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/
I’ve started 187 threads and posted 50,138 posts . . .
I think you’ve seen a small fraction of them.
The Calvinists and I have gone around and around many times.
I believe you, Q. I have not seen them, ergo my impression, although mistaken.
Why do you keep ignoring that this is supposed to happen in the "last days," BD? Joel's prophesy was not fulfilled because those were not the last days!
INDEED! AMEN!
Acts 2 was an early part of the beginning of the same CHURCH AGE, ERA, DISPENSATION
WHICH CHURCH/CHRISTIAN ERA would be around WHEN Israel became a Nation again as prophecied; use Hebrew as the National Language as prophecied and as never occurred with any other people group so widely dispersed;
etc. etc. etc. And, interestingly, Scripture indicates that many Bible greats wanted to be in the era of the closing acts of the play. Perhaps they knew some things we don't yet realize or realize fully.
Thankfully, Holy Spirit is within and around to lead us as necessary--as Christ said--MY SHEEP KNOW MY VOICE.
“Why do you keep ignoring that this is supposed to happen in the “last days,”
Once again, here is the passage.
Acts 2:14-18, “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”
Notice Peter says in response to the accusation that they were drunk, “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” Now what was the “this” they were talking about? Why the pouring out of the Spirit on the gathered disciples; a partial fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel.
The next part of the passage; the further part of the prophecy, “19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:” won’t be fulfilled until the “day of the Lord come”.
Amen.
Oh, I see, so the End of Times started 2,000 years ago...and going strong...
That's a streeeeetch....
Not a stretch at all. Fairly plain Scripture.
Peter seemed to indicate it started back then when he mentioned Joel.
Yet, it could not happen in terms of Daniel’s 70th week etc. until Israel was gathered back to The Promised Land as a Nation . . . 1948.
As well as the Gospel being preached to every people group/language [projected to be 2025].
As well as the global government . . . looming closer and closer . . .
As well as the global government’s Mark of the Beast . . . very close to implementation-say perhaps within say 3-12 years.
As well as knowledge being greatly increased and available to all . . .
As well as travel being rapidly to and fro over the whole earth . . .
Those and many more END TIMES prophecied events were not true 2000 years ago when Peter called to mind the prophecy of Joel but they are true or near true now.
I still don’t understand the Scriptural 2000 years “soon.” But God has used many mysterious terms in Scripture. And . . . as He says . . . a day is as a thousand years . . . if that’s relevant.
In any case, there’s more than sufficient evidence to see that Scripture labels the church era as that era which contains the END TIMES. And, if we accept Scripture as truth, which I do—then Peter’s mention of Joel has some sort of application. AND CLEARLY the events prophecied re the end times which did not yet occur until our generation CERTAINLY HAVE TO BE THE MAJOR PART OF THE END TIMES.
Of course, folks can deny any part of the above they wish.
The more I read the scriputres, the more I am beginning to believe it was written by lawyers!. There is not a single word in it that doesn't have more than one meaning.
I certainly agree that “this generation” applies to the generation in our era in the hear and now which saw Israel become a nation gain in a day in 1948 and will be around, at least as representd by some memember(s) when the concluding & related prophecies are fulfilled.
Yes, God has embedded plenty multiple meanings and mysteries in Scripture.
I believe that He expects Holy Spirit to lead each individual in a fuller understanding of such passages. This would also require each individual to be in close ongoing dialogue with God to receive such insights from Holy Spirit. Certainly that is also a very Scriptural goal and Godly high priority.
“Oh, I see, so the End of Times started 2,000 years ago...and going strong...”
Actually, the “end of times” began as soon as Adam sinned and the only thing keeping us from the “day of the Lord” is His grace and mercy.
You are right that under my belief there could be a "pro forma" element to it. However, being formally judged as among the elect is an experience I do not want to miss, anyway. :)
The confusion is that Paul is often ambiguous on "salvation". Sometimes, it refers to that one moment where we accept Jesus as our Lord and beg for forgiveness. Sometimes, it is referring to a current healing or sanctification, and at times, he refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven after we die. Thus, it is a mistake to appropriate the definition of one meaning and apply it to ALL of Paul's use of the word.
Well, as you well know, salvation "can" be a complex issue, hence two good Christians may disagree about it. On one level, salvation may be as simple as John 3:16. On other levels there is disagreement about how it is obtained. I think Paul does an excellent job of covering ALL the angles. For example, Paul preaches Sola Fide, and at the same time throttles the plain meaning of OSAS. Theologically, that's quite a balancing act, but God (through Paul) pulls it off flawlessly.
"Salvation" can correctly be used in all three of your examples above. Yet, there is only "one" salvation. Paul emphasizes different aspects of it to different audiences, based on their needs. When all of his writings are taken as a whole, one coherent theology emerges.
Paul never comes out and says "I'm of the elect of heaven" or "I am going to heaven, regardless of what I do". He says he is saved with confidence that IF he continues to persevere through the grace of God, he will attain the goal, have finished the race. He never says he has completed the race already. The very idea of race doesn't give in to the idea of "already a done deal".
What??? :) Paul doesn't hedge on this. He shows the same assurance that he preaches:
2 Tim 4:6-7 : 6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
These are the words of a man who has no use for "ifs". He is absolutely clear in his assurance of salvation.
[Re: 1 Cor. 3] FK: "While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation."
Now you are using special pleading to twist the meaning of the word "death". When does death mean "punishment without loss of salvation"? Can you point me to an example of a person dying spiritually while maintaining his seat in Heaven???
Where is the word "death"? The word is "destroy", and I was saying that it can have more than one meaning. ...... It is not possible for one to die spiritually after once having been alive spiritually. Therefore, the question is moot.
WHICH salvation is not lost?! That one moment in time of the past, or our current status in God's eyes or our future position in heaven? See what happens when we discuss the word "salvation"? It has multiple meanings.
Salvation does not have multiple meanings, it has different ways of being expressed through different emphases. Paul spent much time emphasizing Sola Fide, and he was correct. James spent much time emphasizing that works are included with true faith and will/must happen with the true believer. James was also correct, but both were speaking of the same salvation. And, the totality of scripture is clear that the one salvation revealed cannot be lost, once truly held.
[continuing re: 1 Cor. 3] The comparison in Protestant commentaries on these verses is to note that a person is just barely saved AS IF he had just escaped a burning house, with his clothes singed. This is a very problematic set of verses for Protestant theology.
Why is it problematic? I think you are stuck in semantics. Someone on my side could say that a person who will receive small reward in Heaven was "barely" saved, but that misses the truth that God saves whom He will, not "barely" but absolutely. I don't know which commentaries you are referring to, but I will be happy to disagree with them if I need to. :)
Again, verse 17 seals the deal. NO ONE who is "dead" or "destroyed" spiritually will enter heaven!
Your new favorite Protestant commentator, Barnes, strongly disagrees that this is the point of the verse. :) After explaining that "you" in the preceding verses refers to "the Church" as a whole, he goes on to say about verse 17:
1 Corinthians 3:17 : [If any man defile ...] Or, "destroy, corrupt" ftheirei. The Greek word is the same in both parts of the sentence. "If any man 'destroy' the temple of God, God shall 'destroy' him." This is presented in the form of an adage or proverb. And the truth here stated is based on the fact that the temple of God was inviolable. That temple was holy; and if any man subsequently destroyed it, it might be presumed that God would destroy him. The figurative sense is, "If any man by his doctrines or precepts shall pursue such a course as TENDS to destroy the church, God shall severely punish him. (from Barnes' Notes)
---------------
You have the tradition of Sola Scriptura. You know deep down that the Bible doesn't mention that anywhere. You know that the Catholic attack on Sola Scriptura makes sense.
LOL! You had me going there for a minute. :)
Worse, you maintain Sola Fide, which is DENIED in the Scriptures. This is to maintain the tradition that has been handed down to you, not because you came up with this teaching on your own reading of the Bible!
No, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchs deny Sola Fide, the scriptures don't. It is just a coincidence that Sola Fide severely threatens the power claimed and exerted by men.
AH, that is exactly what St. Athanasius challenged the Arians with! He asked them "HOW can you worship Jesus as God in the Eucharist, in Mass, if Jesus is not God"? This question on the liturgical practices of the Arians brought out the separation between practice and theological belief. They worshiped Christ and then said He wasn't God! How could they be true Christians - since only God is worshiped? They worshiped correctly but did not think out their heretical beliefs.
I'm intrigued, so what's the answer? :) Can non-Christians correctly perform and participate in the Eucharist? By my original point the answer has to be "no". That must be the case since you won't let a deadbeat Christian like me participate. :)
It appears that you agree with me that Paul grew in knowledge of God.
Yes, somewhere I have written to the contrary, but then I GREW, and recanted. :)
You are missing my understanding of "fully converted". Where does the Gospel tell us that this man "dropped everything and became a disciple of our Lord"? He had faith in Jesus' POWER TO HEAL, His authority over sickness. It doesn't follow that the Centurion had ANY clue that Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God or the Savior of the world. I think you are going way too far on your assumptions from what is written. IF the Centurion was "fully converted", he would have put aside his former life and followed Christ, which is what all disciples of Christ do.
By your standards neither of us is "fully converted" either. Christ does not command that all of us quit our jobs, sell all we have, and enter the ministry full time. In order to discount the story, you manufacture an artificial standard for the centurion. Christ did not ask him to do that.
How in the world do you infer from the text that the centurion's faith is limited ONLY to Jesus' power to heal? There is ZERO context for that. Jesus praises the man's faith, PERIOD. Do you seriously believe that the centurion thought that Jesus was just some sort of traveling psychic healer? If you were correct, then Jesus completely misspoke, or was flat-out wrong. Do you really think that Jesus would praise (and reward) such a man? NO WAY!
Mary KNEW better than any other human that Jesus would be the Savior of the world. The angel told her so at the Annunciation.
One would think so, yes. And yet ....
The incident in the Temple that you speak of is Mary not completely understanding God's plan of salvation and how she would be involved.
Baloney! :) In the first breath you tell me that Mary "KNEW". In the second breath you tell me she didn't "understand". Come on. :) At any given time she either knew/understood the identity of Christ or she didn't.
FK: "It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her."
In what ways? Explain your devotion to her. I would imagine you revere your favorite soap opera star more than the Mother of God.
In that case you have a very vivid imagination. :) In any event, I do not have spiritual devotion for Mary, as I only have spiritual devotion for God. The following describes the honor and respect for her that I have IN ADDITION to that which is due because she gave birth to our Lord and Savior: I do honor and respect Mary partially because of the way she handled herself at the Annunciation. She was a young teenager and faced a supernatural appearance. A normal reaction might be one of complete terror, but she held her own. Then, when she was told what was going to happen to her, she may have realized how dangerous this position was going to be for her, and yet she was gracious and accepting. More points for Mary. Finally, in her questions we see nothing but pure honesty. We see no sign of her questioning God's will. Here, she leaves Moses in the dust (under similar circumstances) by leaps and bounds! More points for Mary.
After the Annunciation we are given no concrete evidence (in my mind) that she sinned. That doesn't mean to me that she wasn't a "sinner", but I do infer that she was generally a righteous woman, a woman of God. She was a role model to us all. Then, she showed up at the cross along with John. Now, it might be expected that a mother would be there, but in this case she was risking her life AND BEFORE the cross she had every excuse in the universe to be an emotional basket-case. Yet, she showed up. More points for Mary. The last thing I can think of right now is that God honored her by bringing her first to the opened tomb. If God honored her thus, then I should give her honor also. ...... I didn't look any of this up, I thought you wanted a gut response as to why I do honor Mary. This is my honest answer.
Joel's prophesy was fulfilled. These are the last days.
Jas 5:2-3 Your riches have rotted, and your clothes have become moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their poison will be a witness against you, and will eat your flesh as fire. You heaped treasure in the last days.
Ditto.
Well, as you well know, salvation "can" be a complex issue, hence two good Christians may disagree about it. On one level, salvation may be as simple as John 3:16. On other levels there is disagreement about how it is obtained.
Certainly. Thus, Paul is not clear on the subject. The fact that you have two Protestants who disagree on this issue, two men who "look to the clarity of the bible", as you would say, STILL disagree on salvation - on whether it is a one-time event, whether it is an ongoing event, whether it is something we will not fully know about until the next life, and how to obtain it and maintain it. With such questions and disagreements, we will have to admit that the Bible alone does not adequately address the issue. That is why God gave us an infallible Church.
What??? :) Paul doesn't hedge on this. He shows the same assurance that he preaches:
2 Tim 4:6-7 : 6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
I don't see that as "absolute assurance" in the way you do. I see that as confidence that he had done the best he could and that God would reward him. I do not see that verse as absolute assurance.
Where is the word "death"? [on 1 Cor 3:17] The word is "destroy", and I was saying that it can have more than one meaning. ...... It is not possible for one to die spiritually after once having been alive spiritually. Therefore, the question is moot.
Again, I ask you WHERE in Scriptures does it state that a "destroyed" person enters heaven? That is a fantastical claim if I ever heard one. Moot point??? If you are spiritually dead or destroyed, you think you will enter heaven???
I would like you to consider this more carefully.
I disagree with Barnes in his explanation, as his attempt to call this verse an "adage" is wishful thinking. Where is his basis for this idea? I think it is an attempt to explain the verse away. Paul is attacking Christians in Corith, people who had previously been baptized and "saved", who were causing dissent among the community. He is reaching a climax here and continuing in 1 Cor 4. Whether you believe it is an adage or not, the effect is the same - God considers such men as spiritually destroyed. Dead. Or, if you prefer James, that man has dead faith - which cannot save.
Faith alone is dead.
No, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchs deny Sola Fide, the scriptures don't. It is just a coincidence that Sola Fide severely threatens the power claimed and exerted by men.
James 2 denies we are saved by faith alone. The bible NEVER explicitly states we are saved by faith alone. Paul himself says that faith without love is worthless. Where do you come up with this? And how does Sola Fide threaten what Christ established before Paul came on the scene?
I wrote: In what ways? Explain your devotion to her. I would imagine you revere your favorite soap opera star more than the Mother of God.
You responded: In that case you have a very vivid imagination. :) In any event, I do not have spiritual devotion for Mary
None of the stuff you mention are devotions, they are intellectual recognitions of what Mary did. This is not honoring Mary in any way. You recognize that the Great Wall of China exists. Big deal. The Bible says ALL generations will honor Mary. Thankfully, the Catholics and the Orthodox are around to do God's Will, as you are not...
Regards
WM: "It's nice to see the number climbing. The last time I saw this thrown out it was 20,000. :-0"
Yes, indeed. And if it wouldn't be too much to ask of my fellow Baptists/Protestants, I'd like to request that each of you extend your your left hand during the welcome time this coming Sunday. Depending on how tall you are, this could well be worth 2 or 3 new denominations. The reason I ask is that I'm part of a new Christian outreach program, and as soon as we reach 35,000 denominations I win a fresh set of tires for the Explorer! :)
The Holy Spirit is leading me to recognize the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. Does that mean that I am not one of the "faithful", or does it mean that you are not rightly following the Spirit?
-A8
If you can't or won't cite Scripture in defense of your positions, your positions just aren't worth very much to God or to Christian men and women.
Where exactly is that in the Bible?
-A8
Whose interpretation of Jesus's "This is my body" is authoritative?
-A8
Woah. So God is both good and evil? True and false? Light and dark?
If you claim that the LEM does not apply to God, you destroy the possibility of any meaningful claim about God, because then the contrary of any claim (about God) is not ruled out. In other words, if you say "God is good", while denying that the LEM applies to God, then you are allowing that it could also be true that God is evil, when then makes hash of your claim that God is good, sincen to claim that God is good *means* (by implication) that God is not evil.
-A8
Easy question.. The magisterium of your church is the charter of a club.. Your church is just "A" church.. and not "the" church.. Being faithful to a church is not same as being faithful to the Spirit.. The answer is all in John Ch 10..
Some come out of the sheep pens to follow the Lord and some are afraid to come out.. and remain there.. There are many sheep pens, even cults.. They may be sheep but are faithful to the pen not to the voice of the Lord either IN the Bible(Logos) or by his word to them personally(Rhema)..
Thanks for the opertunity to share this with the lurkers..
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.