as·sumed (
-s
md
)
adj.
1. Taken up or used so as to deceive; pretended: an assumed name.
2. Taken for granted; supposed: an assumed increase in population.
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/
That's because you seem to ignore everything I write.
The present tense is the transcendental "eternal present" which applies to Logos, God the Word, now as it did before all ages and it will unto all ages.
The Word was not always Incarnate; there was a time when He was not Incarnate.
That's why I said God the Word is without a body, immaterial; it is the pre-Incarnate Word. I would never refer to the Incarnate Word as just God the Word, for the Incarnate Word has a human Name, Jesus Christ.
Are you saying that God the Word changed into something else after the Incarnation? He did not change; He assumed humanity in addtion to His divinity.
Was is the operative word there, is it not?
God the Word, for the Incarnate Word has a human Name, Jesus Christ.
And does Jesus Christ have form, flesh, shape, and humanity?
Thank you Kolo, and A8. Let me say that I do understand P-Marlowe's concern and Blogger's objections. To them, asserting the Word's divinity is somehow diminishing Christ's humanity, which is not the case, of course.
As for St. Augustine, he does follow the Latin tradition of St. Ambrose on the Trinity. Of course, it differs from the Eastern tradition on the Trinity. But it doesn't hurt to know both traditions, now does it, Kolokotronis?
ping 3123
Was is only meaninful with regards to God when we speak of Incarnation. Was otherwise has no meaning wiht deity, os the proper tense is "is." God does not change.
does Jesus Christ have form, flesh, shape, and humanity?
Of course, He does. Jesus is the Incarnate God the Word.
His human naure does not mix with or change the divine Nature, and that nature is, in the words of St. John of Damascus
In His divine nature, He is, always has been and always will be יהוה, or as Kolo says O W N.
"But it doesn't hurt to know both traditions, now does it, Kolokotronis?"
LOL!!!!!!! No, of course not...but then again, we're on post 3127 on a subject that Roma and Orthodoxy agree on and it isn't our Orthodox progeny who are having the problem here. :)
That's not really where I was parked, Kosta. To me, it appeared that you were saying that he never really BECAME human but just put on a human form. Jesus was 100% fully human. He was also 100% fully God.
With P-Marlowe's concern, the words "assumed" and "put on" do have a connotation of not really becoming. I assume an identity. I'm not really that person, but I am pretending I am.
Your earlier statement about God the Word never being flesh was not clear as to what you meant. It didn't sound like you were asserting His divinity. It sounded like you were denying His humanity.
I am not Kosta's mind reader. Kosta can explain what Kosta means.
But you agree as well that in the incarnation things were different in the fact that the 2nd person of the trinity was transformed into the God-Man? Not a costume. He BECAME one of us (while still retaining His divinity).
What is God the Word's Current state?
I specifically used the term God the Word and not Incarnate God the Word to leave no doubt as to what I was referring to. You are welcome to check.
It didn't sound like you were asserting His divinity. It sounded like you were denying His humanity
I was merely stating that God the Word, begotten of the Father, is incorporeal. I was not denying Incarnation.
What is God the Word's Current state?
Unchanged, eternal, fully divine and fully human in His natures, each nature being separate, unmixed and unconfused.
This, like generally Protestant translations, favors Protestant theology. My original says "I know not man", a statemet akin to "I do not smoke".
There is nothing in the annunciation to suggest the event is to take place before the marriage, and common sense would dictate that the it refers to the regular offspring of the marriage.
Well, Philippians 2 pretty much says so, no?
6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.
Without getting too technical, how is "taking the form", "being made in the likeness" and "found in habit like" differ from "assumed"? It is not a trick question, and perhaps you elaborate later, but as a read the thread your objection stands out as arguing over words. Do you dispute that it was the will of Christ to redeem us with His death? If you elaborate below, I apologize, I only read so far today.
Merry Christmas.
as·sumed (-smd)
Do you think that Paul is saying that all righteous men never sinned? The verse says that all HAVE sinned. In fact even righteous men still sin. Paul knew about David, among dozens of other examples of righteous men.
Clearly, in context, Paul is saying that Jewish customs and their national heritage does not save a man - which is NOT what the Judaizers thought... FAITH in God does. The Jews thought that the Gentiles should be circumcised. Remember this is one of the big problems Paul had with the Jewish Christians, right?
Sure, and a common theme of Paul was that following the law to the best of our ability is not what saves. Not one of us can do it. Thus, ALL (meaning ALL) have sinned. That fits perfectly with Paul's message.
This faith can even be exercised by Gentiles, as Ch. 2 describes. This faith, of course, is from the Spirit, who is the Author of the Law on our hearts! The problem is your paradigm that sees all men as evil, and thus, you overlook the context of Romans 3 and the Psalms that it quotes.
If you believe that faith is truly from the Spirit, and I know you do, then that does not contradict the notion that all men are evil and totally lost without specific and total action by God. He removes from us the nature that is wholly evil and gives us a new nature.
But even a non-Christian would see my point of view and disagree that Paul could have meant all people are evil, because they would only have to read a few of the Psalms that deny this idea - which Paul quotes from.
I don't see how any non-Christian could come away from the Bible with the idea that all men who are called righteous were sinless from birth.
FK: "Many of you must have thought that some wicked Jews were sinless."
HUH??
That is what I'm supposing Paul must have meant if he took your view. My point is that his statement would have been utterly pointless if all he meant was that wicked men sin. Therefore, since all Jews knew that some were righteous, some must have thought that some wicked Jews were sinless. Paul was there to teach them that "no", in fact, only the wicked Jews sinned. This makes no sense as a teaching to me.
I'm saying that Paul's statement has profound meaning if he was saying that since ALL have sinned, it is a waste of time to attempt to enter Heaven by doing one's best to follow the Law. Many Jews certainly did believe that, as you pointed out.
In this case, really? In this story of the woman who touched Christ's garment, do you think that more is needed than common sense of any era to dismiss the idea that Sola Scriptura supports that she must have been Christ's daughter? I fully agree that arguing solely common sense does not always lead to fully correct answers, there can be no doubt of that. I was just defending Sola Scriptura and one of its components, since it was the easiest to state in this case. Since I knew that BAC didn't actually believe the hypothetical I didn't spend a lot of time writing a whole long proof about it. :)
As a matter of fact, the argument was that far from being illegitimate, the children of Christ were born of His marriage to Mary Magdelen, or so the Gnostic Gospels would have us believe. But of course, a group of Greek speaking bishops took care of the Gnostic Gospels by measuring what they said against the Holy Tradition of The Church and finding them wanting; they didn't employ sola scriptura or "common sense", FK.
What I'm saying is that they COULD have applied Sola Scriptura, since there is no reasonable interpretation of the Bible that allows for Christ to have been married with children. He told us specifically why He came to us. We are given the will of the Father. No where in there is there anything about taking a family. There is nothing about Him leaving bio-children to carry on His work. That question is fully else-wise answered to both of our respective satisfactions. :) In this case, both Sola Scriptura and (extra-scriptural) Tradition arrive at the same conclusion. I say that's great.
Common sense didn't give you the scriptures which you interpret through a common sense application of sola scriptura, Holy tradition wielding Greek bishops did! :)
Of course I am only referring to common sense within the scriptures, and I give those bishops full credit for partially using common sense in their interpretations. If common sense is of no use at all in Biblical interpretation, then the whole work is truly fully in code. I don't think you believe that.
"He BECAME one of us (while still retaining His divinity)."
Yes; that's what the Church has always taught.
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.