew name for Genesis is Bereishyit (lit. "in the beginning"). In Exodus, in Hebrew called Shemut, it;'s the second word because the first one means 'now.' Leviticus, Vayikra in Hebrew, again, is the first word, etc.
First, we are not talking about the Hebrew Books, we are talking about the Greek Books, which do have titles on them.
Second, regarding the Hebrew Books, Christ said very clearly who the author of them.
The Gospels are anonymous. If the original Greek text had "kata" (according to ... and the name of the author) they wouldn't be anonymous, genius, would they?
The Gospels aren't anonymous, the title of each is given in the heading of the text.
My Greek NT does have Kata and the name of the author.
Theotokos was never commissioned or empowered to heal or to do miracles, let alone save us.
If her sanctity in the Church is higher than that of the angels, and it is, it is nevertheless lower than than that of God.
If she shines brighter than any of us, and she does, her luster pales next to God's glory.
She was commissioned to put forth a miracle of Incarnate God, Who saved us. She accepted it in perfect obedience and humility.
Saying "Thank you, thank you, thank you; we revere you, O Theotokos, our Blessed Mother and model and saint," is one thing. It's an altogether a different thing to say "Save us" (Supplicatory Canon of the EOC) or "Glory to three." (+Basil's Divine Liturgy)
That makes me a "black sheep" among my fellow EOs and RCs. But I believe they know that, deep in their hearts, they are too.
The EOC, for a good reason I believe, never went beyond the only dogma formulated about the Theotokos in the (undivided) Church.
Maybe you didn't get the memo, there was no 'Mass' for the first centuries of Christianity.
There were many false books competing with Christianity, but the local churches were able to filter them out.
In the later centuries, it was recognized what had been mostly accepted by individual churches.
False churches accepted apocyrpha books in both the Old and New Testament.
Ever figure out what Jn.15:2 means?
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.