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’ll try to remember to keep you in prayer as well.”
WF, I need all the prayers I can get, believe me! Thanks!
That's fair enough and must be true, given notable CINOS who take communion and publicly advocate abortion, etc., from positions of power. Of course, Bill Clinton calls himself a Southern Baptist (and is welcomed in some churches), so I ain't throwing rocks. :) I would pay to see the reaction of my pastor if Clinton's "people" contacted him to set up an appearance at our church. :)
FK: "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?
Well, now I sure am glad I added you to the ping list in my very recent post to Kosta on this. :) I do agree with you that people are responsible for damning themselves with regard to salvation. Our difference is whether God allows that to happen after salvation is objectively held.
And, given your exact words, I have a question. For a sin to be mortal, does a person have to understand that it entails "a willful separation and ending of the relationship between God and the individual"? I mean, I can understand anyone saying to himself "I know God's not going to like this but.....", then committing a mortal sin, but not having any clue of the consequences as put forth by (you here, or) the Church. Just as an example, could two Catholics commit adultery under identical circumstances and for one it would be a mortal sin, but not for the other, and it's all based on how well each knew his own faith?
FK: "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).
Whenever I use a term like "special dispensation", I include things like people who have never heard, the young, the mentally ill, etc. For all main points, I am talking about people who have fair access. ...... Double predestination is a disgusting idea? :) Well, all of us know good people whom we call friends, who also happen to be unbelievers. Many of them would consider much of what God did in the OT, "disgusting". :) God's ways are His own.
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. (emphasis added)
Indeed. While I am not so bold as to claim full awareness, I can say that I have learned much about the Eucharist as practiced by the Church. However, I can also say that I honestly know that I have not received anything I could call as a revelation from God on the subject to cause me to accept the Church's view on the matter. It hasn't been revealed to me, spiritually. I don't even say defiantly that it never will, for who would I be to deny a revelation from God? (I would be a lost person.) It just hasn't happened yet. So until then ....... :)
But if one refuses to receive what God has made available, one can only wonder what is going on regarding their "relationship".
This builds on the same theme. Of course, the Eucharist is "available" to me, physically. Yet, I have no honest leading, that I perceive, from the Lord to partake appropriately. OTOH, does the doctrine of invincible ignorance include the possibility that God has not made it "available" TO ME, e.g. through God-given understanding?
What it looks like from here is that not understanding the role of Mary in our salvation leads to faulty Christology, faulty ecclesiology, and faulty understanding of the role of Scripture and personal experience in God's self-disclosure, and an unwitting sort of historical chauvinism which imagines each Christian as a kind of community-deprived Robinson Crusoe.
I could have typed that all in big letters and it would be no more (and no less) true than it is in small letters. Some people think that when tricky things about which emotions run high are discussed the way to proceed is to heighten and worsen the emotional tension and to mock and disparage and accuse one's opponents. Having seen religion, especially of the charismatic kind, serve as the refuge of first resort for personality disorders, affective disorders, and frank psychosis, and as the tool and environment of people with an unbridled need to control, I run as fast as I can the other way when I detect any hint of that kind of thing.
If mariolatry flows out of RC fingers, then where do the child abusing, psychotic, and clinically depressed people who were "charismatics" before they were institutionalized come from? (I'm talking here about cases I've been involved with, back in the pastoral day, not rumors but facts.)
Shall we say, "By their fruits shall we know them"? The incestuous alcoholic, the child sodomizer, the depressed protestant cleric who commits adultery, all of them speaking in tongues, all of them claiming unique spiritual discernment and describing themselves as charismatics. AND NOT ONCE have I on this forum, or any other, used big colored letters and blanket condemnations to go after or mock charismatics.
I know that that kind of spirituality is deeply personal to those who practice it, and I am sensitive to that. I am pretty certain that neither mockery, blanket condemnation, nor big colored letters will impress any lurker of sense, or open the mind or heart of my fellow contenders.
The fact is, "lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds," and the corruption of good spirituality is an evil thing. But to condemn all lilies because the festering ones smell really really bad is, well, stupid. There are good, wise, and holy charismatics. There are good wise and holy people devoted to our lady. There are vicious, corrupt, insight-averse, manipulative and fundamentally dishonest people who speak in tongues, pray the rosary, and practice psychology. I condemn none of those practices because of their corruption.
It is Satan, not our Lord, who sees our failures and accuses man before God because of our sinfulness, seeing only the sin and not the nobility of God's creation. Our Lord establishes and then restores and maintains good, and flowers spring up where He walks. And until I die, despite the colorful appeals to the lurkers, the grandstanding posts, and the unmerited end-zone dances, I will thank Him for what He has done, does, and will do, and I will be devoted to His Mother. I have taken the hits, the lies, the personal assaults, the colored letters, the guffaws, of those who despise her, and I am only more devoted to her -- and by her intercession I remain open, or try to, to those whose professed devotion to Jesus leads them to condemn me and my fellows for what they manifestly do not understand.
‘Morning, MD. Just heading out the door to plow. The snow is deep and heavy! ;(
I’ll just note that there’s a lot of good wisdom in your post.
Shrillness, intensity, BTW, doesn’t come only in big colored letters.
QUITE SO.
I merely objected, I think, to the notion that God does not or cannot or has not chosen to manifest in a
. . . . HEAVENLY CONTEXT . . . at least analogous to space, tangible space. I contend that the evidence is that He has.
Christ went to prepare for us an abode . . . mansions in the KJV. Might boggle the mind to construe God’s eternity of timelessness etc. and our habitation with Him in such terms . . . But there must be some applicable meaning to the words or Christ would not have used them.
I don’t think it’s ‘merely’ etherial-matrix-ness.
Resonates with me.
Thx.
The key word in verse 7 is seek.
If one seeks eternal life and follows what God says, the Gospel will be revealed to him as in the case of Cornilus (Acts 10)
James is speaking of what is seen, he is not speaking of being justified in the theological sense
This is your opinion, in which I am not interested. James uses both "saved" (James 2:14) and "justified" (James 2:24) in the same passage.
No, what I gave was the correct interpretation of the verse.
shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
As for being 'saved', James is discussing being saved from physical death, (sin unto death 1Jn.5:16), not eternal damnation.
See Jn.16:2 and 2Tim.2:16.
In Romans 4, v.5 speaks of works for reward and out of obligation, and in v.9 of works od ceremonial law. Indeed, neither is salvific.
No, Romans makes it clear it is discussing eternal salvation and the works it is discussing are all works.
Just as Eph. 2:9 states, not by works lest anyone should boast'
[Luke 17:5-10] has nothing to do with salvation, it has to do with rewards Luke 17:5-10] explains how faith is increased, through works. And faith, we all agree, is salvific.
No one disagrees that faith can be increased by works, proving the faith.
Yet that faith has nothing to do with salvation, since salvation faith is a seed that is an eternal seed that is implanted and cannot die (1Pe.1:23)
The faith that grows has to do with Christian maturity and growth, as was the case of Abraham who was saved in Gen.15, but not called a friend of God until Gen.22.
1Cor.3 is not proof text for the non-Biblical purgetory
The spelling is "Purgatory". Yes, it is such prooftext. We've been there a year ago.
Thank you for the spelling correction, but the man in 1Cor. 3 is not being burned, his works are.
offering a sin offering means that she was a sinner
What was her sin then? The offering in question is done after a woman gives birth. We don't consider giving birth sin. Do you?
The sin offering was for all women who gave birth because they had sin in their bodies, not for any particular sin-just as Mary had a body of sin (Ps.51:5) like every human being born of a human father.
But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom.4:5).
The only thing counted for salvation is the faith.(Eph.2:9,Tit.3:5)
If it were of works, then God would owe something to the individual, which He doesn't, 'it is of faith, that it might be of grace' (Rom.4:16)
She is not my mother! LOL!
To take that passage and build a doctrine that states that John 'represents' the church.
And since John took Mary in as his 'mother' Mary is therefore the mother of the church, is insane!
Of course. That was my point.
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.
People don't visit heaven while on this side of life. They are anthromorphic representations that attempt to explain what heaven is in human terms. Do you think John saw an actual lamb in heaven?
Regards
If Catholics believed what you CLAIM we do, then you'd be correct.
Regards
Ye see than how by works a man is justified.
James is dealing with is seen (justified-to show to be just)
The Old Testament Apocrypha books were not in the Hebrew Old Testament which is what the church accepted as being Canonical.
Jerome rejected them as being part of the Inspired Canon.
Thankfully, many don’t.
For many others, actions speak louder than words.
I think it’s accurate that John saw a lot of symbolic stuff.
I don’t assume NOR think it’s accurate to say that’s all he saw—was symbology.
Read Roland Buck’s book. I’d love to get your response.
I think a Dr Eby or some such had a very interesting Heavenly visit as well.
Some aspects of Heaven are reported consistently enough over vast spans of time . . . and a wide diversity of sources . . . one is at least tempted to take them at face value—especially until other data comes in.
One can reach a legitimate conclusion on the salvation of others, based on what they state they believe. (What saith the scripture)
I follow the definition of being a Christian as one who has been 'born again'(Jn.3) something you have admitted not knowing anything about.
Knowing something about God, doesn't mean you know God.
Jeromes own Vulgate did not regard them as part of the Canon and he stated so in it.
How do you figure that a person's life is affected after coming to a belief in double predestination? We who believe in it obviously already believe in single predestination, which involves assurance, and we also believe that we are to treat every other person, who is lost, as one of the elect, e.g., we are to witness to them. I am a mere anecdote, but since I went from single to double, (right here on FR), I haven't treated anyone any differently, and I don't think my life, or outlook on it, has changed at all. I just think I have been showed a doctrine that is closer to scripture, and I have accepted it.
Likewise, if one believes that Christ's sacrifice paid for all our debts past, present and future, then his or her attitude towards sin will reflect that belief.
No, not in the vast majority of cases. Mostly non-believers (but perhaps professing Christians) will sink into the trap you suppose. True believers will also know the further teachings against that trap. Some Protestants, like Rick Warren, won't talk about sin, to their SHAME. However, those who really believe in Sola Scriptura do face the issue. My pastor preaches on it and gets in our faces about it, all the time.
I am sure you clearly recognize how seriously such beliefs affect the way some people believe and how they go through life. For, if they have been condemned before they were even born, what incentive will they have to cling to God?
But nobody knows who is condemned, including the elect. That is why we treat EVERYBODY, in witnessing and ministry, as if they were of the elect.
And, if they feel that Christ "paid my bill," what incentive will one have not to sin? After all, no matter what I do, then, the bill is paid!
Christ DID "pay our bill". But part of our salvation is an irresistible leading toward the scriptures, all of them. If they are unavailable, then to their principles. God removed from the elect a heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. We are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). The true believer does not sit on his laurels. The seal of the Holy Spirit prevents this.
But, the Scripture tells us on more than one occasion that we will be judged for our deeds. If they were 'paid for" what's the point of judgment?
Two different judgments. One for salvation, and one for rewards in Heaven.
Work is required because faith-based work is our repentance. The debt we owe cannot be repaid. But God is willing to forgive and forget, if we go about our lives in repentance.
When it comes to whether we are fit for Heaven, God does not "forgive and forget", in this context. He does not just "let us slide" if we do "X" number of good deeds. That would make a mockery of His justice. No, but His sacrifice on the cross WAS a FULL payment and satisfaction for our sins. THAT is what makes His elect fit for Heaven, not the triflings we perform here on earth. What are they to God in exchange for being in His presence for eternity? Nothing. There is nothing we have, there is nothing we can do (as you say). Only Christ could do it for us.
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.