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/
No, the LXX illuminates the thinking of the pre-Apostolic Jewish translators. Which is what makes it so useful: When it translates almah in Isa. 7:14 as parthenos, "virgin," no one can accuse the translators of having a Christian bias.
Anyway, see my most recent post to Kosta: The NT authors did not always favor the LXX, so your thesis just went right out the window.
I would say that new translations are useless and many are outright harmful.
Not all translations are created equal, granted. But at the same time, linguistic scholarship did not freeze in the fourth (or seventeenth) century, nor did textual criticism, so translations that take into account up-to-date scholarship are a must.
Jerome went back to the Hebrew because he understood the futility of getting an accurate reading doing translations of translations. If you're getting your English translation from the Vulgate, then you dishonor his memory.
If one wants to understand better the Vulgate, he should ask the Church for guidance or look at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification -- exactly what St. Jerome did.
I do go to the Church for guidance--just not your church. And looking at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification is exactly what I've been arguing this whole time. Nice to see that you agree with me.
The point was that St. Paul was more likely than the other, more hellenized disciples to use the Hebrew scripture . . .
lol My friend, the Galileans were more prone to speak Aramaic than Greek (why do you think Peter and John needed help from translators?), and they used Hebrew in the synagogues. We also know from the DSS that Hebrew, not just Aramaic, was in common use in Judea, so if they were going down for the Feasts and preaching the Gospel there, they most likely could read the Scriptures in Hebrew as well as in the Targums.
I am by the way, waiting for you to name non-Pauline instances where, you say, the quoting of the Old Testament i the New followes the Hebrew text.
Again, see my post to Kostas.
Of course. This is because the Hebrew Tradition is deprecated in Christianity to a considerable extent. This says nothing of the role of the Christian Tradition.
Actually, the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles. Their disputes with the Pharisees were over the latter's hardened hearts and in letting their traditions violate the Torah in many (not all) cases. Moreover, their disputes were only with a subset of the Pharisees, since Sha'ul and many other Jewish believers remained a part of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5, 23:6). In fact, Yeshua's actions and teachings were not that far removed from the Pharisees (in particular, with Rabbi Hillel, who died when Yeshua was just 10 or 13), and the fact that He was invited into their homes for table-fellowship indicates that He followed their traditions closely enough to be considered "clean" for fellowship!
But if you, not knowing or understanding the historical and cultural backdrop of the NT, want to denigrate the Pharisees and the Jews in general, so be it. However, don't think that you can judge them for adding their traditions on top of Scripture so as to violate it and get away with doing the exact same thing! A Pharisee by any other name . . .
Could be, but what the Jewish authority outside of Christianity considered canon is simply not relevant, whether at Jamnia or at other times.
On the contrary, Jewish authority before Christianity as to the canon is very important, since it tells us what Bible Yeshua and His disciples used. Josephus and Jamnia may have recorded their canonical lists shortly after the advent of our Lord, but they were not making up anything new; rather, like the counsels that discussed the NT canon in the fourth century, they were merely ratifying and passing on what was already long-established by their time.
About how long, do you figure?
I see nothing to dispute in that statement!
Please believe me that I'm not saying this with "Aha! GOTcha!," in my alleged mind, but to delineate the different way we go with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you so much for that treatment, and also for your discussion of Adam 1 and his observer problem.
The only way Adam can get off that stage is to be born anew as a spectator, that is what Christ accomplished in the Resurrection.
It is a fascinating discussion you are inviting me to eavesdrop upon, both here and above; thank you!
We've all been outted...it happened one Friday...
LoL...
I don't know of any Protestants who would assert that Christians do not sin.
That's even worst.
To take the NT example, "I figure" from the moment the Apostles put pen to paper their writings were received as Scripture by the congregations who first read them. What I can prove, going to the ECF, is that the vast majority of the NT canon, including all four Gospel accounts, Acts, all of Sha'ul's letters, 1 John, 1 Peter, James, and the Revelation, were accepted as canon by the second century, with 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Hebrews being widely quoted, though with some debate.
Now, I know from reading the Judaica that the Torah, being the foundational Scripture, has never been in doubt. Neither have any of the books listed as being "the Prophets": Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the Twelve. Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles were also universally accepted, even though they came at the tail-end of the prophetic period. Lamentations was accepted due to its prophet author (Jeremiah), the Psalms were universally accepted both as Israel's hymnbook and as prophecy, and the Proverbs as the pre-eminent "wisdom liturature" by Solomon, who like his father was a Prophet-King (albeit not a very good one).
The other Writings were occasionally disputed. For example, Esther was disputed on the basis that it did not contain the Name of God (which it actually does in its original language--in acrostic form; this feature is lost in the LXX), but was broadly accepted and read yearly on Purim. Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes were the only two other books that were disputed, but were accepted on the basis of being Solomon's work.
I've so far left out Daniel, not because it was disputed as canon, but because there was dispute over whether it belonged in an honored position among the Prophets, or a less-honorable but still canonical position in the Writings. I won't go into that debate here; suffice to say that I regard Daniel as among the most important of prophets.
Now, among the Apocryphal books, I've already noted that no pre-Christian or Apostolic contemporary quoted from any of them with the usual formulas to indicate that they were quoting Scripture--nor for that matter do any of the NT authors. In fact, these books disqualify themselves!
For example, just as New Testament books were accepted or rejected on the basis of their Apostolic authority--this is why, for example, Polycarp's account of the Gospel, while considered excellent history and not conflicting with any Scripture, is not given the status of canon--the books of the Tanakh were accepted or rejected on the basis of their Prophetic authority; that is, they had to be written by a prophet or by the prophet's authority.
Shortly after the completion of the Second Temple, the prophetic Spirit ceased to move in Israel. This was in accordance with Amos 8:11--"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord GOD, 'That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD.'"--and is acknowledged in the very intertestimal books themselves. For example, 1 Maccabees 4:46 speaks of the Jews storing away the stones of the defiled altar until "should come a prophet to tell what to do with them." In other words, they were acknowledging that there was no prophet among them.
No prophet, no Scripture. Useful history and to be studied, certainly, but definitely not canon.
Josephus' list of 22 books, as well as the contemporaneous Council of Jamnia and the quotations from the pre-Christian rabbis (Philo, Hillel, etc.) are all in perfect agreement that the Apocrypha were not accepted as canon by any Jewish authority before the time of the Messiah Yeshua, and His own choice of books to quote from as well as that of His Apostles confirms the rabbinical selection. Frankly, even the later Catholic Church has had questions about the Apocrypha, naming them the "Deutero-canon"--a "second" canon--and with an authority as well thought of as Jerome protesting their inclusion in the Vulgate, and relegating them to their own section, apart from either Old or New Testament. Therefore, they may be quoted on their own merits, as either history or wisdom, but cannot be used to determine doctrine.
Excellent. Thanks.
Excellent words poured through obedient fingers, as usual.
Thanks much.
I concur, although there is no temptation too great than that which may be resisted.
No, I'm sure you're right. Mxxx
Am humbled by your kind words.
Just share from my perspective.
Praise God when it resonates with anyone else fruitfully.
LUB
Somehow, I wonder if your hubby--or maybe it's someone else you know--would profit from the latter parts of this thread:
How so, FK? The term was "coined" to address a Christological heresy and as such really wrote "finis" to that heresy.
I think Xzins nailed exactly where I was coming from in his 5654. Perhaps WAY back in the day, the context would have better understood by the average layman. I'm just saying that today, I don't think it is. To a person who didn't know what was behind it, "mother of God" "sounds" bad for the reasons already discussed. However, with a full explanation, then it's OK. In the same way, "mother of Christ" "sounds" bad to you because it has a defined meaning under Nesotrianism. However, Nestorianism aside, it "sounds" perfectly good to me, and if I said I thought it was OK, and then gave you a full explanation of what I meant by it, you would probably say "fine" to the idea I was conveying, just in that context.
"Actually, the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles."
Let's assume that what you say is correct. What changed by the late 1st century to cause +Ignatius of Antioch to write in his Letter to the Magnesians:
"It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God."
Do we really have to redefine our terms because some people don't know enough to figure such things out correctly? Political correctness run amok!
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.