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/
Do you pray for your resurrection? Or are you sure of it?
While you are at this, tell me why did Jesus pray? Why do we pray?
What's the difference? Why is this significant, with the understanding that "He was raised" is not exclusionary of Christ's Divine power?
It's extremely significant! If he did not raise Himself of His own power, than He is not fully God, but somoene who depends on God's power. The trinitarian error of +Paul's is as clear as glass here: when he wrote this he either did not consider Christ to be fully God, or he tought of Christ as a lesser God, a divine Son subordained to God.
Jesus says flat out in John 20:29 - "Because you have seen me, you have believed; ..."
He did (as a matter of fact, not praise) but He didn't come to this earth for that purpose. We are not converted by seeing miracles. Even Satan can apprar as the Angel of Light, so perceptions can be deceiving.
Rather than lightning bolts from Mount Olympus, we know about a God who condescended to take human form and perform miracles Himself to convert the first Christians.
That's not what the Bible says. The Bible mentiones that God will inscribe Himself in the hearts of Israel, which is the OT announcement of the New Covenant repeated in Heb 8. he says nothing of miracles. If God could harden Pharao's heart, He surely could have softened the hearts of the elect without miracles.
But we have come to rationalize that now we don't need miracles to believe. Clearly that's becase no one is raising people from the dead nowadays. If people were being raised from the dead, the churches wouldn't be able to accommodate all the new believers. We are all running on empty, believing we have enough gas to keep us going for ever.
This does not appear to mesh with the general Apostolic belief that great power was voluntarily turned over to the Apostles and their chosen successors by God without prayer by them as a catalyst
I don't know who general belief that is; it sounds like hocuspocus to me. God's uncreated energies are the ones that accomplish His work. Those hwo are holy participate in those uncreated energies through prayer and priesthood. They are merely the means with which these energies are conduicted.
The efficacy of a priest's prayer or sacrament is not affected by his character flaws. For no priest is free form sin. Whether a pilot is a rotten character and a wife abuser does not invalidate his piloting skills. he may be a rotten human being but he may be a perfect pilot.
Everything a priest does involves a prayer. The priest has no power of his own to bless or to forgive. It is the HS that blesses and forgives and not the priest. He can only petition the HS to bless you and forgive you. The priest does not change the bread and wine; the HS does.
A priest's prayer does not have to be perfect. As long as he is performing his duty as a priest his prayer is what it was supposed to be. In other words, in the performance of his priestly duties.
"BEV" Mary conceived through the purity of God's good, pleasing, and perfect will, not through the "yeah, OK" of some young teenager. :) She wasn't forced, her heart was changed just as it is in all believers. She wanted to obey God, and said OK because God specifically ordained that she would
I feel so bad that you are so blind, FK, as to not see the falsity of your reasoning which is something like this: If you watch this light, you will be getitng sleeply...now that I have hypnotized you, you will believe what I tell you to believe and when you wake up you will "want" to believe me, all on your "free" will.
It's so pathetic that you believe God changes our hearts unilaterally, "enslaving" us without us knowing it...You ruly believe that we "want" God when in fact he merely reprogrammed us and we have nothing to with it whatsoever.
Then what is an encyclical??.. but personal opinion..
So then.. you don't "like" metaphors and believe them to contain not MORE information bur LESS.. That metaphors are not a richer more detailed example of discourse but an example of unnecessary information?.. And Jesus who used metaphor almost exclusively.. was not very clear in his speaking.. You know; GOD, that has a public speaking problem..
One wonders what "other" of Jesus spiritual metaphors have you missed... and counted them literal..
That's the version in the Dell fragment in the Vatican Library.
Alternate translations were proposed but "I sweet-potatoe what I sweet-potatoe" (that was the Quayle variant MS) was determined to make no sense. While some argued that it was a little late in the day to start worrying about making sense, the majority of scholars determined that at least the appearance of comprehensibility should be preserved, so that reading was declared spurious by acclamation. However a small but obese cult still insists on that translation. They also maintain that that stuff in Popeye's pipe ain't exactly Kentucky Burley if you catch my drift. To the ritual meal of hamburgers and spinach, this sect adds sweet-potato fries.
Fat and Happy, the foundation of this sect is lost in the mists of history and legend, but the first High Priest, J. Wellington Wimpy, was noted for a surprisingly sophisticated doctrine of Proleptic Eschatology, neatly summed up in the liturgical formula, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. A number of Congressional Democrats are rumored to be secret adherents of the sect, to which Teddy the Hutt bears the same relationship that the Twelfth Imam bears to some sects of Islam.
A serious heresy arose from this sect, the cult which teaches that Bluto and Popeye are actual different avatars of the same Divine principle, Olive Oyl, whose love "moves the sun and other stars."
Oh! I think it's time for my medication.
And while I'm not especially interested in kumbaya as a life-style, it seems to me the Eucharist is so rich a thing that there must be acres of areas in which we can find agreement. There's a lot in Calvin to love, IMHO.
Thank you so much for your encouragements!
Modern Roman Catholics and "Orthodoxy" both deny the Blood of Christ, therefore are not "genuine".
Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned.
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation.
Rome denies the Blood of Christ, most particularly, through it's dogma of penance, which atonement for sins committed after baptism must be made by the sinner, which denies the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ to have been the full and total payment for sin.
Rome has also perverted the Gospel by making other dogmas necessary elements which absolutely must be believed in order to be saved, such as the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, papal infallibility, penance and subservience to the pope of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church.
In reality, the Roman Catholic religion looks nothing like the early primitive Church at all.
By the way, you are aware that the seven Epistles of Ignatius from which you cited are disputed as spurious don't you?
I already have, where the Douay Rheems has "do penance" and "penance", the original says, "repentance".
LOL! Funny. Here is something written 1800 years ago by St. Irenaeus that I found equally hilarious.
There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all thought, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart from themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus. (LOL!!!) For if it is fitting that that language which is used respecting the universe be transformed to the primary Tetrad, and if any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?
(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 11)
Seems that sarcasm was part of his weaponry vs. the Gnostics.
Regards
I thought you might like a break from your heavy-duty theologizing of our separated brothers. I forgot to include you in the reply.
There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all thought, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart from themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus. (LOL!!!) For if it is fitting that that language which is used respecting the universe be transformed to the primary Tetrad, and if any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?
(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 11)
Seems that sarcasm was part of his weaponry vs. the Gnostics.
Regards
Like I said before (and you conveniently took off running), you obviously haven't read "Against Heresies", and I find it equally unlikely you have read anything else the men of the first two centuries of the common era wrote. If you actually DID read them, you would have a serious change of heart.
Again, read them yourself. Not just clips out of context that try to prove something that is an outright lie.
Regards
Like I said before (and you conveniently took off running)
I suppose using a snippy smear like that provides yet another delusion of actually scoring some points, eh?
No one "conveniently took off" as the snippy smear insinuates.
For a dose of reality, I actually tend to be rather busy, most of the time, like a lot of people, and do not always get to respond to or even see everything that is said. Maybe there are some who have nothing else to do but to sit in anxious anticipation for everything said here to respond to, but I can assure you I am not one of them.
, you obviously haven't read "Against Heresies", and I find it equally unlikely you have read anything else the men of the first two centuries of the common era wrote. If you actually DID read them, you would have a serious change of heart.
Actually, I HAVE read them, and find that the Roman Catholic religion distorts them as much as it does Scripture and the Gospel.
Point remains, he was doing something to give example of repentance.
When John the Baptist was preaching as the forerunner of Christ, his preaching of repentance and baptism, which was scandalous at the time because baptism was for gentile converts to Judaism and not for Jews. The repentance or the changing of the heart and mind away from the false religion taught by the Pharisees and rulers of Judaism at the time to the true faith taught by the Scriptures which anticipated the Messiah, who would be God wrapped in Human flesh is nowhere close to the perverted dogma of penance which Rome developed in the middle ages.
That repentance preached by John the Baptizer and Christ, was not penance as works by man to atone for sins committed after baptism as Rome came to teach as part of a legalistic system of religion which is contrary to the Gospel of Christ and ultimately is a denial of the sufficiency of the Atoning Blood of Christ.
True faith includes obeying the Gospel, no?
I pray that Rome would obey the Gospel instead of it's distorted version.
Of course, we are all busy, and I apologize if you think I implied otherwise. However, I do note that you have taken up conversation with other people after my post to you. Does that mean that you have forgotten our discussion or do you find that your time is better spent attacking your ideas of Catholicism rather than defending your own incorrect point of view which I corrected?
Don't believe me, if you think I jest. If you want to learn the truth, take a break from this forum, and pick up some of the Church Fathers and read them for yourself, rather than William Webster's out of context clips... If you dare to learn the truth. I say that because, if you are honest and open, you will be forced to make a decision - to continue to lie, or to change your opinion. And the later is more difficult, I assure you. I was there once.
Regards
I interpret that to mean...
"I pray that Rome obeys my version of the Gospel instead of its own version"
I find this to be nearly universal. Protestants think that Rome doesn't follow the Gospel because Rome doesn't follow THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION. Never mind that Rome can point to Scriptures and any unbiased person can see that the Bible can be interpreted a multidude of ways.
Again, to bring up St. Irenaeus of Lyons. If you would read some of "Against Heresies", you will discover that the problem of "correct interpretation" was a major part of HIS time, as well. WHO has the authority to offer the official interpretation? That is the question that is rarely addressed. Protestants implicitly demand that THEY THEMSELVES are the official interpreter of the Bible, even if the community as a whole tells them they are wrong!
How arrogant is that?
Regards
Of course, we are all busy, and I apologize if you think I implied otherwise. However, I do note that you have taken up conversation with other people after my post to you.
Well, maybe try noting that when someone gets busy, as I SAID, things get overlooked, and missed. It's as simple as that. Try it sometime rather than jumping to a conclusion that is false and then used as a snippy, petty smear.
You wrote back: Actually, I HAVE read them, and find that the Roman Catholic religion distorts them as much as it does Scripture and the Gospel.
With all due respect, I do not believe you. ANYONE who has read even large sections of "Against Heresies" would have a difficult time showing that Irenaeus believed in "Sola Scriptura", because he repeats over and over again, AGAINST heretics, that only the CHURCH properly interprets the Scriptures.
Not only that, he defends those Christians who NEVER READ THE BIBLE - AND HE PRAISES THEM!
Not a ringing endorsement for Sola Scriptura, brother...
"To this order of the Tradition, the many people of the barbarians who believe in Christ give their assent, having salvation written in their hearts without paper or ink by the Spirit, and guarding diligently the old tradition" St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 4, 2. c. 180 AD.
Ouch...
You want more? Then pick it up and read it. Or I can post you all kinds of clips where he tells us that only the Church can interpret Scriptures correctly...
Regards
You haven't "corrected" anything.
Don't believe me, if you think I jest. If you want to learn the truth, take a break from this forum, and pick up some of the Church Fathers and read them for yourself, rather than William Webster's out of context clips... If you dare to learn the truth. I say that because, if you are honest and open, you will be forced to make a decision - to continue to lie, or to change your opinion. And the later is more difficult, I assure you. I was there once.
I have read then and still do, having been reading them for the past 10 years, and find that Roman Catholicism distorts them, takes them out of context and reads later Roman inventions back into them where they do not exist, just as Roman Catholicism does the Scriptures and history.
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.