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/
That’s why they knew Him by the “breaking of bread” the rite of the special brotherhood to which they belonged. The identification with the scriptures was the evidence that Jesus was the rabbi of the brotherhood. The idea that the bread was transformed into His body would be completely foreign to these disciples as there is no evidence that they were there at the Last Supper and it was foreign to the ancient rite they were participating in and yet they were familiar with the "breaking of bread" rite of the brotherhood.
“As to the separation between the living and the dead, Christ erased it, at least as concerns His saints:”
Where do you get this from the scripture you quote? It is not even talking about death.
David says of his dead son, “he can’t come to me”. The wraithe called Samuel says to Saul “why do you bother me”. Paul says to the Philippians “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.”
Paul tells them it is better for them that he stays alive with them than to be with Jesus interceding for them. He tells Timothy that “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness”. He knows he is about to die and he knows his job is done. There is no talking about his interceding for anyone. You would think that with all that he knows about the trouble Timothy is having Paul would comfort him with the knowledge that he would put in a good word for him in heaven and continue to intercede for him. Nothing, nada. Paul has finished his work.
There is no mention in the scriptures of those who have died in Christ interceding for anyone, but there is the exhortation for us, the living, to continue in prayer for each other. It is the job of the saints here.
Did he? Paul's authorship of Hebrews is doubtful. Did Paul mention this elsewhere?
Sure:
2 Cor 5:21 : God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
FWIW, Peter (1 Peter 2:21-22) and John (1 John 3:5) also confirm. But I know we were talking about Paul.
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.
Well, I would say that Paul didn't know everything that we THINK about Christianity today (including Protestants). However, if I did not have assurance and was offered a last-second chance to trade my faith for Paul's before facing Judgment, I would do it. :)
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.
Does "unlikely" = "likely"? If so, then because the Trinity is such a core and basic concept for us, I can't believe Paul didn't essentially get it. For example, Paul mentions them as all being distinct:
2 Cor 13:14 : May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
While Paul obviously acknowledges the deity of the Father, he also does of the Son:
1 Tim 3:16 : And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV
And finally, we have this:
Isa 40:13-14 : 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? KJV
Ps 139:7-8 : 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. (Spirit is omnipresent)
1 Cor 2:10-11 : 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Of course the OT quotes weren't from Paul, but he certainly knew of them and believed them. I understand that 1 Cor 2 COULD be used as evidence that he didn't fully get it, but I'm still convinced he understood the Trinity.
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".
I fully agree here.
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.
I have a very hard time believing that there are men today who understand God better than Paul did. Paul's mentor was Jesus Himself, one on one. Who can top that? Did Jesus keep secrets from Paul, etc.? I doubt it. Besides you appear to be freely admitting here that the later Church ADDED to what even the Apostles taught and understood. OOPS! :) So much for "always and everywhere", not to mention the specific scriptural prohibition against this.
And, Protestants do not see Mary as only an incubator. We honor her for her great faith and devotion to God. It's just that we also honor others for the same thing. That only diminishes Mary if she truly was above all other humans. We don't think she was. In this theater, Christ mentions John the Baptist, not Mary.
Me too.
my hierarchs aren’t generally autocratic at all and when one popps up, we get rid of him
That's how it's done. DIY! :)
I'll try to remember to keep you in prayer as well.
Yes.
I'm somewhat surprised that you have elevated her to this status, but I do respect your willingness to be honest about your beliefs. Hopefully any lurkers will understand now what RC's mean when they call her "Queen of Heaven".
if we don't worship Mary we don't understand our Saviour?
If we don't venerate Mary we do not have a complete understanding of Christ, correct.
I think you've made it very clear you really don't venerate her, it's much more than that.
I suspect Heaven is beyond our notions of our 3D+TIME space.
However, you seem to ignore, be unaware of or disbeileve a myriad of Heavenly visitations which would indicate that Heaven does take up space etc. Roland Buck’s case is but one of many.
http://www.angelsonassignment.org/index2.html
Which equal more construing MARY TO BE EQUAL TO GOD. It flows out of RC's fingers in various actions and sentences in spite of declarations otherwise. Clearly, it's a deeply held UNBiblical belief.
As to the separation between the living and the dead, Christ erased it, at least as concerns His saints:
Every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting (Mt. 19:29)
Are we separated from the saints? If so, we would be separated from Christ also, as He is with them in the everlasting life. But no, death does not separate us from either Christ or His angels or saints:
= = = =
NO! Such assertions are gross assumptions, inferences, extrapolations.
Those verses say NOTHING about whether there is still a gulf between the living and the dead. In fact, Christ mentioned such a gulf when talking about the dead rich man that wanted to warn his relatives.
Certainly we could say legally we are saved and one with Christ. We can say that Christ indwells us by His
Spirit. But that’s fudging on the issue of whether there’s a gulf between the living and those who’ve graduated from this life.
They ARE NOT WITH US in the sense that they were when alive in this time/space dimension. Neither is Christ with us in the sense that he was with the Disciples in this time/space dimension.
PRETENDING OTHERWISE IS PRETENSE of the worse sort, imho.
We do NOT have ready access to dialogue with those who’ve graduated from this life. IN FACT, there seems to be very strict rules about such and they are USUALLY not violated—except in fairly rare Heavenly visitatioins etc.
In fact, even at the Ascension, the angels chided, exhorted, rebuked the Disciples for gazing into the Heaven vs getting on with the business of the Gospel in this time/space dimension—and they were gazing after CHRIST HIMSELF vs some departed believer.
It is clear from any fair-minded reading of Scripture that God has set the current rules up such that we are to be about His business for us in this time/space dimension with little to no awareness of the goings on with the believers who’ve already graduated from this life.
There’s mention of the “cloud of witnesses.” But we are given little to no elaboration of what that means. Inferring, extrapolating and assuming what it means just doesn’t cut it in terms of justifying a given theology based thereon.
If we don’t venerate Mary we do not have a complete understanding of Christ, correct.
= = =
To me, that is a VERY BLASPHEMOUS statement—horribly insulting to Christ’s suffering and death in our behalf.
Truly, the term "eternity" is woefully inadequate in speaking of God because eternity is merely time without boundaries, i.e. ends (past or future).
I prefer the term timelessness, but it still doesn't capture the point that time is a part of Creation and not something in or by which the Creator exists.
The New Testament leaves no doubt that the Apostles were really not sure Who Jesus was or what His real mission entailed. "So when they met together, they asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'" [Act 1:6]
However, Jesus made His mission very clear: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mat 15:24]
Paul believed otherwise (because Matthew's Gospel wasn't written yet). He was convinced that gospels were intended for the Gentiles.
In fact, Paul had his own mission: to preach his 'own gospel' [Rom 2:16, 16:25], and 'our gospel' [2 Corinthians 4:3], declaring that he proclaimed fully the gospel of Christ [Rom 15:19] (wouldn't that make the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John superfluous?!), admitting that it was always his ambition [Romans 15:20], yet more than half of his life he either knew nothing of Christ or persecuated His followers with impunity! I guess it depends what you mean by 'always.'
When it comes to Jesus, Paul considers Him the "Son of God," but not the same as God. That is clear from numerous verses, some of which are selected here:
Paul also emphatically maintains that God [sic] raised Jesus.*
*This is later completely rejected by the Church as the Nicene Creed (325 AD) states "he suffered, and the third day he rose [not God raised Him!] [sic] again (was there more than one resurrection?!!!)"
This is echoed in equally numerous examples throughout Acts (and in 1 Peter), not surprisingly, but never in the Gospels:
Other non-trinitarian statemens incluse these examples:
The Church clearly distinguishes between the co-essential co-equality of Hypostases, being divine and eternal One simple, individisible God, and God's Hypostatic revelation to mankind in the Divine Economy of our salvation.
Neither Paul nor any other Apostle mentions anything even close. Rather, one of the Gospels suggests that even Christ believed He was inferior to the Father: "for the Father is greater than I." [John 14:28].
And when it comes to knowing, the Father stands supreme: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mat 24:36]
If anything, one can see why Doceticts and Gnostics had a field day reading the New Testament.
Spot-on, A-G. That's why the Orthodox use "unto ages and ages" and traditional Catholics (secula seculorum)
I've often mused that God created us this way according to His will, that there likely exists additional dimensions of space and time we cannot directly perceive. As it turns out, geometric physics supports this view mathematically both with compactified string theories (Kaluza/Klein) and with higher or expanded dimensional theories (Vafa, Wesson, et al).
Also, Jewish mystics have mused that the firmament is not a geometric location. Heaven or the spiritual realm is not spatially separated from the physical realm but rather there exists a boundary which prevents the physical but not the spiritual (kind of like a two way mirror.) They go on to muse that the boundary may be the speed of light, the "speed limit of the universe."
The first part of that rings true in the Spirit - but I have no leaning as to whether the firmament is the speed of light.
Neverthless, even if the spiritual and physical are not spatially separated, heaven and hell are according to this:
Hell, btw, gets thrown into the Lake of Fire in the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20) - so its being spatially separated is a non-issue to the new heaven and new earth.
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 only after we are dead that we are either in a state of torment or bliss.
What you describe is exactly my understanding of theosis, which you have done much to teach me, thank you. :) HOWEVER, I think it would be a huge strain to construe the Catholic position that has been taught to me as matching this. According to my understanding, certainly, a Catholic will agree that nothing is final until Judgment. But I see big differences in how what happens during life is expressed.
With the agreed upon premise that our sovereign God can make any exceptions He wants for any reasons, if a baby gets baptized in a Catholic Church and then dies on the way home, the presumption is that he was saved and goes to Heaven. For all intents and purposes, he was "saved" at that moment, UNTIL that status changed (if ever). If that same child grew up and never went to Church, then the presumption would be that he is doomed for not having taken of the sacraments. The really big one is that it has been made categorically clear to me that if someone dies in a state of mortal sin, the presumption is damnation. ALL of those (latter) conversations were in the context of one who was otherwise on the road to Heaven (saved), but for the intervening mortal sin. This is from the CCC:
The sacrament of forgiveness
1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace." (emphasis added)
My interpretation is that a Catholic would say that one who dies, and who is objectively "justified", would presumably have the "ticket" that you describe below. Therefore, in Catholicism salvation can be either held or lost. If lost, once held, it can be recovered.
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.
While I would say it is a VERY-Paulean theology, thus no invention was necessary, your synopsis is correct. There are extra things that must happen, but are "wrapped up" within the ticket.
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.