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/
Reading this quotation slowly. But I came upon a question immediately. What does this statement mean? " "The soul when it was deified descended into Hades" Is there a moment that Jesus was not deity???
Amen. And why is that? Because that is where the Holy Spirit resides.
"...As the “enlightener of the soul”, the Holy Spirit is the revealer of truth, and the Author of the Scriptures which are used as the instrument of His work. The efficacy of the Word depends completely on the work of the Spirit, and His gracious actions upon men. He seeks to enlighten, quicken and invigorate by the light of the Word of God..."
Jesus says it is through the scriptures that we have life, not tradition.
AMEN! In fact, tradition is often dismissed outright by Jesus and the Apostles.
"But avoid foolish questions, and geneologies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." -- Titus 3:9
And I guess Titus 3:10 is where "three strikes and you're out" comes from...
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." -- Titus 3:10-11 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
I don't fall down to the stock of a tree.
"But I came upon a question immediately. What does this statement mean? " "The soul when it was deified descended into Hades" Is there a moment that Jesus was not deity???"
The translation isn't the best, but likely the best that can be done in English. Two things are being said. First, that it was the Divine Soul of Christ which descended to the place of the Dead, having been released from the Body and second, that this is the one instance in history where we can say that God died (the converse, of course, is that we find in the person of Christ the one instance where we can say that man is eternal).
I forgot to add that I also earlier posted a link to +Athanasius on the Incarnation which also speaks to the meaning of the Sacrifice on the Cross within the context of God's plan advancing through the Incarnation.
FK, I meant to ping you to 5895.
I guess the difference would be if you or I thought something contrary to what our church was teaching us, we'd search the Scriptures and be confident that the Holy Spirit would eventually lead us to the truth.
For others, to question their church is to be separated from the dispenser of God's grace -- a paralyzing and frightening specter for them. That fact alone should tell them those anxieties are not from God.
"And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." -- John 9:39"Delight thyself also in the LORD: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." -- Psalm 37:4
Pity. It's so much easier than some people want to make it out to be.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
And that belief signifies a changed heart, new ears and new eyes, a life reborn in Christ, the fruits by which we are known.
You've said this (anthropomorphize God) several times in this thread and other places(threads).. but so many different threads of "thought" have transpired(in many threads), I did not and have not addressed the comment..
It deserves addressing.. nobody has addressed that comment much..
People anthropomorphize animals by attributing human feelings and agendas(and more) to animals often.. but anthropomorphizing God deserves comment..
Many religions anthropomorphize God.. even christian religions.. which shows their (that religions) spiritual base, I believe.. Fleshly Mankind can anthropomorphize other things also..
Anthropomorphizing GOD seems to be an indicator of obscene spiritual error.. Anthropomorphizing the Father, or Jesus, or even the Holy Spirit is usually not indicated.. Usually anthropomorphizing Jesus is the "crime".. Seems to me to be some get confused with the triune God.. from those "trying to be christians".. or in some ways Jews(kabbalah)..
Much could be said on anthropomorphizing GOD..
Anthropomorphizing God would have its effect mentally and conceptually in many areas and indeed a "TEST" to spiritual revelation... You seem to be the ONLY one bringing this up..
Cudos to you for inserting this concept into these threads..
Because it is so very important..
NOTE: an·thro·po·mor·phize..
v.tr. To ascribe human characteristics to.
v.intr. To ascribe human characteristics to things not human.
** Another deffintion could be an·thro·po·mor·phizing GOD..
Many scriptures would support this as an error.. And many Rabbis(Jews) THINK this is what christianity is all about anthropomorphizing GOD.. supported by what many christians DO and think..
Privately this subject could be a thread all by itself..
I asked the Lord Jesus Christ into my life over 30 years ago. I have the Holy Spirit and God's Spirit witnesses to MY spirit that I am His and that I am saved. You apparently don't believe it so that's your problem, I guess.
Oh, brother. What a bunch of baloney.
Thanks, Alamo-Girl. I can't imagine a religion that teaches that you can't be saved until Judgement Day. Their loss, I guess. I'm glad I KNOW where I'm going. Must be difficult not to know until you're already dead. Bless you.
Amen! What did Christ Himself say to us?
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." -- John 5:36,39"But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me...
It may be in this Chapter: The Death of Christ
"Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection…"
Doctrine does not contradict scripture. You may not like how they've interpreted the Scriptures but there is no contradiction.
I don't see these holy men of God as being "puffed up". I see them as they are, humble servants.
Going back to Scripture to determine scripture seems a bit circular to me. Here is my simple view of how this works. Jesus set up the Church on the Rock of Peter. Peter and the apostles went out to spread God's word. As they went along, they ran into contradictions and confusion. In order to settle those problems that arose, they were settled among themselves and written down. This knowledge was passed on to their replacements or those they put in charge in new areas. Doctrine was formed as needed. The main tenets/beliefs of the church have not changed. Why would I not go to the those that have had first hand knowledge passed on to them.
The reason you don't come up with different opinions is because then you'd have to go out and start your own church. Isn't that how it works? Why on earth would I want to be like the Protestants that have divided so many times in the last 4-500 years that they are barely recognizable from those that originally split?
I don't have to double and triple check an issue. It's already been settled. Why fix what is not broken? Again, I'm reading Scripture on my own at home. So because what I have decided goes along with the Catholic Church I'm somehow not doing it right? I'm not taking what the Church says blindly!! That's what keeps making me so angry at your posts!
Luke 10:16
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
We are all human. That is why God gave us His Church on Earth that the gates of hell would not prevail against. That is why he breathed on his Apostles and why they have passed on their knowledge and on and on it continues to this day. Yes, there have been bad seed within that process but that has not taken the Church down. The Church is the final Authority.
Matthew 18:15-18
15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
God didn't set it up this way so that we couldn't be individual thinkers. He did this to protect us heresy and disunity.
Anglicans were a special case--there was always a tension in Anglicanism between being merely protestant and trying to be a kind of Western Orthodoxy. The latter tendency was typified by Bp. Thomas Ken, who, when martyred (?) by the Latins declared that he 'died in the faith of the Ancient Church, before ever division of East and West, the so-called Caroline Divines, the Non-Jurors, and the Oxford Movement (to the extent that it was not overly 'Romish'). Except possibly in the case of the Caroline Divines, at no time did this tendency represent a majority of Anglican thought. (I'm not familiar with Bp. Ryle, though.)
This on the one hand explains the easy transition Anglicans have when the Spirit leads them to embrace Holy Orthodoxy, and on the other the special attention the Evil One seems to have given to seducing Anglicanism in the US, Britain and 'white Commonwealth' into not merely heresy, but full-scale apostacy from the Apostolic Faith.
By and large the 'Anglo-Catholic' faction is gone now: most of us are now either Orthodox or Latin--though one of the 'Continuing Anglican' groups has dropped the filoque and explicitly follow Bp. Ken's view that they adhere to the faith of the undivided Church. (I've forgotten which of the group it is--it's not the ACC, the largest. Fr. Andrew of St. Michael Skete had once expressed the view (prior to the election of Benedict XVI, mind you) that that particular Continuing Anglican group was the only Western ecclesial body with which it was worthwhile for the Orthodox to have an ecumenical dialog.
I used the past-tense in my opening sentence because I think that tension is gone: the divisions in Anglicanism are no longer between protestant (of two species--'low church' evangelicals and 'broad church' latitudinarians--and 'high church' Anglo-Catholics, but between the remaining low churchmen and actual apostates (the intellectual heirs of latitudinarianism).
What Scripture or trustworthy extrabiblical sources do we have which describe the creation of 'Death' as it is personified in the Hymns you have well quoted?
"What a bunch of baloney."
I don't doubt that you find that definition inconvenient.
"What Scripture or trustworthy extrabiblical sources do we have which describe the creation of 'Death' as it is personified in the Hymns you have well quoted?"
Oh, I suspect that death in those hymns, personified as Death, is like the artistic personifications we see in paintings and literature even to today. +Ephraim the Syrian was a great and sublime poet and hymnographer. But that is not at all to say that Death is not personified in the NT. For example, Luke 3:17, Matthew 3:12, Acts 2:24, Romans 5, especially Romans 6:9 and 2 Tim. 1:10 and how about Rev. 6:8.
"This on the one hand explains the easy transition Anglicans have when the Spirit leads them to embrace Holy Orthodoxy, and on the other the special attention the Evil One seems to have given to seducing Anglicanism in the US, Britain and 'white Commonwealth' into not merely heresy, but full-scale apostacy from the Apostolic Faith."
By the latter half of your comment, do you mean that the closeness of Anglicanism to Orthodoxy which facilitates the evident easy transition from the one to the other, poses in some manner the sort of challenge or attraction to the Evil One that, say, a holy monastery or strong parish does?
The Death of Christ: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.v.html
That's exactly the chapter, D. Thanks! Blogger, click on that link. Its not a long chapter at all and worth the read. +Athanasius as you know was the first to establish, at least for his Patriarchate, the canon of the NT as we generally know it today.
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.