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/
Traducianism states that God created the soul of Adam and that this soul is propagated from generation to generation, at the moment of conception. It doesn't say that the parents "create" the soul. The spark of life (anima) given to Adam is pased on to every generation through the God-created act of pro-creation.
Creationism (which is by far the most widely held view) states that God creates the soul of every human being at conception.
Neither one teachies pre-existence of the soul prior to conception and neither one teaches that humans "create" a soul.
The author makes a conclusion without any support of facts
And the pre-existence of the souls is biblical? Not only is it not biblical, but it is pagan (see post 13,951) The author states that Genesis and other Biblical refrences give us an insight that God gave Adam a soul, not that this soul and all the souls of humans were pre-fabcricted in God's laboratory from before foundations of the world.
You're the one casting around Gnostic labels
Maybe because the Gnostics believed in pre-existence of the souls? You find it strange that the two may be connected?
You say this didn't happen again but you've failed to explain how Eve received her soul.
I didn't say anything. I simply stated two Christian belifs, both of which agree that the souls are not pre-fabricated.
Eve received her soul from God, whether through Adam, or ex-nihilo.
This doesn't state anything about the soul. All it says it that Seth was in his likeness.
God created us in His likeness and out children are created in our (fallen) likeness. certainly, God didn't pre-fabricate defective souls! Our souls are wounded and made defective through Adam's sin. It simply supports the propgation theory.
to me that if God did no further creating and ALL things were made through Him as John 1 states, that means all souls were created in the beginning.
The propagation theory states that God created Adam's soul, not that it pre-existed Adam. Adam was already created as a lifeless man. God then breaths life into him at that moment. God didn't pre-create light. He said: let here be light. He also said Let Us make man. God doesn't need to pre-create anything.
The creation of Adam seems like a single event with two steps: clay, soul. No pre-fab parts in it.
It states very clearly that the spirit shall return to God. If it is returning then it must have pre-existed.
That's a complete non-sequitur, HD. This only means that God gave us the soul and when we die that soul goes back to Him (it doesn't die). There is nothing in Ecc 12:7 that even remotely suggests the soul was pre-existent. It only states that it came from God.
You are saying that God stopped creating back in Genesis 2 (which I would happen to agree with). If this is the case, then how can a new born baby born today have a soul if God has not already created them? Where did this soul come from and when? Please explain.
I am not saying this; I am stating one of the two Christian theories (beliefs) on how human soul is created. This particlar segment refers to the propagation theory. The newborn baby gets the soul which was originally given to Adam by procreation, a God-created method of passing the life from generation to generation.
Obviously the Creationist theory (which is held by most Christians) is that God didn't stop creating and that He creates a soul for each and every one of us individually at the moment of conception.
Can you provide a reference? My understanding is that Origen view of the soul extended far more than simply the pre-existence issue
Of course. The proceedings of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 AD):
IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema... "
Warning, the proceedings are long (considering your self-assesed attention span).
You're not alone in this belief. I think 95% of Christisdom believes this. Personally I don't. Only through trying to know and love the Son will we keep His commandments; whereas the only reason we keep His commandments is simply because of the Son
How is your love for the Son expressed by ingoring His commandment? Nothing in it says that we do it without going through the Son, who is the Light, the Life and the Way to the Father.
In reading through the Jewish Encyclopedia I wouldn't make too much out of your quote as it is built upon a bunch of rabbinical traditions. (ouch!)
However, I couldn't help but noticing the Jewish view of the soul on another site:
Huh? Where is this coming from? Kolo have you ever heard of this? Jo, kawaii? How did Jacob's "stealing" of archangel Michael's soul leave Gentiles incomplete? How does one "steal" a soul from an angel? The rabbinical writings don't say the Gentiles are "incomplete" — they say their souls are "spawn of demons," but those of the Jews are from God.
This is coming from yours truly. It is not meant as a theological discourse.
There is some belief, I don’t know how accurate or common, in the Rabbinical Judaism, to which you made a reference in 13,951, that the Jews have an extra soul, or something of that nature. So I composed this limerick. It is a joke, Kosta.
Well, assuiming the Torah is authentic, we should be able to.
I would say their view of the soul fits more in line with Orthodoxy than it does Reformed Protestantism. So much for Greek thought of the Jews. In fact, at the risk of insult, the Orthodox are convincing me that the Orthodox views are strictly built on western thoughts and ideas
Which is it, HD? Are the Orthodox more in line with the Jews or with "westerns" (Protestants)? They can't be both.
Our Lord flat out told the Sadducee they were wrong.
Actually, He did that more to the Pharisees. I think He even told them that their father is the devil! No wonder the Jamnia rabbis cursed His name.
Oh, boy! :) Okay, I fell for it...
-- For them all,-- Peter complained to Paul
My baptismal pool is way too small
-- To save time, -- Paul replied
Leave them uncircumsized
And don't teach any diet at all.
Now that being said I noticed this statement:
Point worth noting, from a thread I just posted...
...as Natalie Zemon Davis pointed out 30 years ago, there is a clear qualitative difference between the violence of Calvinists and Catholics. France’s Calvinists hoped to change the mind of the majority population; for them, Catholicism’s sacred objects and leaders were the problem, because (as the Huguenots saw it) they misled the masses. And so Calvinists destroyed the host, icons and relics, to show that they were not imbued with divine power, and killed priests, because they were perceived to be leading the people astray. However, for French Roman Catholics, it was Calvinists themselves that were the problem. Killing Huguenots purged the country of what was perceived as pollution, or a cancer of the body politic, and was the first step toward recovering divine favor. This is why 3,000 Huguenots could be killed in Paris in 24 hours on 24 August 1572—a chilling parallel to the 3,000 killed in New York on 11 September 2001. With the smaller populations back then it was clearly an even more terrorizing moment in history.
“Kolo have you ever heard of this?”
Nope, but I’ll check with the Rabbi. :)
“As an aside, this is why I think the unity of the East and West will be restored sooner than it appears. The two worlds has interpenetrated again, for the first time since 5c. It is for the first time that Orthodoxy comes in direct contact with the dark forces of Reformation; it is bound to change the long-held assumptions about the Latin Church, that had to put up with them for centurues now.”
That’s an interesting idea. I haven’t seen much of the vitriol directed at Orthodoxy here on FR out in the world, though there are a few “fundy-type” preachers around here who are pretty vicious and of course the limp wrists, sob sisters and fellow travelers of TEC and the UCC are quite vocal in their attacks on our refusal to accept the “diversity of belief; the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing” mantra. On the other hand, it was a very Protestant government under Clinton which followed the Nazi’s example and bombed Belgrade on Good Friday; it is the very Protestant Bush Administration which is so enamored of Mohammedanism that it is hell bent on creating an Islamic killer state in the middle of the Orthodox Balkans.
Lets put it this way, today communications between Orthodox and Latin Christians on a theological level are simple. That communication, especially I think at the level of the involved and interested laity, is an ongoing exercise in what Pat. Bartholmeos and +JPII asked all of us to do a few years back. If it is working half as well out in the world as it is on the internet, and I am told by our theologians that it is, then we are headed for something, maybe a reunion, within our lifetimes, something I never thought I would see. Protestantism, or in deference to certain sensibilities here on FR, non-Latin Western Christians, with the notable exception of some Lutherans and Anglicans, simply aren’t players in this, both because they really don’t want in and, as they bring little or nothing useful to the table in terms of the Theology or Ecclesiology of the One Church, because I doubt we want them in given their “diversity” of belief.
Specifically as to your point about Orthodoxy finally coming into close contact with Protestant hatred, well, you may be right. Its certainly nothing we have run into before except with Mohammedans and Communists. Since Orthodoxy never did anything to Protestants, their attacks, here on FR and out in the world, surprise me. I have previously thought that the attacks were merely because they finally figured out that although we went through a terrible schism, aside from disagreements over the proper exercise of the Petrine Office, our theological differences, profound as they are, are frankly rather arcane compared to the differences between our beliefs and theirs. At one point I thought that they confused us with you guys. But that doesn’t wash, at least not at this stage of Orthodox presence on FR. No, I think what it is is a deep and abiding loathing for The Church which God established at Pentecost and which +Ignatius of Antioch defined in his letter to the Smyrneans (whether defined as Rome would have it or as the East would). Isn’t it fascinating that the beliefs of The Church would be attacked by the philosophical descendants of the very people about whom +Ignatius warned the Smyrneans, the deniers of The Eucharist? So maybe you are right. For Orthodoxy to experience “up close and personal” what you guys have had to put up with for 500 years can’t help but bring us closer together. For everyone’s sake, I trust you Latins won’t have to experience what we Orthodox did with the Mohammedans.
We cannot be sure of that either, sadly.
That's what traducianism teaches. God made the method of pro-creation for all lviing beings, so that they pass on their life to their offspring.
The creationist theory of the souls maintains that God actually creates a soul at the moment of conception.
I have looked at your Puritan link (you call them "real" Protestants?) and it is essentially no different than the Protestant link I provided. Your ;ink is decidedly creationist in line with the Catholic and Reformed way of thinking (mine was neutral).
But there is no insuation that God created souls before the world, and stored them for future use (like some pagan-influenced rabbinical 'musings' claim).
That isn't the same thing as saying God created all souls in the beginning
Gnostics, pagans and Pharisaic Jews believe that. Christians don't.
Earlier I stated that our Lord's soul must have existed in Melchizedek
I don't know why you would do that. Hebrew 7:3 states "Without father, without mother, without genealogy...that should be a hint that it is not Christ, for Christ has a Father and a Mother and royal genealogy (related to King David); the Gospels even start with His genealogy!
insuation=insinuation
Too late. I am still eating crow (feathers and all) that Alex served me...:)
And we thank you. Your opinion is welcome and much appreciated, I am sure we all agree.
Well put Quix. Thanks as usual, (King Friday).
jm
On your other points, by associating Catholics and Orthodox more closely, the anti-Catholic bias is spilling on us as well. This addition of some 300 million Orthodox to the ranks of the Apostolic, Eucharistic catholic Church is hardly a welcome sign in their minds, realizing that our divisions are not unbridgeable.
Our willingness to put aside our theological division, deep as they are, and wait for an Œcumnenbical Council to resolve them, while presenting a united front on 99% of beliefs we share in common does not bode well for those who would rather see us divided.
Never heard of it. Sounds more like a fairy tale.
Regards
Orthodoxy did this? Other than perhaps in Russia, which frankly was pretty tolerant of heterodox religious opinion until after the Revolution, where, when?
” Rome was not highly esteemed by Christians.
Antioch had the much higher claim for leading Christianity than did Rome.
Rome only grew in its power when it was backed by the State.
“Thus, the State and Church united together began with Constantine in the 4th century and its ‘Roman wing’ with it.””
You’ve really got to get beyond this Roman bogeyman of yours. Rome’s position in the One Church, as I said, predated Constantine. Orthodoxy always maintained that that primacy was because it was the see of the capitol of the Empire. Rome claimed and claims that it was because of the fact that Rome was the See of +Peter, but so was Antioch, as you seem to understand. At base however the fact remains that Rome has had primacy in The Church since very nearly the beginning. And that had absolutely nothing to do with an emperor who left Rome and established his seat at Constantinople. As between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church, the issue isn’t primacy, its what primacy means, how it is properly exercised. That had nothing to do with Roman emperors in the 4th century, the 11th century or now.
” Well, that sounds like the same reason that the Protestant Reformation broke out!”
Sort of. Some of the Reformers, and in increasing numbers as the generations went on, were determined to deny virtually the entire Eucharistic, Sacramental nature of The Church as it had existed for 1500 years. The Schism between the Roman Church and the rest of The Church was premised on what the East and the Latins perceived as violations of the canons and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils by the other. That’s not the beef Western Christians had against Rome in the 16th century.
“The point that the article from your Orthodox website was making is that the ‘break’ began almost immediately in the 4th century.”
That’s true, but it had nothing to do with the “legalization” of The Church by Constantine. It did have something to do with the move to Constantinople but on a broader level, geographically, psychologically and linguistically, it was the descent of the West into barbarism and the loss of fluency in the Greek language which really started the separation. The greatest Western theologian of the era, Blessed Augustine, couldn’t read Greek, at least not well, so when he started his “theologizing”, he, unlike his predecessors, had no recourse to the scriptures in Greek or three centuries of patristic writing save for some Western works translated into Latin. That deficiency is apparent in Blessed Augustine’s works which are in great measure quite radically different from Greek patristic thought. The East, in the meantime, either couldn’t or wouldn’t read Latin. You know the influence +Augustine’s works had almost immediately in the West. In the meantime, the filioque clause was added to the Creed and that little bit of possible heresy lead in part to the Great Schism in the 11th century. The Church in the West and The Church in the East didn’t speak the same language and lived very different lives, the West a sinking into barbarism and the East a glittering, educated, metropolitan society. That’s what caused the division, not the emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan.
“So ‘Romanism’ was already attempting to exert it primacy over the whole of the Roman Empire.”
The Church of Rome has always been jealous of what it perceives to be its prerogatives. The other 4 ancient Patriarchates refused to allow Rome to exercise its primacy in a way which they believed and believe to be in violation of the canons. Its really pretty much that simple as regards primacy. And that has nothing to do with Constantine either, except perhaps to the extent that the establishment of Constantinople and a Patriarchate there diminished Rome.
“You should have thought long and hard before you posted your initial post.”
I always think long and hard about any theological matter. Its something we Orthodox have been doing for 2000 years.
“So far, I haven’t seen one Orthodox adherent show anything but contempt for any of us you consider to be ‘Protestants’.”
Then you haven’t read enough. On the other hand, much of what is written here, from the perspective of The Church, is pretty contemptible. As you know, we have a “caucus” system here on FR to prevent the sort of bile we see on threads like this one. It works well. The Catholic/Orthodox caucus list includes a large number of Protestants, even some non-Latin Western Christians, Baptists for example. We have wonderful discussions, but then again, nobody in that caucus thinks someone else’s Church is “spiritually dead” or that Orthodox and Latins worship stumps or such like.
“It is clear that your theology is far closer to the Romanists than it is to that of Biblical Christianity.”
I have always found that sort of comment really silly. The badly translated canon of the NT Bible you thump is something a group of Greek speaking bishops of The Church gave you. The OT you use is a similarly badly translated rework of the Greek Septuagint and the so called Hebrew Canon of the late 1st century. You got those from Greeks too. Now you can argue that the HS inspired those bishops just that one time and then went off to play bocci for 1200 years if you want, but the vast majority of Christians will disagree. Or perhaps you’d rather argue that those shadowy unaffiliated Christians you claim religious descent from preserved the scriptures?
” I would like to remind you that no Protestants killed Orthodox followers, but Rome did.
Christians may speak bluntly, but we have never waged war on your faith.”
Tell that one to the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.
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.