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/
Define “means of grace.”
Are the sacraments salvific in any way? What is lost if one does not participate in baptism or communion?
I think I did.
Some people find greater affinity for the lives of their saint role-models; then others. Some people are moved by Mary to the point of longion for her as the kind of a human being we all could only wish to be. Sometimes, they express that longing in a way that seems idolatrous, but I can assure you that no Orthodox Christian would tell you she is divine, even if they prostrate themsleves before her icon.
You made a valiant attempt, but I’m trying to be more specific so that there isn’t miscommunication. Are the sacraments salvific? What happens if they are neglected? Means of grace is a vague term. Trying to drill down here to see what you are referring to.
Fully Jewish?.. The Ark was long gone, with it's occupant..
And the Veil was about to be split.. vertically.. and maybe horizonally as well.. it was over..
Only thing left was a religion.. legality and a mental God..
You know the way it "IS" with all religions..
God is NOT a moron.. and the Talmud is not the Bible..
“There is nothing here to suggest the Greeks could join without circumcision, or dietary restrictions. Nothing short of becoming fully Jewish. Either you were a Jew or a Gentile.”
Matt. 8:8-13, “The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.”
Nothing about circumcision or dietry laws here. Just a clear statement of faith and the statement of Jesus that Gentiles will be included in the kingdom based on faith, like the Roman Centurian.
Indeed, the Centurion...
So that she may be resurrected.
Judaism was always open to converts. There is a difference between becoming a convert and becoming a second-class "graft."
Funny, Christ never said all that was left of Judaism He believed in was "legality and mental God." But if you insist...(Talmud wasn't around for a few more centuries...)
He also never said anything about "grafting" Gentiles to the vine, sans circumcision and dietary restrictions. All that comes as an afterthought (in Epistles and Acts).
Neglecting the sacraments is just like neglecting any other means of grace; worship, prayer, fellowship with God's people, etc.
While they are not necessary for salvation in the strictest sense, we must also affirm that regular, willing participation is part of the normal Christian life. They help us to grow in Christ and experience His salvation at the intended level.
They are not the means of our justification, but neither are they optional for our sanctification.
“not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” (Heb. 10:25)
“assembling of ourselves together” includes all the means of grace given to the Church community; worship, prayer, sacraments, fellowship.
“Judaism was always open to converts. There is a difference between becoming a convert and becoming a second-class “graft”
Nothing about conversion to Judaism or second class grafts. The statement is clear that Gentiles will be on the same level in the kingdom as the Patriarchs. In fact Jesus says “but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. Those that are trusting in circumcision and the dietry laws will be excluded while those that have faith, whether Jew or Gentile, will be included.
We can therefore say, that in it the Lord displays to us all the treasures of his spiritual grace, inasmuch as he associates us in all the blessings and riches of our Lord Jesus. Let us recollect, then, that the Supper is given us as a mirror in which we may contemplate Jesus Christ crucified in order to deliver us from condemnation, and raised again in. order to procure for us righteousness and eternal life. It is indeed true that this same grace is offered us by the gospel, yet as in the Supper we have more ample certainty, and fuller enjoyment of it, with good cause do we recognise this fruit as coming from it.
Coming from a Baptist background, we do not call them “sacraments.” Rather, we call them ordinances. We do not believe that they confer any special “grace”, though those who participate are certainly blessed for having done so. Christ ordained that we should participate in them, however, or lack of participation in them does not in any way diminish the fact we are saved. Sanctification is a process which ultimately culminates in our being like Christ in Heaven. We will never fully reach sanctification here on earth. But we participate out of obedience and gratitude towards our Savior. Those who neglect the ordinances are missing out on a vital part of growth as Christians. But, they are not salvific. They picture what Christ did. And, as we obey Christ in our participation, I believe we draw even closer to Him in our understanding. That may be what you all refer to as the conference of grace. But, we Baptists want to be very careful in preserving the definition of grace as God’s unmerited favor and by saying conference of grace occurs upon baptism and participating in communion (which we usually call Lord’s Supper), it can lead to a misunderstanding of what is meant (not that I am saying that you are conveying a salvific understanding to the sacraments).
You then quote Mat 11: 11:15 and Matt 17:9-13 (both of which speak of Elijah).
As you know, Elijah never died, so incarnation is not an issue, but I am talking about the disciples saying Christ was John the Baptist and Jeremiah (both of whom were dead).
Cause/effect cannot be dismissed from creation or “making.” When the maker or creator is God Himself, the cause is in timelessness though the effect is in time. Logic, physics, mathematics, geometry, etc. do not apply to the Creator - though they apply quite nicely to the (physical) creation
That's lovely, but the Book of Genesis tells us that God created the light, the universe, the sun and the moon, the earth, etc. (in other words the time as well because we are talking 'days' even if they are not our days).
In that real-time, in the real creation (not before all foundations of the world), God said 'let Us make man!' No need to go into cause/effect and relativistic theories of man; the Bible plainly says man did not exist until some time and was not breathing (alive) until that time when God breathed the breath of life into his lifeless nostrils.
He who lives in eternity knows of Adam from all eternity, but Adam did not exist from all eternity. Therefore knowledge and existence are not one and the same. Adam's soul did not pre-exist his body.
Being God he could and can say anything he desired(s) to say..
Thats WHY he spoke in parables you remember..
To hide the truth from the religious..
Obviously Christ tought some Jews were not "true" believers and was astonished [sic], marvelled, or amazed by the faith of the (Roman) Centurion (in a Jewish messiah)! That's the last thing one would expect from a Roman officer. The way Mat 8:10 is worded, it seems Jesus was caught by surprise.
That leads me to believe that the writer of those verses did not think Jesus would have known, unless he was writing for effect.
And reveal the truth to the un-religious?
As a Baptist we have communion in remembrance of our Saviour's sacrifice for us at Calvary. It is symbolic and does not impart Grace. If the Reformed believe communion imparts Grace this is an area where we differ.
The Reformed do not hold to a Roman Catholic concept of grace, which appears to be the presupposition behind these questions.
I don't mean to come across as being snippy. It seems straight forward though, Communion and Baptism either are symbolic acts or they impart Grace to a believer.
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.