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/
Kosta: Sure, it's an act for which you expect something in return.
HD: I would suggest this is the wrong motive for prayer.
The Bible is full of such prayers.
We can't presume to know what God wants.
HD: If we love the Father, how can we not wish to talk to Him. The only reason we love, is because He first loved us.
That's assuming He loves only those whom He preordained to love Him back — like robots.
You said your prayers are for your own edification, HD.
I agree, but not in your theology. In the Refromed theology, you pray because God wants you to pray! So, what does your attitude have to do with it?
HD: The synergist's prayer is completely contradictory to what they purport-the free will of man.
God gave Adam limited freedom. He could eat from whatever tree but one. Human free will is a biblical truth. To deny it, as the Reformed do, is to deny what the Bible makes abundantly clear.
The only thing that limits our freedom is sin. We are not free to sin. Once we commit sin, we are no longer free.
Last time I checked, praying is not in the realm of sin.
Thus, the syngerist's prayer is anything but contradictory to man's free God-given will.
Not as different as you might think.
Oh, trust me, the Orthodox mindset is very different from anything in the West.
I've asked Him to take me gently if that is His will, but if I must suffer & He wants to use me, I ask Him to give me strength to withstand the test.
God does not delight in suffering of his creatures. The suffering is caused by the sinful and unrepentant world, and not by God.
Thy will be done. ;o)
And mean it! We who believe know that He is a merciful and just God; therefore whatever we receive will be merciful and just.
I don't think that there is anything that I can do that will make me pure enough to be deserving without His help.
No there isn't, but He doesn't expect it either -- not instantly at least. The reason there is no redemption for satan and his angles is because there is not a trace of godliness left in them. He cannot see that which is pure evil; nor can He save it.
In us, there is a spark of godliness. Believe me, if your prayers have but a spark of purity in them, He will hear them. He may not fulfill them, but He is likely to lead you to more pure and holier motives, and then grant them.
Do you think that people bring all of their suffering on to themselves, always?
We were born in a fallen world, even if we were not instrumental in its fall. A drug-addicted infant is an addict of no fault of his own; yet his addiction is is also his fall.
I start thinking that I have free will, that I'm in control, bad stuff happens.
We do have free will, albeit its freedom is limited; we are not free to sin. When we sin we are no longer free.
I have to say though, I have also been truly blessed & have much to be thankful about
Amen.
The scriptures states we are slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness.
Who owns the responsibility?
Pick 2
1. God
2.the devil
3.ourselves
It's not slavery as we understand it today. The word +Paul uses is douloi which in those days meant someone who submitted himself to be someone's servant. The important thing is that the willing part comes from us.
HD: We know however our prayers are answered, it is what God wants. The attitude we must understand is it what we want.
When our prayers are fulfilled, we only know that they are acceptable to God. We know what we want; we also know that it's not always acceptable to God.
Kosta: God gave Adam limited freedom. He could eat from whatever tree but one. Human free will is a biblical truth.
His freedom was truly free except for that one tree. Limited freedom is still true freedom, HD.
Excellent!Dear friend.
You hit the nail on the head, brother. Bullseye!
God is not the creator of sin but those of us who believe in original sin understand that we are slaves to sin. Only God can set us free from our bondage. That is what Paul states in Romans 6 when he states, "Who will deliver me from this? Thanks be to God."
Ah, I see. LIMITED freedom is still freedom.
"If the Son sets you free1, you will be free indeed."
Well Dear Brother...We finally have something we agree upon.
...and only we can choose to put ourselves back into the bondage of sin when we fall. Christ is so loving that he continues to deliver us when we freely let go of ourselves in humble submission and contrite heart in detestation of our sin.
It is this submission that Christ is seeking from all of us
I wish you Peace
HD, our freedom is real and limited. It is not that we can't act against God's will, it is that we mustn't.
We are NOT free to sin HD, Reformed heresy notwithstanding. We are free to do anything but sin.
You can’t say you free will and then say that it’s limited. Why did God put the tree in the Garden anyway if He knew man would sin?
Sure you can. No one said our free will is limitless. That would be chaos. We are free to do everything but sin. In fact, we are free to sin too, but that comes with consequences.
Only God is infinitely free. But He is limitless, so His freedom is fitting His nature; we are finite and out freedom is finite, in harmony with our nature.
Why did God put the tree in the Garden anyway if He knew man would sin?
To remind us that our freedom is not without limits.
I agree with you that anyone can say that the Bible means anything. However, what has this to do with Sola Scriptura? To discredit it, one must say that God's word is insufficient until it is filtered through the opinions of fallible men. Or, one must say that the Holy Spirit will lead one certain group of fallible men, based on votes, and that God refuses to lead His children as individuals. I think any of our views have meritorious arguments, but I don't see the view that we MUST trust in men, as opposed to God. If you are right that God shuns His children as individuals, then it would make sense to blindly follow many of the early leaders. However, if I'm right that God does lead His children, then it makes no sense to follow other men instead, as against how the Spirit leads the believer. The Spirit will lead the believer to what he can handle at the time. It is irrelevant that false believers make false claims. There are fringe groups claiming to be Roman Catholic that also make false claims. I don't fault you for them.
The question to ask is "why do I not believe [in the meaning of the Eucharist] anymore, when my ancestors in the faith did"?
Some of my ancestors in faith did believe in the Eucharist and some did not. On one level it can be difficult for me to know whom to follow since I do not believe that non-Biblical "recorded old" necessarily equals true. Many religions are older than Christianity, yet we both dismiss them out of hand. I also do not necessarily put strength in numbers, or else I would claim to be closer to the truth than the Orthodox ONLY because there are more of us than them. I make no such claim.
Sanctification is not based on Bible knowledge and knowing how your theology fits together. ...... Sanctification is about becoming HOLY, like Christ, NOT to become smarter about the Bible! (emphasis added)
Your description of sanctification is exactly correct. I do not believe I have said otherwise. However, I absolutely believe that becoming more intimate and knowledgeable with God's word leads to holiness. Do you believe otherwise? Bible knowledge is only a part of sanctification, not its base. The base of sanctification, in my view, is the personal relationship we have with God and His promises to His children. He leads us in many ways, one of which is Bible knowledge.
FK: "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. :)"
Ah, you just said that you have been wrong before. And then, you said the same thing!!! "I am led by the Spirit, I am right... Oh, well, I will recant and now the Spirit is leading me in the opposite direction?"
Very clever, but no sale. :) I have never said anything like "... all of you are wrong and I am right because I am led by the Holy Spirit and you are not". Now, I "believe" I am right, but I do not DECLARE it as a universal fact as against other Christian faiths because I am so special. No, no, no. Right now, at this minute, I like to think of myself as a growing Christian, becoming more sanctified and HOLY, day by day, (as you said). That means for sure that I do not have all the answers as of today.
As I have said on numerous occasions, it is obviously not the case that the Spirit infuses all knowledge and truth to all believers on an instant basis. It is a growth process that lasts a lifetime. IF your intent is to say that for our theology to be correct it MUST mean that we are not allowed to grow, then I don't think you understand where we are coming from at all.
However, as I have asked you before 3 times now and have yet to receive a reply, "where does the Bible talk about the Spirit leading the individual to interpret successfully the Bible"?
IF we are not in a cross-post, your statement is false. I have quoted verses to you on this thread. ...... If I misunderstand a request I may not answer accordingly. However, on this question I HAVE answered you. If your response has been simply that you reject the scripture that I have showed you, then that is your prerogative. But you CANNOT say that I have not replied to your question. You may not LIKE my previous answer but you cannot say that I did not answer.
You teach that you can come to what the Bible means by yourself ...
No, of course I have never taught that. You have interpreted my teachings through your Church's prism to arrive at that conclusion. I believe that prism distorts many teachings, including those of the Apostles.
It is futile to resist!
Commander Riker, separate the saucer section! :)
Of course it is the Spirit working within us! :) He is Who leads us to read the Bible in the first place. You appear to be making this an either/or situation. All I'm trying to say is that learning the scriptures is a good part of sanctification. You appear to be saying that learning God's word is "nice", but not really important in terms of a person's Christian education. I understand that to be a Roman Catholic view, and I respectfully disagree with it. I understand the Roman Catholic view to be that the most important thing is to learn the Tradition of men FIRST, and then if people want to read the Bible on side issues it is tolerated to a degree.
The Holy Spirit doesn't lead us to read the Bible if it means separating ourselves from the community that He is the Soul, the Life Force.
You appear to be making this an either/or situation. All I'm trying to say is that learning the scriptures is a good part of sanctification.
Not at all. I am not making it an either/or situation. I am saying that becoming holy is not from bible reading per sec, but from the Holy Spirit.
I understand that to be a Roman Catholic view, and I respectfully disagree with it. I understand the Roman Catholic view to be that the most important thing is to learn the Tradition of men FIRST, and then if people want to read the Bible on side issues it is tolerated to a degree.
It's not the "Roman Catholic" view. Why you continue this self-created charade is beyond me. The Catholic Church has maintained the Bible and continues to hold a high place for it. COMMON SENSE dictates that we need a living body to interpret that book. Thus, your "Scriptures interpret themselves" is a desperate attempt to do away with the leadership established by Christ Himself.
"Tradition" is the lense through which we read and interpret and act upon the Word of God. Sanctification is about putting into practice what we have been taught, not about our knowledge of how many chapters are in 2 Corinthians or other such trivial information. Knowledge of Scriptures is not an indication of sanctification - merely consider the atheist who "knows" Scriptures...
As a result, one can be quite holy without being intimately familiar with all the writings of the Bible. As I have pointed out, numerous illiterate Christians have proven this to be true. The bible itself says that they are HELPFUL, not essential to growth in Christ. Paul never makes the statement that we can ONLY be in Christ by bible reading... He talks about faith and love and repentance, not about reading. Reading is where we get God's Word from, but certainly we can get God's Word from other sources, such as our teachers and preachers, as Paul writes in Ephesians.
Now, you may think I am defending NOT reading the Bible? Not at all. I am merely saying that reading the Bible ALONE is not enough, nor is it even ABSOLUTELY necessary to becoming sanctified. Being sanctified is dependent upon God's graces, not our own knowledge!
I find it interesting that you appear to be pushing forth a "self-sanctification" program. Our own reading doesn't make us holy, the Holy Spirit does. Isn't yours a "work" salvation? "Read the Bible and I will become holy"?
Regards
This thread reminds me of “the matter of Jarndyce and Jarndyce”. Not a settlement in site.
LOL!!! Yea, I don't see one, either, no matter what arguments are presented...
Regards
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.