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 believe you can merit salvation as does every man-made religion on earth."
Where did you get the idea that Orthodoxy teaches or ever taught that man on his own can "merit" salvation? The Fathers never taught that.
Hyper Calvin vs. Orthodox Lutheran for example. Calvin vs. Armenian - Heck, Calvin vs. pretty much anybody.
Basically the idea of the elect taken to extreme.
There are other differences in who God is, who Christ is, but I think you'll recognize this one within Protestantism. If now, venture carefully onto the Tulip threads..
;)
And there's no reason why it should be clear. Obfuscated and subjective truth appears to be the (somewhat) intentional standard, at least within Orthodoxy. As Kolokotronis himself agreed on another thread earlier today, "Orthodoxy can't be fully explained, it has to be experienced."
S/B Arminian. (I always make that typo..)
That was my point.
God is much more knowable for those who trust in Him, by the grace of God alone.
"Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." -- John 6:35-40
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." -- John 10:27-30
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" -- Ephesians 1:4-9
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." -- Hebrews 10:14-17 "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. " -- Romans 11:29
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -- John 16:33
No it doesn't. It is your interpretation. The two references in Romans have a certain context: they describe man before he knows Christ. In Romans 5 "all" and "many" are used interchangeably. Certainly St. Paul did not mean that Christ himself has sinned; here is at least one exception. Children before age of reason is another, at least in the context of Romans 3.
Mary definitely needed a savior, -- this is Who cleansed her of all sin. To say that because Mary needed a savior, she sinned is like saying that because I arrived to Fresno by car I must have been to Denver. It is illogical.
Do you understand how contradictory your statement is? If the Papacy began to developed as a result of heresy, then the early Church originally was not hierarchical as wmfights has correctly pointed out. Certainly the Orthodox have a completely different structure. Perhaps you should become Orthodox if you feel they have more control over their flock.
BTW-The Pope was on the scene well before the Protestant Reformation. That didn't stop us heretics from leaving.
There isn't a difference in who God is in those beliefs. There is a difference in what He does. But whether one is a Calvinist or not doesn't mean one isn't necessarily a Christian as it doesn't necessarily mean that one is not a Christian if they are Arminian in persuasion. They are secondary issues.
If anathematizing me because I don't believe in Icons doesn't speak of a works salvation, I'm not sure what does (unless of course I repent of my Iconophobia).
The Early Church had a strong hierachy from the bishop down. It did not have a strong papacy, but the See of Rome always had primacy. Papacy got stronger over time, especially in the politically fractured early medieval West. There is no contradiction.
The Pope was on the scene well before the Protestant Reformation. That didn't stop us heretics from leaving
Before the Reformed heresies there were sundry christological heresies, Gnosticism and Arianism chief among them. The papacy preserved the deposit of faith in that environment, and it preserved it against the Reformers centuries later, and thank God for that. It was never the intention of any pope to prevent anyone from leaving, then or now.
I lost you here. How is veneration of icons related to works salvation?
Annalex, I was talking with Kolokotronis. I was shown where I was anathematized and pretty much without hope in the Orthodox church if I don't accept their icons. To me, this is works based salvation. If I can believe in Christ Jesus as God, his death on Calvary, that He rose again, believe in His sacrifice for my sins, love Him - and yet, be anathematized without hope outside of venerating an icon - that is works.
Pity.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." -- Romans 1:16-25"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
We are not to rely on our carnal senses for clarity. No wonder the Orthodox are befuddled.
Instead we are to wholly depend upon "the mind of Christ" within us, and to confidently rely on the new eyes and new ears and new heart given by God alone which enable us to see and hear and understand and believe.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God." -- Romans 12:2
And the evidence for this is where???? It certainly is not in scripture nor in the history of the early church.
The Papacy got stronger over time until the Pope declared himself infalible just as Mary got stronger over time until she was declared immaculate. All this was after we left. Sorry, but from where I'm seated the heresy isn't on this side of the Tiber.
I meant to comment on this previously, in relation to your claiming or not claiming to belong to the same church with us. The Catholic ecclesiology rejects the notion of the invisible church of all believers because it is incompatible, in our view, with St. Paul's rhetorical question "Is Christ divided?". In contrast we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church united in the fundamental matters of faith, through which alone salvation is ordinarily possible. We have this unity of faith with the Orthodox, but sadly not with the Protestants.
The Church has visible walls, and that wall is baptism. Everyone validly baptised (this includes most Protestants, whose baptism is generally valid) is Catholic till such tiome when he falls off through unbelief or disobedience. Thus, technically speaking, a newly baptised Protestant is Catholic, and so is an Orthodox, even though that designation would surprise them and they would meet it with protestations. If however, such baptized Catholic does not develop a church life, or disobeys the Church, he falls off and that is the fate of many nominal Catholics and nealry all Protestants. In contrast, many Orthodox Christians maintain solid faith and church life and obey their bishops and never lose their Catholicity; in fact given their piety I would not be surprised in there were more Catholics among the Orthodox than among the nominal Catholics in the West.
How does this square with the Catholic doctrine of the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics? Our belief is that one who does not develop a productive church life meets Christ at the hour of his death and Christ gives him a chance to convert. So if he is saved he is saved Catholic: extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is a doctrine that is often misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented as a Catholic "contradiction".
Let us recall that it was Mary at the foot of the cross with the dying Christ, at which time she adopted us. When we die, our mother Mary stands with us as well. This is why mariophobia is a grave danger for your soul, as because of it you lose the ability to say "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death".
Well, but venerating an icon, think what you will of it, is not "works". It is an expression of faith.
I gave you evidence a few posts up: 3286
Don't you think a major difference in what God does makes a major difference in Who (you are taught) God is? No matter what you teach God "does" it is secondary issue? Surely not.
This would seem indisputable to me. Especially since we are talking about grace and salvation in this case of 'what God does' here. If this isn't a big difference in teaching who God is, I can't imagine a bigger one.
Could you reconsider that statement?
"God is much more knowable for those who trust in Him, by the grace of God alone."
Knowable in what way, Dr.E? Orthodoxy has always taught that the "knowledge" we have of God is only by virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which we are transformed so insofar as achieving theosis by grace, I think we are in agreement, but I can't tell from your statement what you think the whole point of belief is and what role "knowledge" has in that.
"Obfuscated and subjective truth appears to be the (somewhat) intentional standard, at least within Orthodoxy. As Kolokotronis himself agreed on another thread earlier today, "Orthodoxy can't be fully explained, it has to be experienced."
Do you think that's what the statement I quoted means, AM? Who is obfuscating and whose subjective standard are you referring to. Surely you don't think we are devotees of sola scriptura, do you?
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.