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/
It reads: Then why say "be(come) therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" if you can't?
He didn't say "I will make you perfect...
*So, the whole God-Ordered Ark and the setim wood and the linens etc were a real error on Gods part, huh?
What did you give your loved one as an engagement ring, a slice of dried apricot with a bullet hole in it?
I beg to differ. It wasn't called TULIP, but it was believed and taught- by St. Augustine. If you are interested, Augustine's words on this subject are found in part here: http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/augustine-predestination.htm
Here are the chapter titles:
Chapter 1.--Introduction.
Chapter 2.--To What Extent the Massilians [Semi-Pelagians] Withdraw from the Pelagians.
Chapter 3.--Even the Beginning of Faith is of God’s Gift.
Chapter 4.--Continuation of the Preceding.
Chapter 5.--To Believe is to Think with Assent.
Chapter 6.--Presumption and Arrogance to Be Avoided.
Chapter 7.--Augustin Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God.
Chapter 8.--What Augustin Wrote to Simplicianus, the Successor of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
Chapter 9.--The Purpose of the Apostle in These Words
Chapter 10.--It is God’s Grace Which Specially Distinguishes One Man from Another.
Chapter 11.--That Some Men are Elected is of God’s Mercy.
Chapter 12.--Why the Apostle Said that We are Justified by Faith and Not by Works.
Chapter 13.--The Effect of Divine Grace.
Chapter 14.--Why the Father Does Not Teach All that They May Come to Christ.
Chapter 15.--It is Believers that are Taught of God.
Chapter 16.--Why the Gift of Faith is Not Given to All.
Chapter 17.--His Argument in His Letter Against Porphyry, as to Why the Gospel Came So Late into the World.
Chapter 18.--The Preceding Argument Applied to the Present Time.
Chapter 19.--In What Respects Predestination and Grace Differ.
Chapter 20.--Did God Promise the Good Works of the Nations and Not Their Faith, to Abraham?
Chapter 21.--It is to Be Wondered at that Men Should Rather Trust to Their Own Weakness Than to God’s Strength.
Chapter 22.--God’s Promise is Sure.
Chapter 23.--Remarkable Illustrations of Grace and Predestination in Infants, and in Christ.
Chapter 24.--That No One is Judged According to What He Would Have Done If He Had Lived Longer.
Chapter 25.--Possibly the Baptized Infants Would Have Repented If They Had Lived, and the Unbaptized Not.
Chapter 26.--Reference to Cyprian’s Treatise “On the Mortality.”
Chapter 27.--The Book of Wisdom Obtains in the Church the Authority of Canonical Scripture.
Chapter 28.--Cyprian’s Treatise “On the Mortality.”
Chapter 29.--God’s Dealing Does Not Depend Upon Any Contingent Merits of Men.
Chapter 30.--The Most Illustrious Instance of Predestination is Christ Jesus.
Chapter 31.--Christ Predestinated to Be the Son of God.
Chapter 32.--The Twofold Calling.
Chapter 33.--It is in the Power of Evil Men to Sin; But to Do This or That by Means of that Wickedness is in God’s Power Alone.
Chapter 34.--The Special Calling of the Elect is Not Because They Have Believed, But in Order that They May Believe.
Chapter 35.--Election is for the Purpose of Holiness
Chapter 36.--God Chose the Righteous; Not Those Whom He Foresaw as Being of Themselves, But Those Whom He Predestinated for the Purpose of Making So.
Chapter 37.--We Were Elected and Predestinated, Not Because We Were Going to Be Holy, But in Order that We Might Be So.
Chapter 38.--What is the View of the Pelagians, and What of the Semi-Pelagians, Concerning Predestination.
Chapter 39--The Beginning of Faith is God’s Gift.
Chapter 40.--Apostolic Testimony to the Beginning of Faith Being God’s Gift.
Chapter 41.--Further Apostolic Testimonies.
Chapter 42.--Old Testament Testimonies.
Chapter 43.--Conclusion.
The only point Augustine can be said to have not supported (though it has been said he issued conflicting statements I only find statements against) is limited atonement.
Bibleanswers.com has a good description of the thinking behind this one:
The doctrine of the limited extent of the atonement is intimately tied up with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement and with the general Calvinist scheme of predestination. Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory (also known as punishment theory) of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory states that the atonement of Christ literally pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men — that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for specific sins and thereby cancels the judgement they had incurred. Since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for men's sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were propitiated must necessarily be saved.
Incidentally, I prefer "Effectual Atonement" or "particular redemption." Christ's sacrifice was indeed sufficient to cover the sins of an infinite amount of worlds. Yet, his atonement is only applied to those who are saved. Those who die lost will pay their own just punishment.
*You told me you WERE a sola scripturist...
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.
I was using salvation the way Kosta was using it, not the way the scripture uses it which is the way I use it. That should explain it.
Once again, Kosta, you're creating a straw man. This is NOT what Calvinism teaches. Judas was an evil person. Satan is going to burn forever. The fall was understood and allowed and perfectly within God's sovereignty but Adam and Eve CHOSE to sin because God gave them free will. And how dare you say God tempts man to sin. You know very well that is not what Calvinism teaches. You are bearing false witness with flourish as usual about a doctrine you don't like. You are wrong, Kosta.
Xzins,
I respect what you are saying here. I am a Calvinist. I venture to say you are not (knowing a little about your background). You also illustrate what I say about it being a secondary doctrine about which Christians can disagree. You see the intent and where we get it from. You may agree with part but not all. But you know what, we can still fellowship together and that is really cool.
It doesn't make God the author of sin, and it doesn't make Judas a hero.
Calvinists clearly don't believe such things and reiterate it constantly. They DO, contrary to popular opinion, believe that humans are free moral agents.
Also, by definition God cannot sin, therefore, calvinists just trust that He is Holy and that sin and suffering are part of the pattern revealed in Christ.
God decided to save us in Christ. Therefore, God MUST HAVE FOREPLANNED the Death of Christ by Sinful Men to BRING ABOUT the salvation of men and the Glory of His Name.
Like was said by Joseph to his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." Permitting sin by free moral agents, and using that inclination to bring about eternal salvation is NOT being the Author of Sin, but is instead being the Author of Eternal Life.
That is what Calvinists believe when they say, "Simply Trust God."
Free in their relationship to God. Sadly bound in what sin has done to them. God holds no one back. But they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.
BD, you know scripture and your knowledge of it is impressive. You are, obviously, an intelligent man and your love of Scripture is evident. AND, you have a good sense of humor.
However, Kosta has those self-same attributes, AND, he thinks with the mind of the Church and so he "knows" Scripture better than you in that - oh, well, you know where I am going...
You are sola scriptura whereas Kosta Is Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Faith embedded in Divine Liturgy. Where you might, and have, come to conclusions about Scripture different than The Early Church Fathers, Kosta would not...
But, you know all of that...
That being said, I really do appreciate your contributions here, brother
I've been consistent over the years. I don't believe in opulence and ostentatiousness.
I did not support the opulence of the Crystal Cathedral, and I'd probably have opposed the opulence of St Peters.
It does not strike me as seemly for religious leaders to drape themselves in opulent, ostentatious displays of gold and jewels. Say what you want; I don't feel right about it.
Yes, that is what I've understood calvinists to teach.
But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will,relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say:I have not received; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil. (Augustine, Admonition and Grace, A.D. 426 aut 427)And in an even larger perspective, free will has always been part of Orthodox teaching, leaving Calvinism outside the pale.
At the very least, both the NIV and KJV strongly imply that they did in Matt. 1:18. They both say "before they came together" she was with child. Not after they came together, before they did. It would make no sense at all to use that wording if they never came together.
I am a very shallow person, so flattery will get you anywhere. That being said, both tradition and Magisteriam rely on man's reason, which is always relative to the culture interpreting it. Scripture is the eternal, unchanging truth and the only special revelation of God and His plan of redemption, preserved and kept by the Holy Spirit, who is the ultimate interpreter of the scripture. The scriptures say He is the revealer of Truth and is available to all believers, not just the professionals.
I want to repeat, re: Bibleanswers.com "the Calvinistic refinement of this theory..", that finding a piece here and there, using a verse or a chapter, 'refining'.. etc., allows one to come up with all sorts of teachings. It's been done many different ways and many different times.
It's when you end up in a meaningless cosmos without choice, without any sense in Jesus's ministry, that you fail, that you must realize that no matter how tight your systematic theology seems, no matter where you can point to this piece or that, somewhere, somehow, something has been missed.
Sorry, this violates the I and the P.
Well, one might get the idea that is special pleading on steroids...but, who am I to say :)
Not exactly D-fendr. Augustine Himself admitted that he changed his mind on his views of grace. AFTER he wrote what you cited, he seems to have "refined" his view even more to the point that God gives the gift of perseverance to a person so that they will NEVER leave him. Augustine believed one needed to pray for that gift, but believed that true believers would persevere until the end. Augustine still seemed to have a problem with assurance until death had occurred, but most assuredly believed that those whom were predestined by grace would also persevere by grace until the end.
Chapter 33.--God Gives Both Initiatory and Persevering Grace According to His Own Will.
From all which it is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will;
And...
Chapter 56.--God Gives Means as Well as End.
Wherefore if I am unwilling to appear ungrateful to men who have loved me, because some advantage of my labour has attained to them before they loved me, how much rather am I unwilling to be ungrateful to God, whom we should not love unless He had first loved us and made us to love Him! since love is of Him, [1 John iv. 7] as they have said whom He made not only His great lovers, but also His great preachers. And what is more ungrateful than to deny the grace of God itself, by saying that it is given to us according to our merits? And this the catholic faith shuddered at in the Pelagians, and this it objected to Pelagius himself as a capital crime; and this Pelagius himself condemned, not indeed from love of God’s truth, but yet for fear of his own condemnation. But whoever as a faithful catholic is horrified to say that the grace of God is given according to our merits, let him not withdraw faith itself from God’s grace, whereby he obtained mercy that he should be faithful; and thus let him attribute also perseverance to the end to God’s grace, whereby he obtains the mercy which he daily asks for, not to be led into temptation. But between the beginning of faith and the perfection of perseverance there are those means whereby we live righteously, which they themselves are agreed in regarding as given by God to us at the prayer of faith. And all these things--the beginning of faith, to wit, and His other gifts even to the end--God foreknew that He would bestow on His called. It is a matter therefore, of too excessive contentiousness to contradict predestination, or to doubt concerning predestination. http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/augustine-perseverance.htm
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.