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/
The subject was security of salvation. The verses you provide are not on the topic.
"LOL! Whose right, you, or the Romans?"
I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, S. Even the Latins now say that the Creed without the filioque is "normative".
No it wouldn't. "Ο ΩΝ" does not exist in any fashion we comprehend, being the source of existence. Indeed, given that "existence" is only something we can comprehend and is a created state, God does not "exist".
Yep, it was in the bulletin Sunday: "When in doubt listen to the Greek." [v 7/1054 rev. 12/1965]
Excellent and very Orthodox presentation, A.
What is absurd is that I spent several days explaining in detail what my view is concerning free will. What is absurd is that you are attributing things to me that I did not say and pat yourself on the back for doing it.
Once again, as far as free will goes - it is true - there is no such thing as entirely free will. Saved Christians are the ones with the closest thing to freedom that one knows and are free to make good choices for God and bad choices; but, even that freedom falls within the Sovereignty of God. God will not allow, for instance, someone to do something which messes up His plan through the ages for this world. It will all work out exactly as He said, and it isn't because He foresaw what we would do but because He has had a plan for this world even before the foundation of the world. NOTHING will thwart that plan. So for the saved, you could say we are freed from the bonds of sin but slaves to God. As a matter of fact, Paul said this very thing:
Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Lost people also have freedom of will in terms of their relationship with God. God is not saying "I am not allowing you to come." He is not holding them back. But, they are NOT FREE in the respect that they have become willing slaves of sin. They will never be free unless the Spirit set them free. Romans 8:2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Romans 6:6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
This does not sound like we were truly free prior to salvation does it? Rather, we would only ultimately choose to do evil. Even our "good" acts were done with impure motives (for self or for some other reason than for God). As such, it was filthy before God's holiness. Only by the quickening of the Spirit and the washing of Christ's blood atonement are we made free and clean and able to choose to sin or to do good with good motivation.
11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
If you're saying that we are neither completed determined nor completely free, then we are agreeing. But I don't think you are saying that, or you're qualifying it such that it free will is meaningless.
We have capabilities, capacities, and conscience. I think you have limited the first two into a framework that is deterministic.
Do you really believe that only saved Christians can choose to do anything other than evil?
Or maybe my confusion is coming in because you believe some are born saved?
What I wonder is if anyone ever lost their assurance. Or if anyone who has assurance was ever wrong.
Is assurance assured?
The unsaved can not decide to do things with the motivation of glorifying the One that they deny. They may do good things. They have that "spark" of the likeness of God within them that brings about some good works. However, more often it is man doing what seems right in His eyes; which is most often selfish and self-serving. Man says to God, I don't need you. I will build my own tower to Heaven. God says to man, go for it, knowing that with each brick rather than growing closer to Heaven they are sinking deeper to Hell.
So, as far as your comment that my qualification makes free will meaningless, I would submit that it is as far as the definition most people try to give it and the qualification is what is true. We are both free but not free. Only the saved can choose to do good with a motivation that desires to be glorifying to God. Only the saved can follow after God. The lost will not ever turn towards God unless the Spirit draw them first. They are dead to the truth and bound by sin.
There is a difference between "can you" and "will you." In a conversation, I can say "can you accept what Scripture says?" Well, for most people being able to hear and understand the Word of God is not a problem. Physically, the can understand the words and know what it is saying. However, will they? Different issue. If they are not willing to even consider the truth of Scripture, they will not accept it as true. They can understand it. Nothing is holding them back. But they won't.
Nothing holds the lost back from salvation but themselves. Nothing brings the saved to salvation but the mercy and intervention of God.
LOL! :)
It has been a foreign concept to my denomination's confession, but Scripturally I can not rule it out.
Psalm 22:9
But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
Psalm 22:10
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Luke 1:15
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1:44
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
"O Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things, Treasury of good things and Giver of life: Come and dwell in us, and cleanse us of all impurity, and save, our souls, O Good One." So we can speak of "Spirit" in two ways: As God and as in relationship to us now. "Everywhere present", yet "come and dwell in us".
I'm curious about the phrase "come and dwell in us". The tone seems general, but I thought it also could be a penitent prayer. Maybe I'm over-analyzing. :)
When you speak absolutes - can not decide to do - you lose me. When you qualify - "spark" of the likeness of God - we agree.
To explain my view: Conscience is from God. Man's conscience is formed over time (from that "spark") and may forever be being formed. But even a beginningly formed conscience can be acted with. And conscience can develop along the way to and after a conversion experience - or salvation in your view.
So our differences in this regard at least are of time and progress. Sometimes you seem to me to be saying it's an on/off switch both for conscience and for salvation. Sometimes you do not seem to be saying so.
And if we were to throw in saved at birth discussed prior, then we have arrived, I believe, at a fully determined view.
On the one hand the truth of brute facts is independent of logic. On the other, logic does not dictate an equation between philosophical causality and physical (or temporal) causality, only your refusal to accept the Church's understanding is at issue here, not any matter of sound deduction.
Besides, for all your denials, proposing Arius' error of seating the begetting of the Son within time, you suffer from one of the worst cases I've ever witnessed of the malady that makes people think theology is a synthetic science like mathematics, rather than a positive science like chemistry.
If you ever get around to reading the Acta of Nicaea, you might follow with Dionysius the Areopagite's On the Divine Names, and a good history of the Palamite controversy.
I am only being quarrelsome because you erroneously expounded the meaning of the Creed based on your 'logic', in such a way as to reach Arian conclusions: time being created, to insist that the begetting of the Son is within time implies 'there was when the Son was not', the very formula for which Arius was condemned as a heretic.
Further, some have thought that the heaven encircles the universe and has the form of a sphere, and that everywhere it is the highest point, and that the centre of the space enclosed by it is the lowest part: and, further, that those bodies that are light and airy are allotted by the Creator the upper region: while those that are heavy and tend to descend occupy the lower region, which is the middle. The element, then, that is lightest and most inclined to soar upwards is fire, and hence they hold that its position is immediately after the heaven, and they call it ether, and after it comes the lower air. But earth and water, which are heavier and have more of a downward tendency, are suspended in the centre. Therefore, taking them in the reverse order, we have in the lowest situation earth and water: but water is lighter than earth, and hence is more easily set in motion: above these on all hands, like a covering, is the circle of air, and all round the air is the circle of ether, and outside air is the circle of the heaven.Further, they say that the heaven moves in a circle and so compresses all that is within it, that they remain firm and not liable to fall asunder.
They say also that there are seven zones of the heaven, one higher than the other. And its nature, they say, is of extreme fineness, like that of smoke, and each zone contains one of the planets. For there are said to be seven planets: Sol, Luna, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Venus and Saturn. But sometimes Venus is called Lucifer and sometimes Vesper. These are called planets because their movements are the reverse of those of the heaven. For while the heaven and all other stars move from east to west, these alone move from west to east. And this can easily be seen in the case of the moon, which moves each evening a little backwards.
All, therefore, who hold that the heaven is in the form of a sphere, say that it is equally removed and distant from the earth at all points, whether above, or sideways, or below. And by 'below' and 'sideways' I mean all that comes within the range of our senses. For it follows from what has been said, that the heaven occupies the whole of the upper region and the earth the whole of the lower. They say, besides, that the heaven encircles the earth in the manner of a sphere, and bears along with it in its most rapid revolutions sun, moon and stars, and that when the sun is over the earth it becomes day there, and when it is under the earth it is night. And, again, when the sun goes under the earth it is night here, but day yonder.
Damascene: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book II)
James would not have said "not by faith alone" if he thought one was a consequence of the other. Understand that St. James is not mentioning something on the way to explain something else, like Paul often does in quote you keep repeating. It is his central thought -- unlike your prooftexts.
More tomorrow.
When I use a Catholic source, the presentation is often very Orthodox. But this time I used an Orthodox source, so the presentation is simply Orthodox.
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.