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/
If this statement was correct, doesn't it seem a tad odd that the Orthodox have yet to complete a full English translation?
Amen!
FWIW, after God stopped Abraham's hand isn't it interesting that a substitute sacrifice was in the thicket. A Ram stuck by its horns. Jesus probably reminded the two believers on the road to Emmaus about this.
Luke 24:27...He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
It's an interesting split. In the east the Scriptures were in Greek and could be read, but they had to deal with submitting to their muslim masters. In the west, that was Christian, the Scriptures were in latin and only read by those fluent in latin.
Notice Luke identifies the “breaking of bread” with the opening of scriptures.
Luke 24:27-35, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.”
"Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: 'Where is He who brought them up out of the sea With the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them'" -- Isaiah 63:11
It doesn't say the bread became his body when he blessed it!
Another thing that jumps out at me is if they had not begged Jesus to come eat and stay with them he would have continued on his way. Their eyes may never have been opened. IOW, don't let Jesus pass you by.
Also, it's interesting that Jesus is appearing before two believers who are dejected because they thought he was the Messiah, but their leaders had him crucified. Jesus was not appearing before the eleven yet. IOW, he is here for all believers, not to be filtered by a group.
Jesus was not appearing before the eleven yet. IOW, he is here for all believers, not to be filtered by a group.
= = =
INDEED.
NOT to be filtered through or by a group.
Not even you?
LOL
cosidering how few english-only speakers are orthodox as a percentage of overall orthodoxy not really. most folks who go to orthodox churches in the west either were bilingual or learned after they converted. the english-only folks are now working on a translation for their needs, pretty well timed with the explosion of orthodoxy amoung english-only speakers.
Alright already yet—qualifications.
We are all to be HIS HANDS EXTENDED as part of HIS BODY.
But deliberate filtering . . . as though God couldn’t manage loving directly or uncensored Himself . . .
Sheesh!
what muslim masters are you reffering to?
We may not agree on all doctrine, but we will always agree on this!
There are scriptures, early scriptures in a number of local languages.
he explosive evangelistic outreach of the early church led to a large and rapid increase in the number of translations required. One obvious need was for a translation to support the outreach from Antioch (the base of Paul’s missionary journeys). The language of that area was Syrian and thus a number of Syrian texts were produced including the ‘Old Syriac’ and the Syro-Hexaplaric version which is a translation of the fifth column (amended LXX) of Origen. Eventually the Syrian Peshitta was produced which was a recension of a Syriac translation of the OT combined with a fifth century recension of the New Testament based upon Byzantine texts.
Other translations were produced towards the south. The Egyptians were using the Coptic script in three dialects Sahidic, Bohairic and the middle dialect each of which received a biblical translation. The Ethiopians, Gothics, Armenians, Georgians, Nestorians, Arabs, Slavs and many others also received translations that attest to the texts available at the time they were produced.
As Greek was the common language at the time the church first started to grow, Latin became the dominant language both of the Roman Empire but also the Roman Church. Initially Latin was seen as a common people’s language and Greek was still widely used for literary purposes. However an ‘Old Latin’ version came into existence that was read alongside the Greek, in much that same way that the targums had been read alongside the Hebrew Scripture in Palestine. These versions were only semi-official and split into different variations.
By the third and fourth centuries the multiplicity of Latin versions had become such an issue that Jerome was commissioned in 382AD to produce an updated and revised Latin bible. Jerome was a dedicated and capable worker and finished the Latin gospels by 384AD. By 387AD he had produced a version of the Psalter possibly based upon Origen’s revised LXX. Jerome then commenced a revision of the entire LXX but eventually translated the Hebrew scriptures into Latin which he completed by 405AD; albeit in the face of much heated opposition.
http://www.dabhand.org/Essays/BI501%20C27%20working_around_babel.htm
The churches that produced the bibles in the East pretty much fall into the Orthodox circles, with some other ancient churches represented. And it was done early.
FYI. The historian in me just sneaks out once in awhile.
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
by Thomas Schirrmacher
Summary
The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.
Introduction
The process against Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in the 17th century is frequently used as an argument against creationist scientists and theologians, who make their belief in the trustworthiness of the Bible the starting point of their scientific research. Absolute faith in the Bible, critics say, blinds creationists to scientific progress and hinders science. Thus, Hatisjorg and Wolfgang Hemminger wrote in their book against creationism:
‘Today’s Creationism … turns against the great Christian naturalists of the 15th and 16th century, against Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton. It repeats the proceeding against Galileo and argues in principle with the Inquisitors, for the issue at the trial was, among other things, whether the natural scientist had the freedom to set experimentation and observation above Scripture … . Today’s Creationists in principle have the same standpoint as the Inquisitors because they follow their empirical-biblicistic method.’1
This, of course, is nonsense. Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with it. He was fighting against the contemporary principles of Bible interpretation which, blinded by Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical text. Galileo was not blamed for criticising the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. Today, most creation scientists read the Bible differently from the contemporary school of biblical interpretation, i.e. higher criticism, and therefore are criticised by the liberal theological establishment and by natural scientists.
The picture of the Vatican process against Galileo Galilei, used by the Hemmingers and others, is not drawn from historical research but from heroic hagiography. The picture of a life-and-death battle between a completely narrow-minded Christian church and an ingenious and always objective natural science in the Galileo affair depends on too many legends.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp
Nope-the true churches had the correct Canon, just like today.
The Founder of the religion is not alive in those religions No one believes and worships and fears a 'dead' god. All religions in the world worship a deity that exists and is alive. Get real.
It is you who have to 'get real', no religion claims that their Founder is God and that He died for them and rose again.
Even the Devils believe in God and tremble, but that won't save them.
Moreover, Christianity is the only faith that claims its founder is God Judaism and Islam do as well. So does the oldest written religion: Hinduism, by revelation at that.
Boy, that shows how little you know of religion.
Judaism claims Abraham and Moses as their founders and Islam, Mohomad.
None of those are considered to be God by their religion.
And the Fundamentals may not be wrong as is the case when your Church accepts them in the various Creeds-such as the Trinity So, you have issues with Trinity? I should have known. Well, then our discussion is over. I discuss thing only with Christians.
I have no issue with the Trinity, it is a fundamental of the faith.
But as for being a Christian, I doubt you are one.
You belong to a church, but that does not make you a Christian (Jn.3)
It did. SS Cyril and Methodius developed Glagolitic alphabet and Church Slavonic language based on the Old Slavonic spoken in and around Thessaloniki in the 9th century. The Glagolitic alphabet was replaced after St. Cyril's death by one of his disciples and was named ain honor of the saint — the Cyrillic alphabet used by Orthodox Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Serbs and Bulgarians) and numerous non-Slavic tribes in the former Soviet Union.
The Saint brothers Cyril and Methodius were commissioned to do so and obtrained permission by the Pope to evangelize Moravian Slavs (area currently part of the Czech Republic), but Frankish zealots complained as they saw only Latin as fit for liturgical use (thinking themselves more "Catholic" than the Pope!).
Thanks to the persistence and genius of these saints, the Slavs to this day have liturgical language and Holy Scriptures in a language that they can read and always have understood.
But it is rather astonishing that Peter, who by all accounts was "uneducated", yet he still seems to be able to have read Paul's writings
That's because Blessed Peter didn't read or write anything. The deutero-canonical works ascribed to him were intended to heal the rift that tore the Church between two irreconcilable camps: that of +Peter and +Paul, and +Peter's name was used to make those works acceptable.
I believe the first Orthodox bible is due for release very soon
The Serbs had their Orthodox Bible by the 11th century; the oldest surviving copy is from the early 1100's.
The english language Orthodox Study Bible is not an official Orthodox Bible. it would require a pan-Orthodox Synod's consensus to make it such.
I'm a little confused. From the title of your chart, it shows the "illiteracy" rate declining, not the literacy rate
My mistake. You are right. I was reading about college grad literacy rates and misread.
First, having different writing styles means nothing.
If one is writing to a different audience, or dealing with a different subject, it is understandable that the authors style would change.
Two, regarding David's conquest,
Excavations have revealed plenty of traces of the acquistions and expansion of the kingdom of David. There is a clear trail of evidence which accompanies his advance, including the burning evidence of the cities of the Plain of Jezreel....Archaeologists from the University of Pennsylvania have dug up on these sites of ruthless fighting, shattered temples, deep layers of ash on top of ruined walls, ritual objects and pottery belonging to the Philistines. David's vengenance administered a crushing blow to the city which had compassed the shameful end of the first king of Israel, a blow from which it did not recover for many years to come. (The Bible as History, Warner Keller, pg. 196)
Regarding the superscriptions on the Gospels,
The dating of the emergence of a four-gospel collection has often taken its bearings from the particular form of the superscriptions or titles of the Gospels: 'The Gospel according to X'. Martin Hengel argued from this that the titles must have originated, quite early, from the practial necssity of distinquishing among such documents when multiple gospels were at hand in the archives or litugical libraries of particular communities. Hence the titles were not late additions, but belonged to the gospels in their earliest period of circulation and had historical tradition behind them....He believes that the gospels originally circulated individually yet rapidly, so that by the early second century(emphasis added) they were present together in church librries of major centers;...(The Canon Debate, Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, editors, 2002, pg.278)
I suppose for some such as yourself, however, ignorance is bliss and that is why you choose to remain so.
I didn't suggest that.
But His responses were noy always the same. There is no pattern.
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.
