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/
Funny how different ages have different ways of explaining away the very thought of a God who is truly born, truly lives, truly suffers, and truly dies and now is risen.
Long before we had a supreme court we had penumbras and emanations.
You think this is a good thing?
I find this to be nearly universal, that Roman Catholics regurgitate indoctrinated Roman Catholic revisions, inventions, forgeries, fraudulent documents and un-Biblical, anti-Christian dogmas that pervert the Gospel of Christ. And do so just as predicted by the Roman Catholic historian, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger:
"In the future every Roman Catholic when asked why he believes this or that can and may give but the one answer: I believe or reject it because the infallible Pope has bidden it to be believed or rejected"---Declarations and Letters, pgs. 101,101.
But that tired old Roman Catholic nonsense of "personal interpretation" itself is contrary to Scripture and the early Church, particularly in that the Gospel is so clear, so simply stated that no "special interpreter" is needed. The need of a "special interpreter" is what the Gnostics purport.
Never mind that Rome can point to Scriptures and any unbiased person can see that the Bible can be interpreted a multidude of ways.
Strange, especially since Rome came to interpret Matthew 16 in contradiction to the consensus of the church fathers, as well as a great many other passages that Rome reads it's invented doctrines into where they do not exist, such as the "two swords" doctrine of the unam sanctum.
Guess what? I don't care if you believe me or not. Roman Catholics are indoctrinated to see whatever Rome tells them to see.
ANYONE who has read even large sections of "Against Heresies" would have a difficult time showing that Irenaeus believed in "Sola Scriptura"
Firstly, that comes from a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura actually means. I suggest learning what it actually means instead of the caricature version.
because he repeats over and over again, AGAINST heretics, that only the CHURCH properly interprets the Scriptures.
Irenaeus also says that NO ONE can interpret the Scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, which is what Rome came to do. When Irenaeus spoke of the Church, he was NOT referring to the Roman Catholic religion at all, which is what Roman Catholics read into it that does not exist.
Thanks.
Much agree.
My sentiments, too.
Am a big fan of footwashing.
Adds a lot of punch to the closing of Tres Dias; Walk to Emmaus; Corsio.
Well put.
However,
As with Peter at the mount of Transifuration . . .
the flesh is always eager to build tabernacles and settle down and concretize, fossilize, manage, control, mangle, shape and manipulate events, experiences, symbols, rituals.
God will have none of it.
He wants . . .
DYNAMIC, ONGOING, DIALOGUE . . .
RELATIONSHIP.
LOL.
So, you assert that the origin of Dell computers arose from that fragment. Makes sense . . . if there is sense to be made.
LOL.
LUB
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Would you be kind enough to point out the exact post that was lifted from for some context, please?
Thanks
That argument is always amusing, since Roman Catholics have to make a PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of what Rome teaches them, or else Roman Catholics take everything on purely, blind trust that everything taught is the truth.
It goes like this, the pope or magesterium renders a teaching, that goes to the cardinals, who interpret what the pope and magesterium has taught.
Then it goes down to the archbishops, who interpret the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.
Then, it goes down to the bishops, who interpret the archbishop's interpretation of the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.
Then it goes down to the priest who interprets the bishop's interpretation of the archbishop's interpretation of the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.
Then each individual Roman Catholic must make a personal interpretation of the priest's interpretation of the bishop's interpretation of the archbishop's interpretation of the cardinal's interpretation of what the pope or magesterium taught.
Which is why popes, magesterium's, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and individual Roman Catholics have contradicted themselves more times than Budweiser has brewed beers.
Speaking as an Anheuser-Busch shareholder AND a Catholic, I resemble that remark.
I hesitate to get in the middle of this, I hate the sight of blood - especially my own, but the role of personal interpretation is never black or white, I think, which makes arguments about them frustrating. At the risk of sounding nominalist (whatever THAT is) I like to say that whatever else the Incarnation may mean it clearly reminds us that God is AT LEAST as mysterious as anyone else you ever loved, and that finally, after all the conversation is done, the consummation of knowledge will lie in an intimate relationship of mutual self-giving.
The pseudo-nominalist part arises from my certainty that everything I say about God (except this, maybe) is more false than it is true, but it is still of very great importance to try to say what is true about Him the best we can.
But I think that your "devolution" of doctrine is a little inaccurate. The obedience and assent I owe the hierarchy and the magisterium is, especially in those areas where I have done some little study, active, questioning, and probing.
Look in an operation, I got a garbled radio command: Bogie is running from the North gate of the stadium toward the West gate. (I'm at the Southwest gate.)
There's not time to question. My partner runs toward the west gate on the outermost way, I take the middle way while scanning to my right at another way he could be running. At the end of the story I come upon a pile of people just in time to grab an arm sticking out so that somebody else can cuff it.
I didn't know much, I had lots of questions, but there was no time. I obeyed the best I could, success: cuffed bad guy having the pepper spray washed off his face.(A very pleasant bad guy as it happened, just gets a little rowdy in his cups -- all in good fun.)
Later I ask the captain WHY the #*#@#*%! he didn't give more a precise description of where the bogie was -- and we began developing a new approach to communications.
But however precise we get, in the event there will always be personal interpretation to some unavoidable exten. But it's important for the entire team to be speaking the same language and to have basic notions decided. We're at war here, and it shouldn't be against each other.
I'm not sure how far to take the analogy, but I think it has some usefulness.
This is an inaccurate rephrasing. He never said "eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of Him". He said:
Take ye, and eat. This is my body (Mt 26:26)Take ye. This is my body (Mk 14:22)
This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me (Lk 22:19)
we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood really - not literally, not figuratively - but really.
We are to eat his body really and the relevant scriptures are to be taken literally. If He wanted to say "this bread represents my body" He would have.
When you become the pope, I’ll pay attention to your opinions too.
In this particular instance, John 6, the scripture records Jesus explaining that He is not speaking in metaphores; St. Paul likewise explain the Eucharist as real presence of Christ in 1 Cor 11:29. At other times the metaphorical character of His speech is clear from the context. If you have specific question about any passage, please ask me, and I will try to give you what the Church teaches as accurately as I can.
So be it so let it be written.. -Popepipus I
You misunderstand what the Church teaches. Penance does not atone for anything. After the sin is forgiven in a sacramental confession, the priest assigns penance for the benefit of the penitent, but the sin is forgiven the moment the priest absolves it, and not after the penance is done. This is a common misunderstanding.
making other dogmas necessary elements which absolutely must be believed in order to be saved
This is right in the Nicene Creed though. Credo unam sanctam catolicam apostolicam ecclisiam. Bind and loose.
disputed as spurious
Duh. We live in the age of charlatans.
the original says, "repentance".
The original says "metanoiete", which literally means "change your mind". The question is which translation is best reflecting the intention of the speaker, and since St. John who issued the call can best be described as doing penance rather than thinking repentant thoughts, Douay (it actually follows Jerome's "penitentiam agite") is the most accurate in essence.
True, but he was "doing penance" rather than "repenting", as explained earlier.
You confusion about what Rome has to say about penance and atonement is right on this page for all to see.
Please, FK. Not sure where you live and whom you associate with, but clearly, you are not very familiar with alternate Protestant theologies. For example: Is baptism salvific or not. I am having an ongoing dialogue with someone who has initiated that topic elsewhere. Yep. There are some Protestants who say "No, it is an ordinance" and others who say "Yes, baptism is a sacrament and brings the Holy Spirit, making us children of God". The "certainty" of private interpretation...
You are right that I don't know much about non-Bible-believing faiths that call themselves "Protestant", however, I think I did clearly qualify my statement. ...... NO Bible-believing Protestant could possibly say that baptism is salvific. None of us believe that.
In fact, on this very thread I am currently having a wonderful discussion with my Reformed brothers and sisters about a very related subject, paedobaptism. I happen to be in the minority camp of following a believer's baptism. However, none of us believe that baptism is salvific. In fact, I was SO SURE of the core unity I share with my fellow Reformers that I was willing to start the disagreement in public. I did it because I genuinely want to understand the majority view, and perhaps others may learn from the exchange also. Because of the core beliefs that bind us Reformers together, there was never any risk of breaking with the faith. And as a result, I have learned much.
FK: [On 1 Cor. 3:16-17:] We must note our difference on how "temple" is used in this passage. The Bible does use it differently. In some cases it refers to a building, in others it refers to the physical body of a single believer. Here, you appear to take it as the spiritual being of a single believer, and I take it to mean the body of believers in a local church. I can see how it's possible to take verse 16 in the singular and I hope you see how it's possible to take it in the plural.
So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community???
Where does this come from? Verse 17 says plainly "IF ANYONE" (KJV - "any man"), not "if any community". The condemnation in 17 is on the one, not the many. If you look at my quote I said that 16 was plural, not 17 (except for the last "you").
We aren't speaking of physical death here, but spiritual death.
Not in Catholicism we're not, because there is no such thing as spiritual death for you until one dips a toe into the lava. :) In Catholicism being spiritually dead is like being three days behind on the electric bill. No big deal, just pay the $10 late fee (do your penance) and you are suddenly NOT spiritually dead. My point is that in Catholicism, the term has no real meaning. I am saying that on the one hand you say that "destroy" is the same as "death", but OTOH, there is nothing permanent about "death". Therefore, I say, there is nothing permanent about "destroy", by your own usage of the terms. That is the cake you are trying to eat. :)
IF Paul is so crystal clear on sola fide, as you claim, where is this recognition among the first Christians?
The vast majority of the first ante-Apostolic Christians did not have the means or clout to have their beliefs preserved in perpetuity. No one can know what they were.
Why did it take 1500 years for Christians to recognize the "clear" writings that Paul preached sola fide?
It is debatable whether some of the early Church Fathers believed in some form of Sola Fide, but I won't even go there. The Reformation Fathers gave it a name, and perhaps it was because they were the first to not have a vested interest against it. For any Roman Catholic of the time in power and authority (who wished to remain so) to support Sola Fide would be like a modern day Democrat supporting tax-cuts, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or allowing the mention of God in a public school. Bottom line - political suicide. That is, until a small group of men came along, led by the Spirit, who were willing to personally risk their lives for the truth the Spirit had given them.
Is James AND Paul the Word of God? They must agree, correct? How can James agree with YOUR interpretation of Paul? James 2 specifically says we are NOT saved by faith alone. And Catholics don't follow the Word of God??? Oy.
James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God. While they are perfectly consistent, they approach faith from two different angles. Paul talks about gaining salvation by faith without works. James talks about works being an evidence of a true faith. Here is an excerpt from a website illustrating the comparison, including A Chart Comparing and Contrasting the Teaching of Paul and James :
Both writers mention “works.” Paul teaches that works are unnecessary but James teaches that works are essential. This apparent contradiction is solved when we realize that Paul was speaking of those good works that an unsaved person tries to do in order to win God’s favor or work his way to heaven. James on the other hand was referring to those good works that a saved person performs which gives evidence of a real, living, saving faith.
James does not teach that good works are necessary in order to gain salvation and Paul never teaches that good works are unnecessary after a person is saved. On the contrary, Paul agreed with James that for the person justified by faith, good works are essential (Phil. 2:12-13; Titus 3:5-8; Eph. 2:8-10). Likewise, James agreed with Paul that the only condition for inheriting the kingdom was faith and faith alone (see James 2:5 and also Acts 15 where at the Jerusalem Council James never expressed disagreement over Paul’s teaching that salvation was by faith and not by the works of the law).
James and Paul only contradict when a works-based salvation model is thrust upon James, against his free will at that. :)
...and thus, faith without works is not salvific. Very good. Faith alone does not save. You have said it right there.
James and Paul both recognize that a faith that doesn't show works is no faith at all, yes. This does not at all mean that works are a separate and distinct component of salvation. Works are an included component of true faith.
What do you base that upon? I hadn't realized that I had discussed my private devotional lifestyle to you. The Bible says all generations shall call Mary blessed. They shall venerate her. I was wondering how you do that. Do you emulate her? Or is your idea of considering her as blessed include using demeaning language about her?
I said before that I honor Mary, but that I am not devoted to her, but only to God. You said that was impossible because to honor MEANS to have devotion for. Then I said you must not honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, et al. because I know the Church doesn't venerate them anywhere near the way you do Mary. So, that's where we are. :)
Where does the Bible say that the world will venerate Mary in the way that you do? I'm not familiar with those verses. The Bible (Mary) says that all will call her blessed, a true fact. She was blessed, and so were all the Biblical greats, and so are we today. If you believe that Mary herself was trying to elevate herself to the place she holds in your Church today, then you erase all humility from her character. I don't think she would want that. I do believe that Mary was humble, and I try to emulate that. But this does not include foretelling that people all over the world will bow down to statues of me. :)
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.