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/
HD you jumped into this without reading the background. I said if you are sure of your resurrection and salvation do you pray for it, and FK said he does. To which I say, why, if you are sure of it, and knowing that your prayers will not change what God has in store for you (which is contrary to what the Bile says). No one was taling about changing the prayers...
Really? Then how can you possibly make the claim that all Protestants are as one on major doctrinal issues???
I have NEVER made such a claim because it cannot possibly be true. I HAVE said things like I think that Bible Believing Protestants agree to a very great degree on major doctrine, and I hold to that. I don't know enough about Anglicanism today to know if they are Bible believing Protestants.
Which is odd that your faith is NOT more shared. If the Bible was so clear on its own (which I will argue until in the grave that it is not!), we wouldn't be having this conversation.
There are a lot more Bible believing Protestants in the world than there are Orthodoxers, so if you want to play a numbers game then you have to dis a faith much closer to your own. I don't happen to think the numbers game really counts for much.
My opinion, and the Church, is to say that it teaches the fullness, and men such as yourself are united to this Church based on your oneness to her in practice and doctrine.
Well I appreciate that. This is always good to hear.
In the end, I do not see how two Protestants can resolve a disagreement, as there is no authority that is living.
No doubt it is difficult. :) I'm sure you've seen some of the Bible believing classic Reformer vs. Bible believing Arminian Reformer threads. We just beat each other about the face and head with scripture all night long. LOL! It can be very entertaining.
In other words, there is a particular way of reading the Bible that is acceptable, and another that deviates from that.
I am fine with that, AND, as I'm sure you will agree, this does not necessarily define Christians from non-Christians. In some cases, if it is bad enough, then yes it does, but not in all cases. For example, my guess would be that it is permissible for a Catholic to consider Mormonism a Christian faith, and that many Catholics fall on both sides of the issue. True? FWIW, I'm well on record that my view is that Mormonism is not a Christian faith.
I don't think you want to revisit 1 Cor 3:12-17! Suffice to say that it causes serious problems with the "salvation by faith ALONE" theory. If you want, you can try again after you collect your thoughts. However, recall that being "destroyed" is NOT a term that defines "lower rewards" in heaven!!!
Yeah, I don't think I'm up to getting into this again so soon, but I have to say one thing. :) My discussion of "destroyed" had nothing to do with lower rewards in Heaven, it was only about earthly punishment vs. spiritual death (loss of salvation).
Oi! What exactly is the difference between healing and being saved??? They are used interchangeably in the Gospel! When Jesus cures someone, He says "you are saved" and other times "you are healed"! Would you like some verses to prove that? This sounds like another one of those contrived differences, like positional salvation!
"Healing" and "saved" can refer to both the physical and spiritual. Or, they can refer to one but not the other. For example, with the adulterous woman it is clear to me that Jesus healed spiritually, but not physically. However, when the servant of the centurion was healed we are given no indication at all that the servant was therefore healed spiritually. Likewise, "saved" means simply physically from danger, as is replete in the OT. However, in the NT it more often means only spiritually, through belief. Therefore, sometimes they cover both, but no where close to always.
Positional salvation is only from a POV. Experience is different as it happens to the elect. There is nothing contrived. Do you deny that God has a different POV from us and that it is expressed in the Bible?
Thus, salvation is available to anyone who avails themselves to accepting the promptings of the Spirit, who rains on the good and the evil.
And I would say that salvation is had by anyone who freely chooses to accept Christ. For lurkers: of course this means that Joe and I see this issue COMPLETELY differently! :) I suppose this is what MD has been talking about for several posts. :)
[Re: Rom. 6:23:] It doesn't say EVERY SIN earns death. It just says sin in general. Thus, a person living a life of sin earns death.
It doesn't say sin in general, it just says sin. The context says it all:
Rom 6:20-23 : 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
This is heavy duty stuff. :) In 21 we see that ALL sin in which they are ashamed of leads to death. Is there any sin in which we need not feel ashamed? This confirms the meaning in 23.
I am not sure I understand your reasoning about the early Fathers hiding the faith!
It's just my old hobby-horse about the faith being hidden if it is only revealed to a select few men directly. I.e., it is not revealed to the common man from God, but through a fallible filter.
A gentleman here seemed pretty intent on discussing the "clear" writings of Paul vs. James, who "doesn't discuss eternal salvation" with me. Also, I have run into a number of people who consider Paul a canon above the canon. They would rather look to Paul (who Peter calls "hard to understand") than Jesus about salvation!!!
By "here" I hope you don't mean this thread, since I have invested a lot of time in reading all the posts. :) I can't speak for every FR Reformer, but the vast majority of them that I am aware of would say that in the Bible Jesus would trump Paul, but that is never necessary because they never disagree. :) Also, that as an author or authority, Paul is no higher nor lower than any other author.
Paul happens to be one guy who deals with a lot of "meat", so we DO focus on him sometimes. But that is not to belittle or say that any other is a "lesser" authority. Paul is NOT "more correct" because he's Paul.
I focus of John sometimes more than the synoptics, but that takes nothing away from them either. Again, it's where I perceive to be the most "meat", or the most difficult to understand. Maybe that's a better way to look at it. I focus more because it's just plain harder. :)
I don't consider faith and works separate! How could you say such a thing? Have our classes been for naught?!
No, our classes have not been for naught! I have retained much of what you have personally taught me and I am forever grateful. I'm not perfect though. :) The reason I see them as separate in Catholicism is that once a person decides to accept faith, then he must then make further, independent decisions to do works. My understanding is that most who have faith decide to do them, but that some, who have what you would call real faith, decide not to do them, and they lose their salvations. That defines a separation to me. My side would say that every single person with true faith WILL do works, and NONE can be lost. That's why I claim to say that they are inseparable.
Well, that doesn't sound bad at all, but my understanding of the Bible is that at some (any) point before creation, there was some "thing" called predestination. Whatever that was, and I have my ideas :), it involved change. But, if all that counts as "in Himself", then I suppose I could accept the idea that time started upon creation.
I agree with you on the Arians, they were all wet. The Son is eternal.
To start the thought, I envision a cottonmouth swimming across a pond. All he sees, with his eyes at water level, is where he is. But we are above the pond, and we see everything around him.
Then if we were to apprehend his every position in the pond at once, it would be sorta kinda like God and time. And then we can throw pebbles into the pond, before the snake, after him, or right at him. We see the whole thing and our view does not change, but for him every second is new and is swiftly slipping into the past, with NOW as the nexus where the water touches his eyes.
AMAZING! A while ago, on this very thread, I made up the following to describe God's omnipresence. Imagine a two-dimensional man who "lives" on a sheet of paper. He can see up, down, right and left, but not outward. I could sit with my nose one inch from his and he wouldn't have the slightest idea. I could reach around and waive my hand behind the sheet of paper and he would be oblivious. I could also stick my finger through a hole in the paper, but he would not recognize me for what I am. Thus to him, I am everywhere and no where all at once! Our comparisons sound very similar.
And for God, all times are Now.
Yeah, BUT :), I don't think that means that God doesn't act within time. From our existence, He does act within time, without being subject to it or limited by it. So, when God throws a pebble, while His view doesn't change, He notices the ripples that weren't there before. It's just that my experience has been that your particular phrase here has been thrown against me (not by you) in the past in order to quash further discussion (due to "declared" irrelevancy) when I was sure that I was winning. LOL!
That's right, which is why I usually scream from the mountaintops that I do not answer for "Protestantism". The term is ill-defined, and could easily include non-Christians. If someone wanted to give me a definition of it in order to answer a specific point, I would be happy to go from there. In my own mind, when I say "Bible believing Protestants", that really narrows it down to something I can work with.
Again, I just don't think Protestantism is as monolithic as you are trying to make it out to be. How can you even state such if you do not know the beliefs of other Protestants?
JOE!!! :) In my previous 15,445, addressed TO YOU, I said: "... This is well stated. My first advice would be to get away from thinking that on the one hand there is Catholicism and on the other is Protestantism. Catholicism is a self-contained monolithic faith. Protestantism is nothing like that. ..." (emphasis added)
Now, I KNOW you read my posts, so unless I'm missing something this is an oops. :)
Can you show me some Scriptures that tells us that the Holy Spirit leads us in Bible study? I am curious, as it doesn't ring a bell. Maybe I skipped over it. Thanks.
Sure, here is an excerpt from The Holy Spirit, Regeneration, and Sanctification by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon:
Sanctification is the work of the spirit, and its beginning starts with conversion and grows from that point. Even after the believer is born again, the work of the Spirit continues in the progressing and growing sanctification of the soul. From the new birth there shall be new life. Christ is emphatic in demonstrating the fruit bearing aspect of the believer in Matthew 7:16-20, “You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? 17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” And likewise He says, “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit (John 15:2).” Such a change comes from a true change of the heart.
Sanctification and the continuance of spiritual life depends upon the gracious operation of the Spirit. Galatians 5:25 says, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” Romans 8:9 also says this, “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” This operation of the Spirit is by His will operating in us, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).”
This walking in the Spirit maintains a constant conflict with indwelling sin and seeks to crucify the remnant of remaining sin still in the soul. Paul says in Galatians 5:17, “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.”
Yet, every motivation of goodness in the believer, and each motion to good works are done by the Spirit’s power and His action in motioning the soul to work rightly. Galatians 5:18 states, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”
OK, so from this we have some evidence that the Spirit leads us in sanctification, and that includes Bible study. We see here the ideas of "living in the Spirit" and "walking in the Spirit". If it is available, how could that not include Bible study? It has to. We also have God working in us to will and to do. Would that include Bible study if it was available? I believe it would. Finally we see that being led by the Spirit, and it doesn't appear that Paul is ONLY referring to the other Apostles here, ahem :), means that we are no longer under law. This is the sanctification of a true believer only, not someone claiming a false faith. Only believers are freed from the law, and it is the Spirit who leads. Bible study isn't the ONLY thing, but it is certainly included in the Spirit's leading of us.
No, FK, you said "This [God] knew from the beginning." My question is what beginning? If it is the beginning of the Creation, then He didn't know us before that. If it implies some other beginning, then eternity is not eternal, but subject to time. Therefore to say God knew from the beginning is incorrect; rather, God knows us for all eternity more properly expresses timlessness of God; the word beginning in not timeless.
OK, fine. :) Since "beginning" can be associated with the point of creation, I shouldn't have said it that way. I believe predestination occurs before the Biblical "beginning", so yes, I would say that He knew us for all eternity. I'll try to be more careful. :)
This is why religious debates are frequently dumb. May I lose and God win.
See, because you are younger than I and missed the 60's, you don't understand the recreational value of having your brain explode. Yes, God acts in time. No question (not in OUR religion, anyway.) I suspect it is part of the operation of the Son, but whoever puts it together or not, somehow changing temporaality is comprehended in Gods eternity. The old joke is "Time is God's way of keeping everything from happening at once," and I like to think that one reason God made change and stuff was so that our finite minds could get a clue about his infinite glory. SO in history he "says" stuff like "I am just," "I am mercicful," "I am Love," but we are so dumb that if we just saw His mercy we wouldn't get how important His justice is. Something like that. We need time to comprehend Him even to the weeny insignificant extent that we comprehend Him.
And being temporal and dumb we get it wrong mostly.
The purpose of our metaphors is to express temporal things spatially - as though the far reaches of the pond are "after" where the snake is right now. WE are trying to suggest that God apprehends (beholds?) all time at once. When I say that for God all times are now, I am trying to get away from the idea of GOD experiencing something like "waiting" or foreseeing. I want to say something like He currently sees the pond before the pebble, during the pebble, and after the pebble. For Him all things do happen at once. He can cope.
I'm not arguing here, I'm trying to express, okay?
And I would suggest that you learn about the official teaching of the Orthodox Church on the scriptures.
I must be missing something. Going back through the last five posts my post seems consistent in thought but I must admit that I haven’t been following this conversation.
I have shown you facts, HD and you choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend they are not there.
You are telling me that I am in conflict with "my Church." How Protestant of you to presume that you know better than I what "my Church" teaches! Apparently your cursory "study" of the Church doctrinal truths is just that -- cursory.
Had you gone a little deeper, you would have found this:
So, for the record, lest someone else were to arrogate himself the right to "teach" Orthodoxy to the Orthodox. Thus, we believe the Bible does express God's perfect truth, expressed by imperfect human language and limited human capacity. That's why not everybody can just pick up the Bible and understand, or be able to separate human factors from divine truth that are in it.
Historical facts also show that the Bible was put together over a span of time, by consensus of Church hierarchs who struggled to separate what they believed were inspired and rejecting what they believed were profane writings.
To say that the Church "knew" and agreed on all the books contained in the NT is a lie. The NT canon was -- like everything else we have from God -- a gradual revealed truth.
PS There is no "my Church." There is only One (Catholic) Church which teaches One Apostolic (Orthodox) Faith. The concept of "my church" is a distorted Protestant construct which goes hand-in-hand with the Protestant notion that every one is his own pope.
Tsk, tsk. Facts? Point to an early Church father who didn't believe in the inspired writings. You have yet to tell me how any Church father knew about the virgin birth apart from inspiration. I'm sure none of them were in the room when the angel was there. A couple of people get together and say the virgin birth happened and you believe it? Yet other sections you doubt.
If you doubt one part of scripture, you might as well doubt the whole thing. If you want to find contradictions and errors, you can find them. But before I go down that path, I would prefer to claim my own ignorance and try to understand. I have found that to be more rewarding.
The problem with Christians today is that they no longer believe in the scriptures. Where the early church fathers extensively quoted the scriptures, nowadays Church fathers simply quote one another. People don't believe the word of God is THE POWER OF GOD FOR SALVATION. Shame on us.
PS There is no "my Church." There is only One (Catholic) Church which teaches One Apostolic (Orthodox) Faith.
You are "free" to teach anything you like. It doesn't make it right.
I never claimed that. Of course they believed in the inspired writings, they just didn't agree what was inspired!, not for a while at least.
You have yet to tell me how any Church father knew about the virgin birth apart from inspiration
Because she was the first human to receive Christ, and she received Him as a virgin, and was filled with grace as a virgin. If she were to become a non-virgin, she would no longer be in the same state of grace when she received her Savior.
If you doubt one part of scripture, you might as well doubt the whole thing
That's silly. God's message remains true regardless of the details. Variations in Bibles prove that. Even the Greek language bibles are not all the same. Such variations do not take away the truth of the message of God's revelation, even if the sentences do not read exactly the same words, but express the same revealed truth nonetheless.
The Gospels differ as to what Christ said on the Cross. Do they take away from the truth? It doesn't matter if Job really lived, but what the book of Job is all about.
Sometimes the Protestants remind me of simpletons who believe that Charlston Heston's Moses in "Exodus" is the only "true" rendition of the event.
The problem with Christians today is that they no longer believe in the scriptures
The problem with Christians today is that they don't believe. The Church existed before the New Testament existed. People believed in Christ's Resurrection. They believed what they heard from the Apostles. Christ never commissioned his disciples to write books! The Bible is a product of the Church, not the other way around.
People don't believe the word of God is THE POWER OF GOD FOR SALVATION
Christ never taught that it is. It is faith that brings us to God who saves. What good is the word of God if you don't believe?
Wow! this surprises me,Harley. I thought you guys(calvinists) denied free will-:0)
A true calvinist would have said..
You are "predestined" to teach anything you like
Gotcha!LOL!
LOLOL!!!
Why do you think I put "free" in quotes. We Calvinists are smarter than the average synergist. :O)
No a true Calvinist would have said...You are predestined to teach anything you God likes.
Sounds like a good idea. My contribution to defining a generic Bible-believing Protestant would include that as absolute minimums, such a person must hold to Sola Scriptura and at least 3 points of Calvinism. A Calvinist would have to hold to 4. (I happen to be a 5-pointer.)
If I were arguing for the Prots I'd say,"Have you heard of the Warren court?"
I was going to say that, but you're way ahead of me. :)
On a more group dynamic level I also thought we owed "our" people NOT our own particular notions of how things should be but their church's notions. They hadn't signed up in the Church of Mad Dawg but in the Episcopal Church. What was it about the temptation to lay MY trip on them and why would I not be content with the sermon as a chance to inflict my views on them?
Maybe "pastoral privilege" should be directly related to accountability. Our pastor knows that if he starts spouting nonsense he is out on his butt! :) So, that actually gives him some leeway, in my view, because he is otherwise free to say whatever he wants. In fact, over the last several months he has been taking a very Calvinist tack. He just skips the icky parts. He's been quoting Calvinist thinkers all over the place, without identifying them as such, and I'M just pleased as punch. :) If I was a committed Arminian I probably wouldn't be so happy, but I think this subtlety is actually going over most people's heads in my congregation. Unfortunately! :)
Here is where I get really self-righteous. That stuff irritates me. The only pastoral privilege I'd holds to is the undisputed right to a nap Sunday afternoon.
The privilege is to serve God's people. It used to just amaze me. I mean I get thrilled when I pull a lamb -- and once, this is cool, I had one that wasn't breathing, tongue blue and lolling out. I held it so that I knew the airway was open and breathed into its mouth - no lip-lock necessary, D.G., and watches as its tongue turned pink and then finally it started breathing - and ten minutes later was on the teat doing what comes naturally.
YES I feel privileged to speak the words of life, to be given a chance to breathe into somebody's heart. And all this stuff that we argue about is really for much later on. The fire-starter is just,"He loves you, you really don't deserve it at ALL, but He loves you and means to save you into a salvation beyond your wildest dreams!"
Wow! And they used to pay me to do that. Heck, I'd pay them for the chance!
Alright, I'll try this from a different angle. In light of "God does not make choices", how is it determined who gets into Heaven? Do we pass a test and then God is obligated to let us in?
In addition, I assume your position is that Jesus Christ did NOT choose to die for us on the cross. Since you are such a strong proponent of human free will, I find it odd that you are denying free will to God. If God does not choose, then He does not have free will.
If your so smart and God predestines people to hell- then tell me how God can create a sinful person who winds up in hell if man was created in God’s image?
Are you’re willing to say that is God’s image is sinful?
I can pose thousands of questions like this.
Sounds like a Mechanical God.. a Robot.. A Robotic God..
Like the God of the Borg.. Sin or Not, Resistence is futile you will be assimilated..
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.