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/
Amen.
"Breaking the Bread" is the celebration of the Eucharist - what we call the "Mass". It's been going on since the very beginning of Christianity.
There were many false books competing with Christianity, but the local churches were able to filter them out.
That is not the way Christian history relates how the Canon was formed. I don't know where you get your information, but a number of letters were read at the MASS that today are not part of what we call "Scripture". One example is the first letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.
False churches accepted apocyrpha books in both the Old and New Testament.
False Churches later denied what was accepted by the Universal Church. What happened? Those cats from 1000 years later suddenly have a "revelation"?
Ever figure out what Jn.15:2 means?
I'm sure you and your self-proclaimed infallibility will soon tell me...
Regards
Various churches read various books, some of which were later rejected. As long as something was read in a church it was considered "scripture."
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
That is a flawed argument. Difference doesn't change the essence. We are all different, yet essentially human. All religions claim 'changed lives' and those that are apocalyptic claim also salvation.
Don't you mean 'alleged' inconsistencies? You have no facts, just a clear hatred for the Bible and its truth
No, I mean inconsistencies. There is no hatred of the Bible or its truth. Nonetheless, human hands and minds have changed it over and over again.
And you are going to tell me you believe in evolution?
The Vatican told Galileo that the craters on the Moon they could see with his telescope were an 'optical illusion' created by the devil who wants us to believe that celestial bodies are not perfect, as all things in heaven [!] are.
Well, there are craters on the moon, and the 'heaven' is not the sky above and 'celestial spheres' are not perfect. If you want to wager on a myth, that's fine with me. God did create this world, but not as we imagine.
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
Ancient documents usually have other corroborating evidence. If they don't, no one is expected to accept them on faith.
My Greek NT does have Kata and the name of the author.
Show me the original, or even the oldest copy of the original, and then quote one author who before 150 AD credits anything quoted from the gospels to any of the authros we claim.
Take, for instance 1 Clement 13 (c 96 AD), "let us remember what the Lord Jesus Christ said..." and proceeds with quotes found in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 without mentioning the author.
+Ignatius, likewise, in his First Letter to the Smyrnians (about 110 AD) quotes from Mat 3:15 without giving the author.
The first to make vague (namless) refrences to Apostolic authors was +Justin the Martyr (c. 150 AD), mentioning their "memoirs."
It was +Irenaeus (c. end of 2nd century) who for the first time mentiones authors by name, SS. Luke, Mark, John, and Matthew in that order in his , 10.1, 10.5, 11.1, and 16.2). After +Irenaeus it becomes common to reference Gospel authors.
Greek Books, which do have titles on them
+Irenaeus referrs to the books by quoting the first sentence in them. That was the standard method in the ancient world, Hebrew or Greek.
FK: "I don't know why she would escape Judgment. Even within the construct, she could simply be adjudicated innocent on all counts. This line would also seem problematic with all the scripture on the Judgment (i.e., no exceptions)."
But her assumption would be exactly that adjudication. Having received particular judgment upon her death, she was absolved of everything and assumed to heaven. we also believe that all the Saints of the Church are in heaven and not in an intermediate state.
But what does this mean about the other two Biblical assumptions? It would seem to put Elijah and Enoch on a par with Mary. That is, on a higher "tier" than the Apostles, etc. Or, are you saying that since the Saints are in the same place, that assumption really isn't that big a deal, but more just as one means to an end?
By the way, +Paul obviously was not of that opinion, for he would have qualified his statement that all have sinned. In other words, +Paul did not think Mary was pure and blameless.
Yes, absolutely. I could not possibly agree more. :) Paul elsewhere said that Jesus was sinless, but I don't see where he had room for any other exceptions. And, he was the first to include himself in with the rest of us. :)
Just when I think I have you figured out you say something I completely agree with. ;-0
She was commissioned to put forth a miracle of Incarnate God, Who saved us. She accepted it in perfect obedience and humility.
If the doctrines stopped here, it would be one less thing we would disagree about.
I have no clue. Elijah actually didn't die. I think he is supposed to come back to die!
Another thing about bodily assumption: heaven and hell are not 'physical' places to be taken to. We think of hell as a "state" of the soul of a person who was unable to let go of anger and love for the world and other passions.
But that goes directly against the liturgical tradition of Orthodoxy where we sing "Thou [Christ] didst descent into hell." The Apostolic Creed also establishes that. Even the Gospel expression "the gates of hell" suggests a physical place.
All this sounds like some left-over paganism that no one bothered to correct. Where is heaven and where is hell, and where is God the Father and how can Christ sit to the tight of Him? These are some very visual descriptions of physical entities and yet the Church does not teach hell or heaven to be a "place."
I hate when that happens. :)
If the doctrines stopped here, it would be one less thing we would disagree about
There is not much more to the doctrine of the Theotokos. Unfortunately, the litugical life tells us otherwise.
Did he? Paul's authorship of Hebrews is doubtful. Did Paul mention this elsewhere?
I am going to go out on a limb and give you my opinion. I do not think that Paul knew everything about Christianity that we do today. It is very unlikely, for example, that Paul's theology regarding the Trinity was largely undeveloped and took the Church many years to understand what had been revealed to the Church. I will say the same regarding Paul's thought on Mary. It is unlikely that Paul had considered that Mary was the archtype for the Church - pure and spotless (as he writes in Ephesians). It is Paul who ALSO writes about the "New Adam". Naturally, he didn't appear to had plumbed the depths of discovery that Mary would have been the "New Eve". Thus, Paul DID set the ground work for the later connection between Mary and the Church.
What we DO know is that Christianity very soon after Paul DID realize that Mary was something more than in incubator for the Christ - which is how Protestants seem to "honor" Mary... This was a result of prayerful meditation of the Scriptures and the Apostolic teachings given to the successors of the Apostles.
Regards
It is not unusual that God's Word would use anthropomorphic words to help man understand something about God. God's Word condescends to mankind, stoops to him - even BEFORE the incarnation. It certainly doesn't seem to make much difference whether heaven is a place or a state of existence while we are on this side of the void...
Regards
I would go much further than that! :) But I would add that they also apply what I'm going to say to their own people.
From what I've learned here, my understanding is that the RC view is that anyone with "sufficient" disagreement with the Church has the PRESUMPTION of damnation, UNLESS, God grants a special dispensation, which is fully within His rights to grant. For example, if anyone dies under guilt of mortal sin (i.e. without absolution) then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation. Or, if someone dies without having taken the Eucharist (a certain number of times?) under Catholic beliefs then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation. Or, if someone dies without having been acceptably baptized by Catholic standards, then he is presumed damned, without etc.
Obviously, for us Protestants, things must actually look extremely bleak in their eyes. :) It seems that all we have is the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance to rely upon, and from what I understand, it's not a good bet. As I think about it specifically now, I know it's a fact that some of whatever negative "feelings" I have toward the RCC is based on the fact that I know that most of them believe I am doomed to hell, barring an unusual miracle. Knowing for certain my love for Christ and His gift of my faith, I have a natural reaction. :)
Thanks for the ping.
+Paul and all others to be exact, starting with +Peter. Truth is: none of the Apostolic leaders of the Church regonized Mary as the arch-type of the Church, or as "Second Eve."
Some suggest that it was +Ignatius, as early as 90 AD, who mentions that Mary's virginity is one of the three secrets kept from the rulers of the world. However, even the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
They are actually 14th century manuscreipts of Western origin extant on ly in Latin.
In the second century, the Church makes no pronouncements linking Mary to the arch-type of the Church.
We have to wait until the just about the 3rd century, when +Irenaeus links her to the "Second Eve."
And it took almost two centuries since then for the Church to proclaim that she is the Birth-Giver of God (Theotokos), and a Mother of God (Mater Theou).
But it does make a difference. It affects us how we believe and what we believe, and how we tailor our lives in that belief.
FK: From what I've learned here, my understanding is that the RC view is that anyone with "sufficient" disagreement with the Church has the PRESUMPTION of damnation, UNLESS, God grants a special dispensation, which is fully within His rights to grant.
You cannot "lose" your salvation (as far as the RCC or EOC is concerned) because our definition and understanding of salvation is not, never was, and never will be a "moment" here on earth. Salvation is a process, not a moment.
According to pretty much the 2,000 year-old Church teaching on salvation, one is either saved or condemned after he is dead. The life we lead in belief or disbelief is the road that leads us to that end. That's what judgment is all about. It is onyl after we are dead that we are either in a state of torment or bliss.
What Protestants consider as "saved" is something like: God gives the "saved" a divine ticket. Those who have it (i.e. the believers) are therefore "saved," for God's ticket is always valid. It goes neatly with the pseudo-Paulean theology of redemption that Luther invented.
Obviously, for us Protestants, things must actually look extremely bleak in their eyes
I wouldn't worry too much. If we are the condemned, it will be all our doing (of rejecting God). Do no harm. Be pure in heart. Be poor in spirit. Be merciful.
God's message is clear.
I don’t recall being at all concerned about your Salvation.
God says those WHO SEEK HIM SHALL FIND HIM.
You seem to have an earnest, sincere, authentic, devotion to Jesus Christ. He is well able to keep us who seek and claim Him as Savior and Lord.
I’m happy and honored to consider your a Bro.
A lot of the other stuff is noise and lesser priorities.
Love God wholly; others as self; do unto others . . . Therein is The Gospel according to HE WHO IS The Gospel.
Of course, no man comes to The Father but by Christ.
But you believe that, as I understand it.
The problem is "how much disagreement" is "necessary"? The Bible clearly states that those who are false teachers are in danger of eternal damnation. The NT condemnations all apply to heretics and those who refuse to convert to Christ - not those who are ignorant. How much do we press the issue regarding the question of heretics? How much do we cling to "he who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and the One who sent Me"? I don't think the Church has answered that decisively.
if anyone dies under guilt of mortal sin (i.e. without absolution) then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation
That is Biblical. But a mortal sin is a willful separation and ending of the relationship between God and the individual. Doesn't it go without saying that such an individual is damning himself?
Or, if someone dies without having taken the Eucharist (a certain number of times?) under Catholic beliefs then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation.
Naturally, that is not an absolute rule, because we don't believe that men who never heard of the Eucharist are automatically condemned, unlike our Calvinist friends who believe people are condemned before they were born...(what a disgusting idea) Again, if one is fully aware of the teaching of the Eucharist and refuses it, what is the level of relationship that exists between God and the individual? Refusing God's revelation is treading on dangerous ground.
As I think about it specifically now, I know it's a fact that some of whatever negative "feelings" I have toward the RCC is based on the fact that I know that most of them believe I am doomed to hell, barring an unusual miracle. Knowing for certain my love for Christ and His gift of my faith, I have a natural reaction. :)
A person has eternal life if Christ abides within them. This occurs, we know, when they are obeying the commandments. All the rest leads us to better improve this relationship. I believe Jesus said that the Spirit will blow where HE wills and if Gentiles can obey the law written on their heart without the Eucharist, then obviously, this is not an absolute LAW. But if one refuses to receive what God has made available, one can only wonder what is going on regarding their "relationship".
What we all need to remember is that such rules are made to lead us to God. But in the end, we cannot subject God to any laws.
Regards
And it took almost two centuries since then for the Church to proclaim that she is the Birth-Giver of God (Theotokos), and a Mother of God (Mater Theou).
That is presuming that no one actually spoken theologically about Mary UNTIL St. Irenaeus WROTE "Against Heresies". I think it is safe to say that he was not an innovator. His writings about the link to the beliefs of the Church and the Apostles is pretty clear. He would be the last guy I'd think was "inventing" anything.
I believe the kernel for all of our teachings were given by the Apostles, but it has taken awhile for the Church to discover herself from this one-time revelation.
Regards
You responded: But it does make a difference. It affects us how we believe and what we believe, and how we tailor our lives in that belief.
Perhaps. The idea of separation from God with Hell should be obvious, whether one can think abstractly or prefers anthropomophic language. In either case, a person should fear that separation.
Regards
Thank you very much for your kind words. Likewise.
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.