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/
The fact of the matter is Luther was insane and the solitary time he debated his protestant principles with Mr. Eck, he got his clock cleaned and he was thoroughly humiliated and never debated with a Catholic again. After the debate he was despondent and he knew he was proved wrong in all of his assertions. Period. Even protestant historians admit that
He was a violent, abusive, hateful, Jew-hating, vow-breaking,drunk.
All I have done - and I thought this was obvious - was to treat Luther like HE treated EVERYONE. The difference is my treatment of him has been 100 times more Christian than he treated others.
I find it interesting that in this thread you only object when Christians write their personal opinions about Luther's personal opinions while you have not objected when folks personal written opinions about Scripture are so obviously outrageously heretical.
I think your action/inaction tends to give credence to my assertion that Scripture interpretation contrary to 2000 years of orthopraxis and authoritative Church Teaching is fair game for any Moe, Larry, or Curly but woe betide that individual rash enough to oppose the protestant demigod, Luther.
If I am wrong, I'd appreciate being shown where I am wrong. Thank you, brother.
*Yep. At best, that is just insane.
But, it is ok. That is just Scripture. It's not like one is writing something negative about the protestant demigod, Luther :)
I'm gonna post a link to a Solemn Mass with some great commentary by Saint-to-be-Bishop Sheen which is an excellent explanation of the Catholic Mass - it's Purpose, Reality, Ceremonies, Vestments etc etc.
Imagine Luther abandoning all of this and substituting his own man-made service.
What astonishing arrogance...
"Please do not make the mistake of glossing over the sins of your church which helped produce a Luther. The Roman Catholic church was in a real mess in those days and had been for centuries. Probably something to do with those second sons of European Aristocracy that held most of the church posts as a means to money and power rather than pious men drawn to service to God. (See Simony, Pluralism, Selling of Indulgences, etc.,)"
I'm not Roman Catholic, Blogger. I'm Orthodox. Orthodoxy and Rome split about 500 years before Luther.
"As to individual Bishops/priests and their link to Apostolic Succession, that is just a minor problem :)"
So far as I know, and this came as a surprise to me, there are some Lutheran bishops in Germany and many in Scandinavia whose lines actually are in the Apostolic Succession.
No problem. Maybe my tagline should be in capitals, although Kosta is a Greek name...(from Constantine). :)
I readily admit I know far less about the Orthodox than I do Catholics. That's why I'm asking questions
Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the Protestant side, or at least one of its varieties.
Luther's theology changed because of what he saw in Scripture
If it hand't been for +Paul, I guess he would have embraced Islam. He was searching for justification of his impulsive nature, a tailor-made religion for men to be 'comfortable' with: free of guilt, sin, unscertainty or, for that matter, obligation to God, since the Good God paid the bill, so to say.
And, you are right, he and all the Protestants in the world, find that no-strings-attached religion in +Paul. Unfortunately, +Paul is not the Scripture, but part of the Scripture.
Integrating +Paul into the rest of the Apostles doesn't yield as clear and balanced picture as just sticking to +Paul. Yet, the Scripture to be interpreted properly must be integrated and reconciled as one unit.
Looking at Protestant, particuarly Calvinist-leaning Protestant postings, it's almost exclusively +Paul they quote. That is a red flag, my friend, for +Paul is not Christianity, +Paul is an inalianble part of the whole Christian doctrine — not the doctrine itself.
And what's not +Paul is +Augustine, carefully selected passages and statements at least, conveniently ingoring the fact that no matter what he wrote, he always deferred to the Church.
But Rome in 1500 was apostate
Rome in 1500 was not apostate. What Rome taught was the same theology (save for few innovations after 1054) it taught all along, the Apostolic Faith passed on, unchanged for 1,500 years.
But Rome's clergy were manipulating people with indulgences in order to raise money, living in sin, etc. but that does not make them apostate. Luther was an apostate!
The Roman clergy just didn't practice what they preached (we should all be familiar with that!). They believed what they preached, but they also loved what they saw. Luther did not change that. Protestants are not free from the same hypocricy of all mankind.
But what he did do is change the Apostolic Faith into something that allowed him to be rude and lustful and not feel guilty over it or feel the need to reform himself! He blamed Rome for excesses, and yet was not free from them! Rather he sought and found an excuse for them. Diabolical indeed.
It's easier to throw everything into God's hands and say "keep me free of sin, I hate my sin" then to actually have to do something about it, like resist, humble onself and repent. Cozy. A religion any man can handle and still be a "man," imo.
They joined Luther's movement after the fact, so that makes them apostates. Had any of the bishops actually joined him before he was excommunicated, the issue would have been different.
Lutheranism was ushered into Germany without a single bishop behind Luther. As a priest without a bishop, he had no authority and was a rebel, renegade, priest.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
On Sundays, the priest continues on:
"Having beheld the resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One. We venerate Your cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify You holy resurrection. You are our God. We know no other than You, and we call upon Your name. Come, all faithful, let us venerate the holy resurrection of Christ. For behold, through the cross joy has come to all the world. Blessing the Lord always, let us praise His resurrection. For enduring the cross for us, he destroyed death by death.
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Your great mercy; and according to the multitude of Your compassion, blot out my transgression. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my iniquity, and my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done evil in Your sight, that You may be found just when You speak, and victorious when You are judged. For behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother bore me. For behold, You have loved truth; You have made known to me the secret and hidden thing of Your wisdom. you shall sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean; You shall wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, that the afflicted bones may rejoice. Turn Your face away from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Cast me not away from Your presence, and take not Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and establish me with Your governing Spirit. I shall teach transgressors Your ways, and the ungodly shall turn back to You. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation, and my tongue shall joyfully declare Your righteousness. Lord, open my lips, and my mouth shall proclaim Your praise. For if You had desired sacrifice, I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offerings. A sacrifice to God is a broken spirit; God will not despise a broken and a humbled heart. Do good in Your good pleasure to Sion; and let the walls of Jerusalem be built. Then You shall be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole burnt offerings. Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar."
As Kosta said, the recognition of our sins, repentence and humilty are the sine qua non of our life in Faith. The latter, humility, being a similitude of Christ. Indeed, it is part of the "likeness of God". A very holy archimandrite, Sophrony of blessed memory observed that the Holy Spirit approaches us almost imperceptibly, in a quiet and humble way to take up His abode in us. Think about that, the Lord God of Hosts, the Creator of the Universe, the Pantokrator humbles Himself to abide in us!
Its very hard to learn humility. I struggle with it everyday. But our life in The Church, especially, for the likes of me, our Liturgical life, gives us the opportunity and the tools and the spiritual food to attain at least some of that similitude of Christ and thus fulfill our created purpose.
For instance, even after the putative "episcopal ordinations" by the schismatic lefevbre, Pope John Paull referred to them as "priests" in Ecclesia Dei...
In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
"For instance, even after the putative "episcopal ordinations" by the schismatic lefevbre, Pope John Paull referred to them as "priests" in Ecclesia Dei..."
I think that's consistent with Latin Church ecclesiology but then again, so far as I know, no one, at least not recently, has suggested that Orthodox bishops are not in the Apostolic Succession yet from Rome's pov, we are schismatics too who reject the immediate universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Does Rome include communion with the pope among the hallmarks of a bishop within the Apostolic Succession and then make an exception for its Eastern brothers? :)
"They joined Luther's movement after the fact, so that makes them apostates."
From a Roman point of view, I should think the same reasoning would apply to us, Kosta.
Brother, that was an excellent post. God Bless and thanks.
Of course, there are some who think the Universal Jurisdiction, Papal Primacy thingy is a problem :)...but, from Ut Unum Sint (at least) forward, those issues are less and less intractable, apparently. I do remember when that Encyclical first came out. I was a member of a Traditional Catholic Study Group in Portland and we were SHOCKED at it.
Looking back now, it just illustrates to me how being BAC meant I, almost necessarily, imbibed an attitude towards y'all that was irrational and spiritually unhealthy.
Our recent Popes have been intellectual giants and Holy men and I fully trust them and your intelligent and Holy patriarchs, guided by the Holy Spirit, to reach some sort of accomodation without any loss of essence necessary to the intellectual and spiritual words you and I were born into.
Patriarchs was meant to be capitalised
No. Not at all. No Pope or Council has ever taught you were apostates
spiritual worlds..not "words"
Who is it who "only objects when Christians write their personal opinions about Luther's personal opinions ...."?
I personally do not agree with Luther. But I think I see how a reasonable person of good will who sought to obey the Lord could agree with Luther.
I don't think the contrasts and differences are as simple as you make them out to be. Just as I bridle when Protestants tell me that I am an unwitting idolater because I have been seen kneeling before a statue of the Mother of God, so I expect most intelligent Protestants of good will to bridle when we stomp all over Luther without any understanding, or at least acknowledgment, of the plausible aspects of his position.
In general, I find that if I want somebody to listen to me and to think about what I say, it's probably most likely to happen if I don't start out by calling him a vicious fool and pointing out the worst aspects of his position and disparaging his heroes (however much they may need disparaging.) In my better moments I try to find the places where we agree or at least share opinions or experiences.
Of course, I have no Irish blood and have only been to the Algonquin Club once, so your mileage may vary.
". I was a member of a Traditional Catholic Study Group in Portland and we were SHOCKED at it."
Ah yes, Portland...a hotbed of all things reactionary! :)
*Well, I live in Florida, so, I have to go North to arrive in the South.
Who is it who "only objects when Christians write their personal opinions about Luther's personal opinions ...."?
*I was writing to you directly and pinging others to the comments. It is unfortunate, to me, your excerpt left out what was the crucial point. Here it is....
I find it interesting that in this thread you only object when Christians write their personal opinions about Luther's personal opinions while you have not objected when folks personal written opinions about Scripture are so obviously outrageously heretical. I think your action/inaction tends to give credence to my assertion that Scripture interpretation contrary to 2000 years of orthopraxis and authoritative Church Teaching is fair game for any Moe, Larry, or Curly but woe betide that individual rash enough to oppose the protestant demigod, Luther.
*IOW, one could get the impression it is worse to misunderstand Luther than Scripture and the person misunderstanding Luther really isn't very nice. Left uncommented upon is poor old Scripture and how the Word of God is being misunderstood,misused, and misapplied.
I personally do not agree with Luther. But I think I see how a reasonable person of good will who sought to obey the Lord could agree with Luther.
*I 'spose I could too, if the individual really didn't know who Luther was, what Luther taught, and what Luther rejected that for the previous 16 Centuries until his birth had been orthodox Christianity. To me, it makes no sense to "follow Luther" when Luther so violently and stridently and dogmatically repudiated the Teaching of the Church Jesus established. I mean, we do have a Scriptural duty to mark those who are heretics and avoid them; correct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful etc, right?
I don't think the contrasts and differences are as simple as you make them out to be.
*They truly are. It just takes an audacious honesty to state them. And, in these last days, when personal opinion has been elevated to a near supernatural status, one can do worse than adopt the practice of the great Flannery O'Connor who taught that 'to the nearly deaf one yells and to the nearly blind one paints with bold, bright colors.'
Just as I bridle when Protestants tell me that I am an unwitting idolater because I have been seen kneeling before a statue of the Mother of God, so I expect most intelligent Protestants of good will to bridle when we stomp all over Luther without any understanding, or at least acknowledgment, of the plausible aspects of his position.
*You assign to protestants the same intellectual grasp of Luther and his particularistic heretical theology as your own knowledge of orthodox Christian orthopraxis. I think that unwarranted. Not one in one million protestants gives evidence they know who Luther was or what he really taught. Not one in one million protestants gives evidence they know what the Church that Jesus established has always taught. If they DID, they wouldn't BE protestants. Right?
In general, I find that if I want somebody to listen to me and to think about what I say, it's probably most likely to happen if I don't start out by calling him a vicious fool
* . Straw man. Ignite Match. Burn.
* I did not call any living person in here a vicious fool and you did not correct a single protestant when they made outrageous charges against Christian Orthodoxy.
and pointing out the worst aspects of his position and disparaging his heroes (however much they may need disparaging.) In my better moments I try to find the places where we agree or at least share opinions or experiences.
*Well, that is a start. But, you DID correct those criticising Luther and you told them they did NOT understand Luther rightly, but you did NOT criticise those whose personal opinions of scripture were wrong.
Of course, I have no Irish blood and have only been to the Algonquin Club once, so your mileage may vary.
*As St. Ronnie would say, "There you go again..."
Another post defending protestants (not that there is anything wrong with that)and another unanswered opportunity-knocking-moment when you could have taken a moment or two to, gently, in your own non-Irish/Algonquin way, tell protestants they are wrong about what has always been the orthodox understanding of particular scriptural passages.
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.