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/
The theology must be rooted in the Bible, so I don't want to sugarcoat that, however, I don't think SS is offended by the telling of a modern day parable that can be backed up. I think we also have plenty of speculations, especially when the Biblical evidence is just not rock solid and absolute. Examples for me are that you won't hear me saying that the end times SHALL BE LIKE THIS, or God's creation DID occur within 6 24-hour periods. I speculate, but I don't think that necessarily offends Sola Scriptura, although it certainly "could". Others may use Sola Scriptura to defend more definite positions, and I believe that is "allowable". SS just means that for any certain claim I do make, that I must be able to back it up.
I've never had any problem with the motion of making the sign of the cross. I consider that, by itself, to be irrelevant to Sola Scriptura, or it could be said that it is in support of SS because the Bible teaches that we are to give reverence to God and honor Him. If it stood for something in direct contradiction to scripture, then that would be another matter, but it doesn't to my knowledge. I'm sorry you had that experience with some Protestants. I hope they weren't Reformers. :)
Even the Romans knew this, since they accused the Christians of being cannibals. They wouldn't have been accused of cannibalism if the Eucharist was MERELY a symbol, would they?
Not a bad point. They also could have been simply repeating Jesus' actual words, which DO sound like cannibalism to the unbeliever.
Wouldn't the Christians very easily deny the charge, saying "it's only a symbol! It is just bread and wine!"
I don't know for sure one way or the other what they said on this. I would assume they would want to deny it, but I don't know how they would have gone about explaining the Eucharist to non-believers, especially when it is so difficult to do so today to OTHER believers. :)
I accept that I am not infallible when reading Scriptures and need a guide, and you believe that you are infallibly led when reading the Bible and need no help from the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth...
I have never thought of myself as infallible in my reading of the scriptures. You saw proof of that yourself on the other thread when I was happy to switch a position upon being showed a superior scriptural argument. I mean, I'm good, but not that good. :) It will not shock me at all if it happens again. That's sanctification.
I do not find any Scripture that says "we no longer have to listen to oral teachings because everything has now been written down". Nothing like that.
Well, we ARE taught that written beats oral:
Luke 1:3-4 : 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
However, I do not have any problems with oral teachings as long as they are consistent with, or at least do not contradict the Bible or in that direction. I have to add the caveat that if a teaching by itself is "Bible-neutral" but that teaching is used to support any position that is anti-Biblical, then I'm going to be against it for that reason. For example, the IC is used to support the case for Mary's sinlessness.
Surely, we follow things that are not in Scriptures, but do not compromise Scriptures.
I fully agree.
FK: "The Bible swallows up the oral teachings that were true and faithful to what became the Bible."
That is a huge assumption that is nowhere said in the Bible.
LOL! OK, OK. Based on the direction this conversation has taken, you're right that my words are not the best. :) I wasn't thinking along the same lines you were. I was only thinking of "Biblical" theology that was taught until the first NT scriptures appeared. I didn't consider at all that the sign of the cross could be an oral teaching. But I suppose it can. :)
FK: "Although you do not accept it, the Holy Spirit leads me in interpretation."
Fiddlesticks... I don't accept that because you have admitted yourself that you have been wrong before! Thus, you do NOT know if you are absolutely correct in any future interpretation. You cannot know WHEN the Spirit is actually guiding you and when you are just interjecting your own opinion, to later be proved to be wrong. This is just plain logic.
I know that I know what the Spirit wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. That's all I need to know. :) I expect to be further sanctified in the future, so I expect that SOME of my views will evolve. What's wrong with that? The core will never change.
In addition, the Spirit teaches me things today that He would not now approach a newcomer with because he doesn't have the background to get it. It all builds upon itself. So all of us are at different places, AND not all of us will reach the same end by the end of life. The core is what we need to be saved, and the Spirit has different plans for each of us.
I'm not sure I would buy into that. The Church made a clear point of separating what was inspired from what was not. When putting together the scripture the Church had a set criteria. They did not consider everything inspired; certainly the Orthodox even in those days wouldn't have considered Augustine's writings to be inspired.
That argument carries about as much weight as Mohammad's claim that God dictated Koran to him word by word. A psychotic can claim with equal conviction that he is Napoleon, FK. It's all quite "reasonable" when you dispense with reality.
Things just don't happen the way they are described in the Bible, some people's fancy notwithstanding.
That's not how the early Church operated. Different churches had different sets of scrolls, depending on what the local bishop(s) deemed "inspired." That's why you have such variations in what different churches contained. Which was one of the reasons the Church hierarchs decided to "standardize" what was read.
The ancient Church was based on +Ignatius's formula: the catholic church is where the bishop is (105 AD). Those scrolls that were physically in a church that were read at liturgy were considered scripture. This the oldest complete Bibles from the early 4th century contain books that are no longer considered Christian scripture.
That was certainly true but just because a local bishop deemed something "inspired" didn't make the writing inspired. It was the Church that sorted out what was inspired from what wasn't. That's all they did.
That's all they did, HD, the "Church" was where the bishop was. This is still true today. The final authority in the Church is a bishop. You are thinking of an "organization" called the Church. That is a communion of bishops who share the same faith.
This organization developed into archbishoprics as a matter of administrative workload and eventually the historical churches became patriarchates based on apostolic honor and imperial dignity of the city in which the church was located.
It was very much a bishop, usually someone who was taught by one of the apostles still alive who collected the books (scrolls) and those were the scrolls that were read. If they were read in a church, they were considered "scriptural" by that particular bishop and in that particular church.
Don't forget that until the second century there were only bishops and deacons; priests, who are really bishops assistants, or deputies if you will, have no power of their own but only through a bishop. And the priests (ierei) appear in the second century as the church began to expand.
To this day in Orthodox churches, the priest can serve liturgy only on a specially signed cloth which is issued as an authorization for the priest to do this in his name. A priest by himself has no authority, so whatever is done in a church is done by permission of the bishop, and in strict obedience to the bishop who is seen as executing the office of the Apostle he succeeded.
So, when you look at the process of canonization of the bible you find how different churches used and read different scrolls. The oldest complete bible (C. Sinaiticus) dating to mid 4th century contains two non-canonical books.
the "Church" (a communion of bishops in this case) agreed eventually on what books are "scripture" and which are not. It took them 300 plus years to do that. And even then it wasn't fully agreed upon.
That is not the position of the Church. They didn't "agree" to anything. The Church position has always been that they knew what was inspired and what wasn't. They only affirmed the inspired scripture.
Now you have more of an argument with the Protestants tossing out the Apocrypha 1200 years later. However, us Protestants would argue that we rest our affirmation on those books that were deemed inspired by the VERY EARLY Church fathers (the Hebrew fathers) rather than those who came along 300+ years later.
can you please name some of these Hebrew fathers, cause it seems to me that they’re the same ones that asked pilate to crucify the messiah, and added vowels to the scriptures.
So, then, I suppose you don't pray for it, do you?
We all pray "about" things we are sure of, but I can't remember a recent specific prayer about this. Of course, one could try to include it in the Lord's Prayer. Is that where you're going? I do say the Lord's Prayer. :)
Why not just say "God" and not have to "worry" which Divine Persona is accomplishing the task?
The Bible does it both ways, why should there be a prohibition against that? This started with your assertion that the Bible was "wrong" for saying that God raised Christ. I maintain that the Bible isn't "wrong".
Kosta: "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."
FK: "Why does the year 1998 immediately come into my mind after reading this? :)"
1998? No idea.
It was just a reference to the Lewinsky scandal. All the Dems ran around defending Clinton by saying everything was OK because he was such a wonderful President. :)
To us a priest is an icon of Christ; to the Latins he is an alter-Christ. ......
Thanks for the explanation.
John, Paul and James. ;O)
none of whom ever saw the version of scripture Martin Luther used (which had vowels added long after the Apostles )
Well, historical facts indicate to the contrary. Codex Sinaiticus, then oldext complete Christian Bible (c. 340 AD) contains the Epistle of Barbanus and Sherpherd of Hermes as well as other books of the Old and the New Testament. Clearly some of the fathers thought different.
Protestants would argue that we rest our affirmation on those books that were deemed inspired by the VERY EARLY Church fathers (the Hebrew fathers) rather than those who came along 300+ years later
Which Hebrew fathers? Some of the NT deuterocanonicals (i.e. 1 and 2 Peter, and others, were not written until the 2nd century when all those "Hebrew fathers" were dead!).
It wasn't in my heart to get into polemics, so I'm sorry for sounding like that. In any event, by adding an application proviso which is not evident in the text, I think it really changes the meaning of the text that really IS there. My understanding of Catholicism is that when an infant is baptized he is saved from original sin. Now, if we stopped right there, then the thing that really concerns me wouldn't apply so much.
But of course, then we have further application as people commit mortal sins through life and take the Eucharist. To me that just doesn't logically match "once and for all". For example, my wife asks me to mow the lawn. I go out and do two rows and then I come back in, declaring "I've finished this week's mowing once and for all". She checks and comes back to me very unhappy. Do I say to her that I simply haven't fully applied the mowing yet? :) Anyway, that's why it's difficult for me to get this, along with the fact that I don't see the second step of application in scripture.
That's silly, imo. If you can't change anything why not just say "Thy will be done" and be done with it?
This started with your assertion that the Bible was "wrong" for saying that God raised Christ. I maintain that the Bible isn't "wrong"
Well, if He couldn't raise Himself, but needed outside help, then He is not God. Clearly, when +Paul says Christ was raised by God, he puts Christ outside of God. If I say FK was rescued by a police officer, clearly the rescuer is not by implication FK but someone other than FK. If I say FK rescued himself leaves no doubt that it is FK. +Paul never clearly says Christ is God. He says Christ is an "image" of God (but so are we as well!).
All the Dems ran around defending Clinton by saying everything was OK because he was such a wonderful President. :)
Pope Alexander VI was a wonderful pope as well. His private life wasn't much of a life of a priest, but like I said, being a good pilot, president oir pope doesn't come with specific character features.
In fact, one's character does not take away from the skill of an individual. You can have a pedophile physician who is a top-notch doctor.
I remember two weeks after my conversion, my Sunday School teacher telling me the virgin birth couldn't possibly happen. If you're going to doubt the inspiration of God's word, this is the place to start for this is indeed one of the greatest miracle of all. Are you prepared to say that the virgin birth is a made up story or question the inspired story as told by God? You might as well chuck the whole thing out the window and become a Baal worshipper or something.
I can understand an agnostic or atheist not believing in God's inspired writings, but I sincerely don't understand how a professing Christian cannot understand the inspiration of God's word.
Is there anything in the Lord's Prayer that we can change?
For the mowing example, my not very good first iteration of an answer is you go and mow the grass, and then (for some reason -- known only to women) she fertilizes and waters it. So the mowing activity has to be re-applied.
The reason it's not such a good answer is the problem with the mowing activity which is nothing but temporal (if now downright diabolical) while the forgiving act of Christ is one of those temporal events which leaks into eternity.
Again, the glib inadequate explanation is that God never changes because he's outside of time. On the flipahdeedoodah side, at a particular point in time (was crucified under Pontius Pilate) Jesus wrought the salvation of the world. Right here is where the brain explodes. It is in time and outside of time "all at once".
Mortal sin, deliberate choice of an evil act done with full responsibility and the full knowledge that it was seriously evil,can be viewed (at least) two ways: One way is that it is flipping God off. In our thinking, if you say to God, "Not Thy will, but mine," God respects that, and you get to forsake the full benefits of His fellowship. Another way is that it is like an alcoholic taking not just a sip but a half bottle of whiskey. It sets you out of the "habit" of faith so badly that major mojo is required to get you back.
Now, Where does the major mojo comes from? Recall that I quoted the Catechism "only God can forgive sins." And when/where did He do that? From Our POV, two answers: (a) Before the foundation of the world; (b) "sub Pontio Pilato". Just as on earth and in time and space eternal the power of God is manifested most clearly as a man who cannot scratch his nose or brush away a fly because His hands are nailed back, so the eternal and piercingly joyful love and forgiveness of God is that same man leaking out his life and struggling to breathe.
It is that which washes away original sin and it is that which restores the one who has done what John calls a deadly sin. The same act. The ONCE and for all act which can never and need never be repeated.
Let the eternal God be an ice cold watermelon saturated with Myers Finest Dark Jamaican Rum. Then the sacraments are straws stuck into it to draw out the wonderful nectar.
(Darn that sounds good! I've never done that, but I'd sure like to try someday.)(I mean the watermelon. I've been to confession.)
Now what I wish I could convey persuasively is how this FEELS like a redemptive sacrament. It is not that God is limited to forgiving mortal sins after Baptism this way. God is like the pay master who looks through the book to find a way to give us a little more, as opposed to what we think of Him too often (even if we're not really aware that we think it) which is that he's the pay master who is intent on finding out how to hold back as much as possible.
But when we go to confession, at least when I go to confession, SURE there is a reluctance, feeling of guilt and shame and whatnot. But at this point in my life it's more about, say Physical Therapy (one of my fave metaphors: It hurts so good!) I WANT not only the act of restoration and the prescribed penance, but I also want to LIVE what I believe, at least to the extent that I believe that my sinfulness is not the most important thing about me, because God's love is the most important thing about me. (I mean, a better way to live it would be not to sin, but evidently I blew that one.) When I go to the priest, I am drawing on the confidence that one day God will share with me a fuller knowledge of the great horror of my particular sins and the greater Joy of His love -- and I will be able to see my sins as occasions of grace, as "happy faults", happy because they received so great a champion and rescuer.
So confession draws on the once for all saving act of Christ AND is a way I step (again) into the grace and freedom of that act.
Catechism section 1440 is titled "Only God forgives sin."
Well, here is what I found right after that:
1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41 (emphasis added)
This is the transfer I have been talking about, where it is the priest who is acting as opposed to God acting through the priest. "I absolve you" vs. "God absolves you". Anyway, that's all I was talking about. If it was the latter, I would still disagree with it theologically, but I would have much less objection to it, as if MY objection is worth a hill of beans. :)
And BTW, 1441 of this Catechism looks very familiar, so I'm sure someone has showed it to me before, although I didn't specifically remember it when I first wrote.
Here (to unwind the comparison a little) the priest is writing the check, but it's God's account. Since God agreed to be bound by the acts of his "apostles", and consequently we rightly trust those acts and take confidence that when the the bishop or priest says, "You are forgiven -- even of this sin which troubles or ought to trouble) you so greatly," it is really so.
Right, the "binding and loosening" clause. We just disagree on its interpretation. My side would say that (a) the clause only applied to the Apostles themselves (as in forgiving sins, and also raising the dead, healing, and everything else), and (b) that the authority actually transferred was only to "declare" what God Himself was doing. So perhaps we would say that God authorized the Apostles to deliver the check, but not to write it. :)
So while it's just Fr. So-and-so whom I see listening and trying to suppress a yawn and wondering when he''ll get a potty break, it is God to whom I speak and God who forgives me.
OK, well that sounds a lot better. Somebody needs to teach those Catechism authors how to write! :)
I think we just have to hurl ourselves over and over again against the problem of God and Time.
That's one way to look at it, but the words "once and for all" seem pretty specific and understandable. I remember arguing with someone over what "for" meant, but if we agree it is about time, then it looks pretty solid to me. :)
And also, just to make it completely incomprehensible, when it comes to the sufficiency of Christ's dolours and sacrifice, there's Colossians 1:24.
Here it is:
Col 1:24 : Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
I don't understand what the issue is. When I read this to me it means that Paul has not yet suffered as much as Christ did.
Yes, I think that's how many outsiders can easily see it.
But of course, there is an explosion. It is in our hearts. It is a lethal explosion. It kills the old man. (Now, if I could just persuade him he's dead ...)
Amen to that! Haven't figured that one out myself. :)
I suggest you read Codex Sinaiticus and tell me why are there two noncanonical books in it! Your claim that all the churches intrinsically read the same books is false, false and false. It's a myth!
The "Church" came to a consensus what books will be used. It was a decision of the hierarchs, plain and simple.
Eusebius, the first Church historian writes (c. 300 AD) about "disputed" writings (the Epistle of James, Jude and 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John!). Disputed in 300 AD?
The Church in Constantinople listed as "disputed" books the Shepherd of Hermes the Apokalypse of Peter and the Apocalpypse of John as late 9th century AD!
It was the Church in Rome of all places that disputed the book of Hebrews because it was not written by +Paul and therefore lacked the necessary apostolic authorship (which it does actually lack because the author is unknown!).
Today, we know that our Holy Bible has been corrupted by additions and deletions. Notable additions are Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:19b-20,43-44; John 7:53-8:11 (the famous Pericope Adulterae) and 1 John 5:7b–8a (the famous Comma Johanneuum).
I suggest you learn about the bible as much as you may have read from it. You may be surprised what the facts have to say.
To summarize: different Churches read different books, ignored other books, doubted some, etc. The only thing that is certain with respect to the NT canon before it was officially proclaimed at the end of the 4th century is that it was consistently inconsistent.
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.