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/
[.. Nevertheless, not every Christian is given to the exact same Spiritual understanding and/or emphasis of Spiritual revelation. ..]
-------------
The Observer problem is relevant spiritually also.. We see from our own vistas what we can see.. from metaphors given as microscopes and telescopes.. or just with the naked eye..
Some are blind and use the vision of others(so-called saints).. For multiplied centuries few churchs(believers) had printed material of any kind, most couldn't read anyway.. The Holy Spirit can and has taught believers (by revelation/mental images/visions/dreams) SINCE THE BEGINNING..
The Observer problem is universal.. this thread is the glaring truth of it.. The observer problem effects atheists, agnostics and believers.. even pagans for they see/believe in cartoons.. The test is "are" we true to what we see.. Having noticed "something" from our observation post/vista do we implement it or Not..
The printed word of the Hebrews God is fairly recent in history.. not that many could have read it if it was available.. The word of God was meant to be expounded/shared/appreciated by Observers.. What a plan.. The Holy Spirit attending the observer.. to shine light on the literal and reveal the metaphor.. Not to shine on the metaphor and reveal the literal.. Metaphor bridges language and cultural short comings.. and contains(metaphor does) far more information than mere language code words..
Observers calling each other heretics because others don't view what they are seeing is believable.. but non productive..
To wit; whatever you "see" is whatever you "see".. Whether viewing the word of God through microscope or telescope(Metaphor).. or literally.. But the real advantage is "seeing" that the bible and/or word of God is mostly metaphorical.. not all but mostly.. Thats some of what I "see" and am thankful for that "vista".. Some see as a frog in a well and others as a bird flying above the well, yet others from a higher viewpoint still.. They all must see what they see, or even Want to see.. thats the way its supposed to be..
Is the HOLY SPIRIT Cool or WHAT?... Some frogs are comfortable in the well, or birds proud of their colorful feathers, but a "vista" above all that remains available to the courageous..
Take some time and think about it.
Truly, the observer problem extends to the spiritual as well. And that is fine by me because that is what makes this living canvas so glorious with its contrasts and colors.
I thank God that Peter was not like John and that Paul was not like James! And I thank God that the foundation gemstones of the New Jerusalem are not all the same color, the same stone.
And I thank God for you, dear brother in Christ; you have certainly been blessed with spiritual eyes for Spiritual metaphors.
Happy to be so corrected.
It does get a bit confusing with some RC’s wording sometimes.
Occasionally, even yours. Sorry.
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.
= = =
An excellent point amidst all your tireless thankless tasks.
We appreciate you enormously . . . regardless.
God’s health, wholeness, abundant blessings for each of your selfless efforts hereon and elsewhere for The Kingdom.
Now there's an interesting observation - one that I will be pondering over during the next few days! Thanks for posting that insight!
No it doesn't. Isn't it strange how there can be one God and that one God's letter to us can splinter into such an assortment of groups with all the various groups believing they are correct?
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
I agree with that Jo kus. Although it isn't necessary for salvation we must be certain we don't do something that takes or keeps salvation from us. (Heb.13:5)...for He hath said, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. He won't leave us but we can leave Him and not even know we have.
In Ezekiel 8, God showed Ezekiel things He considered "wicked abominations". Those things were being done in His house and He was "provoked to anger" and said, (vs.l8)"Therefore will I also deal in fury: Mine eye shall not spare,neither will I have pity: and though they cry in Mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them"
9:6. Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary." Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house
10.And as for Me also, Mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
God does not want false teaching in His House. Many may feel they are being very religious, as I'm sure those in Ezekiel 8 were being. It was no excuse to God. He starts with those "ancient men", those that teach in His sanctuary but He does not absolve the others that listened to them, even the little children. He "will not hear them"
So to me, upon reading those verses, I would not trust my eternal life, nor that of my family, friends or anyone I come in contact with, including those on Free Republic, with the teachings of any man or church or religion. This has nothing to do with Protestant or Catholic
It is not a matter of reading, but of interpretation. We can read the same exact verse, and take away a different meaning
I wish I knew the answer to that. I suppose the different interpretations just make it all the more interesting. Perhaps we should remember, as we search the scriptures and listen to our teachers, that if it does not agree with His Word - get away from it, no matter how much you love the interpretation or the one giving it.
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.
In one way, it is much easier for us as we are forgiven upon repentance where they were not before His Advent. However, if we are the last generation, as many think is highly possible, we must know what is expected of us as we will face the "time of Jacob's trouble". If our churches teach us we are blessed but if they don't we must get that information on our own. It's there.
........Ping
To put it another way: the Bible reveals God's perfect truth even though it is expressed imperfectly.
This is a difficult teaching for me because I can't reconcile imperfect expression with "God-breathed". I can't imagine why God wouldn't love us enough to give us perfect expression, since the imperfect always leads to error. I suppose you would say that's what the Church is for, but I still have trouble with the idea that God would build in error, just to let men be glorified by correcting it.
I think you will recognize my consistent approach towards the Scriptures in that statement.
I do.
Acceptance of the Bible by the original Church was not 'regulated' by dogma. It was simply accepted on tradition.
Actually, if I'm reading you correctly, that sounds closer to my view than to that of the Latins. How would you describe the value of Canonization? I think it was useful to formalize, but I don't think they were really breaking any new ground.
I wholesale agree with you . . . but . . .
I thank God that Peter was not like John and that Paul was not like James! And I thank God that the foundation gemstones of the New Jerusalem are not all the same color, the same stone.
= = = =
just to return a bit tweakily . . . to the issue of glass-pipe-ism . . .
One COULD construe from your perspective that it’s OK with you for James or Fred or Snodgrass . . .
to have the LESSER eternal status of a colored stone
while YOU, will take the pristinely more lofty one—the absolutely transparent option, thank you very much! LOL.
= = =
Methinks God arranged for each of us to have the personalities etc. HE arranged for us to have—including the conditioning on top of the genetics.
AND that HE DELIGHTS in said differences.
Further, that said differences likely have relatively little to do with our equal-before-the-cross usefulness and value to God and The Kingdom.
Just different . . . vs lesser/greater.
Heresy, by definition is any teaching that denies the essential elements of the Christian faith, as contained in the Symbol of Faith (i.e. the Creed) finalized in 381 AD:
I agree with everything in the Creed, with the possible exception of the intent of the Baptism clause:
"I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
I presume this refers to Acts 2:38, and of course we all know that I do not believe that baptism is salvific. The key word in this verse is "for". In Greek, "eis". It has multiple legitimate meanings, just as "for" does for us. For example:
Matt 12:41 : The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.
The word here "at" is also "eis" and clearly means here "because of". So, it's a matter of interpretation. But in any event, the point is that while I basically agree with the Creed, I still get called a heretic all the time for disagreeing with issues not covered at all in the Creed! :) So, what you're saying confuses me a little.
Dogma does not evolve and does not change. Dogma is a statement of truth known to the Church, expressed by a general or local council, in response to heresies. Note: the Catholic Church departed from this after the Schism and proclaimed dogma without clear and present heresies.
Thanks, I was unaware of the connection to heresies as a prerequisite.
Doctrine can evolve but not change. One can disagree with individual fathers' speculations (theological hypotheses or theologoumenna) but not with consensus patrum because that represents the collective knowledge and unanimous doctrinal agreement of the whole Church.
OK, then in the Orthodox Church, has the consensus patrum manifested itself since the 7 Councils? I gather that the Councils proclaimed Dogma, and I'm trying to understand the difference with doctrine. Has doctrine actually evolved in Orthodoxy?
Then what do you believe?
OK, then in the Orthodox Church, has the consensus patrum manifested itself since the 7 Councils?
When faced with theological issues that have to be dealt with, we go back to the Holy Tradition (Bible, Councils, Patristic writings, liturgical texts) to make sure we do not formulate something contrary or unknown to the life of the Church as it was from the beginning. Thus, yes, consensus patrum is part of the living Church.
I gather that the Councils proclaimed Dogma, and I'm trying to understand the difference with doctrine. Has doctrine actually evolved in Orthodoxy?
Dogma is a short statement of the truth known to the Church, formulated in response to a specific heresy. The Church knows what is orthodox, otherwise it couldn't recognize a heresy. But dogmatic statements are insufficient to teach.
For instance, dogma is a definition: Christ is fully God and Fully Man. Obviously, this is not enough to offer as a self-evident truth.
Doctrine is used to explain dogma, to support dogma through God's revelation, and to make it 'intelligible' in human terms.
When our minds become perfect, and our language evolves to perfection, and we become spiritually perfect in order to receive perfect Spirit perfectly, then God's perfect truth will be expressed perfectly.
In the meantime, we discern perfect truth through imperfection, and that in itself is a divine paradox.
God would build in error, just to let men be glorified by correcting it
But you already believe that God created Adam to fail!
How would you describe the value of Canonization? I think it was useful to formalize, but I don't think they were really breaking any new ground,/I>
By the time the Christian Bible was formally canonized at the end of the 4th century, most churches were using the unofficial canon which was more or less similar but no identical. Thus, the oldest known complete Christian Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) contains two non-canonical books, The Epistle of Barnabus, and the Shepherd of Hermes. Canonization standardized all Christian bibles and removed vestigial non-canonical books that were part of many if not most individual church bibles. It was absolutely necessary to remove those because until then any book that was read in a church was considered "scripture."
I don't look at that way. I see it as a balance. For example, if we can accept the premise of God's omnipotence on faith, then many things in the Bible instantly become rational. I think that faith and reason work together. God gives His children eyes to see and ears to hear, and then the scriptures actually DO make perfect sense.
So, for me it is nothing to believe that Jonah literally DID spend three days in the belly of a whale. God is omnipotent, so He could have done anything required to make that possible. I don't question it because I have no reason to, given the premise of faith He has given me. I mean, Jesus can rise from the dead, but He can't protect a guy from digestive juices for a few days? THAT'S what doesn't make sense.
Part of the Jewish argument against Christianity is precisely false rationalism: man cannot become God. But, we reply, can God become man? We believe that with God everything is possible even if we don't understand it. So, opinion and faith is not the same thing.
But shouldn't all opinion be firmly grounded in faith? IOW, they should be very close together, not separated and apart.
Amen!
No they don't become rational, FK. They are accepted in spite of our inability to understand them. Thus, we accept resurrection of dead people. Is that rational? Our reason rejects it, but we accept it spiritually. Is walking on water rational? Of course it isn't. But we accept that +Peter walked on water; we believe it did happen although our brain is screaming "no!"
Usually behind all these fancy miracles that are hard to believe and impossible to understand, lies a divine message the story is meant to convey. Ignoring the fancy details (the devil is in the details!), you can capture the meaning of that message without resorting to superstition.
“In the meantime, we discern perfect truth through imperfection, and that in itself is a divine paradox.”
“As through a glass darkly”, I think is the phrase! :)
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.