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/
ROFLOL
This is your defense of your theory of Apostolic succession?
If you bother to read the passage closely you will find that the men selected were ALREADY filled with the Holy Spirit, so the laying on of the hands was a symbolic show of support. Also if you read the entire passage you will find it is the twelve, not one, that decided that they needed a group of good men to see to the distribution to the widows. Actually, a good example of how the early church was congregational and not a monobishoporic structure.
The breathless ease with which the enemies of the Church ignore the scripture they profess to follow is amazing.
As the passage above illustrates, it is the teachings of the RCC that perverts Scripture. It is the RCC that had to invent traditions in order to get people to believe that it is the mediator between man and God.
” Obvious even from Augustine’s writings baptism wasn’t well thought out.”
“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The Didache (70AD)
Now the Didache was written nearly 300 years before +Augustine was born. Seems to me that it is a pretty good example of what the practice and belief was of the early Church. It was originally written, if I recall correctly, in Aramaic though it may have been in Greek. It is from Antioch and in 70 AD the memory of +Peter being the head of the Church there would have been very fresh. +Augustine’s confusion about baptism is not attributable to any confusion among theologians of the time. It is attributable to +Augustine’s limited knowledge of what was going on and had gone on in the the great centers of Christianity in the Eastern Mediterranean.
“(Are you prepare to agree with Augustine they go to hell if they’re not baptized?)”
No. That pernicious concept arises, as do others, from +Augustine’s concept of Original Sin.
“Meanwhile, while all the theologians were contemplating the meaning, all of us Baptists were down by the river dunking those we could get out hands on. ;O)”
See, you learned the practice from Orthodox Syrians!
“Probably because he couldn’t read Greek.
Hmmmm....maybe that was to his credit. :O)”
I suspect that there are those who argue exactly that...and with a straight face too! :)
I’m not following you. The answer is given in Luke 24. it was not merely by the breaking of bread, since it says, “Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. And they said to one another, ‘Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?’” (vv. 31,32) It was through the preached word that Christ revealed Himself to them.
The sacraments without the preached word are of no effect. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The sacraments merely strengthen the faith that exists in the life of the believer.
They must have participated in the rite with Jesus before the Last Supper in order to recognize His officiating.
That is an argument from silence. First of all their eyes were supernaturally prevented from seeing who He really was (v. 16). And as I said it was not the breaking of bread which opened their eyes, it was the preaching of the Scripture to them. It was a supernatural act.
Just the actions of the disciples present and the practice of the Corinthian church some 25 years after the Last Supper would say that there was not a “sacrament” and conferred no grace on the participants.
I don’t see that clearly from any Scripture.
The Last Supper was not the Passover meal but the meal the evening before Passover.
Didn’t say it was. I merely said it replaced the Passover in the communal life God’s people.
From the perspective of timelessness, Adam, Alamo-Girl, kosta50, hosepipe, I, et al. are all eternally known by God, from beginning to end. If this suggests pre-existence (i.e., some kind of existence prior to physical incarnation), then maybe that's just what it "looks like" to observers who are captured in "the net of space and time."
The point is, we do not see as God sees.
Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your beautiful and graceful essay/posts!
The Didache hardly goes into the theological implications or wrestles with the purpose of baptism. It only gives instructions as to how baptism should be carried out. BTW, the Didache implies immersion baptism and, only on rare occasions, sprinkling. Does the Orthodox immerse? From your response the Syrian Orthodox must.
Thats quite a thought in light of man's science.. And in 1947/8 Isreal re-appeared.. just popped back up.. Came back to life to make a statement much larger than the discovery of DNA.. They were NOT cast off.. AND the rest of the statement above is FALSE TOO..
It is also said that the generation that SEES Isreal come back to life will be the generation that will also see JESUS RETURN to this planet.. That is MY generation..
Pyro,
No offense....what where in the heck does Scripture indicate Mary gave birth in a miraculous way?
It is incredibly WEIRD to interpret the idea that Mary did not deliver the baby Jesus in the natural way in the verse quoted on this site. The only indication is that Mary’s conception was miraculous, not the birth.
What do you think actually happened....Jesus rose out of Mary’s chest like an alien baby coming out of some woman on The X-Files?
That is just illogical and frankly, unintelligent.
Those who are called to be priests are already filled with the Holy Spirit; otherwise they wouldn't be called. Christ Himself called on the 12 and made them His priests. One of them was the devil. So, even now, some priests are not priests.
The NT is clear that in the Church some are apostles, some teachers, prophets, and not everyone is an apostle, teach and prophet. Not all of us are "royal priesthood" of believers. Most of us are hopeful (and even hopeless) followers.
St. Justin Martyr speaks of the "president" of the congregation who leads the Sunday liturgy as early as 145 AD. And St. Ignatius (c. 105 AD) says that "where there is a bishop, there is the catholic [universal] Church." And he was a disciple of the living Apostles. Apostle John (towards the end oft he 1st century) calls himself a presbyter/elder, so disciples are his successors.
St. Paul speaks of bishops (episkpoi) in Phil 1:1 (probably somewhere between 50 and 60 AD). Obviously, the Apostles had to ordain the first bishops, and they in turn had to ordain others. The faith is from God, handed down to the Apostles, and from them to bishops and priests to administer and lead. It's where the Church gets its authority.
Those who deny Apostolic succession deny the Apostlic authority. Yet the same deniers accept Apostolic testimony as inspired and "authoritative," but no their commission. One can only speculate why, but envy and jealousy comes to mind.
Augustine answered this by saying the man revived long enough to make it very clear to Augustine he was extremely unhappy with what he had done. A couple of days later the gentleman died. We assume that everyone wants to go to heaven. That is a faulty assumption.
We Orthodox never had that burden. We never believed that merciful God would simply create people to destroy them or to punish innocent children for not being baptized by sending them to hell! They have no deeds to be judged on, so they are innocent.
As FK once wrote, of the billions and billions of people who have walked this earth, if this was true don't you think you would be able to find a sinless man? Abraham thought for sure there should be some righteous people in Sodom.
But those of the Protestant/Baptist sola fide persuasion believe that, in order to be saved, one must believe. Thus, unbaptized children, by necessity, must go to hell because they cannot believe.
There are all sorts of Protestant/Baptists with all sorts of ideas. THIS Reformed Baptist believes that God saves people according to His will and good pleasure. He saves them by His grace and mercy alone and justify that salvation based upon the death of His Son. Whether you're an aborted baby or a 95 year old man who, on his death bed accepts the Lord, everyone comes to God in the same fashion. We are instilled with His faith and mercy through grace.
And the Incarnation and the Resurrection are? How about Jonah living in the belly of a fish for three days? When you 'explain' the Incarnation, Resurrection and Jonah (for starters) then I will explain His miraculous birth.
Just make sure the explanations are logical and intelligent. Okay?
I agree there are striking similarities. However in John 3:5 Jesus says "born of water" and in Ezekiel it says "I will sprinkle clean water on you".
"Born of water" is more than a ceremonial washing. We know that Baptism does not impart Grace, because we have several examples in Scripture of the Holy Spirit indwelling new believers before they have had the time to publicly repent and be baptized.
Acts 2:4 And they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
“Does the Orthodox immerse?”
Yup, three times!
That is the spiritual “key” to discerning John 6 – that we are to consume the body and the blood of Christ. He, the living Word of God, is our food and our drink.
It is also a Spiritual Truth of Jesus’ testimony while He was in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, i.e. that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word the proceeds out of the mouth of God.
I do wish to clear up something though concerning the Hebrew word goy (plural, goyim.) It literally means “nation” and thus in Genesis 18:18, it refers to Abraham’s becoming a great and mighty nation (goy) and all the nations (goy) will be blessed in him. Likewise in Exodus 19:6 – God says “ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation [goy]”.
Then in Leviticus 20:23, God tells Israel to not walk in the ways of the nation [goy] He is removing in front of them. Thereafter for the most part, the term goy is understood to mean “heathen”, e.g. Psalms 106:47.
And to this day it means Gentile and is often used as a pejorative:
"Goy" [plural: goyim, adjective: goyishe] is the standard Hebrew term for non-Jew. Literally it is the Hebrew for "nation." Spoken aloud with a disgusted inflection, it's pejorative. So is the word 'Jew' in similar circumstances. Better to say "gentile" or "non-Jew" when writing in English for a multireligious audience, such as SCJ. In general, the use of judgemental or pejorative terms, even if no offense is intended, should be avoided. They only serve to incite anger and side-track the conversation. True conversation comes from being factual and appropriately neutral.
The most commonly used word for a non-Jew is goy. The word "goy" means "nation," and refers to the fact that goyim are members of other nations, that is, nations other than the Children of Israel.
There is nothing inherently insulting about the word "goy." In fact, the Torah occasionally refers to the Jewish people using the term "goy." Most notably, in Exodus 19:6, G-d says that the Children of Israel will be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," that is, a goy kadosh. Because Jews have had so many bad experiences with anti-Semitic non-Jews over the centuries, the term "goy" has taken on some negative connotations, but in general the term is no more insulting than the word "gentile."
The more insulting terms for non-Jews are shiksa (feminine) and shkutz (masculine). I gather that these words are derived from the Hebrew root Shin-Qof-Tzadei, meaning loathsome or abomination. The word shiksa is most commonly used to refer to a non-Jewish woman who is dating or married to a Jewish man, which should give some indication of how strongly Jews are opposed to the idea of intermarriage. The term shkutz is most commonly used to refer to an anti-Semitic man. Both terms can be used in a less serious, more joking way, but in general they should be used with caution.
If you are offended to hear that Jewish culture has a negative term for non-Jews, I would recommend that you stop and think about the many negative terms and stereotypes that your culture has for Jews.
You: Sorry, AG. If they believed Christ was Jeremiah, they believed in reincarnation. Christianity doesn't believe in reincaration. Resurrection is not reincarnation, contrary to what you say.
Also if you do not wish to see resurrection as a reincarnation that is fine with me. I will continue to see a parallel, i.e. same spirit, different body. And I will continue to see re-animation (as in the two witnesses who were reincarnated, died and then reanimated and “taken up” --- and Lazarus et al) differently, i.e. same spirit, same body.
It is semantics.
Pride is a terrible self-destructive thing.
As FK once wrote, of the billions and billions of people who have walked this earth, if this was true don't you think you would be able to find a sinless man? If he did, then he is wrong. Unbaptized infants who die are innocent because they never get to walk on earth and do evil things.
Abraham thought for sure there should be some righteous people in Sodom
There was — one.
THIS Reformed Baptist believes that God saves people according to His will and good pleasure. He saves them by His grace and mercy alone...
You mean by His loving grace and mercy?
Whether you're an aborted baby or a 95 year old man who, on his death bed accepts the Lord, everyone comes to God in the same fashion. We are instilled with His faith and mercy through grace
Infants have no faith, so they cannot be saved. You basically proved my previous observation that Protestants/Baptists by necessity believe all infants who die (whether baptized or not) go to hell. Isn't that the so-called Reformed theology, HD?
This is silly.
The Apostles go into great detail about the qualities that individuals should exhibit to be selected by their congregations to be pastors. The decision making in the early church was done by the congregation, or by groups selected by the congregation. The autocratic hierarchy only emerged after the end of the Apostolic era. BTW, it is only after the emergence of this hierarchal system that doctrines are accepted that place the church between man and GOD.
If you don't mind my jumping in, Scripture isn't clear on this. However, God knows who his elect are from before we are created. Baptism and the LORD's Supper do not impart Grace so it would not be inconsistent to believe that God has taken them home.
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.