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/
Luther and Calvin were products of the Catholic system. Before they were saved, they have lots of errant beliefs. After they were saved, like newborn babies, they had the products of what they just came through still clinging to themselves. They were not perfect men.
As to the bishops who put the canon together, I believe you have overgeneralized there. You can't say what the bishops all believed about Mary because they didn't write about it. Regardless if they did or didn't believe that she had other childre - it's irrelevant. Scripture says Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Joseph and Mary had a regular husband/wife relationship to it. The only way you see differently is if you have to give Scripture some other meaning that what is ordinary.
That wasn't the subject of the verses quoted.
Thank you for calling me a liar. I stand by my statement.
"I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see."
Gee, Blogger, I don't see the word "relationship" anywhere in the passages you quoted. What I do see is definition after definion of what our created purpose is and how we fulfill that.
"'Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?' says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god." +Symeon the New Theologian
So a Son is not a relationship? Fellowship does not indicate a relationship.
You're just being contrary to be contrary now.
Amen brother!
Why then would your Roman counterparts claim they alone can edit and interpret the "God breathed" Scriptures?
The Church is not simply the hierarchy, though in the West that notion, for better or worse reasons, has arisen.
This is one of the fundamental differences between the EOC and RCC. As you have explained in the past, the EOC does not differentiate status among it's Bishops, other than in managerial duties. Whether you want to admit it or not, in church structure you are much closer to Baptist's and Presbyterians than RC's.
Thus the authority of your church does not extend beyond your church. The THEORY of Apostolic Succession falls apart when you exam the lives of the Apostles. They were missionaries not Bishops. They did not elevate themselves above the leaders that individual congregations selected.
I have a question for the Catholics and Orthodox on the thread. I will pose it as a hypothetical realizing that there are varying views on the timing, etc., etc.,
But, since the Bible refers to False prophets arising and a person known as THE False Prophet in Revelation who points the way to one known as the Antichrist - what will your response be if your Patriarch or Pope steps up and says follow this person? Since the Apostate church will exist; what keeps you from following a counciliar recommendation to follow a great peace-maker who claims to be aligned with Christianity?
"Thank you for calling me a liar. I stand by my statement."
Who told you the canon you read is definitive? God? An angel? Its not in scripture, Blogger, nowhere! +Paul had faith that the scripture he read was definitive, but what he read isn't what you read as the NT or the OT. The NT wasn't put together and the OT you read hadn't been defined then. Did God lie to +Paul? Was +Paul wrong but Blogger right?
""God preserved His Canon, not in a centralized organization in Rome, but through his universal church of all believers."
Amen brother!"
Lest you misunderstand (and maybe you didn't) it was Blogger who said that, not me. My position is that The Church prserved the canon as God's institution on earth. You know how we Orthodox view what The Church is.
"Why then would your Roman counterparts claim they alone can edit and interpret the "God breathed" Scriptures?"
That, WF, you'd have to ask them. I suspect they would point you to Christ's commission to +Peter and the claim that the Roman Church has preserved inviolate the Holy Tradition of the One Church. We Orthodox disagree, of course, otherwise we'd all be Roman Catholics I suppose. By the way, I've not seen any editing on the part of Rome beyond some listings of what constitutes the Apocrypha and how the psalms are numbered. Orthodoxy does disagree with a number of Rome's interpretations of both scripture and Holy Tradition.
"As you have explained in the past, the EOC does not differentiate status among it's Bishops, other than in managerial duties. Whether you want to admit it or not, in church structure you are much closer to Baptist's and Presbyterians than RC's."
I am sure, WF, that you mean that as a compliment, but I don't think I'd go that far at all! :) The Apostolic Succession is what it is in both the Latin Church and Orthodoxy. From an ecclesiological point of view, the only real difference, and it is a very, very big one which reaches into virtually every aspect of Church life, is the immediate, universal jurisdiction claimed for the Bishop of Rome.
Yes. God has showed me and I believe it by faith. The dichotomy between Paul and myself is false as is the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. Paul covers the gospels in 1 Corinthians 15:3-For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
Peter covers the epistles: 2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Are they named by name in Scripture? Of course not. This is where the faith in GOD comes in. He promised to lead. I believe He has done so in my own life as well as in the settling of the Canon of Scripture. My faith is in the God who is faithful, not the church who sometimes gets things wrong (check the Corinthians and Galatians for example).
He promised the following:
I am the good shepherd; I know My sheep and My sheep know Me. They . . . will listen to My voice” (John 10:14-16).
Psalm 48:14
David proclaimed under inspiration - For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death.
And Jesus said in John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
I take Him at His Word and like the Bereans search the Scriptures. By lining up what is said with Scripture and looking to the Holy Spirit as my guide, I have confidence in what I read as the Word of God - a confidence no man can take away.
"They did not elevate themselves above the leaders that individual congregations selected."
The position of bishops was established within at least the lifetime of +John. It is an "elevated" position because the bishops are and always have been the successors to the Apostles. But it is always absolutely vital to remember, most especially for bishops, that they are NOT The Church. They are a part of it with a certain role to fulfill in the divine economy of salvation as are the lower clergy, the monastics and especially the laity. Hierarch worship is as bad as scripture worship, WF. Its also as common, which is why the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
"Paul covers the gospels in 1 Corinthians 15:3-For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."
Umm, Blogger, +Paul was dead in Rome before Mark wrote his Gospel, which was, as we know, the first. Take a look at 1 Cor 11:2,23; Gal. 1:9; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:13, 4:1. The receiving he speaks of, in Greek, means a tranmission of a tradition. We cannot know where exactly and fully he received what it was he received, though certainly he received Faith from the Risen Christ and had contact with the Apostles and The Church generally. It seems pretty obvious that to +Paul, the Gospel forms some sort of seamless whole. In any event, he isn't speaking about the Gospels we read today. They didn't exist yet.
Sorry for the mistake K. For a moment there I thought you might have had a personal revelation. ;-)
The Apostolic Succession is what it is in both the Latin Church and Orthodoxy.
The THEORY is proven false by Scripture and the lives of the Apostles. The early church was congregational in structure not hierarchal. The monobishophoric system developed after the Apostolic Era, not during.
I suspect they would point you to Christ's commission to +Peter and the claim that the Roman Church has preserved inviolate the Holy Tradition of the One Church. We Orthodox disagree, of course, otherwise we'd all be Roman Catholics I suppose.
At least we have something to agree on!
BTW, I came across this in the catechism
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
It sure seems that their interpretation of that one passage in Matthew may have changed as well as their view towards irresistible grace.
In some cases you do see individuals like Clement who tried to assert this authority, but it was not accepted that the Bishops were selected by the Apostles. In the Scriptures we have no record of the Apostles acting as Bishops, other than James in Jerusalem and even there decisions were made by the congregation as a whole.
Granted the idea of an equality among believers did pass away within three to four generations and was replaced with a caste system, but that was never the structure during the Apostolic Era.
I'm not RC. I am a Baptist.
However, the apparitions that are supposed to be Mary and the doctrines that have developed around Mary come to mind. I only know of Scripture giving one example of humans coming back from heaven and that was Moses and Elijah being with Jesus. I have never read in Scripture where Mary is coming back to help us.
"The THEORY is proven false by Scripture and the lives of the Apostles. The early church was congregational in structure not hierarchal. The monobishophoric system developed after the Apostolic Era, not during."
I think you'll find that both +Polycarp and +Ignatius were alive and functioning as and called bishops during the Apostolic era. Certainly +John was still alive. Now that said, The Church of the 1st-early 2nd century was not "hierarchial" in the Western sense of the word, at least so far as Orthodoxy is concerned. After the Apostolic era, after the Apostles had appointed their successors, it appears that the clergy and laity of individual dioceses in fact elected their bishops, but they were always ordained by other bishops. Interestingly, this practice, with all local bishops also voting, persists to this day in the Church of Cyprus for the choosing of its Archbishop.
The idea of a "monobishop", by which I assume you mean the Roman system, we orthodox would say is a purely Roman innovation, but the Latins argue otherwise.
"Granted the idea of an equality among believers did pass away within three to four generations and was replaced with a caste system,...."
Not really in Orthodoxy. Once again, the fullness of The Church is found in a single diocese which is made up of the bishop surrounded by his clergy, monastics and the People of God (the laity) cnetered on the Eucharist. Each has a specifc role to fulfill and the whole works synergistically. No single element can function without the others.
You're right I am discussing the RC system. I am aware you view your clergy and their authority differently.
Got to run. Have a BLESSED New Year!
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.