'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

You: Does God give the seed of faith to everyone?
Me: The capacity to love and know God is given everyone as part of natural law "written in the hearts" of all men. To have a better formed faith requires a church life, generally speaking.

In light of yesterday's Epiphany readings I wanted to elaborate.

there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, Saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and are come to adore him. [...] In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is written by the prophet
(Mt 2)
10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. 13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
(Rm 2)
he saw, and believed
(John 20:8)
Increase our faith
(Luke 17:5)
Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(Mark 16:15)
[the believers] have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2 Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: 3 As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. 5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; 6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; 7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. 8 For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
(2 Peter 1)
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith
(2 Timothy 4:7)

What we learn form this that the natural religious impulse is given all men as part of the natural law; but faith is not given as a finished product. Faith needs to be sought. often through an arduous journey, and to the seeker it will be given, and once it is given, the work of santification begins till sin is conquered -- and only then the salvation is secure in the believer. The gospel calls everyone, just like the star shone to everyone, but not everyone will have the wisdom to follow the call to worship; among those who do, some will not complete the race.

I am flagging others to see if I see the process correctly.

it's not a slam-dunk either way, and that, at best, Pius XI did pretty well

LOL. Forget Pius XII; let's discuss Pius XI?

See these roses in my left hand? (Never mind the gun in my right hand.)

MD, your rhetoric is consistently inflammatory, even when directed at yourself because you're paraphrasing my remarks to appear as you misstate. Having been on these threads for years, I know full well who gets banned and why.

The Protestant view of the Lord's Supper is one of spiritual presence and grateful commemoration -- "Do this in remembrance of me." It is a symbolic grace to be partaken of by the elect, for the welfare of the elect.

To extrapolate the Lord's Supper into alchemy (which is precisely what the word "transubstantiation" implies) is to bestow on the "priestly" class a distinction never given them in Scripture -- an ability to literally change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ. I'm aware RCs revere this alchemy. Protestants are repelled by it, recognizing the mass attempts to crucify Him anew every time it's performed.

TRUE AND FALSE WORSHIP
by John Knox

"The matter is not of so small importance, as some suppose. The question is, whether God or man ought to be obeyed in matters of religion? In mouth, all do confess that only God is worthy of sovereignty. But after many by the instigation of the devil, and by the presumptuous arrogance of carnal wisdom and worldly policy have defaced God's holy ordinance, men fear not to follow what laws and common consent (mother of all mischief) have established and commanded. But thus continually I can do nothing but hold, and affirm all things polluted, yea, execrable and accursed, which God by his word has not sanctified in his religion. God grant you his Holy Spirit rightly to judge." -- John Knox

In Eastern Christianity one doesn't find the idea of the "individual" member.

But of course. Likewise in Catholic West. When people asked Christ how to pray His response was "Our Father...".

He teaches, moreover, to make our prayer common, in behalf of our brethren also. For He says not, "my Father, which art in Heaven," but, "our Father," offering up his supplications for the body in common, and nowhere looking to his own, but everywhere to his neighbor's good. And by this He at once takes away hatred, and quells pride, and casts out envy, and brings in the mother of all good things, even charity, and exterminates the inequality of human things, and shows how far the equality reaches between the king and the poor man, if at least in those things which are greatest and most indispensable, we are all of us fellows. For what harm comes of our kindred below, when in that which is on high we are all of us knit together, and no one has anything more than another; neither the rich more than the poor, nor the master than the servant, neither the ruler than the subject, nor the king than the common soldier, nor the philosopher than the barbarian, nor the skillful than the unlearned? For to all has He given one nobility, having vouchsafed to be called the Father of all alike.
Homily 19 on Matthew

It is Calvinism, Kosta.

Here's is what Sproul says: The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin.

Perhaps "radical corruption" is a better term to describe our fallen condition than "total depravity." I am using the word "radical" not so much to mean "extreme," but to lean more heavily on its original meaning. "Radical" comes from the Latin word for "root" or "core." Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: "There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12

It is because of this condition that the verdict of Scripture is heard: we are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1); we are "sold under sin" (Romans 7:14); we are in "captivity to the law of sin" (Romans 7:23); and "by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Only by the quickening power of the Holy Spirit may we be brought out of this state of spiritual death. It is God who makes us alive as we become His craftsmanship (Ephesians 2:1-10).

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/depravity.html

Incidentally, here is what Calvin said regarding the free-will of Adam. Again, such teaching IS Calvinistic.
Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her τὸ ἑγεμονικὸν. To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and Judgment, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason. In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself. Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,Â—to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent;13 124124 30 130 See August. lib 11, super Gen. cap. 7,8,9, and De Corrept. et Gratia ad Valent., cap. 11. but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of manÂ’s fall he might extract materials for his own glory. (Institutes, Chapter 15).

Try reading and understanding what epiklesis means. The change is made by the Holy Spirit.

That being said, in the RCC the epiklesis has been somewhat diminished, but it is there. In the Orthodox Church, the epiklesis is the crowning point of priest's supplication, not magic. The "magic' is done by the Holy Spirit.

From the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom:

People: We praise You, we bless You, we give thanks to You, and we pray to You, Lord our God.

Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented. And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Bread.)

Deacon (in a low voice): Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Cup.)

Deacon (in a low voice): Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

(He blesses them both.)

Deacon (in a low voice): Amen. Amen. Amen.

So as you see, the power is not in the priest. The priest is simply doing his priestly duty to which he was called and ordained, to ask God.

The oldest liturgy goes back to St. James in Jerusalem. You figure out the year. I guess the world had to wait for almost 2,000 years to be told that St. James also believed in "alchemy."

To say that a priest is some sort of a magician and alchemist is shamefully ignorant to put it mildly.

Consistently? I don't think so. Exactly which statements of yours did I mischaracterize, please. I don't think I did so, but if did, I'd like to know.

Thus this is what has permitted Rome to arrogantly believe it can dispense God's grace to whom it wills, and to parcel out salvation according to the dictates of men. "Say this prayer and receive this much grace." "Eat this wafer and ingest God Himself into your genetic code." "Do this and become God." #4315
Below that point, it remains flour. Above that point, it is materialistically God Himself. #4319,similar language in #4321, #4333

These are your words and not paraphrases. I just added boldfacing because those are especially the words and phrases I am questioning. In other restatments you also used "morph". I tried to take those words seriously and to respond to them frankly and clearly.

I know that. I don't know that it's relevant to what you allege about transubstantiation

Repetition or restatement in firmer language is not an argument. Raising other issues is not a defense. I am not for the present disputing the consequent or concomitant notions of transubstantiation, like priesthood and so forth.

You made a claim about a genetic code of some kind. You did not, when you made that claim, bring up anything about priesthood or the rest of it. I asked you to, ah, substantiate the genetic code statement. Instead of doing so you asked me some questions. I answered them as clearly as I could and then gave "a child's garden of the idea of 'substance'" In the course of that I pointed out that the substance of the pre-consecrated host is not "flour" as you had said. And I said, in agreement with Aquinas, that no chemical or alchemical, material or materialistic change were taught to happen (unusual miracles aside) when the consecration took place.

You fell silent and then disappeared only to reappear with another charge against us. When I persisted in my question about a source for the allegations about genetic stuff and that we teach a material or alchemical change, you changed, not the material, but the subject, and brought up other teachings and the tangential issue of priesthood and, as it seems, anything but my question of whether you can show me any support for your claim about genetics changes and alchemy and so forth.

I already know you disagree with us, and as I said, I'm not pursuing agreement here. You made an allegation (which some might characterize as inflammatory, by the way). I asked for support, and you did not give it. On a subordinate issue, flying in the face of the actual Aristotelian and Thomistic distinction between what a thing IS and what it is MADE OF - a distinction with which I do not expect you to agree but which you endorse every time you say,"The china plates are in the cabinet right next to the paper plates" - you simply repeat not only what we do NOT teach but what we do actually deny teaching. In fact, as I was told in my Protestant seminary, the earlier statements about transubstantiation were made to calm the fears and revulsion of those who thought they were being invited to eat something that would look and taste like flesh and blood.

Maybe it would help if you defined or clarified "alchemical". I could be msunderstanding you there.

But in the meantime, if it's true that any old stick will do to beat the Catholic Church, I'll still ask if it's really a stick or just a misunderstanding. You are not showing any evidence for the claim that we teach one can ingest God into one's genetic code. I think you made an uninformed or misinformed statement. Or possilby it was poorly expressed. I say again: I don't think you can back it up -- not the genetic, not the alchemical, not the materialistic. You say I mischaracterize what you say, but I use and consider seriously your actual words.

Here's is what Sproul says: The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. ...

Sproul is making things up. I am not going to read some silly rationalizations. Dictionary tells me that utter=total

utterly: in an utter manner; completely; bsolutely

and is synonimous with: entirely, fully, wholly, totally

There is no such thing as half-dead. Either you are elive or you are dead. The east always taught that we are spiritually sick in need of a physician (scriptural), not dead.

You need to address the issues of being spirritually dead with others who call themselves Calvinists on this Forum. They don't profess anything you do. neither free eill nor "sparks" of life in us.

What good is to quote Calvin? You are not a Calvinist, because being a Calvinist would mean you follow traditions of a man. You can say that you agree with some of his theology. That doesn't make you a Calvinist. I am Orthodox because, no matter ewhat I may think and postulate, I profess that which the Church teaches, and has taught everywhere and always. You can't say that about Calvin or Luther.

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.