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/
Churches are sanctuaries, and in Europe many if not most churches are always open. However, Sunday is the designated day for attendance and worship. There is no substitute for Sunday.
There is nothing miraculous about this "washing" (умив, umiv) with fire. In fact, it is so transparent cultist and pagan it is embarrassing and damaging.
There is plenty of evidence that the fire is lit from the hidden icon lamps and that it can be 'created' with white phosphorous ex nihilo. In all cases, the "miracle" is an insulting fraud.
personally i don’t know that’d i’d get behind it unconditionally but i’m not about to call the patriarchs involed perpetrators of fraud.
i think it’s compeltely possible that its a miracle and i’d hope and expect if someone in the church had evidence to the contrary they’d either stop the ceremony or come forward with the truth.
wasn’t really looking at it as a substitute. i’d like for instance to be able to come to church and find it open on my name day. in russia it’d either be open or there’d be someone on hand to open it for me (they opened the church at a convent for us on a thursday in my wife’s home town).
when you’ve only got 2 weeks abroad it limits the number of sundays...
Look, if someone wants to believe it's a miracle, that's fine with me. As long as it is not presented as fact.
Part of this is biblical fault, with all sorts of miraculous "accounts." For instance, Acts 5:14-16 suggest that +Peter's shadow was enough to heal people "afflicted by unclean spirits."
The whole concept of the disease in biblical terms is froth with such fluff. They all believed that sickness is caused by 'unclean spirits' and 'healing' was essentially exorcism. This applied to blind, "lepers" (which were not really true lepers as Hanson's disease was not known in Palestine in those days), the lame, the hysterical, etc.
The biggest stumbling block to miracles is that it suggests we can come to believe through them. From God's revelation, and in contrast to what the authors of various biblical books wrote, we understand that faith requires receptive minds and Holy Spirit. And as far as I know, the Holy Spirit did not descend on anyone and caused no one to believe until the Pentecost, so it is an enigma to me how could all those biblical people "come to believe" after seeing what we call "miracles."
Either the Holy Spirit was sent on the people before the Pentecost or the "rules" of belief have changed.
i wouldn’t necessarily rule out the influence of ‘spirits’ in illness.
i’m not real concerned what the ottomans had to say either really.
i think it’s possible. i also don’t think the white phosporus is necessarily a great refutation. i’ve heard a few ideas how white phosphorus could be involved.
honestly i think the lack of miracles today has AS MUCH to do with a crisis of faith as it does to do with fraud being exposed by science.
Thomas pretty well called the other apostles liars before he saw the ressurection too. I’m not about to call patriarchs liars because a few muslims with axes to grind, and a few athiests with some rudimentary science say its so.
I’ll take the church’s account until someone has a lot more than assertions something else is possible to go on.
That's what freedom of belief is all about, kawaii.
True.
Here is one strong example that the saints intercede,there are others
"When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones". (Revelation 5:8)
I think that Revelation 5:8 gives a good indication that the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven
“I know, it brings me to tears to see people who have been forcibly estranged and raised godless in coommunist countries flock to churches. They ever so clumsily approach and enter the church, not knowing what to do, but they are there in earnest, hungry for God.”
I’ve never seen this in a formerly atheistic country, but I have seen it with Russians, Serbs and Roumanians in Greece and here in the States. Its just as you say, Kosta, the fumbling, unsure approach, actions arising from some long suppressed childhood memory of what a grandmother may have told them and then after awhile in the Liturgy, the eyes shining with tears of happiness. Makes me cry just to think about it.
Kawaii, that’s a wonderful story about the new little Russian temple.
Meant to ping you to 12350
I agree, but Rev 5:8 does not show that the Saints intercede specifically in tresponse to our petitions to them.
Rather it shows what is consistent with the Church doctrine, namely that we believe the Saints pray (intercede) on our behalf in Church Triumphant as they would have prayed for us in Church Militant.
That's what it is: childhood memories of their babushka grandmother, or mother, if they were lucky, crossing them as they tucked them in for the night, or seeing them pray before icons and lighting the icon lamp.
It moves me to tears to see their spiritual hungar and the reverence they show as they enter a church.
No doubt our LORD had a purpose in mind and knew the two travelers would be drawn to him and want him to stay. :-)
Citation please.
The first attempt to create Chrsitian 'canon' was made by none other than Marcion (the heretic some Baptists like to call their own) in the 2nd century, so your sources are 'beliefs' as you say (probably without relaizing it):
Marcion was the first to make an offical Canon, rejecting the Old Testament for the new.
The Canon was well known before Marcion made his.
His heresy only spurred the 'offical' listing of canonical books, not the acceptance of them by the individual churches, which had already occured.
He believes (emphasis added) 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 There was no Christian canon in those days. That's some woodoo scholarship you are citing. The fact is that even Athansius whom you love so much believed at least two apocryphal books to be scripture. But that was two hundred years after the fanatasy you quoted about the early 2nd century. At that time, all sorts of books were being read as scripture in early churches.
What was being read was scripture and it was recognized as scripture.
The only churches that had a time disquiquishing the correct Canon were the Alexandrian churches, of which Athanasius was a Father of.
It was the Alexandrian churches who long held to the Apocrypha books in both Old and New Testaments, as shown by their acceptance in their manuscripts, A,B and Aleph.
One Clement (96 AD) paraphrases the book of Hebrews but does not cosnider it scriptutre. the only thing he considers scripture is the Old Testament. That's because the Gospels were still being written.
The Scriptures were finished by 90AD and all of the NT accepted by the local churches by 100-150AD.
And that includes the Book of Hebrews, which was viewed as being written by Paul.
It was the 'offical' listing of the Canon that called into controversy some books, not the acceptance of them by the individual churches.
No matter of opinion, F.F.Bruce is considered as a first Bible 'scholar' (critic), and even he doesn't accept the nonsense that you are peddling.
I think you even might have cited him to defend one of the Critical text manuscripts, the ones that contain the Apocrypha books as part of their texts, including the New Testament, as it does in Sinaiticus (Aleph)
Just factual history, not Orthodox myth.
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
That's not what you said originally (you can check your own posts). You said that the founder is alive, not that he died and rose again. Make up your mind.
And isn't He alive?
Stop blowing smoke.
Judaism claims Abraham and Moses as their founders and Islam, Mohomad.
Nope, Judaism and islam claim their rleigionc ame from God, delivered personbally to Moses and Mohammad. Christianity is not a new religion. It is a contiunation of Judaism with God's correction.
No, Judaism and Islam do not claim that their Founder was God.
They believe that their founders came from God.
Both religions look to men as their Founders, Abraham, Moses and Mohomad.
Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism, it is a new faith, as it was revealed to Paul (Eph.3).
Even the Devils believe in God and tremble, but that won't save them
That has to do with the nature of their sin and the nature of their creation.
That has to do with the fact that the believe in God is not enough to save anyone.
Today, one must believe in Christ to be saved (Jn.14:6)
Boy, that shows how little you know of religion
Feelings are mutual. :) God is the source of everything and all including the religion.
No, God is not the source of religion, Satan is.
God is only the source of pure religion (James 3)
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)
Coming from a Protestant...LOL!
Yes, coming from someone who was 'born again' as is the requirement stated by Christ in Jn.3. to a religious man who was spiritually dead.
One final unique aspect of Chrisitanity is the Trinity,(a Triune God) which again, is rejected by every religion.
So, if one does not accept the fact that Jesus Christ is God and part of that Trinity, he is lost.
Christianity is in fact, very unique, preaching salvation by faith, not works, in a risen saviour, who is in fact, eternal God.
If a church doesn't preach all three of these truths, then it is not a true Christian church.
Well, it's not, at least in the literal sense.
At least not in the sense they were interpeting the Bible.
He tried to show that it did not conflict with the Bible.
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 Look, your revisionist articles make up their own truth
The FACT is that Galileo made a 30X telescope, trained it on the Moon and saw craters. When he showed the carters to the Vatican officials they said it was an illusion created by the devil; they said the moon did not have any craters. It's the bible, not the science that pretends to be the "official truth."
And where does it state anything about the moon having craters or not in the Bible?
The Vatican officals were dealing with defending a RCC position, not a Biblical one.
The truth is, and some people can't handle it, that the myth of Genesis is irreconcilable with evidence of life forms predating humans, and evidence of human species, the same way that the craters were incompatible with the biblical notion of "heaven" being the sky above and all the objects there being "perfect spheres."
There is no real evidence for anything that contradicts the Genesis account of Creation.
It is all conjecture and hypothesis, taken on more faith than one takes the Genesis account. (professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
David then began fighting wars against Israel’s neighbors on the east bank of the Jordan. He defeated the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites and the Arameans. These wars began as defensive wars, but ended with the establishment of a Davidic empire that extended over both sides of the Jordan River, as far as the Mediterranean Sea. David enforced justice in his empire and established civil and military administrations in Jerusalem, modeled after those of the Canaanites and Egyptians. He divided the country into twelve districts, each with its own civil, military and religious institutions. He also established Jerusalem as the secular and religious center of the country. Each district paid taxes to Jerusalem and the people began to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem each year on the holidays of Passover, Shavout and Sukkot.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/David.html
When the church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as scripture. The first book written was probably I Thessalonians (c. 51) (or possibly Galations which may be c. 50-there is some controversy over the dating of Galatians). The last books were probably John, the Johannine epistles, and Revelations toward the end of the first century.(1) The books were written to deal with concrete problems in the church-immoral behavior, bad theology, and the need for spiritual “meat”.
Thus, the church existed for roughly twenty years with no New Testament books, only the oral form of the teaching of the apostles. Even after a book was written, it was not immediately widely available. Some books like II Peter were read almost exclusively in their target area, a situation which continued for a long time, leading to their (temporary or permanent) rejection from the canon due to doubts about their apostolic origins. Thus, for instance, II Peter was rejected for centuries by many, and it is rejected by Nestorians to this day.(2) Even if not universally accepted, a book was highly regarded by its recipients and those church’s in the surrounding areas. This led to local canonicity, a book being used in public worship in a particular region. Twenty-seven of these books came in time to have universal canonicity, but others (e.g. Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, I Clement, Gospel of the Hebrews) were rejected for inclusion in the New Testament canon, even though they often retained a reputation for being profitable Christian reading.(3)
The reasons for formalizing the canon included determining which books should be used liturgically and in theological and moral reasoning, heretical stimuli (e.g. Marcionism, Montanism), the “missionary stimulus” which required determining which books to translate, and the need to know which books must be preserved at all costs in persecution. There were a number of principles used in formalizing the canon. Apostolic authority (which required that the book have been written by an apostle, by someone associated with an apostle-for instance St. Mark and St Luke, or by a member of the Lord’s family) was a crucial principle in determining canonicity. A corollary was that the book had to be from the apostolic age. It had to conform to Orthodoxy as opposed to Docetism and Gnosticism. Regular use of a book liturgically was also an important principle-and the book must have been widely accepted for a long time and in many places. Note that liturgical use both provided a powerful motivation to produce the canon (since knowing what books ought be used in public worship was critical) and was itself an important determinant in setting the bounds of the canon.(59)
The complexity of the process demonstrates that we can know that all and only those books that belonged in the canon are in fact in the canon only because we know that God is faithful, that He will give us all that is necessary for salvation, that He promised to protect His Church so that the gates of hell will be impotent to prevail against her. If, however, we accept that He led the Church aright in the matter of preserving the apostolic teachings, it seems logical that He must have preserved His bride from errors in other matters as well. The myth of the Church abandoning its Master’s precepts shortly after the apostolic age or after the beginning of the Constantinian era must be abandoned by those who wish to affirm the New Testament scripture for those scriptures were recognized by that church.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx
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.