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/
Oh, now you’re gonna make me blush...
Yes, God has already decided what He will do, and He can handle everything without the help of anyone, including the departed. We pray first because God told us to. Case closed. Then we pray from our own perspective because it is communication with God. In sincerity this is always good, even if we don't get the "thing" we supplicated for. Regardless of the outcome, prayer is ALWAYS good for the one praying.
Again, it is your paradigm that excludes love and how it works that prevents you from seeing the worth of prayer and intercession. We see God "awaiting" our prayers, just as a loving father awaits for his child to ask HIM for favors. That is our paradigm.
My paradigm doesn't exclude love at all. You seem to be saying that if I say that ALL my love goes directly to God, then I am somehow cheating God because I should have given some of that love to other men of the Church or other dead saints, etc. ??? I don't know. This doesn't make sense. Your argument appears to say that the correct course is to steer one's love away from God, and rather direct it toward a saint as an intercessor, or to Mary, or to a man of the Magisterium, and that is much better than directing one's love to God Himself, directly.
I have to pass on this approach. I do not tell my wife to love me by making out with the mailman. :) But it appears this is the same idea you are suggesting. And BTW, you are misrepresenting the theology when you make the comparison to a father who waits for his child to ask him for favors. For you, many times the father hears about what favors his own kid wants from the neighbor kids. Comparatively, Catholicism discourages the one-on-one relationship between the layman and Christ. Child - Parent.
So when YOU, a member of the so-called Elect, SIN, does THAT make God a failure?
To borrow a phrase, "BY NO MEANS". :) God never promised us in scripture that He would make us sinless upon regeneration. A remnant remains by His design. The very clear message of scripture to Christians is NOT "No worries, mate". It is indeed that we WILL struggle with both the world and with ourselves.
Does God desire men to sin?
Tricky question, but when it is necessary to further His plan, "YES". Think of the crucifixion and the million elements that all had to fit together for it to happen AND happen in accordance with prophecy. WAS this all a grand accident? OR, did God orchestrate it all with perfection?
WHY does He let you sin IF He is omnipotent in every aspect, all controlling and so forth...
The Holy Spirit used my sin to convict me of my NEED for God. Then I accepted Christ. That's a pretty good reason. :) I love God much more NOW because I know of my sin and how it alienates me from Him. Because of my sin, I appreciate His love for me a hundred times more than I would have, had I been protected from all sin. This is one of the main reasons I think it disrespects Mary to say she was sinless. Catholicism denies her what we sinners know all too well, we NEED God.
Or does God ALLOW men to choose to sin or not to sin (the latter only possible because of His grace, which does not overpower)
God allows men to choose to sin, yes. By specific grace, He allows SOME to choose to do good in God's eyes.
FK: "... look to every place in the Bible where Jesus begins a sentence 'The Kingdom of Heaven is like ...' That's what Heaven is like". :)
That belays a misunderstanding of what the "Kingdom of Heaven" means. It begins NOW, brother. Consult the Scriptures and see that eternal life begins when Jesus Christ comes to abide in us. John is ESPECIALLY clear that eternal life is accessible to us in this life.
We certainly do have a fundamental and absolute disagreement on what the term "eternal life" means. :) I still remember what you told me on the Luther thread. :)
John is ESPECIALLY clear that eternal life is accessible to us in this life.
Indeed he is, but in such a different way. :)
Please point me to the Church universal, then...
The Church of the Incarnated Christ is visible. Read 1 John 1. The Church is visible. While there are people mysteriously linked to this visible Church in a manner known only by God, there is not another visible Church.
Regards
Sorry, but this line of reasoning is unnecessary. You are holding a standard of proof that you would never hold to any other historical event. It is reasonable to say that we have an historical continuity between the Bible and second century of belief and practice.
I just know that it is extremely odd that it is not in the Bible if something this central to your faith is true.
The Eucharist is in the bible. You just refuse to accept "this is my body" as literal.
Without scriptural support you are mixing God's timelessness with man's real time
LOL! The entire bible mixes God's timelessness with man's real time...
But seriously, which of Christ's human acts WERE NOT united with His divine self? I know you are not going to tell me that the cross was the only time when His two natures were united. Therefore, I don't see how it is logical that you single out this one event in this respect.
Jesus' entire life was redemptive, but it culminates with His Passion and Death, the "reason" why He came, to atone for our sins through the ultimate self-sacrifice. We unite with that because Jesus is divine. Man and God have been united through Jesus Christ. Jesus told us to "do this in remembrance of Me". To the Jew, this means to make one present. While we could unite ourselves to His entire life, we have been instructed specifically to unite to the Paschal Mystery, the culmination of His earthly ministry.
PLUS, folks on my side quote from a variety of OT authors 5 times more than the Catholics do! :) ALL scripture is equally inspired and inerrant.
Probably.
You are doing all my work for me. :) Of course my context was going through a clergyman in Catholicism to get to God. Yes, Christ came in the flesh, and what did He do? Did He hole-up as a monk, sending third-party emissaries to do His preaching for Him? Did He put a firm buffer between Himself and the common man, such that He was inaccessible directly?
I am not doing your work, you just don't get it...
Jesus is STILL in the flesh. By having a visible man who is "in the person of Christ", we have Christ sacramentally present to us, forgiving our sins, presenting His Body for our nourishment, baptizing us into His People, witnessing our marriages, and laying hands on us to heal us when sick. Do you have a problem with the physical world? Do you believe that God no longer acts through His creation? Jesus CONTINUES to save men through the visible auspice of His bishops and priests. We have no intention of taking on any form of Gnosticism, that fear of the physical.
Regards
I am not going to argue that we shouldn't read the Bible! I am saying that it is not absolutely necessary for eternal salvation. A person can be taught everything they need to know orally - this has been the mode of teaching for billions of Christians throughout the ages.
Not many teach in that manner today. It is easy to make scripture fit your doctrine if a verse is cherry picked but difficult to do if you "rightly divide the word"
That can be done even by the most ardent of Protestant bible believer, as you know. It is not a matter of reading, but of interpretation. We can read the same exact verse, and take away a different meaning. For example, "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have eternal life". That means something to me and something else to you. Bible reading alone doesn't tell us the Truth about what that verse means. Thus, we absolutely have to have a living Body, a community, the Church, to tell us what these verses mean.
How does one know those "vain babblings" or if they have "rightly divided" unless they read themselves?
!!! Does reading the Bible prevent Protestant denominations from multiplying daily?
Regards
The Holy Spirit used my sin to convict me of my NEED for God. Then I accepted Christ. That's a pretty good reason. :) I love God much more NOW because I know of my sin and how it alienates me from Him. Because of my sin, I appreciate His love for me a hundred times more than I would have, had I been protected from all sin. This is one of the main reasons I think it disrespects Mary to say she was sinless. Catholicism denies her what we sinners know all too well, we NEED God.I fervently agree that what took me to "the next level" with Jesus was my own desperate awareness that I was "fell full foul in sinne" and couldn't bootstrap my way out of it. So clearly in our own lives we experience the truth that for the God who can turn the murder by torture of the only righteous man who ever lived into the salvation of the world turning our sinfulness to good purpose is no challenge.
But I want to maintain that it is not necessary for a human to sin to know how much we need God or to love Him. As Lewis says, it is waking that understands sleeping, not sleeping that understands waking. In my somnolent stupor, like a man who has heard the alarm and struggles to make himself get out of bed, my sullen, groggy heart blunders to-God-ward. But I suspect someone who was never drugged by sin would all the more lithely and eagerly give all his (or especially her) heart and attention to God. It was not so much sin itself, but the gracious awareness of the horror and sickness of sin that God used to bring me to Him. But rescue from moral and spiritual death is not the only thing that makes Him lovely, and the eyes of the sinless may see those beauties more clearly than we do, at least than we do now.
Jo, there are plenty of posts on this thread about THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL.
I have no capacity or desire to FORCE belief in the truth.
Either The Lord will break through whatever needs broken through to reveal His truth to individuals because of their seeking Him and His Truth earnestly and persistently in a good faith attitude and spirit . . .
or He won’t.
But I assure you most emphatically that there is NO WAY that the RC edifice
OR ANY OTHER HUMAN ORGANIZATION
EQUAL
THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL.
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY . . . 0.0000000000000000000000000000% CHANCE. NADA, ZIP.
God Almighty is NOT that small. Nor is HIS CHURCH.
For me, John 6 is exceptional in this regard because it gives insight to the body and blood before the commandment given at the Last Supper and also because of the reaction of the disciples, i.e. many of them couldn't bear it and walked away.
John 3 (born again) is also exceptional to me because of the bewilderment of Nicodemus and the repeated emphasis by Jesus.
Of course we know that Christ spoke in parables to hide Truth in plain view. But these two passages are not parables.
Both passages are speaking of Spiritual, timeless, realities which are not logical or rational to the mortal mind. Hence, the revulsions.
Sometimes I assert these two passages to those who claim that all of Scripture can be interpreted by other Scripture - which is to say, by mental reasoning comparing Scripture to Scripture because metaphors are defined in Scripture.
Without disputing either interpretation, I assert that the Lord's Supper is mentally deduced from Luke 22:19 and I Cor 11:24-25 et al - and that the Eucharist is additionally mentally deduced by John 6.
But Spiritual Truth is obtained by revelation; mental reasoning cannot uncover it. For me, Spiritual revelation is Truth, it alone is reliable - whatever mental reasoning I might have is subordinated to it.
In this case, the Spiritual revelation I have received is that we are to consume Jesus Who is the bread of life. We are to take in the Living Word of God. He is our life. (John 6:32-63, Matt 4:4, John 15, Romans 8, John 17, I Cor 2, et al)
Nevertheless, not every Christian is given to the exact same Spiritual understanding and/or emphasis of Spiritual revelation. That itself is part of the beauty and mystery of the body of Christ.
Praise God!
First, Church = human organization of the people of God...What do you think it is? Some pretend, non-existent entity?
Second, I never made the claim that the Catholic Church = the Church of Christ. Nor does the Catholic Church. It says the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church, not IS the Catholic Church. The Fullness of the Truth exists within her. My previous post says that those outside of this visible union MAY be united to her in an unknown manner only known to God. So you are not excluded from the Church. But this Church, visibly, is Catholic.
Regards
That's not right, our mindset is to defer to scripture only.
FK, everyone here "defers to the Bible" in a sense. However, you defer to YOUR OPINION of what that Bible says, not to the Church's understanding of what the Bible says. That is our area of concern. That is where the innovation and heresy comes from. This removes the context by which the Bible was given to us. The Bible was not given to us to read and cut and paste what we want and invent our own theologies, using clips and snips out of context to "prove" them.
You are inferring what I did not imply. I was clearly speaking of "THE TRUTH" as a generality (Christian). Sanctification isn't ONLY knowing "about" Christ, however, it is certainly included in knowing Him through the scriptures more and more. I don't think you would deny that. Of course there are people without Bibles who are more sanctified than I am now.
And so you have denied your own thesis. Reading the Bible is not absolutely necessary for "growing in sanctity" Faith comes from HEARING the Gospel, according to Paul. READING it is not a requirement.
since I DO have a Bible I am sanctified when I read it and learn to be more like Him.
Wrong. Reading it, in of itself, does not add to your sanctity. Sanctity is becoming holy, not knowledgable. I know atheists who are familiar with the Bible. I know very left wing liberals who call themselves Bible believers, but think nothing of killing innocent humans in the womb... There is a difference between knowledge and application of that knowledge. We will be rewarded in heaven when we DO the will of God, not KNOW the will of God. We must OBEY the Commandments, not KNOW the commandments. Reading and not obeying makes us even more damnable.
Regards
WITHIN
the RC edifice indicates the construction on reality that anything without the RC edifice is not included in
THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL.
WRONG.
I intend this not to say I'm right and you're not to to note the differences in lingo.
Appreciate the input and clarification . . .
I think a number of you assert such truths.
Some sound otherwise.
Sounds nice, but it is unbiblical, impractical, and wishful thinking. The word "only" is the problem. We also hold ourselves accountable to what is in Scriptures. But we base this accountability of the Scriptures as read by the Church, the community, not on my own twisted and deviant decision to call wrong - right, evil - good, gay - acceptable, abortion - a choice, contraception - my own business, and any other thing under the sun that can be taken out of context in the bible to fit my own personal life. As you may have noticed by now, people can make the Scriptures back up NUMEROUS life decisions and theologies... The truth is not accessible to the individual unless he goes outside of himself. That PARTICULARLY includes the interpretation of God's Word.
I can understand how you're supposed to follow it, but how can God's admittedly inerrant word NOT be "part of your faith"? I didn't even see Tradition on the list. Maybe it's just one of those things again. :)
The "Faith" includes our beliefs in God, man, and the salvation plan in history. The Bible is not part of that. It relates God's plan, but is ITSELF not God's plan of salvation of men. It is an instrument, inspired and inerrant, without question, but it is not part of the "Rule of Faith", that Jesus suffered, died, and rose from the dead for our salvation. We believe that the Bible is inspired, but it is not part of the Paschal Mystery. Tradition is how we view our faith. This is past down by the Bible and the teaching Church.
I would generally agree, but in this case being "kicked out of the club" means being damned for all eternity, as I understand it. This is why I was curious as to the level of accountability.
"Being kicked out of the club" doesn't mean eternal damnation. Anathema means to cast out of the visible Church. Only God knows the relationship that exists between such a person and the Body. We would tend to think that a person who rejects Christ would be damning himself. But we don't know the true thoughts of another, or the ignorance of someone, or the knowledge with which a person "rejects". We leave that to God. However, the community has a right to oust members who are a scandal to the rest. This does not mean they are doomed to hell.
While my opinion doesn't matter, I would think that if some of the pols WERE actually kicked out, the Church might lose some dead wood, but there would also be a heightened level of credibility for the hierarchy among the laity.
I would agree. I can understand the decision not to rush such things, though. Some are afraid of schism, so it is a difficult decision to weigh on how hard they lean on such politicians.
I sincerely doubt that if the Kerry's and the Kennedy's of the world were in any other line of work that they would ever darken the door of a church. Same with the Clintons.
I will let God be the judge of that. Perhaps their interpretations of the Bible we both possess differs, and they think the Holy Spirit leads THEM to do what they do... Whether you realize it or not, you ALSO call upon the idea that the Church, the community, must be the objective interpreter of what is the norm to be read from the bible for the individual. In time, I hope you will understand where we are coming from.
Regards
WRONG.
I never said that. I said the fullness of Christ's Church subsists within the Catholic Church. Obviously, then, there are aspects of Truth found in other visible communities, those who share some parts of our faith, those who also have liturgical practices and so forth. None of these add to what is already in fullness within the Catholic Church. As I have said several times, only God knows how you or others like yourself are united to the Church. In some mysterious manner, through your baptism, you are united to the Church already, even if you remain outside of membership of the visible Church. But again, this baptism is found in fullness within the visible Church.
Regards
I have read them, and the typical tactic of Roman Catholic illusionists is to pull out Irenaeus, and say, "He said CATHOLIC, did you, he said CATHOLIC, he is talking about the Roman Catholic church, yada, yada yada", when nothing could be further from the truth.
Until then, you are an angry Protestant looking for an ax to grind. I will have no part in your venomous spewings.
Why do Roman Catholics always have to immediately get personal?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Risky-Riskerdo, it seems like everywhere you go on the Religion Forum you bring out the worst in other posters, even the ones that have been around here for a long time and almost never get upset.
Contending for your faith on the Religion Forum is a good thing and is encouraged. Being contentious is not. Find ways to make your points without igniting flame wars.
All correspondents: I can and do intercede to keep posters from "making it personal." There is nothing I can do to keep posters from "taking it personally." Closed threads (devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses) are provided for posters who have thin skin or chips on their shoulders.
Here is my post as it is on the board;
============================================================
To: jo kus
which I corrected?
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.
15,220 posted on 05/25/2007 12:18:17 PM PDT by Risky-Riskerdo
============================================================
Here is how is should have been had I not failed to il;Italicize the second part of the comments by "jo kus" that I was responding to:
============================================================
To: jo kus
which I corrected?
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.
15,220 posted on 05/25/2007 12:18:17 PM PDT by Risky-Riskerdo
============================================================
Here is post #15,216 by "jo kus" in which the line I was given a warning for actually appears.
============================================================
To: Risky-Riskerdo
>>>>>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.
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
15,216 posted on 05/25/2007 12:04:44 PM PDT by jo kus
============================================================
Therefore, as I said, I did not say that. Does this mean that the one who DID say it will get a warning to not make things personal like I did for something I did not say?
Quit picking at the scab.
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.