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/
You wrote : We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them.
I wrote : The scriptures don’t make that qualification.
You wrote : ??? Sure it does! Quite often. What's wrong with the verse you used?Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Actually, the later writings of the NT also have such qualifications. John, Jude, Peter, Colossians and the Pastorals all speak of false teachers. Even Thessalonians and Corinthians and Galatians speak of such men. We test the veracity of their claim by the Gospel once given. That is how we know a false teacher - one who brings a different gospel, as Paul says in Gal 1:10.
My point is that such testing of a claimed gospel message was not reserved only to those appointments were in question. Such testing was commanded for all such presentations, no matter who gave it, known to be appointed or not.
In that passage you cite (i.e. Galatians 1) ... Paul says that even his message should be tested against (as you so correctly say) ... ”the Gospel once given.”Galatians 1: 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.What the early community was expected to do was to RETAIN what was once given by Paul and the other Apostles and use that as a reference to guard against traveling teachers who might distort the good News. When their teachings differed from the Apostles, when their fruit was noted, the community knew they were being given a false gospel. Again, look at Gal 1:10. Paul claims that the Gospel HE gave is from God. He doesn't say "whatever you guys come up with when you read the Scriptures". He says the "traditions once given". That does not bode well for trying to figure out God's teachings alone with your bible in your lap "guided by the 'spirit'".
As we said before, so say I now again, If any preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
And the gospel once given (by Paul, Peter, Matthew, John, etc.) is resident most assuredly in the scriptures. Even an Apostle once appointed ... can change his tune (witness Judas) ... so appointment really doesn’t assure veracity of the message.
And what happens when numerous opinions are expressed? When if the community is torn into dissension? What secures the future of the community that keeps it from splitting into numerous factions?
Jesus prayed that we would be all one. Not numerous factions that all had their own opinion on the "Gospel once given"...
Practically speaking, the fact that leadership exists and was inititiated by the Christ, we can presume that He had a good reason.
And the gospel once given (by Paul, Peter, Matthew, John, etc.) is resident most assuredly in the scriptures. Even an Apostle once appointed ... can change his tune (witness Judas) ... so appointment really doesn’t assure veracity of the message.
I heartedly disagree. How would YOU know 2000 years later that John, Peter, Paul, etc. were actual valid writings and not fraud or that the Gnostic Gospels were real?
Regards
Welcome home.
A Friendly bear hug to you.
Practically speaking, the fact that leadership exists and was inititiated by the Christ, we can presume that He had a good reason.
I believe in the validity of Chrisitan leadership.
I simply don't believe that we can count on such leadership to be infallible, ... as evidenced by Judas ... and not a few Catholic priests/popes and Protestant ministers.
The scriptures, on the other hand, are infallible ... and provide all that is necessary for the salvation of our souls.
And the gospel once given (by Paul, Peter, Matthew, John, etc.) is resident most assuredly in the scriptures. Even an Apostle once appointed ... can change his tune (witness Judas) ... so appointment really doesn’t assure veracity of the message.
I heartedly disagree. How would YOU know 2000 years later that John, Peter, Paul, etc. were actual valid writings and not fraud or that the Gnostic Gospels were real?
It is the consensus of the Church that the writings on the Old and New Testaments are ordained of God as scripture. It is one of the things that we all agree upon.
I believe in everything that we all agree on.
I agree with the first two statements, but not with the third. To choose does not mean one is indecisive. It just means to prefer one thing over another. For example, God COULD have chosen to let salvation be based on merit, so apparently, only Mary would be saved. But He made another choice instead. He knew what He wanted all along, but both scenarios could not be simultaneously true.
Does God ponder "Should We do this or that?" Implying that God must pick among choices that are somehow forced upon Him is anthropomorphism par excellence — making God fit our image — which seems to be very prevalent among Protestants.
No, there is no indecision about God. But, for the reality He wants, it means that some other reality does not exist. Those are the choices He makes.
INDEED.
THX for the ping.
Not when you are the reason both possibilities exist, FK! The "choice" God makes, then, must come from possibilities He created. That would make God subject to His own creation!
The it's not a choice, FK. If I know from the first day I can remember what I want, then I am not making a choice.
But, for the reality He wants, it means that some other reality does not exist.
If it doesn't exist then its' not a choice. It was never created. If it was created, then it exists only because God made it.
God cannot choose evil because God did not create it. Evil is not a creature that has life of its own. God is good not because he "chooses" to be good, FK! God never had to choose between good and evil.
God can choose good or evil.. heaven or hell.. debit or credit.. right and wrong.. beneficial or maleficient..
Its you and I Kosta that are not to make those choices.. i.e. Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.. (See Genesis) Only God can make those choices..
"For when we DO(decide good and evil) we will be like GOD"- Gospel of Satan...
i.e. eating from the fruit of the tree of good and evil..
Thats your theology. Christian God did not create evil. He cannot choose, see, hear or do what is evil. For, evil is absence of God.
Whatever god you believe in, it's not Christian. But, we already know that.
There you go again deciding good and evil, yourself.. We are not suppose to do that.. for if/when you do, you will be like GOD(knowing good from evil).. according to Satan..
That has always been Satans gospel.. still is.. to be like God chosing good from evil and evil from good.. Men chose evil thinking its good and good thinking its evil.. Is that what you're doing?... Can God make Evil if he wants/needs to?..
Better said then..
What IS evil?...
What IS good?...
Do YOU know?.. If you do then you are like God...
The scriptures, on the other hand, are infallible ... and provide all that is necessary for the salvation of our souls.
Can you tell me where the Bible makes the statement that its individual components are infallible??? I think that is a presumption that forgets that it comes from the infallible CHURCH.
On to another subject (since this will not be resolved, no doubt, even though it is INSTRUMENTAL on our differences), I would like to return back to your quote of 1 Cor 2:14-15 that you posted and I believe you take out of context (many Protestants believe this says something it doesn't and use it over and over).
I think if you read the first two chapters more carefully, you will find that Paul is saying that the spiritual person will judge the Gospel of the CROSS on something that is not visible, as a natural person would. You see, the Jews and Greeks who used their rational thought OR who believed in Bible alone did not buy the Gospel of the Cross. Paul talks about the PARADOX of the Cross: HOW does God's Wisdom work through the apparent defeat of Jesus on the Cross? To the Jews and Greeks who used their natural reasoning, it was foolish. To those who were spiritual (guided by the Spirit that transcends their own reason), they were able to judge the Gospel as from God.
THIS is the meaning of Paul, not that the "spiritual" man will understand the entire Bible led by the Spirit of God without any other help! I believe your interpretation goes way beyond what is meant by Paul, who continues in Chapter 3 with feeding the infant Christian on milk and so forth.
It is the consensus of the Church that the writings on the Old and New Testaments are ordained of God as scripture. It is one of the things that we all agree upon.
Yes, the Church does. And now, WHY do you believe that? Because you are part of the Church or because it happens to agree with what you already believe? Do you believe because the Church says so (and it is infallible - if not, she could be wrong about the Bible) or because your rational of the moment tells you that?
That is the question...
Regards
No, there you go again ... that relativity "religion," everything is "relative." Well, God is not relative. He revealed Himself to mankind, and what He revealed was that He is absolutely good and just.
So, through His revelation, we know that evil is not His creature.
Good and Evil is time stamped.. Whats good today may be evil tomorrow and whats evil tomorrow may be good at another time.. Good and Evil can become idols.. statues of reality.. mere images of reality after reality has pasted..
Good and Evil are relative to the observer.. and the observers observation point.. Thats WHY we are not to touch them both.. Only God can observe with a wide enough scope.. Fallen man(flesh) HATES THAT.. For flesh WANTS to be like God.. knowing good from evil.. ugly vs. beauty.. debit vs. credit.. right vs. wrong.. permanent vs. nebulous.. with no time stamp..
God is eternal and God is eternally good; absolute, transcendent, unchanging, simple, eternal, not relative, not time stamped. Evil did not co-exist with God, nor did God create evil.
What is evil?..
The eternal present is time stamped..
Evil is co-existing with God NOW, right NOW......
I simply don't believe that we can count on such leadership to be infallible, ... as evidenced by Judas ... and not a few Catholic priests/popes and Protestant ministers.
The scriptures, on the other hand, are infallible ... and provide all that is necessary for the salvation of our souls.
Can you tell me where the Bible makes the statement that its individual components are infallible??? I think that is a presumption that forgets that it comes from the infallible CHURCH.
2 Timothy 3:15-16 says that the scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation ... and that they are God inspired, ... and that they are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.Also, in John 10:11, Jesus says that scripture cannot be broken..
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
I believe that the infallibility of scripture can be justified using these references.
On to another subject (since this will not be resolved, no doubt, even though it is INSTRUMENTAL on our differences), I would like to return back to your quote of 1 Cor 2:14-15 that you posted and I believe you take out of context (many Protestants believe this says something it doesn't and use it over and over).
I think if you read the first two chapters more carefully, you will find that Paul is saying that the spiritual person will judge the Gospel of the CROSS on something that is not visible, as a natural person would. You see, the Jews and Greeks who used their rational thought OR who believed in Bible alone did not buy the Gospel of the Cross. Paul talks about the PARADOX of the Cross: HOW does God's Wisdom work through the apparent defeat of Jesus on the Cross? To the Jews and Greeks who used their natural reasoning, it was foolish. To those who were spiritual (guided by the Spirit that transcends their own reason), they were able to judge the Gospel as from God.
THIS is the meaning of Paul, not that the "spiritual" man will understand the entire Bible led by the Spirit of God without any other help! I believe your interpretation goes way beyond what is meant by Paul, who continues in Chapter 3 with feeding the infant Christian on milk and so forth.
I will take another look at this, but I believe that what the text says is quite logical and reasonable.
Would it not follow that those who are more spiritual would be able to understand the expression of God, (Who is a Spirit, and Who’s kingdom is spiritual,) ... to a greater degree than those who are less spiritual ?
It is the consensus of the Church that the writings on the Old and New Testaments are ordained of God as scripture. It is one of the things that we all agree upon.
Yes, the Church does. And now, WHY do you believe that? Because you are part of the Church or because it happens to agree with what you already believe? Do you believe because the Church says so (and it is infallible - if not, she could be wrong about the Bible) or because your rational of the moment tells you that? That is the question ...
I believe it ... because the Church believes it. I believe that the approximate unity of the Church, on this issue, is sufficient to justify my belief in it.
This is seemingly one of those rather agenda-less issues in the Church. That all christians embrace this belief bolsters my faith in this area.
My faith is certainly bolstered by the recognition of what Christians agree upon, including ...God as the Creator.It may well be that these such areas of agreement ... constitute the entirety of the required body of faith within the Church.
Jesus as His Son.
Jesus’ earthly life given for the redemption of the souls of men (and women).
Jesus’ promise to save those that unite with Him by faith.
That Jesus will return to establish His kingdom
etc....
It may well be that those areas where we disagree ... are simply that ... areas where we disagree, having no greater significance than that.
But getting back to your question ... I do believe that the Church is infallibly led by God.
I believe that the Truth always resides within the Church.
That said, I do not believe that all Truth resides in any particular segment of the Church.
I believe that, in all issues relevant to the Church, we have the Truth.
Of course, it may be that we will have to hash it out to find it.
Dear 'pipe, God is unaffected by evil, which He did not create and so is not in the least responsible for. The route to evil in this world comes via the human will in rebellion against God's Will. I don't think you can blame God for that. A human being must be left "free to sin," in order to dignify and make meaningful his decision to follow God.
The problem of evil does not affect God; it only affects man. It enters the world only through human decisions, of the sort against which we already have been amply warned by God Himself in not one, but four separate, yet entirely harmonious divine revelations.
Well, my two cents FWIW.
What IS evil?..
Angels rebelled "they" say.. generating "evil"???...
What was Satan doing in the Garden of Eden with those "innocent" new humans?.. Where did he come from?.. Is murder evil?.. since nobody actually dies.. Everybody lives forever somewhere(Heaven/Hell).. whatever they are...
This drama on this planet is a great mystery.. How would we know good without evil or evil without good?.. Is it all merely double entry accounting?.. debits offsetting credits on one side of the ledger and the same on the other side?.. With a Balance Sheet and Income statement?.
Could be the "EVIL" is not so evil and the "GOOD" is not so good.. The ultimate universal "observer problem"... Its hard to be humble and just be content with "whatever it is, it IS".. and have the faith of a little child..
You know; dealing with that damned Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.. was a serious mistake.. Causing questions impossible to answer.. tempting simplistic solutions..
God was right... Divining good and evil is well beyond mankind and even ANGELS...
You responded : 2 Timothy 3:15-16 says that the scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation ... and that they are God inspired, ... and that they are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
That does not answer my question - what IS Scripture and WHO decides what it is? Is ALL "Scriptures" inspired by God? The Koran is called Scripture, as is the Hindu Sacred writings. What is Christian Scripture and who determined it??? The individual components do not indicate that they are Scritpures. For example, if you found Philemon separately as a man living in 100 AD, would you immediately say "hey, that is inspired by God". As you can see, my question addresses the makeup of the Canon more than the already-determined compilation.
Again, it is the Church that makes that determination, not the Bible itself.
Also, in John 10:11, Jesus says that scripture cannot be broken..
What does that mean? That the OT cannot be broken? And again, the question of what IS Scripture is left unanswered.
I believe it ... because the Church believes it.
Me too. But if the Church believes in a third state of existence called Purgatory, you refuse to believe that. Why? Forgive me, but does this not sound like YOU are the final judge on what is Truth and what is not Truth, despite the Scripture calling the CHURCH (not the individual) the pillar and foundation of the Truth?
But getting back to your question ... I do believe that the Church is infallibly led by God. I believe that the Truth always resides within the Church. That said, I do not believe that all Truth resides in any particular segment of the Church.
I agree with your first statement. I do not believe "ALL" the truth is resident in any particular segment, either. However, I do believe that we CAN find what God wants us to know in this era by turning to one particular place, one that is visible and one that has existed from the beginning. I do not believe that God has discontinued His protection of this organization. The Church of the Incarnation is like its leader, Jesus Christ: It is visible and human as well as spiritual and invisible. Thus, I will admit their is a component of the "invisible" Church. However, I believe this is reserved for those who do not reject the VISIBLE Church - perhaps they are unaware of the Visible Church or are not aware fully of its claims. But to pit the Visible AGAINST the Invisible is a mistake, in my opinion, because it does a disservice to its Head, who is visible and invisible WITHOUT dissension.
As always, it is a pleasure speaking with you.
Brother in Christ
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.