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/
Yes, that is unfortunate if it were true. How can we speak of a "reformed faith" as anything but an amalgam of individual faiths?
As always, I do not speak for all Protestants, but WE are FULLY bound to scripture...
...based on one's own, personal interpretation of Holy Scripture.
A Reformed Protestant, or for that matter any Protestant, is under no obligation to agree with any existing understanding of the Holy Scripture, but is perfectly free to interpret the Holy Script as he or she sees fit.
One can be a Southern Baptist and believe in free will, just as one can be a Southern Baptist and be Reformed, and deny the free will. So, when one says "I am a Southern Baptist" there is a entire spectrum of possible beliefs he or she may hold that may or may not correspond to other members of his or her congregation.
But as an Orthodox or Catholic believer, I don't have that luxury to cherry-pick what i want to believe and what i don't want to, and still call myself Orthodox or Catholic. I can't profess filioque and say that I am Orthodox. I can't profess Protestant redemption theology and remain Orthodox.
I do have the freedom to speculate and ask, as long as I, in the final analysis, always defer to the Church. I believe with all my heart everything the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches, even if my personal demons sometimes lead me astray.
Otherwise, if I believed anything I speculate as my true faith, and not as moments of demonic possession, I would cease being Orthodox in essence.
Since Protestants are under no obligation to follow any particular rule, but their own interpretation of the Bible, and their own conceptualization of the faith based on personal preferences, intellect, culture, etc., my statement that it is a man-made, tailor-made to one's individual taste and preference religion is not an "unfortunate lack of understanding of the Reformed Faith," FK, is it?
I was there for the earlier discussion.
"Read the Nicene Creed:"
You posted the old creed, that was used for a long time before it's modern version appeared. I believe that one, not the modern version. The original creed doesn't even mention the timing of the begotten part, except to say it was before all world's. That's acceptable. That came in the old creed you posted. As I said, at some point God must have first pondered creation and that's the earliest point "begotten" applies, no sooner. Before all worlds is fine.
The new creed says eternally. That is neither fine, nor acceptable. It is illogical. As I pointed out, those who say God is timeless are effectively saying God can not exist. The word eternal in that case is also meaningless, because there's no time. God must exist in time. Existing in time requires sequential events. That means God could not have begotten, before He decided to create. The word "beget" is an action. The verb, "to proceed" is an action. Neither of those are nouns that would refer to "is", or "to be". An action can never be eternal, only God's capacity to act can. That capacity is part of His nature.
"of one essence with the Father"
This only applies in Heaven. If you wish to apply it to this universe, that can be done, but then we are all of the same essence and the point becomes meaningless. It's in the physics.
"The begetting of the Son refers to His eternal ontological source in the Father, not to the Incarnation, even as the procession of the Spirit from the Father refers to His eternal ontology,"
I covered that, above. To beget is an action. Capacity is a noun. Jesus is not simple capacity. Spirit must have a physical foundation, or machinery to support it. Spirit does not and can not exist on it's own with no physics to support it.
"even as the procession of the Spirit from the Father refers to His eternal ontology, not His temporal, economical manifestation in the world."
There's no point in referring to the Son as simple capacity, or ability to act. It's the particulars of the action that count. In the case of the Son, both the Father and the Son acted as independent free will agents. Jesus acted exactly as, and under the conditions of, a man. The responsibility for those actions were God's. Note, Jesus did not know, or understand what the Father knew. He was born empty as any man, learned from that point, and was taught by the Father.
"Some of the Fathers indeed paralleled the eternal begetting of the Word with the Incarnation in formulae like "Begotten of His Father without mother, and of his mother without father,""
The keyword is some. The original Creeds contained: "born of the virgin", "made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her", "born of the virgin Mary", ect... , as does the modern version. I'll note also, there's no miraculous, "like a light through glass" birth either.
May the Peace of the Lord be always with you.
Democracy is not a valid logical operation.
DIDN'T CLAIM it was re spiritual truth.
Just a caution that reasonable people differ in their construction on Biblical truths.
There is no new Creed. If it's not a faithful translation of what the Harps of the Spirit wrote at the first two Ecumenical Councils, it's not the Creed.
The anathema against Arius doesn't allow the wiggle room you're trying to use to have an 'earliest point "begotten" applies'. Arius's "there was when the Son was not" is heresy.
And no, God does not need to exist in time. Time is a created thing. Any appeal to physics is appealing to created things, which only by an improper analogy have any application to theology per se. Physics may have some relevance to economy, but not to theology.
Yes, that's been clear since the beginning. Even Moses differed from the holdings of the Holy Spirit.
Even Moses differed from the holdings of the Holy Spirit.
= = =
Say whut? Differed with whom?
I thought most of us on here understood God did some different things post the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension.
The distinction I had in mind was that Steve praying and Mary praying have a different effect because of what Mary is. It is not a Catholic thing, but if I were, with the Orthodox, say Holy Mary, save me! -- I would still be asking her for a prayer. The difference is that while Steve can pray for my salvation, Mary's prayer has the strength of her being one who made that unique and central contribution to my salvation already.
Also keep in mind that we do ask the saints for things other than prayer. We also ask for guidance. And, of course, we thank them and honor them for their witness.
None of that takes away from Christ. We discussed it before: when I spend time with my children and my parents in law, it take nothing from my love for my wife; rather, it is another expression of my love for her. Likewise with Christ: it is because I love Him, I feel compelled to put myself in the company of His saints and His mother.
Where does 1 Cor 12-14, or any other scripture, say that all can "discern what is authentic"? It says rather the opposite: "Are all doctors?".
What monetary benefit was realized at the Council of Ephesus?
And to you also.. at all levels..
Many things of the Old Testament changed in the New Testament, so it simply does not follow logically.
However, your premise is wrong too: the High Priest of Jerusalem temple was at the top of the sacredotal hierarchy. Papacy follows that model (as Pope Clement forcefully explains in his letter tot he Corinthians, where he compares himself to Aaron).
For those of us who didn't purchase a program:
What church do you attend; which school or denomination teaches the theology you're arguing for or explaining?
thanks.
Thank you both for educating me. Somehow, I never asked myself these questions.
Verse 17 just says he went to Arabia, it doesn't say what he did there. It's not a slam dunk either way. Paul was a zealous Jew, who was ahead of his years in learning. As Gamecock said in another post, that meant he had A LOT to unlearn once Christianity was revealed to him. Prayer and meditation would be the way to do that. In addition, we don't appear to hear anything else of his time there. If he was preaching, then that seems odd to me since we are given so many other examples of Paul following up lovingly or referring to his other visits during his travels. Again, I'm not declaring absolute fact. It just seems more likely to me that he didn't really start his ministry in earnest until after he returned.
As to "his gospel", Paul says in verse 11 that the gospel he preached is not of man. That would include himself. In addition, Paul said:
2 Cor 11:4 : 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
This combined with what I "think" you meant by "his gospel" really puts Paul in quite of a box, doesn't it? As Paul is scolding here, if he really was preaching a different Jesus then are we not required to throw out most of the NT?
FK: "It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite."
He was. I don't agree with his alleged solafideism atonement theology (and I would say the Church doesn't either), but as far as his mission for the Church is concerned, thank God for +Paul!
I don't think there is anything alleged about Paul and solafideism. It really is all there, and you appear to acknowledge at least the possibility that it is. Since I would think it would be untenable for the Church to say "We disagree with Paul", then it seems to me that the only option left open to the Church is to say that Paul never said what he said. :)
[The other Apostles] didn't have the vision, style and the resoluteness +Paul had. +Paul realized that in order for the Church to be accepted by the Gentiles, some aspects of Judaism will have to be dispensed with (even though they are protected by God's Laws).
Are you saying that Paul made an executive marketing decision to unilaterally sweep some things under the rug, even though in his extensive education he knew "they were protected by God's Laws"? Was it proper for Paul to do this in your view? What exactly is your assessment of the Jerusalem Council?
The idea that God somehow wanted [the New Covenant] to be shared by the Gentiles is +Pauline in origin (and please don't quote Mat 28, because "all nations" there means all 12 tribes of Israel, not all nations of the world, as Christ even so mentioned abolishing circumcision, or dietary laws).
Well, if you believe that Christ was only speaking to the Apostles at the end of Matt. 28, then I suppose it makes sense that you think "all nations" only meant the 12 Tribes. Do you think Jesus never spoke of saving Gentiles? How do you interpret this:
John 10:15-16 : 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Or how about the centurion (Matt. 8:5-10)? How could Paul have invented this if Jesus talked about it before Paul even knew who Jesus was?
Concensus patrum does not teach Pauline atonement doctrine, nor sola fide. The Creed does not contain atonement doctrine either.
To my knowledge, this is exactly correct.
+Pauline role and accomplishment in saving the Church is one thing; his theology and doctrine is another. I don't think the Church would ever admit it, but the role of +Paul in the liturgical life is very clearly distinct from that of the Apostles who wrote the Gospels. The homily is always based on the Gospel and not on the Epistle. These are very subtle facts that say a lot.
Well, I can understand why the Gospels would be STRONGLY emphasized in any Christian faith. But, I don't really take this as any slight to Paul. If I could only take 4 books of the Bible to a desert island, one of them would be Romans. It might well be that not all Reformers would agree with me, but I think a whole bunch of them would. Do you think the vast majority of Orthodox would disagree with me?
They oppose "Mother of Christ" because Nestorius used it. And he likely wasn't even a Nestorian in the way the council defined the heresy! Mother of Jesus is of course a biblical term, but I've been told it is inadequate because to them it strips the person in Mary's womb of His deity. That makes zero sense, but that is what I was told probably 6000 posts ago.
The things that spunkets is addressing here and on the link provided on his reply are fascinating to me – an attempt to reconcile perhaps physical and spiritual realities?
You know me, hosepipe, I can’t seem to get enough of physics and especially geometric physics. LOL!
At any rate, such reconciliations are things I put in the “musings” category, but if you are interested, here are my thoughts on the matter:
First, is the Jewish interpretation that the reason there was a beginning at all was that God the Father wanted to reveal Himself.
In the beginning – regardless of cosmology (cyclic, inflationary, epkyrotic, multi-world, multi-verse, imaginary time, hesitating, etc.) all that exists is God Himself. Space and time do not exist, neither does causality.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
Without space/time there is no energy, no matter, no thing at all. Only existence exists, i.e. God.
IOW, the beginning (both physical and spiritual) was a willful act of God the Creator. (First Cause) Which is to say there is nothing of which anything can be made but God Himself. Reality is God's will and unknowable in its fullness.
But God is Light and in Him there is no darkness at all. He is good and not evil. So I meditated and prayed why this is so.
In response to that prayer, I now have peace in the spirit with this understanding: God has revealed Himself by contrast. How would we know light if we had never seen darkness? Good if we had never seen evil? Sickness v. health, courage v. fear, right v. wrong – and so on.
And so The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden, in plain sight of Adam, by God Himself. (Gen 2) Adam was to observe it and not to participate in it.
It was a sign (language) to Adam standing there. Adam could see the fruits of good and of evil – but he was not to make those fruits part of himself by feeding on it under pain of death death. (Gen 2)
To use a modern metaphor, it is as if Adam was being shown a stage play so that he could understand the difference between good and evil to comprehend that God is good and not evil. But instead of watching the show to absorb this revelation of God, he jumped onstage and became a part of it. But the firmament between the two is like a one way mirror. He could be seen, but he could not see. He couldn’t step off the stage and thus he was banned to mortality, physical reality, doomed to be an actor in the play he was intended to watch (Genesis 4.)
He did it to himself. 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.
You see, it was never “about” this heaven and earth – from the beginning, it has always been about the next heaven and earth [Final Cause] - Genesis to Revelation – God and His family and those to whom He has revealed Himself and with whom He will always live.
All of this brings me to my final point, that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God (emphasis mine):
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20
Any hoot, those are my musings...
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.