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 animals have it, and so do we. The body+soul = flesh. Man was made as body+soul; a body without a soul is an object; it's dead.
We are finite biengs; we have a beginning and we have an end in flesh. Now, there was a time when Adam was not. And Adam's soul did not pre-exist Adam's body. In other words there was no "Adam's life" floating around, isolated, before his body was shaped.
What sustains our life is love (the hesychastic fathers call the Holy Spirit the ερος (eros, longing) between the Father and the Son, and through the Son, between us and the Father. It's what keeps our life (soul) from extinguishing itself. A soul that sins (rejects God) dies, sasy the OT.
By sinning we reject the life-giving Spirit (Love) of God and condemn ourselves to eternal separation (spiritual death) from Him. Until Christ that separation was final. With Christ it became possible to regain our connection with God and live even after the physical death.
The HS is not our "supersoul." He is a direct conduit between God and us, through His only-begotten Son. There is no trichotomy. There is no pre-existence of souls in Christian belief. We came to life when God gave us life, at the moment of conception. Our life did not pre-exist our bodies.
We are not Jews. If you consider yourself a Christian then pray for the Jews, but don't mix-and-match. I was under the impression that you consider yourself a Christian.
The so-called "view" towards Jesus' body is entirely based on the Spirit.
The orthodox Christians do not negelct the Spirit at all. To the contrary. Eastern Orthodoxy is all spiritual. Monastiticm is the backbone of eastern Christianity.
Rather, it's the west that seems to be spiritually-deprived, overindulged in the physical, material pleasures and the love of the world.
Just quickly stopping by and once again am struck by your ideas. Animals have souls?
Animals have life, by the grace of God, but man in the only creation with an immortal soul.
If you hope your dog is with you in heaven, maybe he will be. But it won't be because Fido was a righteous canine, but because it is joy for you.
To believe animals have souls borders on occultism.
And of course there's the excellent question -- where do you draw the line? Do porcupines have souls? Zebras? Slugs? Gnats? Grasshoppers? Viruses?
Next thing you know they'll be baptizing animals in church. Oh, wait. Some churches do almost this very thing.
Sacrilege.
Animals partaking of the Lord's Supper are probably not too far off.
Maybe they'll even tithe.
Exactly.. What do they eat in purgatory?... Do they have toilets there?.. If transubstantiation is REALITY, is that a Holy Enema?.. So many questions..
The flesh is oh! so silly..
lol. 8~)
“The animals have it, and so do we. The body+soul = flesh.”
This is really getting out of hand. So when Jesus says in John 6:53, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” what He was saying is we have to eat His soul along with His body and here all along I thought the soul was incorporeal.
Not in my experience of RCC, EOC, and so-called protestant sects.. They ALL think a human is a physical body.. They even think Jesus is a physical body.. The human body is a conduit of the spirit.. made extremely clear by the New Testament especially Pauls ministry.. The human body was made for that purpose.. and ALL life on this planet was made for that purpose.. A human was created to find out they are really spirit(s).. For that express reason..
Let's see, Greek word Ψυχή (Psuché) as used in the NT is defined as:
Yes, that includes, man, deer, frogs, frasshoppers and gnats.
They were all created as body+life(soul) which is "flesh" or animal nature. They all received their life from God. They all procreate, producing living offspring.
Man can attain the likeness of God he lost with Adam, and attain immortality by grace, not by birth.
Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at God's institution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).
This confuses me because we know that many, many infants who are baptized were never predestined by God to be saved. Of course, there are some who profess a false faith and are baptized, but that is solely on them. For the infant, no real presumption can be made, and no fault can be laid for "cheating". That's why it makes less sense to me. When someone is baptized in my church, there is celebration based on a fair presumption. I wouldn't know why to celebrate an infant's baptism, since we would have no idea whether the infant was ACTUALLY a child of God.
Oh, boy! Next thing you will tell me He really didn't die a physical death on the Cross? It was all an illusion, right?
Great word.
(I may be using it a lot for the next few weeks, hoping to pass it off as my own vocabulary. So try not to draw any attention to it.)
Did you have life before you were created?
How can an eternal being die?.. What is death?..
Fleshly conduits die.. Spirits do not die they are eternal..
Else what is HELL?..
I don't mention this in arrogance.. toward you.. they are indeed enormous base questions.. that all must answer else become superstitious.. Depending on some kind of dogma to answer these questions is and will be an eternal mistake..
“Did you have life before you were created?”
I asked K and she said I didn’t have life until after I got married. You are going to have to ask her all these hard questions.
He defines it. Hesychastic teaching is the official orthodox Church doctrine, and +Gregory Palamas has a lot to do with it's recognition.
Every time I read the hesychastic fathers, I am reminded that it is the West where the sun sets and where darkness is discerned. Symbolism is a powerful teacher.
BD: I asked K and she said I didn’t have life until after I got married. You are going to have to ask her all these hard questions
I asked for life, not wife. :)
If you are denying that Christ died on the Cross then you must be denying that He resurrected from the dead.
We are dealing here with something other than Christianity, I hope you realize that.
For the infant, no real presumption can be made, and no fault can be laid for "cheating".
You've just articulated why adult baptism doesn't really jive with reformed theology and why Calvin and most Reformers rejected it.
Do our works save us? Does our proclamation of faith save us? Does our lack of "cheating" save us? No. God's adoption of us from before the foundation of the world saves us by Christ's atonement alone. And this is true from the moment of our birth, not from the point we make a public pledge. Our understanding of our salvation may occur when we formally announce it in church one Sunday morning, but God determined the names of His elect before anyone was born. Infant baptism affirms this fact.
Infant baptism goes along so well with Reformed theology because it declares that God alone chooses His covenant family and does so irrevocably.
If we believe God ordained His covenant family, just as He ordains our own families, our spouses and our children, then that family is covered by the covenant. And baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant.
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
There are many times in a parent's life he is fearful for his children. Verses like this one from Proverbs confirm that God holds His covenant family is His embrace, each of them. And at a time of His choosing, they will know it.
I know Baptists are very possessive of their adult baptism. If someone hasn't been baptized, certainly being baptized as an adult is a good and Godly thing to do as we are instructed to be baptized in His name. But to baptize your children before the congregation in the sight of God is a lovely, generous act of God's grace to His family, declaring the lives of our children are in His hands from the moment they take their first breath, forever clothed with the blood of Jesus Christ.
Here's a short Q & A on Infant Baptism from the OPC...
What did change is this:
These were all changed by Jesus. Yet, Jesus nowhere said, "Exclude the infants, for of such is not the kingdom of God. You must become as adults before I will give the Holy Spirit or repentance for sins, or saving faith." In fact Luke 18:15-17 says just the opposite. Baptism is not man's testimony or sign of what he the man has done. Baptism is God's testimony to man of what God does, when and where he pleases, to wash sinners from the filth and guilt of their sins. Baptism is God pointing down to man and declaring the gospel. Baptism is not man pointing up to God with a message, nor man pointing to himself and giving out a message... The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 gave the following answer to your question... Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized? A. 74. Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents,[3] they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,[4] as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,[5] in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.[6] "...The New Testament does not know anything about infants not being accountable, or having to grow up a decade or more before they reach a supposed 'age of accountability.' In order to preach Jesus, the New Testament speakers all appeal to the Old Testament to adequately set forth the identity of Jesus and what the church should do. The three major changes in the New Testament church from the Old Testament Church (Acts 7:38; the Greek reads ekklesia—church—not congregation) do not change the doctrine, the form of church government, or the synagogue worship as brought into the New Testament Church.
•the Passover into the Lord's Supper
•circumcision into baptism
•remembering of the 7th day into the 1st day of the week
“Every time I read the hesychastic fathers, I am reminded that it is the West where the sun sets and where darkness is discerned. Symbolism is a powerful teacher.”
Have you read Kyriacos Makrides’ latest, “Gifts of the Desert”? Worth getting, Kosta.
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.