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/
Assuming I understand the terms, I don't see how you can have single predestination without double.
Elaborating a bit, if God creates men who cannot but choose to sin- bound by sin with no freedom of choice as you describe, gives them the freedom to choose, then...
They're pre-destined for damnation, however you slice it. I think this is what you call double predestination.
Merry Christmas, brother
Merry Christmas, jo kus.
The question is who are they predestined by? God did not force man to sin. Man did that to himself. Adam truly did have a choice. He was the one man with free-will. The rest are bound by sin that is not imposed on them by God but imposed on them through their ancestry and their own selfish desires.
Therefore, God does predestine one to Hell. He allows the situation to continue unimpeded until His plan for this world is complete.
Nobody goes to Hell wanting Christ. Nobody goes to Heaven who doesn't. God predestines some for Heaven. The rest, He allows to go on their own way due to their own desires. Fair for all is Hell. Fair is not the cross. Grace is the salvation which He has provided to His elect.
Likewise.
And then our Saviour died...
In your reading of this, what is the difference before and after Christ?
By my thinking, the point of calling Mary a virgin was that she was still a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. This truly required a miracle, and I think we agree that it did really happen. Whether she remained a virgin after that is a fair matter for debate, but I do not think it takes anything away from Mary to believe she later had children in the conventional sense. It's a separate issue.
To an uninitiated, to one unfamiliar with the mysteries of the faith, Mary's virginity or lack thereof has little meaning. This explains why you argue against it so much - you don't understand its deeper meaning.
To me, her virginity has the meaning of a full-blown miracle. It has very high meaning.
However, to help you, think of Mary and the Church itself as interwoven. What is said about Mary in Scripture can be said about the Church theologically. The two are used interchangeably by the Church Fathers interpreting Sacred Scripture. Thus, what we say about Mary reflects not only Christology, but Ecclesiology as well.
I'm afraid that the scriptures do not reveal to me any intertwining among Mary and God's Church in the sense I think you are suggesting. They tell me that she was a great woman in Biblical history and that her faith was pure when it counted. She remains an outstanding role model, especially for women. One reason I can't reach the Roman Catholic level of veneration for her is that she got so little ink, as it were.
I hope that you and your family had a wonderful and blessed Christmas. :)
Nothing in regards to man's willingness to choose God on His own.
Christ's death did not save all mankind. There will be those, who of their own desire, will go to Hell. Christ's death satisified God's requirement for justice for those who are saved. It didn't do away with an inclination to Sin. All still will desire to turn from God. It made possible the reconciliation of the objects of mercy to God. And, not a drop of Christ's blood is spilled in vain.
Scripture can be, and is, used to build systematic theologies for opposite readings, however this, and the story aspect is not what I was originally asking for.
It was more about your personal knowledge of the God you have a relationship with. Whatever the history or back-story or rationale, God creating a human being pre-destined, or unavoidably fated, for damnation is incongruous to me.
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is not the same for you. And the back-story essentially takes this responsibility out of God's hands.
Is this close to a correct understanding of your view?
Let me try to reword this to make it clearer..
[God creating a human being pre-destined, or unavoidably fated, for damnation is incongruous to me.]
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is SOMEWHAT the same for you. So, the back-story is essential to take this responsibility - predestined damnation - out of God's hands.
Is this close to a correct understanding of your view?
If the notion of custodial marriage were ahistorical, no one would have believed a word of the Protoevangelium.
As to the perpetual virginity itself, indeed, some doubted it then, just like some doubt it now, primarily based on the "brethren" verses.
I believe so, but I wouldn't call it the "back story." I would call it what Scripture says.
He shows mercy on whom He will show mercy and whom He will He hardeneth (not that He causes them to be inclined against Him; for they do that on their own. But He allows man to his own devices. Pharoah, the example in Romans 9, was already inclined towards complete and total rejection of God. God did harden him though. He did not cause Pharoah to turn any more against God, for we see in Scripture his desire was completely against God from the beginning. There isn't even the slightest hint that Pharoah wanted things God's way. But, God did harden Pharoah. That is, he orchestrated events such that the full fruits of Pharoah's evil would be manifest.
Romans 9
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
God didn't cause us to embrace evil. God could have justly destroyed the entire world after Adam and Eve sinned. He chose not to. He wanted to teach His created beings what grace was, what mercy was, what good was, and what evil was. He wanted it shown to them the wages of sin. To do this, He allowed the contrast to exist. He allowed people to procreate creatures that would be by nature children of disobedience. He did this, so that he would show the children that he showed mercy upon how far man could fall and how gracious He was to them personally.
IOW, Nobody goes to hell because God makes them into sinners and makes them want to turn from Him. They go to Hell because that's what they want, eternal separation from God. They are children of disobedience and children of wrath from the beginning. He endures with much longsuffering their existence. He doesn't make them into what they become, but allows them to continue for His purposes.
If I have two workers in a barn. And the barn catches on fire. And I try to get both workers to come with me out of the fire and both refuse. But soon, I give to one worker something which totally opens his eyes and CHANGES HIS HEART concerning staying in the burning barn. He realizes that if he remains in his stubborness, he will die. He further sees my benevolence and his entire 'want to' is now inclined to follow after me. He follows me to safety and is saved. The other man sees the testimony of my goodness before himself - yet, he knows that in order to follow me to safety, he will kiss goodbye his own stubborn independence. He ignores the testimony of my goodness all around and goes even further in that he a)detests me and b)builds himself an idol and declares that it will save him. This man is burnt up in the fire. Whose fault is it that he burned? You may say that it is both the man's fault and my fault for not giving him what I gave the first man that changed that man's 'want to.' However, then you would be falling into the trap of trying to make God "fair" by what we unthinkingly call "fairness." Again, fair is both men burn. Mercy was given to one man, and the other was left to his own devices. I didn't choose to put the men in a burning building. They were in there by their own desire to be in there. I didn't cause one to stay there even though a way of escape was made evident. He chose that himself. Yet, I did rescue one man.
God did the same for us. He wasn't obligated to do anything. Mercy and grace are not required of God. They are given by Him. Justice and holiness are part of His person. He can not violate his own justice. He can not violate His own holiness.
We were as people who were in a burning building, knowing that sure destruction awaited us. Then through the Holy Spirit, he gave us a new "want to." to follow Him. He didn't do it for everyone. He didn't have to. The others are still condemned justly. We, however, have received mercy.
Thanks for your reply.
Then I'm still unclear. Your last example has both with free will. I am confused therefore with your earlier statement: "I reject the concept of free will however for the lost because they are bound by sin."
I can understand why that statement would be confusing.
From a God to Man standpoint, they are free because He does not prohibit them from choosing Him.
From a personal standpoint, they have become willing slaves to sin and are therefore not free. Their "want to" is inclined against God. He doesn't keep them from Him, but neither will they come to Him. Nobody will. Not unless the Spirit of God regenerates them, draws them, gifts them with faith.
Again, God does not force them or prohibit them from coming. But they won't come because they have willingly and with every desire within them enslaved themselves. They can't come because their own will prohibits them from doing so.
God's sovereign choice in election works in such a way that the will of the person does change. They want to turn to God - but only as a result of His work in their lives.
It is a delicate balance, I admit. And, it makes some uncomfortable.
But, when you think of it in terms of what does God have to do. The answer is, He has to be just. Nothing more. He doesn't HAVE TO show mercy. And, He is not fair - because fair would have meant Hell for all of us and no cross for Christ. Through His mercy, He gives grace according to His sovereign choice and good pleasure. Not based upon anything we do for Him. Not based upon anything we will do for Him. Just because He is God and it is what He chose to do with His creatures. He allows the others to exist for this short season (in eternity's spance), so that we can learn what his grace is, what mercy is, what good is, what evil is. We wouldn't have had a point of reference without Him doing it that way. And when we learn of Him as His children and all He has done for us, we love Him and serve Him willingly and He has a willing fellowship with us as He desired from before the foundation of the world.
I disagree. If Mary being a virgin AFTER Christ didn't matter (or she actually had other blood children), then it would be false to call her a "virgin". It seems very odd to me that Mary would have sex and deliver other children after God went through the trouble of bringing forth a Savior through her without the aid of a male. It would seem more likely that her womb was set aside for only one - the gates would remain closed...
To me, her virginity has the meaning of a full-blown miracle. It has very high meaning.
Oh, her virginity has more than that!
I'm afraid that the scriptures do not reveal to me any intertwining among Mary and God's Church in the sense I think you are suggesting.
When the linkage is provided, it is difficult to NOT see what God has provided through Mary and through the Church and how they are intertwined. The destiny of the former is the hope of the latter.
One reason I can't reach the Roman Catholic level of veneration for her is that she got so little ink, as it were.
So did the Holy Spirit. What do we know about Him? Not a lot. Amount of ink is a poor way of measuring the importance of something, especially when we are dealing with a God who is humble, a God who became a poor infant child in a backwater country.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Because of Adam, not themselves. And then God, in your view, leaves them so. Some, but not others, for no reason of their own doing.
Yes, it is too delicate a balance for me; it violates my direct knowledge. It can be supported either way with proof texting scripture. Theologically, I would have to go with the view presented to you by others, the Orthodox, in response earlier. It holds without the need of, to me, such a precarious, bordering on contradictory, view of the history. That's my view on the level of exegesis.
He doesn't HAVE TO show mercy.
Here is where I asked your personal knowledge of God. And I disagree still. It's personal, so there's no proof, right/wrong in the sense of logical or theological argument. It's a difference in personal experience.
For me God is merciful, compassionate and loving - above all else. And patient and kind and forgiving. He does not force Himself, nor withold Himself.
When I read descriptions of God from the Calvinist view - single or double - I don't recognize the God I know. This is what I asked you in essence: is this a description of the God you know personally? Does it describe the Person you know?
Again, this is not a personal criticism, though it is about personal experience. I appreciate your courtesy, time and effort in your replies.
Actually the best evidence is that the vast majority of contemporaries accepted the Proto-evangelium: it was only in the sixth century, during the reign of Justinian, that the issue of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos became controversial, and thus a matter of dogmatic definition by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
The issue before Ecumenical Councils was *never*, 'What ought the Church believe and teach?', but always, 'What has the Church always believed and taught?'
First, I do not buy that the majority of the early church fathers accepted it as genuine. Origen is among the first to deal with it and was extremely suspicious of it.
Second, one of the reasons, it is said, that scholars reject the work as a pseudopigraphal book is that the author is apparently unaware of Jewish customs of the day. Seeing that this is so, any custom such as custodial marriage that this particular author deals with should also be looked at with suspicion.
As a Protestant, I'm sure you know, what some of these early "Fathers" believed doesn't hold a lot of water for me. Anything that appears past the first 75 or so years after Christ is to be looked at with a certain kind of skepticism, since the primary players are not alive any more. Doesn't mean for sure that it didn't happen; however, I would be suspicious. Likewise, if it isn't found in Scripture then I will not treat it as truth. God preserved what He intended to in Scripture. The Protoevangelium is a forgery, a fake. To make doctrine based upon its words would be a grave error.
Was just reading through Matthew 1 and found another verse relating to Mary's marriage with Joseph. I believe it was suggested somewhere that they never actually married, but Matthew uses the term in 1:18 "before the came together." Sunerchomai. One of these meanings, and one that totally makes sense concerning this translation is "before they conjugally cohabited." If they were never married but only espoused then they would not have been in conjugal cohabitation.
I fully agree and I have heard of that rule before from other sources about HRC. It sounds like your source is pretty authoritative. :)
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.