St Peter is Walking on the Water
Lluis Borrassa
1411-13
Tempera on wood, 102 x 65 cm
Sant Pere, Terrasa
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 is an important episode of the Reformation Soap Opera. First, mutilate the sacred Deposit of Faith given the Apostles. Second, mutilate the Scripture. Then, discover that no matter how you truncate the canon and mistranslate passages, the message remains Orthodox Catholic. The next big hope is in clay bottles somewhere in the desert, that will finally have Romans 3:28 say "allein".
Good. Is there anything in that post that I should respond to?
LoL.. You protest too much Lucy...
"The next big hope is in clay bottles somewhere in the desert, that will finally have Romans 3:28 say "allein"."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dunno, my dear brother. However, lest ye forget, Jesus Himself seems to set great store by the dude. FWIW, I don't think He would have done that, in the case of "a spiritual doofus," a "Barney Fife...."
Certainly wouldn't give ole Barney a binding and loosing bullet...
I really don't know how to construe your meaning here D-fendr. But some thoughts come to mind.
(1) If in fact Peter is a "Barney," then certainly God would not invest in him the power of "loosing and binding."
(2) Yet evidently we have Jesus' own statements to the effect that Peter is invested with the power to "loose and bind."
(3) If Jesus has placed this power in the hands of an "objectively" incompetent man, then either one of two things must be true:
(a) Not only has Jesus meant to deceive us (notwithstanding this would constitute an utter contradition of His Own True Nature as Logos), but this deception is excusable because there is some greater divine purpose to be served by means of resort to deception. This I cannot accept. I do not believe that Christ ever contradicts Himself.So where do we go from here I wonder?(b) Jesus chose Peter for qualities important to Him, which may be undetectable by us. In which case, put your faith in Christ's choice. I do not find this understanding at all strange to my ear.
It's wonderful to hear from you, D-fendr!
Jesus placed the authority of the Keys in St. Peter because St. Peter had unwavering faith in Christ revealed by the Father and at the same time had human imperfections. It is significant that each time Peter is elevated or singled out by Christ, Peter's weakness is also brought to mind. In the keys episode St. Peter, unwittingly following Satan, tempts Christ with temporal power. Peter's betrayal is bracketed by Christ's prayer that he remain strong and convert his brethren, and by the charge to feed the sheep.
This prefigures the failings of the human leaders of the Church; it is important for Christ to teach us that His Church is a divine institution infallibly lead by fallible men.
The character of Peter is perhaps best encapsulated in his walking on water, where he is working a miracle as his gaze is on Christ, failing, and calling out to his Savior.
Great to hear from you too, BB.
I think everyone would agree that Our Lord gave this authority to the Apostles - Peter. The authority to forgive sins was a major statement - for Jesus Christ and therefore his apostles.
I think we have to assume Our Lord knew what he was doing.
On Peter as Barney: We see lots of places where the apostles don't understand, misread, stumble, are fearful; I think all of them at some time or other. (Maybe Mary Magdelene is the example of a disciple who understood and knew instantly.)
So, I would conclude that Christ saw Peter as he would become not as he used to be. Plus He would have help. :)
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong," 1 Cor 1;27
Absolutely, 100% NOT!
I'm a klutz, a doofus, a schlemazzle -- all that and more! (or less!) (And one of my favorite sergeants had a picture of Barney Fife above his desk -- but I'm not sure that counts.)
We keep saying this and it feels like nobody is listening. Jesus is great. You can count on that. You cannot count on the Pope being great. You can count on Jesus' promise to the Church.
They say, as I never tire of saying, that Mount Sinai is a pretty scuzzy mountain. You don't come away from it saying,"Wow, what a mountain!" You come away from it saying, "Wow, what a revelation, what a wonderful Torah, what a great God!"
Yeah, you get a guy like JPII and he's pretty impressive. But even he will tell you that the POINT is to say not,"Wow! That is some pope!" but "Wow, that is some Lord!"
"The authority to forgive sins was a major statement"
I don't mean to intrude at this late hour in the discussion but can anyone point out in scripture where Peter or any of the Apostles forgave sin. It seems in order to do so one would have to know intimately the intent of the heart and only God knows that. Peter in the episode with Simon pointed him to God for forgiveness,
Act 8:18-24, "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."
Being completely dead to sin is not theosis?
I looked at+John Chrysotsom's homilies X, XI (thanks D-fendr).
But let's look at what the Apostle actually says; at the relevant verses:
v.6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; [comment: here he reiterates that those who accepted Christ are dead to sin, free from sin through dying into Christ].
v.7 for he who has died is freed from sin. [comment; doesn't get much clearer that this; we are dead to sin and therefore free form sin]
v.10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. [comment: this is unrelated to dying to sin, but it is one of those sentences where one must wonder if +Paul considers Christ equal to Father in divinity]
v.11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. [comment: again, he states that we are dead to sin; we are free form sin; what else can that mean except that we can sin no more?!]
v.12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, [commnet: here he speaks as if just a few verse above he didn't say that we are free from sin]
v.18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. [comment: again, having been freed...now we can only do righteous deeds]
All in all, I think the protestants are reading these lines as basically saying: when you become a Christian you become dead to sin, free from sin and sin no more. That would be theosis (except that theosis requires a life-long dying unto oneself).
I do not argue with opinions.
= = = =
Evidently, just in behalf of ancient, multi-centuried, edificical, unBiblical, lichen enchrusted ones.
No longer does our living depend upon the law, rather our life is separate from the disobedience of Him.
Do we violate the law? Sure, no doubt about the legalism, but through faith in Christ we have life because He has already paid the debt of sin.
We've been separated from sin carrying us into death, again by faith, and when we live in that faith we also abide by the law.
= = = =
I like your explanation.
First, mutilate the sacred Deposit of Faith given the Apostles. Second, mutilate the Scripture. Then, discover that no matter how you truncate the canon and mistranslate passages, the message remains Orthodox Catholic. The next big hope is in clay bottles somewhere in the desert, that will finally have Romans 3:28 say "allein".
= = =
Not sure why this sounds like some pontifical edict from some throne at a very lofty self-appointed height of some super high ivory tower with ivy all over it . . . but it does.
mutilate the sacred Deposit of Faith given the Apostles.
1. NOT AT ALL. Rescue the tradition bound; organizational bureaucratic mangled Faith of the New Testament would be more accurate.
2. Given the apostles? True--but not as a secret code to be shared only with the initiated staff. Freely received, to be freely given--
NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK; MALE NOR FEMALE; SLAVE NOR FREE; PAPAL GATE KEEPER NOR TRIBAL SERF BELIEVER . . . IN CHRIST.
3. Second, mutilate the Scripture.
LOL, ROTFLOL; GUFFAWS TO THE MAX. This from the perspective of the most Scripture mangling of Christian organizations in history--and still so, to this day. Perhaps the LDS & JW'S are worse, but I hardly label them Christian in the truest sense of the word. Amazing.
And, when not mangling Scripture outright--building granite towers miles high on arguable nuances of cotton candy; air-gel and sand--politically motivated quick-sand, at that.
4. no matter how you truncate the canon and mistranslate passages, the message remains Orthodox Catholic.
No way Ho-zay . . . though it depends to some degree on the topic. The message remains ORTHODOX UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN. NOT Roman Catholic. There's a huge difference, particularly in certain subset areas.
And, we tend to take the Canon as it is--and seek to conform outselves TO IT--NOT CONFORM IT TO OUR ORGANIZATION AS THE BE-ALL STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS--THE HUMAN, FLESHY, BUREACRATIC STRUCTURE OF FLAWED HUMANS AS THE STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS--TALK ABOUT SILLY AND NONSENSICAL!!!
--we do not insist that the canon has to be sieved, screened, flavored, twisted, approved, sanctioned, interpreted, mangled, censored, spun, turned-in-side-out & upside-down; neutered; spiked; exclusively parochialized; tainted; flesh-ridden; bureaucratically bound and polluted; . . . by some old boy's club of tradition bound; traditions of men bound; doctrines of demons bound fossilized old hot air speakers ensconsed in ivory towers of rigidity, sanctimoniousness and the like.
5. The next big hope is in clay bottles somewhere in the desert, that will finally have Romans 3:28 say "allein".
= = =
GIVEN THE EVIDENCE HEREON, I'm pretty well convinced that the next big hope of the RC edifice is that the NEW GLOBALIST INQUISITION WILL SWEEP ALL PROTESTIES FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH--or at least conscript all of them into papal ring polishers; Mary figurine halo polishers; Saint's statue toe kissers and the like.
No thanks.
When he was lost. Not saved. Not a part of Christ's bride. Sorry. Your church was lost at the time as well and many of your church are still lost for salvifically, they are no different than Muslims. Just another Allah.
Most protestant denominations I'm familiar with would deny believers never sin after they've received eternal life and initial saving faith in Christ. Rather, while they remain in fellowship with God, they are dead to sin or separated from the penalty of sin. We become free from the bondage of sin because we have already the first hope satisfied in us, namely eternal life. Our next hope is in our remaining in fellowship with Him, putting on the mind of Christ, recognizing there are rewards for us in heaven based upon our good works performed through faith in Him when we perform according to His will and Plan. We also recognize we stumble repetitively in sin after salvation prior to the first death, but by calling upon His promises of 1stJohn 1:9 we still have life through faith in Him. Even though we are slaves to righteousness, we might still sin from the influence of the old man, disobey in our volition, but we nevertheless remain His and slaves to Him forever.
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.