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/
Nice try, FK, but no go. :)
+Paul says it was always his ambition.
Good point.. Actually almost no one(I know) wants to deal with that.. I know of few that are aware the Book of Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ(CH:1;1) and not the Apostle John..
Nothing to hamper us however from making ourselves conversant in the book.. Nothing at all.. My experience is it takes the Holy Spirit to open this book up (to me).. must be on a need to know basis.. LoL.. Amazing insights in that book..
To Him be all Glory and Splendid Honor, both Now and Forevermore. (2Pet.3:18)
I'm a post-millennialist so I lean towards believing creation is good and knowable according to His will because it is all made by God for His glory and for the welfare of His saints. We have been redeemed. The light of the Son has come to us so that we may see the truth and believe. Grace abounds.
"There is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice." -- John Calvin
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." -- Luke 4:16-21"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
You're always cooking up something tasty. Is this some Baptist ploy to win converts?
(And is there assigned seating? If so, please seat me away from the kitchen and next to the serving table.)
No disputing that. The point is, no free will - no repentance.
This is why I was puzzled by the reference to context: St. Paul clearly says (v. 16 and following) "we were eyewitnesses of his greatness". Hence, what is "private" to him is anything that is not succeeding from the apostles, the "holy men of God", who received the inspiration of the Holy Ghost not in ther minds but in observable fact: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost", Jn 20:22.
I think, Kosta, that your views on St. Paul are better discussed in a caucus thread.
Why don't you know? It is not hard, or too late, to study:
But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
I think, the direct meaning is that the kingdom of God is when demons are cast out, both in the sense of individual sanctification and in historical sense for all men. There are references to the Kingdom both in the sense of personal theosis and historically:
And Jesus seeing that he had answered wisely, said to him: Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:34)From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 4:17)
You are correct.
In 2 Timothy the scripture is called profitable, that is, somethig needed in addition to something else. The man of God then becomes perfect as he completes his formation by the study of the scripture. Therefore is says the opposite: that the scripture is a necessary but not sufficient component of faith formation.
2 Tim 2:15 simply urges people to study.
In Heb 4, no claim of sufficency is made.
We all agree that the scripture has a unique role in faith formation and in settling arguments.
You are looking for verses 15-17 in:
2 Timothy 3
You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. 2For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! 6For among them are those who make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, 7who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith, also oppose the truth. 9But they will not make much progress, because, as in the case of those two men,* their folly will become plain to everyone.
10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11my persecutions, and my suffering the things that happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured! Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is inspired by God and is* useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." -- 2 Corinthians 3:17
Well, you will have to take that up with whoever added titles to the books of the NT, because their authorship is highly suspect. The oldest copies (actually shreds or, more politically correct "fragments") do not show titles, but that's another story.
Anyway, as far as those who consider every dot and line in the current copies to be the unquestioned word of God, the Book of Revelation of the NΤ bears the title, in Greek: ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ (the Revelation of John).
The Greek word apokalypsis (revelation) means "lifting of the veil." So this lifting of the veil pertains to John; we can say thus that John had [experienced] a revelation from God! Christ, being God, never had a revelation (i.e. "lifting of the veil"); it is He who reveals, not to one to whom it is revealed.
The problem is you are reading the Bible in English, where foreign words give it a rich vocabulary but are used as empty labels without inherent meaning. English-readers of the Bible, however, insist that the HS prohibits them from reading the Word of God in error. I am not convinced.
You can continue to claim that the title is wrong as long as you remember that once you subject to doubt one iota in the Bible, you might as well subject everything in it to doubt.
Speaking of the Book of Revelation, it is no longer regarded as unquestionably written by John the Apostle. But, be it as it may, it was written one way or another by an End-if-Times Jewish believer with advanced theology and exceptional literacy in Greek, for he says "the things which have to happen "in speed" [Greek εν ταχει], or "soon" [NIV, NAB], as some translate, or "shortly come to pass" [KVJ].
This tells us that even after the HS was sent to the Apostles, they continued to live and believe in the imminent End-of-Times and preach that the Kingdom of God is at hand, as they were commissioned to do (to the Jews only, cf. Mat 10:5).
Certainly, +Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, and certainly +Peter was too despite the fact that Christ never said it was "soon," but He did say that it would be "before this generating comes to pass," and that "there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."[Mat 16:28, Mar 9:1, Luk 9:27]. / NB: John 8:52 says something similar but it sounds more like "keeping the law" than just having faith/
Various bible scholars, ever since the 2nd century had to struggle to "explain" why the End-of-Times hasn't happened yet when it was supposed to happen "in speed" as the Bible says, but that's another thread. :)
Suffice it to say that the realization has slowly faded away and was neatly tucked under the carpets by the Church so as not to be something we think about very often, and very possibly this may be why the Book of Revelation is never read in the Orthodox Church.
It's one of those "depends what you mean by 'is' issues."
YOU: No disputing that. The point is, no free will - no repentance.
LOL. You just "disputed" my statement after agreeing with it.
If the ability to repent and the desire to repent and the will to repent all come from God alone, then the phantasmagorical self-deception of free will matters not in the least.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Yes, I know what I am looking at. Any comments?
Your loss.
Sure it does; can God give a gift that is counterfeit? God gave me free will; so free it is.
I don't much about his Summa, have read that Aquinas influenced Calvin's thought, and from the excercpts I've read I can see some similarity. Forceful departure comes with the synthesis of grace and nature, that I think Aquinas upheld and Calvin rejected. Trent's conclusion, paraphrased here, that it's 100% God and 100% man, leaves an equation that is not a real equation. I don't think it's a workable thing. Though I do think that it's as Lewis says it is: The real inter-relation between God's omnipotence and Man's freedom is something we can't find out.
The thing that rings so confusing about Aquinas to me, is on the one hand his trepidation about language and its efficacy in how we approach God, and on the other, his advance of transubstantiation, later to become an article of faith. How is that one travels from such opposite vistas to impact the faith of Christ and His Apostles in the way that he did?
My ex-confessor and ex-priest was a smart man and a holy man, I think. I'm quite sure he was true to his celibacy vows, because he was very, very grouchy, all the time.
All kidding aside though, one day as I was thinkng about all of this, it dawned on me that his Catholicism was not one that he owned. And by owning I mean, having the capacity to believe that there was a possiblity what he believed might be wrong. When that's the case you start to build belief in your doctrine from the bottom up, and when you do that you have an understanding of what it is that you believe that you can make plain to any person who would make an inquiry. Had he truly owned his Catholicism he would have been able in plain words to address my questions, without referring me to Aquians. Even if a segment of his explanation involved the phrase "it's something I take on faith, and you must too." To me, it showed a marked misunderstanding of things, chief of which is the role of a pastor.
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.