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/
Not at all. We are just as guilty as the Israelites when they were shown miracle after miracle, and yet still turned away.
Fate has never, nor will it ever, be a Christian idea. Such is the mindset of the "Reformed" Protestant theology. One is saved (fated) before even being born. I think if you read about ancient cultures, you will find that one of Christianity's greatest draws was that it broke free from such a mindset. That men's salvation was determined before they were born. It gave hope to the poor, the malcontent, the everyday "joe's" of the world who barely got by in THIS life.
You are right that fate is not a Christian idea, but you are wrong to think fate is a part of our mindset. Very wrong. Fate and predestination do not mix. From God's POV, a man's salvation IS determined before he is born, but that is not fate. Here is an illustration from an excerpt from Is Predestination the Same Thing as Fate? by B.B. Warfield:
"What, now, is the real difference between this fatalism and the predestination taught, say, in our Confession [Westminster]? "Predestination and fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same." That is to say, they differ precisely as a person differs from a machine. And yet Schopenhauer can represent this as not a radical difference! Professor William James knows better, and in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" enlarges on the difference. It is illustrated, he says, by the difference between the chill remark of Marcus Aurelius, "If the gods care not for me or my children, there is a reason for it," and the passionate cry of Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!" Nor is the difference solely in emotional mood. It is precisely the difference that stretches between materialism and religion. There is, therefore, no heresy so great, no heresy that so utterly tears religion up by the roots, as the heresy that thinks of God under the analogy of natural force and forgets that he is a person.
There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and fate. This little boy's home was on a dike in Holland, near a great windmill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there—forgetful of everything but his present pleasures. Perhaps he was half conscious of a breeze springing up, and somewhere in the depth of his soul he may have been obscurely aware of the danger with which he had been threatened. At any rate, suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard! O what a sinking of the heart! O what a horror of great darkness! It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasurable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father's face. At once he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.
That is the difference between fate and predestination. And all the language of men cannot tell the immensity of the difference."
Christianity teaches something different. It teaches that man CAN COOPERATE with that almighty Creator and come into union with Him if man follows the lead of this Creator. Calvinism is just another system that moves man back into paganist ideas of fate. Does this "take away" from the Sovereignty of God? Only in the mind of those who believe they are fated to eternal life before they were born...
Fate is mindless. Predestination is God's love. God does what we cannot do for ourselves. But, some still insist that man must have the power to effectively save himself. Many men feel this is what makes them important, that they have power and control. It is human instinct, but it is also what must be overcome, not embraced.
The theologian Karl Barth says we find God in our silence, and the more I become aware of the work of the Holy Spirit, the more heartily I agree with Barth. Nothing can impede the Holy Spirit from indwelling in those He will, but I as a Christian can confuse the realization of Him in my life by avoiding that silence. This might be one of reasons Jesus warned against vain and repetitious prayers.
A few years back I read a book called Embers, by Sandor Marai. A Hungarian, who left Hungary in 1948, remained in exile until the fall of Communism, at which time publication of his books was allowed there. Eventually, he relocated to San Diego, and died there. The book is about two soldiers in the Austro-Hungarian Empire who were the very best of friends, but because of an act of infidelity this friendship was destroyed. Sandor writes of the "male virtues: silence, solitude, the inviolability of one's word and women."
St. Peter was one of those people who couldn't be accused by the Scripture that warns against a lukewarm disposition. But he could be used as an illustration of the Scripture that admonishes us to let our yes mean yes, and our no mean no. He was a passionate man who couldn't always live up to the demands of passion, the greatest of which is courage. I don't say this to criticize Peter, and I would never imply that I think I would have not denied Jesus, if I were in the same situation. I'm quite sure I would have. It is a consolation to me that Jesus forgave him, as it is a consolation to me that He forgave Thomas his doubt, though He was standing right in front of him. Only lately have I begun to wonder what happened to all the other apostles He appointed. Their thoughts and actions are lost to us. Pity, to my way of thinking.
Earlier in the week, I read the last chapter of the Gospel of John.
Jesus and Peter15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”
St. Peter fulfilled the command or desire of Jesus in that he did feed His sheep. The part of this Scripture that haunts me a bit is the part that I've italicized. I don't doubt what St. John said about what it means, but his explanation does not fully satisfy me. It's a poignant piece of Scripture that shows the poignant side of Christ, and I really like it for that reason.
I have so much to learn, Alamo-Girl, but I don't at all feel troubled by that fact. When I study Scripture, I don't have this predetermined idea that I necessarily will fully understand even that which seems plain to me. We are to walk in faith, believing and confessing that He Lives (I thought you might like this site because he's a physicist and you're a science girl), and I'm happy to leave the rest to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. – Romans 8:21-22
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. – Revelation 21:1
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. – Col 1:12-20
That is, actually, very Orthodox, you know. :)
“Hence, some works do not save, and some works do, under grace. “With fear and trembling work out your salvation for it is God working in you”.”
Whe Jesus said if He cast out devils by the Spirit of God then the Kingdom of God has come near to them, does that mean as long as He cast out devils the Kingdom was near or that the casting out of the devils by the Spirit was evidence that the kingdom was near?
I had to think a long time about this one because frankly, I struggle with categories like "one-time-only" rules that apply to only Adam and Eve. :) I still don't claim that I've got it, but here's my best shot:
We all say that Adam and Eve "fell from grace" because of sin. And, you said that we fall in the same way. Now, did Adam and Eve actually fall from a Saving grace, as Paul describes? Did Adam and Eve NEED saving when they were formed? It wouldn't seem so. Therefore, perhaps we are talking about two totally different kinds of graces. That would nullify any comparison between one of us today "losing" his salvation, and Adam.
We can ask: "did Adam 'lose' his salvation when he sinned"? That's a tough one for me. My inclination is to say "no", since he wasn't "saved" due to lack of need at the time. This is well above my pay-grade, but perhaps this is one instance where it can be useful to distinguish between salvation and justification. I think it would make sense to me to say that Adam lost his justification when he sinned, but not his salvation. I would also say that is one of the "one-time-only" rules. :) Now, before I dig my pit any deeper, I would love to hear any comments on these issues. :)
Yes, we can always repent; until our last breath. repentance means bearing fruit (cf Mat 3:8).
It's a subtle distinction, but I don't think that's what the verse says:
Matt 3:8 : Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. NIV
Matt 3:8 : Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: KJV
To me these both say that fruit is consistent with repentance, but not that works MEAN repentance. I see repentance as having to do with a change of heart, rather than the doing of works.
The salvation is based on God's judgment, for either we will be the sheep or the goats by His decision, not ours.
Ah, on this we do surely agree. :)
[continuing:] But we do know that His decision will be based on what we have done, the life we chose.
Well, it was fun while it lasted. :) What do you mean by "based"? You really mean "determined" don't you? Has God favored some who have done comparatively little, and damned some who have done comparatively much? Since God isn't partial, aren't we really talking about a SUBJECTIVE point system here? IOW, the answer I would expect is that salvation IS based on a point system, but the scale is different for everybody based on the individual circumstances in that person's life.
Those in "invincible ignorance" (people who without their own fault don't know Christ) as the Catholics call it are outside of our concern, for God will deal with them in a merciful and just way.
"Outside of our concern"? Kosta, I thought you cared. (sniff) :) Seriously though, isn't it our duty to care about all those we believe do not know Christ? Isn't it our duty, and honor, really, to minister to them and give them the Good News? We believe this is an absolute calling, indeed a COMMAND, by God to all believers.
In addition, (Alex or Joe can pick me up), but I don't think the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance ONLY applies to those who do not know Christ. My understanding is that it generally applies to those with beliefs outside those of the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the doctrine does apply to Christians who are not of an Apostolic faith (as opposed to only lost people).
“Nor does the scripture itself say it is sufficient.”
Of course it does. 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
2 Tim. 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Heb. 4:12-13, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.”
Nowhere does the scriptures give that status to tradition or to the church. Ps. 138:2, “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”
And here I am thinking "Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
Good point.
However, the grammer police might disagree.
Look, when you are posting while fixing pulled pork for 30 people, I think some slack is in order. If you are interested, it will be ready about 3:00 P.M.. Bring the guitar.
And how do you know it is not YOU and not the Lord who is leading in that perception? Adam certainly thought it was God Who set him up with Eve.
I know because I know that the Lord knows EXACTLY which buttons to press (in me) in order to get me to do something. He has done it many times. I know what it feels like. It always works. :) I have not gotten anything like that here.
... We know when we commit sin. We know what is morally wrong because we are all Christians. We can't claim "invincible ignorance," FK. You can't be a Christian and commit adultery and say "I didn't know..."
Actually, I've never felt a desire to make a claim for Invincible Ignorance. Help me Joe, but wouldn't anyone actively wanting to assert it, be automatically disqualified? :) That's kind of funny.
The story changes in the New Testament. The book of Job is considered one of the oldest books of the OT and predates the Babylonian captivity. With the emergence of messianic and apocalyptic Judaism in the 2nd century BC, the nature of the satan begins to change into the familiar one we have: a fallen angel of God, devil himself (hence the proper name Satan).
Prior to the Persian influence, Judaism doesn't know dualism and therefore there is no "devil" per se; the satan remains a faithful servant of God, His "prosecuting attorney."
Even if we take the liberty of making the God of Job into Logos, the relationship between Him and the satan is that of cooperation and and adversity.
For instance, there has been a tendency among some Christians to believe that Satan is such a being that they can command him, accuse him and such.
Of course we can resist the devil – and truly as long as we abide in Christ and He in us, we have no reason to fear the devil.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.– Jude 1:9-10
b. David to do a census (1 Ch 21:1-2) ” bring the number of them to me, that I may know [it].”
c. Job to curse God for losing all his mortal comforts: children, possessions and health (Job 1, etc.)
d. Joshua/Jesus for being filthy before God (Zech 3)
e. Jesus to sate his hunger, discomfort, etc. (Matt 4)
f. Some say (and I agree) his presence is implied with Jesus in Gethsemane to tempt Him to avoid the agony of the cross (Luke 22)
Interestingly this occurs just after Peter was honored for becoming the first to receive the divine revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Bottom line drawn from divine revelation alone (without doctrines or traditions of men): love God absolutely (Matt 22, the Great Commandment paraphrased) far and away above the second commandment of Matt 22, love of neighbor and - most especially, love of self. And be ever watchful for pride, vanity and ego creeping into the mind or soul – they are devilish and poison the spirit. Resisting them is closing the devil's "niche" (as betty boop calls it) to tempt us - he (and they) will flee if resisted.
Your’e welcome. The last scene if the film is indelible. The first scene opens with the Adoration of the Magi, to the mustic of a Bach aria, “Erbarme dich” from the Matthew’s Passion.
But anyway, I think the Romans is simply brilliant, and the discussion of sarx and pneuma, so gnostic seeming but so VERY biblical in fact -- and the idea that in Christ and in Baptism into Christ our death, which started in Eden is accomplished and a new life with a new pneuma is begun is fundamental for "getting" who try is NOT gnosticism with a Jewish myth behind it, but is a VERY new thing.
But for the rest, I just imagine Paul angrily saying, "Um, Listen, Now hear this. Y'all shut Up and LISTEN woudja? DO I have your ATTENTION? Okay then. God loves you. DO you HEAR me? GOD! LOVES! YOU. That is all. Thank you."
AMEN! AMEN!AMEN!
= = =
A-G:
Bottom line drawn from divine revelation alone (without doctrines or traditions of men): love God absolutely (Matt 22, the Great Commandment paraphrased) far and away above the second commandment of Matt 22, love of neighbor and - most especially, love of self. And be ever watchful for pride, vanity and ego creeping into the mind or soul – they are devilish and poison the spirit. Resisting them is closing the devil’s “niche” (as betty boop calls it) to tempt us - he (and they) will flee if resisted.
But for the rest, I just imagine Paul angrily saying, “Um, Listen, Now hear this. Y’all shut Up and LISTEN woudja? DO I have your ATTENTION? Okay then. God loves you. DO you HEAR me? GOD! LOVES! YOU. That is all. Thank you.”
= = =
LOL.
Now, did Adam and Eve actually fall from a Saving grace, as Paul describes? Did Adam and Eve NEED saving when they were formed?
Yes, of course. Adam was born with a potential to live eternally with God or to disobey and die. Our ancestral parents were created neither mortal nor immortal. What happened to them was their own decision with the freedom God gave them (freely, as He gives us all our blessings freely).
What we do with that freedom is a matter of choice. Either we cleave to God, or we reject and disobey Him, and choose perdition. The only thing Adam and Eve did not need was Baptism. They were already born under grace. And they are perfect example that those under grace can lose it by their own choice.
It's a subtle distinction, but I don't think that's what the verse says: Matt 3:8 : Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. NIV; Matt 3:8 : Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: KJV...To me these both say that fruit is consistent with repentance, but not that works MEAN repentance
Sure it does (works of faith, not profit). That verse is related to Acts 26:20 "repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.
This is why some of us (like me) consider being Protestant "easy." You just confess to God, say "Lord, I am sorry," and keep on sinning (boldly, to bring up Luther again) knowing that as long as we believe we don't have to change our sinful ways" because we are "saved."
No Sir! The NT tells us clearly that repentance involves deeds and those are the deeds that we shall be judged upon. "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds" [Mat 16:27]
The kinds of deeds that will not get you anywhere are mentioned in Mat 23:3, 23:5, John 3;19, etc.
What do you mean by "based"? You really mean "determined" don't you? Has God favored some who have done comparatively little, and damned some who have done comparatively much?
You are thinking materially because in the west that which is real is physical; it has weight, price and worldly value. Spiritual deeds have no price tag. In fact, many of them are trivial, even worthless, from the worldly point of view.
Spiritual values value each individual (emphasis added): "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." [Luk 15:7]
"Outside of our concern"? Kosta, I thought you cared. (sniff)
Yes I do care, but I know that we can't reach everyone, and that many who could be reached reject it and embrace other religions. I cannot worry about their salvation. I can only tell them what I believe is true. I can't make them embrace Christ! Nor can I worry what God will do with them. But I do believe that whatever happens to them (and us) will be, first of all, merciful and just, according to God's judgment.
I don't think the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance ONLY applies to those who do not know Christ. My understanding is that it generally applies to those with beliefs outside those of the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the doctrine does apply to Christians who are not of an Apostolic faith (as opposed to only lost people).
Maybe, but as an Orthodox Christian I can only understand ignorance of Christ as applying to those who are not Christians. Christians who leave or stay outside the Church do so knowingly.
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.