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 underlying geometry is necessary for any concept of form (spatial) - time - and most especially, physical causation.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
All of the physical cosmologies rely on geometry for physical causation, which is to say that regardless of cosmology - there had to be an uncaused cause of physical causation itself, i.e. the underlying geometry!
As much as science tries to obviate God the Creator, it cannot come up with a "just so" story to explain the beginning of space/time, i.e. physical causation.
The geekiest of Lurkers will no doubt quickly recognize complementaries in the underlying geometry of the cosmos! Dualities, for instance, suggest that two different physical systems with completely different looking properties can nevertheless be isomorphic if one considers quantum geometry on either side. S-duality is an equivalence between two quantum field theories, string theories or M-theory which allows the physicist/mathematician to transport his observations from one frame to the other. Likewise, Calabi-Yau manifolds because mirror symmetry (e.g. right hand v left hand) can exist between two of them which makes string theory all the more reasonable.
Oh, and I agree with you about Lanza's speculations. I'm not ready to embrace them either - though I keep them "on the shelf" for future reference.
Little wonder the church in Philadephia was a "Sola Scriptura" church.. and the others were NOT...
I was not suggesting re-incarnation in my comments.
Rather, as always, my theme is “to God be the glory!”
In other words, we cannot superimpose our concept of an arrow of time onto God. We cannot say that there was ever a point at which He did not know us. We cannot remove ourselves from time to become objective observers and make such a determination.
Time is a part of the Creation, not a boundary or restriction to the Creator.
I suspect it is either very difficult or perhaps even impossible, for some of us to conceptualize timelessness as compared to unbounded time such as eternity past and eternity future.
As created beings, time (and space) frame our sense of reality. And God speaks to us in Scripture using those frames, which is to say this heaven and earth. The Final Cause, the flow from beginning to end, Alpha to Omega - the purpose of this heaven and earth - is revealed as the next heaven and earth:
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. – Matt 24:36
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Rev 1:8
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. – Rev 21:6
This one is truly superb -- the Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume. As are the Abraham Pais biographies of Einstein and Bohr; plus Pais' marvelous history of twentieth-century physics, Inward Bound. Plus I've got a couple of William James' works on their way from Amazon as we speak. You see, I'm doing my homework on "the observer problem...." One thing leads to another; whatta feast!!!
It turns out there is an uncanny resemblance between some of the ideas of Bohr and those of Eric Voegelin, particularly those relating to the subject of consciousness -- observation. This is truly exciting for me!
You wrote: "All of the physical cosmologies rely on geometry for physical causation, which is to say that regardless of cosmology - there had to be an uncaused cause of physical causation itself, i.e. the underlying geometry!.... As much as science tries to obviate God the Creator, it cannot come up with a 'just so' story to explain the beginning of space/time, i.e. physical causation." (Just had to stick those bolds in there....)
I see this soooooooooo clearly! Science ought not to obviate God; that's not to say scientists can put Him in a laboratory anytime soon. But just because one's "method" does not and cannot reach to God, it does not necessarily follow that God is, therefore, a fiction: The heavens and earth declare Him!
As Voltaire declared (IIRC), "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him." Whatta wag! But there's truth to his saying.... Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
An ordered universe requires a Logos in order to come into existence and then to continue in existence.... The Logos God spoke in the beginning (a "dimensionless geometry") is the foundation of universal order. That is, physical laws have a deeper basis than themselves.
Or at least, that's what it looks like to me, an observer.... FWIW. Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
Like a Dream... Reality follows the plot and players in a dream.. not the other way around.. In a dream time is a nuisance.. What "could" happen when dreams merge.. A merging of realities.. except the plot and players would be the mergees.. Dreamers observing each other.. creating yet another reality..
Not being saddled to/with a human body could take some getting used to.. Maybe thats why humans dream.. To get us ready for some future mind blowing adventure.. A Spiritual Saga of Universal Scope.. The adventure of the Citizens of the Universe into the Universe.. Where the book of Revelation leaves off and reality begins..
From Revelation 21 and 22 we can understand there will be some type of space and time in the next heaven and earth. But I assert that we should not presuppose that it will be the same as it is in this heaven and earth.
= = =
I think that’s an important point.
Sometimes it seems like folks fail to think things through fully. And a kind of mentality sets in imagining Heaven to be some wispy ethereal fogland of disembodied spirits.
God makes a point of resurrecting Christ’s Body and promises to resurrect authentic believers’ bodies. Should prove interesting with those who were ashed in house fires and the like. But even humans can create clones from DNA. So I’m confident God has my recipe. Besides, as Scripture declares, He could raise up children of Abraham praising God from rocks.
Anyway—God has REALITY in store for us. Enhanced—Super-Enhanced REALITY. . . . not some foggy, cloudy pseudo existence.
AGREED. Well put.
Going to send an email.
Jastrow's observation absolutely tickles me! Thanks for reminding me of it, Alamo-Girl!
Indeed the Garden of Eden could/would be metaphorical of the "reality".. with the go forth and populate and dominate the earth mandate.. When what happened on earth was merely a qualifier and test for the real charge/task.. which is the domination and population of this entire Universe.. meaning the Garden of the UNIVERSE... with NO Satan as a spoiler..
Ys we do, because even the oldest copies we have are copies. We don't go beyond 2nd century BC for complete books.
What you cannot do is use the A.D. LXX to change the MT which is B.C.
There are BC fragments of the LXX.
As far as the different Hebrew text type, that has nothing to do with the Jewish Canon, no more than the differing text types in the Greek affect the Christian Canon
Well, call it what you want, the fact is that not all Jews were reading the same text as the Pharisees.
There is a mystery in it, that Divine predestination exists outside of time, and we leave (and use the English language) in a temporal world. This is why, while the election is absolute, it follows, rather than preempts, our free will.
Perfect beings don't fall. Certainly Jesus did not appear wondering if he was going to fail! Your way of thinking leaves God in the dark.
Me: Nope. That would make Him imperfect. There was no possibility for Christ to sin. His two wills are in perfect harmony
You: Well, according to your own Church, you are a heretic, denying the pronouncement of 6th major ecumenical Council...The Council's Pronouncement "Christ had two natures with two activities: as God working miracles...; as Man, performing the ordinary acts of daily life. Each nature exercises its own free will."(emphasis added)..."
The only problem is you added emphases in the wrong place. Had you read beyond the buzz words you were cherry-picking, you'd have noticed the following:
As I said before, Christ's two wills are in perfect harmony; there is no possibility that one would opose the other. Otherwise he would not have been neiyther perfect god, not perfect Man.
I am sure that God knew that Adam would fail as much as he knew that Jesus would not reject the Cross. Are you suggesting Christ lived in the dark as to the outcome?
I know what “catholic” generally means, but St. Ignatius used it in the sense in which the Catholic (Roman) ecclesiology teaches: that the Catholic Church is hierarchical and sacramental.
For the rest, I refer you to the excellent Kolokotronis’ post 13,855.
There are parts of +Paul's writings that seem objectionable and even discordant with the rest of the NT (as I see it). There are clearly some things the Protestants claim about +Paul that the Church rejects. There are some things +Paul says which the Church does not follow (i.e. "God raised Christ from the dead, etc. Christ rose from the dead, etc.). And there are sections of +Paul's works that are perfectly orthodox, or straight-forward (such as the issue of women being covered or not speaking in the church) that are summarily rejected by trendy Christians across the board.
So, before you notice the thorn in my eyes, examine your own for logs. Ignoring scripture is no different than saying "I think they are wrong" or "I don't think that's what it means, so I don't have to do this." The only differences is: I do confess before God and before the world my doubts and objections, and I do confess my deference to the Church as my sanctuary, trusting in her collective wisdom rather than believing my own arrogance and pride.
That being said, the Catholic and Orthodox Church teach +Paul differently from the Protestant innovation, and that includes the pre-existence of the souls, or the doctrine of redemption, etc.
You don't say the Church interprets Paul another way, you say that the Church looks to other scripture for direction
Yes, the Church looks at all Scripture. +Paul has been known to quote out of context to make a point. I don't think he did so maliciously, but it was out of context. His teachings on the soul is not exactly the same as that of the Gospels and deuterocanonicals.
Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but +Paul's Epistles do not rank the same as the Gospels, and the OT does not rank the same as the NT in the Orthodox Church. We do not treat all scripture the same. The OT is read at vespers (evening services); never in the Divine Liturgy except during Great Lent.
Of the OT, the Psalms are on top. The historical books are on the bottom. In the NT, the Orthodox Church never reads from the Book of Revelation.
So, I am not sure how "heretical" are my views and how much I am different than others who tacitly reject some parts of the Bible because it doesn't meet with their taste, but either can't see that they are doing it or can't bring themselves to admit it. I am also not alone in treating different parts of the Bible differently, as it is obvious that the Church does too.
I interepted your post as agreeing with our Protestant friends who seem to believe that souls pre-exist bodies, to wit:
To which Dr. E responds
clearly signaling that the Old Testament (in her opinion) teaches the pre-existence of the souls.
To which I asked for Biblical references (which i have not received), showing that the Bible teaches pre-existence of thre souls.
To say that God knew us before He created us is to separate God's thoughts and creation, which are one and the same. The Bible doesn't tell us that God creates first by "thinking it out," but instead by Word: "Let there be light." And light is created. God created man after He created light and earth, etc. So, man's existence was not before all ages, but on "day" six, when time and the sun and all other things already existed.
And even then, man was not really created until God breathed the soul through man's nostrils. So, there was a deifnite time, not before all ages, when man was not and his soul was not. The same goes for all of us.
“Political ENGULFMENT is not at all the same thing as God’s anointing or blessing or approval.”
Q, why do you persist in the belief that whatever problems the non-Roman Catholic West has with the Church of Rome began with +Constantine the Great? That is simply, historically untrue. There was a time, centuries later, when the Western Church and at least in some parts of Western Europe, the State, became one. But that was centuries and centuries after Constantine. It is true that Orthodoxy became the “State Church” in most of the East, just like various forms of Roman catholicism and Protestantism did in Western Europe and here in the Americas. But there was never a theocracy in the East. In fact, throughout the history of Orthodoxy, even in Russia, the Church has been at odds with the secular rulers near (in some places far more often than not) as often as on their side.
It is a myth that +Constantine the Great created the Roman Church just as it is a myth that “Roman Catholicism” as such, existed before the Great Schism, perhaps even before the Reformation. To say that an emperor who called a great council, the First Ecumenical Council, thereby created a politically, and religiously compliant and hierarchial Roman Church defies history. That great gathering of hierarchs and priests did just what +Constantine did not want them to do; they gave us the Creed and condemned the foul heresy of Arianism. Certainly God approved of that, wouldn’t you say? The 6 great Ecumenical Councils which followed defined basic Trinitarian and Christological theology shared by virtually all of us. I am at a total loss as to why anyone believes that +Constantine established Roman Catholicism or that anyone would think that that belief advances the cause of non-Latin or non-Orthodox Christians one whit.
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.