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/
The Christian Jews.
By Jesus time the Holy of Holies had no visitation of God..No ark and no viel..The priests were actors, pretenders, phonies, poseurs..
I see where this is leading...
The reason for Jewish religion was GONE.. YET the faux religion continued as it does now.. Current Judaism is synthetic Jewishness..
I guess that's why you are (probably) not Jewish.
All Christians claim they know they are Christians by the "indwelling Spirit" (an inner "sign").
What exactly is a "Christian" in your book?
The Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus say the same thing, yet they all 'know' a different 'truth' in their scriputres.
And was he correct?
Yes, even though I don't think his teachin was always.
All we can say is "Thank you" and "Thy will be done."
And this is supposed to mean something?
Yes I do. I mentioned numerous instances, the latest one was that God raised Jesus (the Church says Jesus rose). You answered that it was the divine nature of God that raised Jesus. Jesus and God are one Person. Jesus did not need "God" from the side to resurrect, just as he did not need the Spirit to "guide" Him in the desert, nor was he without the Spirit until His Baptism as the Gospel implies. His own divinity was sufficient to raise Himself.
Many a heresy sprang out of the words chosen by the Apostles, and much rationalizing took place to deny what otherwise seems obvious.
Whether he knew it or not, John the Baptist preached exactly the same thing
Yes, they were all apocalyptic Jews. Jesus comes across as one too. Apocalyptic Judaism emerged about 3rd or 2nd century BC. Sanhedrin, the Sadducees in charge of the Temple, on the other hand, held the "orthodox" line, accepting only the Torah as the Scripture, denying angels and resurrection.
This has always been a standard method of preaching
Among apocalyptic Jews, yes. But not 'away,' because that sect was of relatively recent origin.
Therefore, I do not think that Paul really thought the the end times were imminent in his time
It is quite clear that the Apostles believed the end was near or imminent. It is also quite clear that Jesus taught in that style.
I don't believe he would fudge on core doctrine (if he believed that works were necessary for salvation) because there was no need to.
Works for profit are not; but spiritual works are because they are an external expression of faith.
If he thought the end was really imminent he wouldn't have taken the time to write letters, knowing that it would be weeks or months before they were delivered and disseminated to his audience
That would be self-defeating. You do what you have to do and let God do the rest. he wasn't going to second-guess God, FK.
All christians are Jews grafted onto the vine.. with the same rootstock..
"You MUST be born again"- Jesus..
Not born again then you are an actor..
Being a christian is not what you believe but whom you are..
A christian can be a christian and a heretic also..
What you beleive can be modified with time..
No faith required then; just who you are (whatever that means).
A christian can be a christian and a heretic also
That is mutually exclusive; it can exist only as a delusion.
What you beleive can be modified with time
Only if it doesn't change your belief.
YOU: The Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus say the same thing, yet they all 'know' a different 'truth' in their scriptures.
That doesn't prove anything. The point is there is truth and our job is to discern it. The Jews, the Muslims and the Hindus have not found it, regardless of what they think. My faith tells me I have found the truth and it is in Christ risen. The clarity of that fact in Scripture and the peace and assurance it provides to my life lend it even more credibility.
The fruits are good.
OTOH, the Orthodox always seem to hedge their bets and say "we really don't know."
I don't think Paul was obtuse or coy. He knew the reason for his faith, absolutely.
And when exactly does this happen?
That's what they say about everyone else.
My faith tells me I have found the truth and it is in Christ risen.
They say "My faith tells me I have found the truth and it is _________ God."
You have also found your truth in your brand of Christianity.
OTOH, the Orthodox always seem to hedge their bets and say "we really don't know."
Which is true. :)
You mean all Christians are (extended) Israel, not all Christians are Jews, I hope.
The fact that others are in error does not necessitate that everyone is in error. There is an optimal reality which we all should be trying to define.
For Christians, that optimal reality is found in Christ through Scripture and is spiritually discerned.
It is real and present and gives evidence of itself by the good fruit it produces.
Paul's confidence was not misplaced nor gnostic. It was tangible because his mind had been quickened by the Holy Spirit to perceive it.
Some get it; some don't.
At the point of conviction of sin....
and knowledge of the only remedy..
Isreal is Isreal.. The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ..
The Body of Christ trumps anything earthly, Jewish, or religious..
It sounds like you are saying that God predestines as time marches on, in given circumstances. This was not my understanding of Catholicism. I thought you believed that God predestines from the beginning, based on His foreknowledge. I thought you believed that predestination was more of an exercise by God rather than an act of sovereignty.
I would disagree that Romans 8:29 is a lone wolf verse, as the concept is clearly covered elsewhere. For example:
Eph 1:3-5 : 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—
I mean, that's pretty clear. :) There is also:
1 Peter 1:23 : For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
Just as we did not choose to be physically born, so also do we not choose to be born again. The real choice is made by God in both cases. And,
Jer 1:5 : 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
This is also classic predestination, not matching what you appear to be saying. There is certainly nothing conditional sounding here. I would say that it is your interpretation of a few verses that is not prevalent.
[continuing:] Why is it so? It is because the inspired authors recognized the absolute foreknowledge of God, but also because they were more concerned about teaching the Way, and less about theology lessons.
God's foreknowledge certainly exists and is available, but it is superfluous because God ordains everything that He foresees. If God is sovereign and in control, then He has no need to "consult" His foreknowledge. But if man is really in control, then that would fit the model you appear to be espousing.
Some in the "pro-foreknowledge" camp rely strongly on the following for their view:
1 Peter 1:1-2 : To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Of course the key word is "foreknowledge". By my search, the Greek word is "prognosis", which doesn't add much, but the word THAT comes from is "proginosko" (Strong's NT:4267) which means "to ordain", not just to foreknow something outside of one's control. This supports what I believe to be the much greater weight of evidence that predestination and election are wholly sovereign acts of God, before the foundations.
“Of course the key word is “foreknowledge”. By my search, the Greek word is “prognosis”, which doesn’t add much, but the word THAT comes from is “proginosko” (Strong’s NT:4267) which means “to ordain”, not just to foreknow something outside of one’s control. This supports what I believe to be the much greater weight of evidence that predestination and election are wholly sovereign acts of God, before the foundations.”
The root of the word, FK, is not “proginosko” but rather simply “gnosis”, knowledge, nothing more than that. “Proginosko” comes from the verb genomai, to become.
The Protestant notion of election advanced here on this thread was unknown for 1500 years after Pentecost. It is a revisionist notion quite diconnected from the Greek NT save in the spin of the likes of Strong.
or that we are right.
There is an optimal reality which we all should be trying to define
Yes, and that optimal reality may be only theoretical.
You are trying to make that which is relative (in your opinion) into something absolute (optimal). I share your belief that Christ gives us the optimal faith, but a Jew or a Muslism or a Hindu or whatever will tell you that his faith is, citing the same reasons you do.
Bottom line is, we cannot apply that which suits us to everyone equally, even though we can't imagine why they would not see it our way. But making yourself righteous based on your own percpetions is, for the lack of a better term, self-righteousness.
And when it comes to self-rigtheousness, some Christians are no different than any other group of the self-righteous.
Rather than arguing and passing judgments whose "daddy' is stronger, or "optimal," or passing judgments who is or isn't, we should concentrate on producing those fruits you are talking about, and let God's will be done.
Paul's confidence was not misplaced nor gnostic. It was tangible because his mind had been quickened by the Holy Spirit to perceive it
His words speak otherwise. Whether his confidence was misplaced or whether some of his teaching had a tinge of Gnosticism is not what his purpose was.
And you have no proof whatsoever that his mind was quickened by the Holy Spirit to perceive. It's one of those empty "I say so" dictates presented as a matter of "fact."
You mean, when you wake up one day and say "I do believe?"
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.