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/
Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament Law. The New Covenant was an everlasting covenant, much like the promises to Abraham. In Jeremiah the New Covenant was made to the JEWS. We know that the New Covenant did not obliterate the old promises towards the Jews for God’s promises are sure and the prophecies towards Israel are being fulfilled to this day. We know in Zechariah that there will be a day when the remnant of national Israel accepts Christ. During that same time there will be a sacrificial system in the Temple. We were grafted in. We did not obliterate the promises to God’s chosen Israelites as you know full well as well from the dispensational thread. Beyond that, I do not have to answer you for I have already dealt with this subject at length in other threads. I know speaking with you about it is ‘spinning my wheels’ and have much better things to do with my time. You will believe what you believe and I believe what I believe and we aren’t changing each other’s minds, so why not leave it at that? The discussion originally was over blessing verses the impartation of grace during the ordinances. I answered those questions in full and have shown where I believe your view to be problematic. Either grace is a gift exclusive of ANY human works or it isn’t.
I've noticed whenever these dispensational topics are being discussed, the emphasis is always on the Old Testament to the very real exclusion of the New Testament. It's almost as if they stopped reading right before Matthew.
Every word of Hebrews denies the dispensational error of a reconstructed blood Israel. The only blood that matters is the blood of Christ. The only covenant now in place is the New Covenant.
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." -- Hebrews 8:13
The Messianic view is either right or wrong. If it is a false view then we should say why we feel it is wrong. If it’s correct then we should all become Messianic Jews. Simply saying it’s “their opinion” isn’t a very convincing argument.
Yep, I do!!! :^)
And we know that all the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in His Seed, Jesus Christ.
“Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.” (Gal 3:16)
All those who place their faith in Jesus Christ share in the blessings and promises made to Father Abraham. In order for Israel after the flesh to receive these blessing, they must be found “in Christ” plain and simple.
The new covenant that Christ made in His blood was made with the house of Israel and house of Judah, just as promised. But we know from Paul’s writing that it is only the remnant of Israel that is being saved and truly receives all these promises, which they share with the faithful gentiles who also trust in Christ.
But that still leaves us with the fact that the old covenant has passed away. All the types and shadows were temporary, and were decaying when Jesus Christ arrived on the scene. No one can approach God any longer by these old covenant types, since the Antitype has arrived.
“For I bear them witness that they [Israel] have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom. 10:2)
Hebrews teaches that without the shedding of blood there is no remissions of sins. The old covenant sacrifices were a type of the true Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. Once Christ appeared all those temporary forms of approaching God by the blood of animals were made obsolete. If the shedding of animal blood is obsolete, then the priesthood which offered the sacrifices is also obsolete.
It’s all connected together.
And so we find that there is no old covenant “Passover” meal today which God has any regard for. To engage in a Passover ritual for religious reasons if to fundamentally undermine the sacrifice of Jesus Christ once for all, and is an abomination before the Lord.
What you seem to minimize is that the remnant (“all Israel”) is being saved even today. “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5). That is what Paul and all the other NT writers taught. Paul tells us in the conclusion of Romans 11 that “all Israel” will be saved in this manner, according the remnant promises.
You must interpret Zechariah in this context or you will get it wrong every time, and end up like the apostate Jews who rejected Jesus at His first coming.
The discussion originally was over blessing verses the impartation of grace during the ordinances.
Indeed, and I still fail to see the distinction you are trying to make between blessing and grace wrt the sacraments. I think there is something there, but it’s not clear to me what it is. I’d like to help you out but I do not have much to go on.
[24] MATT. 22:29,31. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying. EPH. 2:20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. With ACTS 28:25. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the prophet unto our fathers.
Thus the revelation of God in the Scriptures stands as incontrovertible and dispositive, which is to say that the Scriptures themselves are not a private interpretation of mere mortals. The Scriptures come from the will of God not the will of men.
I assert that one always receives the Scriptures as the revelation of God and therefore incontrovertible and dispositive when he has also received the power of God through the indwelling Spirit, because the Spirit Himself authenticates the words as His own. Which is the substance of the verses in footnote 24 plus Peter's testimony above.
Not ALL of the promises to Abraham were fulfilled, nor where the all of the promises to the children of Israel. But you know where I stand on that.
As far as the distinction between grace and blessing, I can’t say any more. I’ve tried to be as explicit as possible. We will just have to disagree.
So if you want to talk about the promises to Israel, like the so-called “land promise” you must restrict you subject material to the unfiltered OT (untouched by the NT that is).
This can be demonstrated by examining the writings of folks like Dr. Robert Thomas at The Master's Seminary. His theory is that when the Jesus and the apostles read the OT prophecies and applied them to Christ, they were forced to reinterpret and change the meaning of the original prophecies, since they all had to do with Israel, not Jesus.
Thomas writes:
NT writers applied OT texts to situations entirely different from what the corresponding OT contexts entailed. The NT writers disregarded the main thrust of grammatical-historical meaning of the OT passages and applied those passages in different ways to suit different points they wanted to make. They may have maintained some connecting link in thought with the OT passages, but the literal OT meanings are absent from the citations. ...We may call this nonliteral use an "inspired sensus plenior application" of the OT passage to a new situation. Such a usage is "inspired" because the NT writing in which it appears is inspired by God. It is "sensus plenior" in that it gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an application because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.
Yes, you heard right, boys and girls. Jesus, et al were not “grammatical-historical literalists” when they interpreted the OT prophecies. I’ve been arguing this for years against the dispensational approach, and have been pooh-poohed by the futurist literalists. Finally one of their own is saying the exact same thing!
Read the FIDE-O blog for more information: Does the Bible Mean What It Says.
Moved by the Holy Spirit but the words were the words were the words of instrument(s) he used.. No doubt the prophets had different personalitys and qualia.. The feeling of the scripture they wrote was unique.. as were the gospels.. and letters of Paul.. What a wonderful thing.. that scripture can have "a personality".. Moved to be written by the Holy Spirit but with/a personality of the writer..
Like a painting painted with colors on different types of media.. wood, stone, glass, precious stone or even holographic metaphor(that is a vision).. Never saw theis verse this way before.. thanks..
Which ones were not included in Paul's words which I quoted from Galatians 3? “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.”
You seem to be denying the clear message in Galatians. Where does anyone in the NT differentiate between promise set A and promise set B (or C or whatever)?
Nowhere, right? You simply asserting something to be true which is not given us in the Bible in order to make sense of your theology.
That fact is that all the promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and all who are His children by faith share in those blessings and promises. When God looks down on His people He does not pick out Jews and gentiles and assign different things. We are all one in Christ.
That is what makes dispensationalism so hard to swallow. You need to disregard large sections of the NT, and then go back and read the OT as if the NT did not even exist.
Acts 15:11 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
It may have been a heated discussion, but the mere fact that it is a discussion sheds light on the structure of the early church.
Also in Acts we are given another example of how leadership was determined locally.
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers...
It is the fruits of the Spirit that reveal the qualities of leadership, not a monobishophoric hierarchy.
It's nice to see the number climbing. The last time I saw this thrown out it was 20,000. :-0
AMEN!
When the non-Christian is asked to give the basis and starting for the orderly universe and external reality, he points to literally nothing. All has risen from nothing by the irrational mechanism of chance. When asked if something can miraculously pop into being from nothing in an instant the non-Christian vigorously responds in the negative. Instant miracles are out of the question! But when asked if something can come out of nothing if given several billion years, the non-Christian confidently responds in the affirmative. As Van Til, has noted, the non-Christian overlooks the fact that if one zero equals zero, then a billion zeros can equal only zero. Thus, the Christian has a more than adequate reason for the universe, whereas the non-Christian has no reason whatsoever...""When asked to give the basis and starting point for the orderly universe and all external reality, the Christian points to the self-contained, omnipresent all-powerful, all-wise God of Scripture.
From --
Every now and then we can agree. :-)
Wrong topcat. We look at both the New and Old as equally inspired. You seem to ignore the Old.
I do not deny Galatians. The promise of the land has not been fulfilled.
The bringing back into the land in the latter days has been partially fulfilled.
Much of the OT is future.
LoL... Mee Too..
I only know one way we can be righteous before God and it sure isn't the result of anything I've done.
How did this excellent thread get side-tracked into yet another wearying defense of dispensationalism and its 19th century errors?
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.