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/
Let me revise my statement. Charis isn't a part of it in two of the Greek texts, though Westcott Hort uses it. Schrivner and Stephanus do not. They use Pisteuo.
LOL...I suppose that makes me a one-point Stephenist, as I have pistols but no dynamite.
"The Son (Logos) is distinguished from the Father not for being different or subordinate to Him, but for being begotten of Him."
"Our Lord Jesus Christ prayed to the Father in strict obedience to Him in His human nature."
"When it comes to Christ, it is absolutely essential to distinguish everything He says in terms of His two natures"
Isn't this the position we have been maintaining concerning Mary being the mother of Jesus' human nature that was taken on at the incarnation?
We can find a castle, I'm sure. ;-) BTW, when I partake I'm a tequila snob so Jose isn't even in the picture.
The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The Real Presence is NOT symbolic
To speak of symbolically "eating my body and drinking my blood" would mean the words of Jesus ...
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day
... Really meant....
"WHOEVER PERSECUTES ME AND ASSAULTS ME WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."
That is so because to symbolically eat somebody's body and drink their blood means Persecute and Assault
Do you think Jesus intended to say that the way to eternal life is to persecute and assault Him? Of course not.
Following are examples from Holy Writ where one, symbolically, eats somebody's body and drinks their blood.
Ps 26:2
Isaias 9:18-20
Isaias 49:26
Micah 3:2,3
2 Kings 23:17
Rev 17:6,16
To symbolically eat someone's flesh and blood is to persecute and assault them.
In the Eucharist, Jesus is present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity
Even Luther got it right about the Eucharist. "of all the early fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacraments as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expressions as "It is simply bread and wine," or "Christ's body and blood are not present." Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as "It is simply bread" or "Not that the body of Christ is physically present" or the like; since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ's body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative arguement should have turned up at least once, as it happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side." Luther's Works
*Please reread John Chapter 6. Jesus repeatedly speaks the truth about His real presence in the Eucharist
Wish I could -- it's just a factoid dredged up from a sargasso-style memory. Which usually is accurate, but not always.
Good :)
I can't figure out whether you think the Doctrine of Mary's sinlessness is a heresy or not. Is it a heresy in your opinion?
Repeat after me:
"Jose is my friend; his woman, Marguerita, is beautiful."
"So, you are not a sola scripturist?"
Scripture alone contains all that God has revealed for the salvation of sinful man and restored fellowship with Him. It is the only rule for faith and practice. All else is just commentary.
In any event, most protestants make the same mistake thinking that each and every idea by a particular Church Father has become part of the Church Tradition. That is not accurate. The Church Herself, guided by the Holy Spirit decides what part/parts of the Theological Speculations/Ideas/Systems she will adopt as Doctrine and GREAT men like St. Augustine not only knew that, they taught that. That is, St. Augustine himself wrote that he submitted ALL of his Theologising to the Catholic Church for judgment.
I literally have about 8 or 9 different Bibles on my shelf now with 5 on-line translations. I have a Geneva (old version) on-line version but it's too difficult to read. I bought my newest one several years ago before knowing the truth. :O)
I think my wife would have a fit if I got another version. Still....my if it popped up one day on my shelf...
All that being true, any truth taught by that Church can not be "speculation"
I believe ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. ALL means ALL to me, Jesus excepted since that is affirmed in the bible.
Whether it is heresy or not does not concern me at this time.I have enough trouble with the lessons He is giving me daily.
We trust the scripture. You trust the church.
It's an understandable (inevitable?) disagreement over authority.
We, of course, are right.
:>)
"Oh Well, since I AM THE ONLY ONE HERE, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Kosta. :) Now, I KNOW I won't get a lick of support in this, but I'm still going to throw out the completely crazy Protestant idea that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND Son. Blogger, sometimes we Protestants have to go way out on a limb on things like this, but that's what we're here to do! :)"
That's the filioque innovation you guys learned from the Latins. The Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son. Here's +Gregory Palamas' discussion:
"The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or 'eros' experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:'I was She who rejoiced together with Him' (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply 'rejoiced' but 'rejoiced together with'. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God's image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it."
It is important because it effects the monarchy of The Father. The Latin and Orthodox Churches have pretty much worked this out and the filioque is no longer used in teaching settings or when the Creed is recited at least in Greek or Slavonic or Arabic; I don't know about Latin. It has also been agreed that the Creed without the filioque is normative.
Here's a link to the Agreed Statement on the Creed and the filioque clause. Its long but definately worth reading for all Protestants since it was from Rome that you got this idea in the first place:
"http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp
Back to work!
Oh. OK. Thanks for correction, brother. It is useful to know where you stand.
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.