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/
Come to think of it the word "christian" is used like it means something on "these" threads..
A thread of what IS a christian could be useful.. since it is a pretty much nebulous word these days.. I know of people that think Jesus was a myth that call themselves "christians".. and WORSE..
Some even think a christian is one who accepts a measure of Roman Catholic doctrine.. or basically acts like a Roman Catholic but is not one..
All kinds of ideas out there.. the word is nebulous(probably)..
It does not reconcile our differences, but it does dilute and even obfuscate the principle points we are making. If I responded in kind, we would be taking up the entire bandwidth with quotes and counter-quotes without affecting either position.
This doesn't mean that we can't learn from each other by simply pointing to sources in the general direction. It's up to us to seek or not to seek. But ours is to speak what's in our hearts, not try to "convince" someone through exhaustion.
I am all for learning from each other. All people know all things, as a saying goes. Everyone knows something we don't. If you get a chance, read Tolstoy's Coffee House. It is very pertinent to our discussion (and attitude). Or, if you don't want to, then read his last three paragraphs to get the gest (my emphases): "Therefore, let him who sees the sun's whole light filling the world, refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all." So spoke the Chinaman, the student of Confucius; and all who were present in the coffee-house were silent, and disputed no more as to whose faith was the best. "The higher a man's conception of God, the better will he know Him. And the better he knows God, the nearer will he draw to Him, imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man.
And I do read the Scriptures, all the time, except that I check my readings against the combined wisdom of the Church and not seek my own hidden leanings attributed to the HS. I would never wish to blaspheme His name by saying it is Him and not me speaking.
My answer is there topcat. And I’ve defined it several times. Basically, grace is imparted by the grace of God irrespective of the individual’s will. We do not receive saving grace because we want it. We receive saving grace because God wills it. He gives us the want to. But our want to has nothing to do with our receiving His grace any more than our taking Lord’s Supper has to do with us receiving grace from Him. It is WHOLLY and entirely unmerited favor. A blessing may be closely related and may be unmerited or merited. God said I bless you because you...(obeyed, are righteous, etc.,) In the blessing, sometimes, but not always, our human deeds play a part. It is a subtle difference, but it is a significant one. If one attaches any work we do to our receiving His grace, if we merit it because of any action that we perform, then it is no more grace. It is works. Otherwise, Sola Gratia is destroyed.
Therefore, when one participates in the ordinances of God, one does not receive a special grace- for we receive the fullness of His saving grace when we are saved and He gives us grace throughout life at the pleasure of His will. We do receive the blessings associated with those ordinances though in that we draw closer to our Lord through obedience and fellowship with Him.
We must ever remember that God's Logos was spoken. It is a living Word, not words on paper. We can torture the written word all we want to make it give up meanings that are conducive to our understanding. But God's Logos surpasseth all human understanding. We must stand in His Grace to be One in His Truth.
Or so it seems to me.... FWIW!
Well, I liked The Passion despite noticing some Catholic elements. I thought it was very well done. The inclusion of demons was a bit odd, but I would not surprised if Satan was witnessing the victory of Christ.
Yup, three times!
Finally, the Orthodox gets SOMETHING right! :O)
All you have for the support of some non-vaginal birth for Christ is a hilariously weak interpretation of a single verse.
They don't talk about pastors but presbyters (priests), episkops (bishops), diakonos (deacons), etc. Perhaps your Protestant Bible calls them "pastors" but not so in Greek. In fact I can only think in Eph 4:11 where the Greek term poimen (shepherd) is translated as "pastor" in the entire NT.
The decision making in the early church was done by the congregation, or by groups selected by the congregation
The Council of Jerusalem was hardly a democratic decision. The major players, the apostles, decided. +Peter spoke and everyone listened. The Apostles were picked "autocratically" by Christ: basically he said "drop what you are doing and follow me."
+Paul was anything but a democrat. he expected the church leaders to be leaders, bishops to oversee, deacons to help carry out the administration of the Church.
The solid organization of the Church is evident before the end of the 1st century. I aloready referred to +Paul addressing the bishops (50-60 AD).
Christ was no longer there to pick and choose his disciples; so the disciples had to do it themselves. The elders, the experienced, were left to do that. It was an orderly succession, not a wild mushroom farm event, where every Joe could just start preaching.
You just consider orthodoxy as 'autocratic.' Well, either you are orthodox or you are not. Either what you believe is true faith or it is not. You can't be orthodox "a little bit." There is no gray zone, there is no wiggle room. And it's not a personal religion, tailored to your liking.
Once you start wiggling you end up with 33,000 denominations all claiming to be the "true church."
By the way, the clergy have less authority over you than your local traffic cop or your boss. They can't fire you. They can't arrest you. How can they be "autocratic?"
A thread of testimonies would be interesting, "I call myself Christian because..." - but in the end, God knows His own and He is known of them. (John 10)
Ah, but He was the Son of God as well as the son of man.
Infants have no faith, so they cannot be saved.
How do you know infants have no faith? John the Baptist leaped inside the womb at the present of our Lord. I wouldn't discount that fact.
Isn't that the so-called Reformed theology, HD?
No, here is what the Westminster Confession states (Chapter 10, Section 3):
1. Luke xviii. 15, 16 and Acts ii. 38, 39, and John iii. 3, 5, and 1 John v. 12, and Rom. viii. 9, compared. 2. John iii. 8. 3. 1 John v. 12; Acts iv. 12.
God knows what he knows. Ours is to do what he commanded us to do: baptize all nations in the name of the Holy Trinity. The rest is up to God. No point speculating.
Infants are innocent. If we truly believe that our God is a merciful and just God, then whatever happens to them is merciful and just.
betty boop: We must ever remember that God's Logos was spoken. It is a living Word, not words on paper
God's blessings are just that, blessings. What we do with them can be a blessing or a curse. The same goes for His scriputres.
And when the Orthodox split in 1000AD, did the apostlic succession go to Rome or stayed with the Orthodox? Who had the legal right to "lead" the flock?
Lot was not the Son of God.
How do you know infants have no faith?
I asked them. They threw up. :) All kididng aside, infants actually know calculus and quantim physics and truly believe that being selfish and having no sical graces is cool.
No, there is what the Westminster Confession states (Chapter 10, Section 3):
That's nice. There is some hope for the separated brethren.
Nor was Lot without sin. He, if you'll remember, wanted to take what looked the best. (I thought you meant the OTHER person.)
That's nice. There is some hope for the separated brethren.
We always have an escape clause.
How can you divide apostolic succession? Each bishop has his own lineage. There is no splitting. The Roman Catholic Church will receive an Orthodox priest without re-ordination and the same goes for catholic priests crossing over to Orthodoxy. The succeeded apostolic authority (ordination) remains valid in both Churches.
The Anglican priests on the other hand have to be ordained in order to become Orthodox or Roman Catholic priests.
It's not about leading the flock 'legally' — the east-west split is over theology. As long as we don't agree on some issues we cannot be in communion. That's the only thing thats separates us. There is no other separation. Neither side left the Church (apostolic authority).
That’s a question loaded with the potential for misunderstanding.
Let me ask you, what specifically do you mean by “wrong”, “celebrate” and “Passover”?
Covenantally speaking, what the Bible identified as “Passover” ended 2000 year ago when the Antitype of Passover, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, appeared in human flesh to take away sins of His people.
Passover was a type and shadow of the reality that was to come. It was part of the old covenant which Hebrews speaks of decayed and fading away (Heb. 8:13).
Today we find Jews who deny the fact that Messiah as has come in the flesh who still go about trying to “celebrate Passover” according to the rabbinic traditions that were developed in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple in AD70. It has become an unbloody celebration because they have no alternative. But it fundamentally denies who Jesus Christ is and what He did on the cross for His people.
Most Christians have no regard for Passover since they view it as part of the old covenant system that was temporary and fading away after the time of Christ. The priesthood, sacrifices, dietary laws, clothing laws, etc were all part of that older, temporary system.
However, within Christianity I can identify at least two groups that still have some regard for “Passover”. One group regards the identification with Passover not so much as a religious rite, but as a cultural or educational matter. For them it is a teaching tool, like these “Christ in the Seder” plays that are common around that time of the year. Most of these folks see no religious significance, i.e., God is neither pleased nor displeased with their activity. If they were to stop doing it tomorrow for whatever reason, they would have no problem since they are not bound by Scripture to observe the rite.
The other group is the one that does it for purely religious reasons. They believe God has authorized them to make whatever modifications necessary from the strict laws given in the Scripture regarding how to keep a proper Passover, and, further, they believe God is pleased with their attempts to keep this ersatz “Passover”.
It is this last group that I have difficulty with since I cannot justify their actions from Scripture. They misunderstand the nature of the covenant, and see continuity were none exists in the Bible. They even go so far as to encourage non-Jews to participate in their ersatz ceremonies.
And truly, words of God have been spoken, e.g. "let there be light." (Gen 1) Indeed, I assert that a thing is true because God speaks it. And words of God have been written:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
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.