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/
Thanks. Interesting and provocative.
As to "venerate": I can only talk about my own experience. Some 20 years before I became Catholic it occurred to me one day that Mary had said "Yes," to God's call, delivered by the angel. And that saying such a total "yes," was answered with her having a major role in bringing Love itself into the world. And I realized, I wanted to do that. At that point Mary became one of my heroes, ahead, even, of Chuck Norris.
As to "pray to": I ask people to pray for me, and I pray for others, sometimes at their request and sometimes not. Good people who strike me as about as holy as a human can be this side of death ask for Mary's intercession. I am impressed by their example. I continue to follow the example because the practice seems favorably associated with ineffable rewards.
As to "appearances": People often see what they want to see and stop looking too quickly. People often prefer leaping to a conclusion which confirms their prejudices to moving slowly and cautiously toward the truth.
As to: "And why do men fall to their knees to a likeness of her when Scripture specifically forbids this?": We do it to scandalize Protestants.
Okay, seriously, I can't speak for the intentions of everyone, but I personally do not bow down to idols or images. I may bow down before them but my heart is making reverence or prostration not to something I imagine is in the image. There was, I believe, an ecumenical council about this.
Now I have a question: Why do SOME Protestants insist that Catholics believe and do what we do neither believe nor do and then change the subject or avoid the issue when we present evidence of the truth in answer to their statements? Is there a book of Psychology about that?
Or, put it another way: Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing? When it comes to saying that Catholics do the very thing they repeatedly deny and explain deny or believe what they repeatedly say they don't believe -- well things don't get much more "vain" than that. It suggests that maybe, just maybe, some people have taken counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed.
Oh wait. We don't read the Bible either.
He did -- he directed the operation. But it would be correct to say that a cleric who taught Wahabism did not. A the Holy Inquisition did was identify heresies. I do the same on this thread. Besides, the early Church did not have the Holy Inquisition.
You say we know well what [donatists] taught
Sure we do. We have Against Donatus by S.t Auggustine just off the top of my head.
when Rome adopted Christianity, the whole character of the church changed. What used to be a persecuted church held largely in houses and smaller facilities was now the official state religion
You are not celebrating the persecutions, are you? The point is, however much you prefer separation of Church and state (look to the USSR's constitution for a legal prototype), the doctrines of the Church were fully formed by the time of the Theodosius decree (De Fide Catolica, AD 380).
the faith delivered to the apostles is the same as the Reformers
You cannot prove a single important distinguishing element of the reformed faith from scripture. This is a comical assertion.
The inarnation, and the passion that followed it is what saved us, says Titus 3:5-6. This was not merited by any works. We however, are to "maintain good works" (v. 8).
'Cuz she's Mother of God? Just a wild guess.
Blogger certainly fancies no personal papacy
The difference is that the Church (the pope or her bishops) speak, that is because of the laying of the hands of the apostles that allowed them. "How can they preach unless they are sent?" When Blogger speaks that is his opinion only. Point Blogger to any authority -- true or Protestant -- and he will take it or leave it according to his own mindset. That is pride, mother of all heresies, in operation.
I'm wondering what sorts or instances of pride I as a Catholic need to be looking out for. The devil walketh about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, after all, and I'm TRYING to resist him, steadfast in the faith, but it's so easy to slip into some sins, maybe all sins, and I guess I think Bunyan is right that there is "a way to hell even from the gates of heaven."
I wasn't aware that the apostles were still alive to lay hands on Benedict XVI. Methuselah ain't got nothing on Paul!
Good works are a necessary component of the Christian life. But they do not make one a Christian. Faith in Jesus Christ ALONE through HIS GRACE ALONE is what saves. NOT OUR WORKS. [emphasis added]
This is another example of the problems created by the Western way of approaching theology (soteriology included) as an abstract, synthetic science like mathematics, rather than a positive science like physics. The works commended by Christ (and the Abraham's journey into the wilderness with the intent of sacrificing Isaac) are part of faith. The distinction you and Luther draw between faith qua faith and its activity or 'works', is a pure abstraction, of no practical use to those living the Christian life, and in fact, harmful to the Christian life. The distinction, itself, provides a temptation not to engage in good works (which you, yourself, admit are a necessary part of the Christian life) because 'we are save by faith, not by works'--leading to what St. James would call 'dead faith', which is no faith at all.
Those of us in traditional churches, who have in the saints models of the Christian life, know what living, saving faith looks like: it leads old men and women, youths and virgins alike, to endure horrible torments rather than renounce Christ; it leads men like St. Athony the Great and women like Amma Syncletica to take up Christ's command to the rich young ruler giving up their posessions and renouncing all to follow Christ; it heals the sick, visits the captives, succors the poor; . . .
I am not sure why you decided to bold my quote.
Regardless, I don't look at soteriology as a "science" at all. Salvation is simple and I look at it strictly from the Word of God. Your tradition informs your view of salvation more than Scripture. Because the Catholic church says it is this way you refuse to consider that the men leading the church could have gotten it wrong. This is not only dangerous, but ignores the Scriptural admonitions to always look out for false prophets as well as Jesus' words about what will happen on the day of judgment. In that day many will come to him proclaiming "Haven't we done all of these good works in your name?" And he will tell them to depart for he never knew them.
Take heed. If you are trying to get to heaven based upon your work AT ALL, you will not reach your desired destination.
The reason I am Orthodox is because, no matter what I speculate, I believe 100% that what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches, and has taught everywhere and always, is right. One cannot say "I am Catholic, a little bit." When you say you are Calvinist, I must assume you believe 100% of his teaching. But you deny that.
So, I am asking you again, are you a Calvinist? Or do you simply accept some of his teachinhgs, in which case you could say "I am 10% Calvinist" or "somewhat of a Calvinist" or "so-so Calvinist," etc.? If you say that you are a Calvinist then your theology is, by necessity, 100% Calivnist. I believe you would disagree.
My speculations are not always Orthodoxy. But my specilations are, admittedly, just that &$150; speculations. What I believe and trust 100% is the Orthodox Church teaching. If I state what the EOC teaches, I reference it. Otherwise, what I write is my own speculation and should be taken as such. Again, I don't ever remember any other Reformed Protestant on this Forum claiming that Adam and Eve had free will. That's why I suggested you take it up with them.
Saying that God ordained the fall does not deny the free will of the first man
Forgetting that foreknowledge is not the same as preordaining, explain how this fits into the Calvinist mindset. If God controls everything, including our will ( our ancestral parents' included), then it is not free. If He does not control our will, then He is not in control. If our fallen will always chooses evil (that's debatable), then God does not control our will and therefore is not in control. If He controls our fallen will, then we sin because God wills it.
This is not the issue in the Church. God created the world knowing what our free choices will be. We can neither enhance nor diminish His Plan. Nor can we change its course. Our will and freedom do not affect God. They only affect ourselves.
The Apostles were not baptized, so (according to your theology that we always choose evil) they could not have chosen to follow Christ. Did He compel them? Did He put a "spell" on them?
By the same logic, the OT righteous could not have chosen God, so they must have been compelled. What kind of "righteousness" is that?! Was Job not a righteous man? Was he not fallen?
And truly, Kosta, only in Christ do we have true freedom. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed
If you mean freedom from the world, and sin, on that we agree fully. But in Christ our will is not free. Those who are in heaven are not free to sin. Our ancestral parents were not free to sin either. One could speculate that not even God, Who is absolute Freedom, is free to sin (although that would be another mind-twisting topic because it's not a matter of His will but of His essence).
If I understand your post, I think it's really helpful. I remember talking with a very fine Calvinist when we were on duty together and he referred to Baptism as a "work". And I had to do some major internal readjustment to see how he could say that reasonably. I suppose some Sunday mornings I have a minute or two before I haul my sorry self out of bed when I think of going to Mass as a "work". But, emotionally, experientially, phenomenologically it's a gift I receive, not a work I perform.
Consequently sometimes I have the vague feeling in the conversations that I'm talking to people from a very different culture where it seems that eating a fine meal or kissing one's spouse or hugging one's children or rejoicing in the sunrise all are viewed as burdens.
And somebody is saying, "You can have a good time without dong ANY of those things." And I have to say, "Well, yeah, maybe, but why wouldn't I want to do these things?"
Even confession. Before I do my exercises, yeah I have some reluctance to do them. But over time I have sort of formed a reaction. I know that working my muscles to exhaustion will make me feel good in a lot of ways. And now if someone says, "Hey, act your age. Quit with the Charles Atlas act," I want to say,"But I LIKE it and I'm lucky I can do it!"
Not that they're wrong or anything that clear. It's just that we're coming from very different places.
And all the zillions of Protestants interpreting the Bible as they will didn't or couldn't? There were many who got it wrong. They are called heretics and are no longer part of the Church.
According to the church, we are all still a part of the church if we have been baptized. So, what is it? Am I or am I not Catholic? Or does the Orthodox tradition not recognize the Catholic pronouncement on this issue?
That's really naïve in my opinion, Blogger. It's the succession of apostolic authority passed on in unbroken lineage, the way we have a succession of presidents whose authoirty is based on the system established by the fathers of the country. It's about authoirty. In the Church it comes from the apostles. Outside of the Church, there is none. Private opinions do not qualify as apostolic authoirty any more than somone electing himself to be the "president," or a self-styled, Bible-wielding "pope.".
Calvinism is a term of convenience. I agree with Calvin on a good many things. There are some non-essentials which I disagree with him on. There are plenty of Catholics who disagree with their church teachings and are considered by Catholicism as Catholics. Take Nancy Pelosi for example.
As to your other questions, I only refer you to Scripture. NO ONE, NADA, ZILCH, comes unless the Father draws him. It is not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to His mercy He has saved us.
Signed,
Pope Blogger I
Looking at the church's history, they have lacked discernment in who they gave authority to.
I take authority from the Word of God. I have the gift of teaching and the gift of prophecy. To not utilize those gifts would be to despise what God has given me.
Sorry Kosta, neither you or your church can take away the authority that God has given me as one who ministers in His name.
Fine. I was just adding another example. And we all love parables!
Regards
I knew I could awlays count of my brothers. :)
Oh, you can appoint yourself the Emperor of North America for all I care. Why not the world? In your own mind you can be whatever you wish to be. But the trick is for the world to recognize that in you.
God did not give you authority. He gave you talents which we all should use to multiply them for the benefit of the world. In that I respect your faith and your desire to spread the word of God.
God gave specific authority (powers) to his Apostles and to the Church He established, reminding us that not all are apostles, prophets and presbyters, and teachers...
His apostles were left in charge. No one was walking around with a Bible in his or her hands in those days. God did not leave us a neatly bound Bible in our hands and He did not command the people to "read, tech and minister." He gave the powers to bind and loosen to the apostles and they gave it to their successors, other people's rationalizations notwithstanding.
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.