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/
Indeed, we will have that blessed assurance and even more because unlike the tribes who could not bear to see Moses' face shine after he had been with the Lord (Exd 34) we will be living in His Light in every sense of the word.
Whatever was wrong with availability of the scripture in 16c. no longer obtains today. The full canon is available online in any language (The Unbound Bible), searchable. The Fathers of the Church, the Summa, and the Catechism of the Church is also available. Anyone can do the same Catholic apologetics I do for himself and expose Luther and Calvin's lies. It is not hard. Honest seminary-educated earstwhile Protestants study and convert, and are happy to tell their stories (Steve Ray, Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Marcus Grodi). Grodi has a daily radio program with convert guests, Journey Home. The era of Protestant We-Are-The-Bible-Believing-Christians conceit is over, and the scales are coming off the eyes of the best ofthem.
God is outside of time and predestines as our time marches on. This is the Catholic and generally pre-Reformation teaching. What I am saying is that one can write from the timelessness of God point of view, and one can write from the indivudual-in-time point of view. To the individual the election appears lost. To God, of course, there has never been an election.
Again, I direct you to the most lucid explanation by Bishop Minatios On Predestination; we discussed it at length on the Erasmus thread.
Of course; but the error is with the Protestant interpretation of St. Paul, not with what St. Paul wrote.
My search turned up a few words for "believers", and I see nothing wrong with that. There are several ways to express the same idea in English also. For example, in 1 Cor. 6:5, Paul uses the word "adelphos" (brethren) for believer. In 1 Cor. 14:22, he uses "pisteuo". In Gal. 6:10 he uses the related "pistis" in referring to believers as the "household of faith". I didn't see any confusion about Paul's references to believers vs. to God.
Yes. There is one baptism (for simplicity, let us not hold in view invalid non-trinitarian baptisms that are quite rare). A baptism is valid whenever water is used, there is a willing parent and/or sponsor, nd it is done in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit by one intending to initiate the baptized as a Christian. It can even be done, in emergency, by a non-Christian! For example, a Muslim doctor will validly baptize a baby on the verge of dying.
Therefore the vast majority of the baptized Christians are Catholic with the capital C. In fact, we do not make the distinction between Catholic and catholic, because certainly St. Athanasius did not have the distinction in mind when he wrote the Creed.
The next question is, what that newfangled Catholic does with himself. With Catholic sponsors he will hopefully continue a life of a practicing Catholic of Roman or some other rite. With Orthodox sponsors he will likewise will lead a life of an Orthodox Christian and, despite the fact that in obedience to his bishop he would not identify himself with the Church of Rome, he in practice will remain Catholic Christian, and we praise him for that (our dispute with the Orthodox is entirely with the bishops who resist union). If, however, he is raised in a Protestant background, he will separate from the Church not only nominally but also materially: he will not go to confession, or take the Eucharist. At this point he is a separated Christian.
This is as pertains the Catholic ecclesiology, not soteriology. All these people, along with the unbaptized, will be judged according to their works. A pious charitable God fearing Muslim may very well be saved by sovereign will of Christ; a heartless self-centered Catholic who punched every ticket in his church without a conversion of the heart may very well be lost.
I am called to love Calvin; I am not called to like him.
Truly said. Seems to me there are hurts that run so deeply in our mortal lives that the only way we can forgive is to turn it completely over to Jesus and walk away, trusting Him to heal us and help us not pick it up again lest the hurt returns.
= = =
Quite so.
Do you have any . . . concise exhortations to help make that easier, quicker . . . more complete, more efficacious. There are some of us who have a hard time effecting that . . . transaction sufficiently well, to our . . . confident satisfaction???
Thanks.
I think that was clear from my statement.
One is aodpted by God at the Holy Baptism, with water, Holy Spirit and the seal.
All others are actors.
“It is not hard. Honest seminary-educated earstwhile Protestants study and convert, and are happy to tell their stories”
That’s interesting. I have four Roman Catholic educated college grads in my small group bible study that, after reading the scriptures, converted to Evangelical Christianity.
Thank you for your wonderful descriptions. I know that I will attend an Orthodox service sometime, and this is very helpful to me to know what to expect.
Pascal said that we cannot know how God is. Which is why we can only discern what God is not, rather than what He is -- that is -- by apophatic thinking. God cannot be reached by cataphatic logic, scholasticism, quantum physics or Aristotelian philosophy. God can be reached only through prayer.
In Judaism, the Son of God did not mean that someone is divine.Jesus was not condemned because He said or implied that He was the Son of God but because he said he could forgive sins.
Quoting scriptures does little for me. I look at them in the world when they were written. The Gospel according to John was written some 60 years after the Crucifixion, probably by someone other than Apostle John, with a clear agenda, a highly developed theology and a superb writing talent.
The oldest fragment of John's Gospel, Chapter 1, is not even titled. Someone later on added "according to..."
To me, Scriptures have a different meaning: they tell me that people who are pure in heart are better neighbors; that the merciful deserve mercy; that we must never blame God for anything but only thank Him, that love, not hate, is our salvation, etc.
The Bible was written and rewritten by human hands an human desires and prejudices, etc. But the message of love and mercy (NT) remains nonetheless untouched. In that sense, the Scripture has been preserved.
Christ “knows” them (intimately) and they follow Him. That is why Peter is called the rock by The Rock
Peter was nothing more or less than others. He was the oldest, and in the Jewish culture, 1st century AD, that was very significant when it came to any election. Unfortunately, such facts take the mystery out of the scripture.
Kosta And here I though faith was a free (unconditional) gift of God as they say. Seems like there are some heavy ropes attached to this
A-G If we are merciful, we will obtain mercy. If we think a sin, even if we do not physically carry it out, we will be held accountable. And so on. (Sermon on the Mount) If we do nothing with the gifts He has given us we will be held accountable (parable of the talents.) If we choose not to follow the Spirit, we will be in peril (Romans 8.) If we deny Him, He’ll deny us, etc.
Correct. The if-then relationship shows that it is not unconditional and therefore not "free." I have objected to the "free gift' oxymoron already on these threads. God's offer is an "if-then" proposition; not a free gift.
But many of us will find ourselves in poverty – heavenly ‘hippies’ – because we squandered the gift of grace while in the flesh. Some who have devoted their entire lives to the ministry – but for self-serving reasons – will find themselves impoverished and sitting in the back of the congregation
The reformed will tell you that's because God pre-programmed some to become "heavenly hippies." But your "musings" are really just your fancy, anthropomorphizing heaven.
The perceived conflict is not real, it is the consequence of superimposing Aristotle’s Law of Identity on God. Christ is God.
Why is it that anything that you disagree with becomes "superimposing Aristotle's Law of identity," but when you agree with something then it is the indwelling "Spirit" talking? If you really wat to be a stickler to anthropomoprhization of God, then everything that has every been written about God is anthropomorphism because our words are inherently anthropomorphic, and our toughs are anthropomorphic when it comes to anything we don't or can't know.
Paul's writngs clearly say that God [sic] raised Christ on numerous occasions. That tells me, without a doubt, that his idea of Jesus was not what we profess in the Creed.
Tell them to keep studying. Catholic colleges in the US are Catholic in name only; exceptions are few.
The Evangelical mythology is easy, matches the modern mindset, and fits the anti-Catholic mood in the media. We are a medieval, deeply countercultural institution. Typically, people experiment with evangelical communities and either remain surface Christians or come back home to the Catholic Church.
My musing is that God is ever in control moving the course of history together towards the new heaven and the new earth
Why new heaven? I though heaven is pristine.
I do not consider it a coincidence that Daniel prophesied of Alexander the Great, nor that Alexander the Great learned at the feet of Aristotle who learned at the feet of Plato
The book of Daniel is a highly suspect book. Its acceptance is also fragmented between different churches and groups. It's zilch to me as a reference.
As a result of his conquering the civilized world, the Greek language was "normalized" and became the common language of the civilized world; and certain word concepts became common knowledge, e.g. Logos. Thus the ground was prepared for the spreading of the Gospel to the gentiles.
A-G, the ground was prepared by the Jews rejecting Christ. Had Caiaphas realized that he was staring God in the eyes as he condemned Christ, Alexander and his Greek influence would have been meaningless.
Had the Jews not asked for Barabbas, had the Jews not thrown Christ's followers out of the synagogues, just as Christ predicts in the Gospel, had the 12 tribes of Israel not rejected His teachings, Christianity would have never needed to seek Gentiles. It was not the reason He came and it was not what he instructed the Apostles to do.
And, since we are here quoting what Jesus and others "said." Ancient writers quoted others as they believed what a particular person would have said, and not what he or she actually said. Take such quotes with a grain of salt.
Also, because of this Hellenization of the Jews - the Essenes withdrew from mainstream society
The Essenes had issues with the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem who were, as you know, Sadducees, thoroughly opposed to resurrection, messianic apocalypticismn of the Essenes and angeology of the Pharisees, and who subscribed only to Torah (Five Books of Moses) as the Jewish canon.
Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved thus proving the faithfulness and true antiquity of Scripture
Dead Sea Scrolls proved no such thing. If anything they show us that the Scripture was not unified or that there was a set "Jewish canon." Rather, Judaism was a sectarian society, laced with different beliefs and scriptural canon.
My journey started when, following normal events of life, the kind that are never pleasant, I asked myself "what is this all about?" I saw no purpose or reason for any of this to exist.
Yes, He is, but His presence is a sign.
So do you think all those things occurred by happenstance? Do you think God rolls the dice and lets them fall where they may?
Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region." -- Acts 13:42-49"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
As God willed.
I enjoy very much BB's posts.
Her example of wave/particle duality is "spot on." Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle does not even apply to quantum mechanics - much less to God
Wave/particle is a human construct (model) and is not necessarily what subatomic particle (or radiant energy for that matter) is. We can treat them intellectually only as one or the other, but never as both at the same time, and always cognisent that it is just a human model.
Within that model, they are waves, not particles and waves, although they "behave" as both. The "particle" aspect of it is the vector, which is an imaginary path of an imaginary point on an imaginary wave of energy.
At the root is always one's sense of "reality." And in this case, if one's sense of reality is perception and reason - he will not only be stuck in physics, he'll only be able to accept a small "god" of his own making - one he can comprehend through Aristotlean logic
That which is subject to logic will be understood by logic. Whether we use quantum physics or Aristotelian philosophy, we cannot show how big is love.
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.