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/
Then, perhaps, you should read more... :)
If you get past the first sentence, you may get your answer...
“But to the Protestant ears when they hear “Constatine was Catholic” they say “aha, he made the Catholic Church...” In the 19th century, the Orthodox Church was much more adamant about stressing its catholicism, which is apart of the official name of the Church (Orthodox Catholic Church), but the term “catholic” has indelibly been etched into everyone’s mind as being Latin and Roman. Perhaps Latins and Romans need to be more aware of how their message comes across.”
You know, for the past two years I have tried to get this across to our Latin brethren and “sisteren” here on FR, and to the Western non_Latins as well. The West hears or sees the word “Catholic” or even “catholic” and immediately think “Roman Catholic”. It is particularly galling that every time I see +Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrneans quoted by Latins or from a Latin source, the word “catholic” is always capitalized. Every time one of the pre-schism Fathers is quoted one finds some reference to “The Catholic Church” somewhere in the lines. All the denials in the world from the Latins that this means nothing in particular strike me as disingenuous at best. Its no wonder that many non-Latins think some of the things about the One Church that they do and the fault ultimately lies with the Latin way of describing Church history, especially in English.
I fail to see how talking about whether the soul is propagated or created is Gnostic in light of the definition. This has nothing to do with God enabling "secret teachings". Not everything is Gnostic in nature.
You never addressed Ecc 12 nor did you address how God would "propagate" the soul of our Lord Jesus.
To which I asked for Biblical references (which i have not received), showing that the Bible teaches pre-existence of thre souls.
Did you think you could just slip that one past us and hope we weren't keeping track? 8~)
You didn't even ask me for OT Scripture supporting the Biblical truth that God from all eternity purposed every believer, but I gave it to you anyway in post #13838...
KOSTA: The souls are not pre-fabricated in advance. That is a pagan, even Gnostic belief.
"Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him." -- Isaiah 43:7 "Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee" -- Isaiah 44:2 "Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?" -- Job 38:36 "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." -- Psalms 139:13-16 "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7 The soul is not independent of its Creator. We are the sum and substance of that which the Creator ordained from before the foundation of the world."FOREST KEEPER: He knew all of us before we were created physically
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee" -- Jeremiah 1:5
You you were given Scripture, and you seem to have chosen to ignore it.
I'll add that any understanding other than the above means God concocts souls and lives and history in real time only and not from before the foundation of the world. Which is preposterous given the definition of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creative, eternal and boundless Creator who knows the end from the beginning because He created all things for His glory.
Which of course, makes no sense. By definition, election is not based on man's choices, but upon God's determinant choice to elect in the first place.
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" -- Ephesians 1:4-11 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
I realize Ephesians is anathema to the erroneous, but much-beloved belief in free will, but that's the Scripture and that's what God is telling all who have ears to hear. We are His because He wants it that way. Election is all of God, and none of us. We cannot earn it, merit it or deserve it.
It is a gift.
Thank you, God. Mercy triumphs over justice.
I mean who in the RCC says so..
The RCC is so wrong about so many things its no wonder that they would Not get this correct.. Anyone that would swallow purgatory is already on weak ground.. The reform churchs (protestants) swallow some strange stuff also.. Like the renegade Jewish government demanded by the Jews(Moses people) from God.. You know the one used as a model for organization in most/many sects of christianity..
I mean which RCC committee included mans flesh as a spiritual thing.. When flesh is just flesh.. Basically transportation for mans spirit.. Could be WHY the RCC is so fleshly in every way that counts.. and almost void of the Spirit.. Not completely but almost completely.. Meaning almost nothing Holy there.. physically..
Well, obviously the Church evolved from council to council, but it was always eucharistic and hierachical — that is, Catholic in the modern sense.
I don’t think it matters all that much what we say. The Protestant concept of Catholic vs. catholic is a self-serving nonsense, which they are not going to abandon till such time that the entire edifice of Reformation collapses in one big heap.
“Well, obviously the Church evolved from council to council, but it was always eucharistic and hierachical — that is, Catholic in the modern sense.”
Or Orthodox.... and always catholic.
No, I disagree completely. To St. Ignatius and St. Athanasius “catholic” meant a concrete, visible, one and only Church that was in communion with Rome and in that sense both “catholic” and “Roman Catholic”. The capitalization was not invented yet, and certainly the absurdity of “invisible church” was not invented yet. Where you might fault us is how Roman Catholic is applied to the Church of the Seven Councils in a way that makes it somehow distinct from the Orthodox, Latin in praxis, scholastic in thinking, etc. But to go along with these intricate capitalization rules is to give in to the Protestant “RCC” way of arguing by labeling.
“Before the foundation of the world” and “according to the good pleasure of his will” does not at all contradict the fact that the election is based on the divine foreknowledge of our own free will actions. What it precludes is the pelagian error, that we can purchase election in the sense of obligating God to electing us.
I mean which RCC committee included mans flesh as a spiritual thing.. When flesh is just flesh.. Basically transportation for mans spirit.. Could be WHY the RCC is so fleshly in every way that counts.. and almost void of the Spirit.. Not completely but almost completely.. Meaning almost nothing Holy there.. physically..
HP, it's pretty pointless to debate anything when there is nothing but contempt. All I see in your post above is contempt.
What it precludes is the pelagian error, that we can purchase election in the sense of obligating God to electing us.
The two underlines phrases say exactly the same thing.
If election is based on "our own free will actions" then we are "obligating God to elect us."
If we choose correctly, God must reward us -- which directly contradicts Paul in Ephesians and Romans.
God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ is a free gift, determined by God alone and not based on any work we might accomplish, but solely upon Christ's work on the cross.
I know it a little over the top.. but it is honest..
Democrats crawl my nape too...
I think the political forces as well as the human nature aspects caused much more hierarchical junk than God ever attended and that it was well entrenched by 300 years after Christ.
MOSTLY
GOD is my hierarchy. I respect and submit to folks over me as He directs me to do. But also to anyone else He directs me to do.
Historically and theologically, pre-existence of the souls is a pagan and Gnostic heresy. I am sorry that you find their teaching agreeable. Gnostics and pagans are not Christians.
I'll add that any understanding other than the above means God concocts souls and lives and history in real time only and not from before the foundation of the world. Which is preposterous given the definition of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creative, eternal and boundless Creator who knows the end from the beginning because He created all things for His glory.
God intercedes in real time and in history and in our lives daily, all the time.
The whole OT speaks of God's active participation and intercession in real time and in history. To deny God's participation and intercession in this world is preposterous indeed. Christ is the ultimate intercession of God in real time and in history.
I only wonder if these concepts of a distant God who doesn't "concot" in the real world and in hisotry, is an isolated opinion, or if all Protestants believe in the pre-existence of the souls?
I appreciate the honesty. But if honesty kills the discussion, it's self defeating.
The Jewish concept is that all souls were created before the world and are kept in a celestial treasury. They are all referred to as “she”.
The reason that we know nothing about them is because revelation deals only with the present world.
HD it helps to go beyond summaries and actually learn something about the subject, and I don't mean this personally but as a matter of principle.
You may wish to read the posts you apparently missed, such as 13,897, and 13,844 in order to get all the references I posted (which I am not going to post again).
I would also like to say that Orgien's Gnostic teaching of the pre-existent souls is Christianity 101, which teaching was even publicly condemned by the 5th Œcumenical Council. And I must admit that the discovery of an active pre-fab soul belief among Protestants is a real eye-opener.
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.