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/
That was a development among some that was not accepted by all, or even most, but was debated with no consensus of agreement.
Infants of believing households were always welcomed into the covenant by baptism as a sign and seal of God's grace.
Indeed, infants, as were entire households were welcomed into the New Covenant from the very beginning, and is recorded in Acts as you well know. That is a FAR CRY from the blasphemous position of the RCC which says the sprinkling of holy water cleanses a baby of original sin and gives them free passage into the family of God by virtue of the sacrament. Baptismal regeneration is a lie.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the concept of baptismal regeneration washing away original sin in infants in the first several centuries of the Church. As much as I admire and love Augustine, his views, which he always stated as personal opinion, on infant baptism washing away the stain of original sin were a much later development and was not accepted by all, nor at that time was there a consensus on the matter.
Rome has shown that it can take most anything and turn it into idol worship.
Jesus, Paul, Peter and John all warned us of the heresies brought in by Rome:
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
Reformers believe that God watches over our salvation and we trust Him that He won't let us slip up. This seems to be more in keeping with the writings of the apostles who wrote to "the elect".
Of course, your statement does raise the question that if an infant Catholic were to die right now, are they assured of their salvation? How about an adult? If they are assured (even an infant) then aren't they one of the elect? If not then your statement is incorrect.
hey there’s some folks who actually still stick to 1 corinthians too!
Indeed. I hope you know that Catholics fully affirm that verse (and every other verse in the Bible).
It doesn't say, "The Canons of the Church I will obey that I might go to heaven."
I hope you know that the argument from silence is a fallacy.
You cannot evaluate whether 'sola scriptura' is true or not while at the same time depending on 'sola scriptura' as the basis of grounds for the evaluation. That is not intellectually honest.
It was enough of a dogma that the Council of Trent rescinded it
Enough of a dogma? Such a statement shows that you have no idea what the term 'dogma' means in a Catholic context. I recommend Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
This seems to be more in keeping with the writings of the apostles who wrote to "the elect".
You seem to be assuming that Scripture usese a univocal conception of election. Jimmy Akin shows here that there is good reason to distinguish 'election to grace' and 'election to glory'.
Of course, your statement does raise the question that if an infant Catholic were to die right now, are they assured of their salvation?
Validly baptized infants, being infants, ordinarily have no beliefs or knowledge, and hence have no assurance. It is *we* who can have assurance concerning the fate of validly baptized infants.
How about an adult? If they are assured (even an infant) then aren't they one of the elect? If not then your statement is incorrect.
I think your question here is presuming a univocal notion of election. See my reference above to the Akin article that distinguishes two distinct conceptions of election used in Scripture. As I said earlier in this thread, the Catholic conception of assurance does not depend upon knowing one's election [to glory] status. Adult Catholics can be assured [using the Catholic conception of assurance that I defined previously] of their salvation, even while not knowing whether they are elect for glory.
-A8
I assert that miracles are evidence of the power of God and assurance comes from knowing Him. Faith is different, it is the evidence of things yet unseen.
God forbid. Sola Scriptura is a superstitious belief that Divine Revelation is wholly contained in the written word, rather than in the entirety of the Word as revealed to the Church. To stick by the plain reading of the text is simply common sense. It speaks nothing of things not in the text; it merely honors the text and avoids traditions of men that invarably creep into the Protestant interpretations.
EXCELLENT!
I intend to steal it. Often.
Annalex, it isn't what I read into it but it is what it means. I was also surprised, to say the least, that it meant that.
Leviticus 20:12 And if a man lie with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
17....he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Gen.1:21.And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22.and Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Seeing your father in a naked state may not be pretty but it wouldn't cause the birth of a child.
....Ping
It is still a complete speculation; Ham did not even uncover his father, but merely saw him uncovered.
Please do my FRiend!
Talk about the traditions of men! Catholics have as many of them as any other religion. Cheez.
We do. Sign of the cross, the genuflexions, the novenas, fish on Friday, are all outside of the doctrines of the Church. What we don’t do is read “water” and think “womb” or read “not by faith alone” and think “by faith alone”, or “hold the traditions which you have learned” and think “sola scriptura”.
Amen, Quix. I could use a couple myself. But I’ll still love God if I don’t get them. He knows best.
It's difficult to accept but it isn't speculation. Verse 24 tells us that: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Ham "uncovered his father's nakedness".
Lev. 20:11 - And the man that lieth with his father's wife "hath uncovered his father's nakedness...
......Ping
I really enjoyed this post - thank you.
......Ping
The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.-—”Against the Heathen”, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)””
Perhaps you should read the whole thing!
“4. IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE, AND REJECT PART.
For whence do Marcion and Manichaeus receive the Gospel while they reject the Law? For the New Testament arose out of the Old, and bears witness to the Old; if then they reject this, how can they receive what proceeds from it? Thus Paul was an Apostle of the Gospel, ‘which God promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures[3]:’ and our Lord Himself said, ‘ye search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me[4].’ How then shall they confess the Lord unless they first search the Scriptures which are written concerning Him? And the disciples say that they have found Him, ‘of whom Moses and the Prophets did write[5].’ And what is the Law to the Sadducees if they receive not the Prophets[6]? For God who gave the Law, Himself promised in the Law that He would raise up Prophets also, so that the same is Lord both of the Law and of the Prophets, and he that denies the one must of necessity deny the other also. And again, what is the Old Testament to the Jews, unless they acknowledge the Lord whose coming was expected according to it? For had they believed the writings of Moses, they would have believed the words of the Lord; for He said, ‘He wrote of Me[7].’ Moreover, what are the Scriptures to him of Samosata, who denies the Word of God and His Incarnate Presence[9], which is signified and declared both in the Old and New Testament? And of what use are the Scriptures to the Arians also, and why do they bring them forward, men who say that the Word of God is a creature, and like the Gentiles ‘serve the creature more than’ God ‘the Creator[1]?’ Thus each of these heresies, in respect of the peculiar impiety of its invention, has nothing in common with the Scriptures. And their advocates are aware of this, that the Scriptures are very much, or rather altogether, opposed to the doctrines of every one of them; but for the sake of deceiving the more simple sort (such as are those of whom it is written in the Proverbs, ‘The simple believeth every word[2]),’ they pretend like their ‘father the devil[3]’ to study and to quote the language of Scripture, in order that they may appear by their words to have a right belief, and so may persuade their wretched followers to believe what is contrary to the Scriptures. Assuredly in every one of these heresies the devil has thus disguised himself, and has suggested to them words full of craftiness. The Lord spake concerning them, that ‘there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, so that they shall deceive many[4].’ Accordingly the devil has come, speaking by each and saying, ‘I am Christ, and the truth is with me;’ and he has made them, one and all, to be liars like himself. And strange it is, that while all heresies are at variance with one another concerning the mischievous inventions which each has framed, they are united together only by the common purpose of lying[5]. For they have one and the same father that has sown in them all the seeds, of falsehood. Wherefore the faithful Christian and true disciple of the Gospel, having grace to discern spiritual things, and having built the house of his faith upon a rock, stands continually firm and secure from their deceits. But the simple person, as I said before, that is not thoroughly grounded in knowledge, such an one, considering only the words that are spoken and not perceiving their meaning, is immediately drawn away by their wiles. Wherefore it is good and needful for us to pray that we may receive the gift of discerning spirits, so that every one may know, according to the precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and whom to receive as friends and of the same faith. Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient[6] for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.”
What does the first sentence say, which is the theme of the whole part? IT PROFITS NOT TO RECEIVE PART OF SCRIPTURE AND REJECT PART.
Where does it say ‘Holy Scripture ONLY is of all things sufficient for us? It addresses Authority of Scripture, not Sola Scriptura.
Lets see what else Anthansisus says...
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D.
If I were you,I would be careful quoting the Blessed Saint Anthanasius!
Sorry to but in your conversation Jo kus,Dear friend
There is no “Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness” anywhere. The episode in Gen 9 is told not as a metaphore but as a common occurence to anyone who has ever slept in a tired state (drunk or not): the clothes get uncovered. Ham is guilty of disrespect, while Sem and Japheth show respect. If, as you maintain, Ham did something other than look and tell others, then what sense does it make to describe the process of covering Noah in such physical detail?
First, yours is a speculation, — which I do not necessary fight or find “difficult to accept”, merely point out its extrascriptural nature. Second, the argument is about a putative sin of Noah, and not Ham. I agree on the main point, that Ham committed a sin, and earned himself a curse. Whether that sin was exactly as the Scripture described, gawking at his father as he slept, or there was something sexual the scripture chose not to explain, is of little concern to me.
Because by that time they will ALL know for sure that God is perfectly able and willing to handle EVERYTHING Himself. That's His job. :) They will know that God has already chosen those whom are His children and given them to Christ. Their prayers would be of no account toward changing God's mind.
And don't forget, God desires that men be saved. If we united our will to God in heaven, then WE desire all men to be saved, as well.
Those whom God wants to be saved, He saves. Those whom He doesn't want are lost. Either that's true OR God is a colossal failure as an omnipotent Being. If it's God's will to sluff it off and let men decide for themselves, then that would show that He just doesn't care who accepts Him. If He wanted all, then He would have all.
What exactly is your idea of heaven, in the reformed world?
Well, the answer to that could be attempted on a dozen different levels I suppose. Probably the instinct of most Reformers would be to include something like: "look to every place in the Bible where Jesus begins a sentence 'The Kingdom of Heaven is like ...' That's what Heaven is like". :)
I don't understand why you say it is "extrascriptural" when I gave you the scripture. I understand that the argument was about the supposed sin of Noah but as pointed out - it was not Noah that sinned. He was drunk, not a good thing, but not a sin. The sin lay in what his son did.
Leviticus 18:7-8 The nakedness of thy father and the nakedness of thy mother thou dost not uncover, she [is] thy mother; thou dost not uncover her nakednes. The nakedness of the wife of thy father thou dost not uncover; it [is] the nakedness of thy father.
God didn't curse Noah for a sin but Noah cursed the result of his son's sin, Canaan. Noah cursed the act and the product of the act. One can't think he did that because his son saw his naked, drunken body. Ham is guilty of much more than disrespect.
As you say, it may be of no concern to you I just thought you might want to know the true meaning of the scripture.
......Ping
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.