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/
***I thought that sanctification was something that was available to us, but not that it guaranteed that anything would happen in the area of works. But I'm feeling much better now. :)***
Check this out:
Chapter 13: Of Sanctification
1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
( Acts 20:32; Romans 6:5, 6; John 17:17; Ephesians 3:16-19; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-23; Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 1:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:14 )
2. This sanctification is throughout the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
( 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 7:18, 23; Galatians 5:17; 1 Peter 2:11 )
3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them.
( Romans 7:23; Romans 6:14; Ephesians 4:15, 16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 7:1 )
Not you, but many whom I have spoken with that believe in a legal imputation of righteousness alone believe that salvation is merely a legal issue. Once we accept the Lord as our Savior, we have already been legally imputed with His Righteousness and nothing can take that away (so the idea goes). With such thinking, there is no point in sanctification, because Christ's righteousness is applied to the credit line, and it erases any debt we have on our side of the ledger...
Salvation is about hearing and believing the truth, ... about being reunited with our spiritual Father, ... about rediscovering our real selves, ... about becoming part of a loving family, ... about learning to work with your brothers and sisters to accomplish some good in the world.
Of course. Glad to see you agree with me. Perhaps you have misunderstood my posts. I am not saying I believe that sanctification is pointless. I am posing a rhetorical question to those who believe in "once saved, always saved", those who believe that they cannot be disinherited from the Kingdom of Heaven and believe that our actions have nothing to do with eternal heaven.
One may be able to consciously decide to walk away from such as this salvation, ... but it is certain that we don't work to maintain our standing with God. Our works proceed as the result of our relationship with God ... which is based upon our faith.
Yes. And how do you walk away from salvation, Quester? Don't your actions have something to do with that? I am certain you are familiar with the concept of love - and that "doing something" is not work, but an act of affection towards the beloved. I buy flowers for my wife out of love, not out of try to earn something... We obey the commandments out of love, not out of trying to earn salvation.
Regards
"Also, in seeing Paul as the originator of spreading the Gospel to the gentiles (a strange notion, given Christ's words just recalled), you forget Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, while Paul was as yet, Saul, the persecutor of the Church."
I have always wondered if the Ethiopian Eunuch wasn't in fact a Jew. Certainly there was a large group of Jews in Ethiopia by the time of Christ, he was reading Isaiah and going to Jerusalem to worship.
They are Semitic Torah-believeing people. This hardly qualifies them as Gentiles or pagans.
Please don't post to me any more.
FK: Peter is urging them to never forget what Christ has already done
The verse tells them "do this and you will not fall."
What this really means is that fall is possible and that it takes reminding oneself of Christ continually in order not to fall. In other words, you are not saved until you are saved (after you die).
Until then, God gives us opportunities to remian in His fold by cooperating with Him. But it is not certain by any stretch.
The real problem is that what +Peter is saying here is not exactly what +Paul was preaching in 'his' gospel. What I see in 2 Peter (a very late addition to the NT), and other later additions, is that the Church is trying to attenuate Pauline teaching.
INDEED.
--Biblically correct.
--Historically correct.
--Currently true.
--Logically true.
--Repeatedly demonstrably true historically and currently.
Thanks. Well put.
Unfortunately, some people use the Bible as a general Encyclopedia. While it has historical veracity to some extent, the Bible is not an unbiased historical source by any means, nor for that matter an accurate scientific source.
Fact is, anyone who did not conform to the Hebrew traditions was to be eliminated. Those were the days of political uncorrectness, racism and prejudice and cruelty unbound. Tribal societies are like that. Either you are a member of the tirbe or you are ready for slaugher. The enemies of Israleites were no better.
Samaritans, Phoenicians and Canaanites are Semites, which means their origin is the same as that of the Jews. Their language is simialr, and even their script is related (Hebrew alphabet came from Phoenician alphabet).
Getting to the truth about history by only using the Bible is like trying to drink your soup with a fork.
Yes, have often felt affinity for the Franciscans.
Sure, you can gloss 'panta ta ethnE' as 'all the tribes' , or go full out and give it its Attic sense of 'all the companies of men'.
The problem for you position is that, throughout the LXX, 'ta ethnE' used as a translation of goyim, and usually Englished as 'the nations' or 'the gentiles'.
Get out your Greek Old Testament and read Psalm 1, and there it's sometimes Englished at 'the heathen'. Never have I seen Psalm 1 translated "Why do the tribes rage. . ."
The Great Commission, read using the Greek the way it is used throughout the Scriptures, is explicitly a command to convert and baptize the gentiles.
And Semitic or not, the Canaanites were the gentiles ne plus ultra!
And you are wrong: the reason the detail of the Ethiopian court offical being a eunuch was important: eunuchs could not convert to Judaism.
FK: "The point is that for every example you can come up with, we can come up with A LOT more. Don't forget, we say the Bible speaks for itself. You say the Bible is indecipherable without the Church's interpretation. I agree with you. There is NO WAY the literal taking of the Bible comes anywhere close to Roman Catholic theology. Except in very limited circumstances, you have no case to make that Roman Catholicism has any regard for the literal words of scripture. Why else would your hierarchy have sheltered your laity away from those words for so many hundreds of years? If your hierarchy simply reflected those literal words, there would be nothing to be afraid of. Yet, their actions betray the opposite truth.
Q:INDEED.
--Biblically correct.
--Historically correct.
--Currently true.
--Logically true.
--Repeatedly demonstrably true historically and currently.
Thanks. Well put."
Q, assuming arguendo the validity of FK's post, how do you account for the theology and ecclesiology and praxis of Orthodoxy which never kept the scriptures from the laity, a laity which ultimately holds the final say (in terms of time and as a practical matter) on what is dogma and what isn't?
They will not know about the lives of the saints, but they will conclude that praying to the Apostles, Mary, and St. Stephen (the saints mentioned in the scripture) for intercession is a good idea.
What do you have, a couple of verses even arguably supporting this view? You would put that up AGAINST what Christ Himself taught, and the thousands of other examples of prayer given to God alone? You can't be serious. :) No one would conclude that attempting to communicate with the physically deceased is Christian behavior based on the totality of scripture.
= = =
INDEED!
Quite a stretch, to me.
or is it a grope.
Have never felt particularly compelled to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy at all.
But since pressed . . .
I think the indiosyncracies of individuals and social groups are more than sufficient to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy.
When simple plain Scriptures can have so many wildly different interpretations by so many seemingly balanced and sane people . . . such differences as you allude to are common place examples of such diversity.
A laity and many clergy btw who often times have worked against the 'meddling bishops' to preserve the faith...
Thanks Gamecock for the great post! I'm taking notes. ;-)
FK: I think the key to sanctification, as I understand it, is it only begins to occur AFTER the HOLY SPIRIT has indwelt you. Thus, sanctification is not available to you unless you are saved (justification). IOW, sanctification is not available to the unsaved. They may do a lot of good works, follow all the rituals, and pray really hard but with out the indwelling Holy Spirit it is for nothing.
Because they were afraid that without guidance the laity would end up being as the Protestants are, scattered all over with a hunded different doctrines which they all claim we would see if we just read the Scriptures a little longer or more sincerely or if we, lacking the time to do all that study, just paid attention to their professors instead of our own? In other words because what you seem to think is a good outcome we think is a bad outcome?
The confluence in so many matters between the heirarchy-ridden RCs who were dealing with European barbarians and our Eastern Brothers who still had a noble, though decadent, civilization behind them is remarkable.
But, I know. You start out assuming we're wrong and conclude that the evidence shows we're wrong. I just looked around me at the endlessly fissiparating Protestants and took refuge in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, as it seems to me, but clearly not to you.
There's no commonly agreed upon epistemology to settle this dispute. Works won't do it, coherence or sense of doctrine won't do it. You treat Scriptures like cannon, and claim to outgun us, or say we have not studied it long enough and hard enough, as though agreement with you were the standard. And the most amusing style of combat in answer to James' "man is not saved by faith alone," is to line up a bunch of other texts which say, "He is too!", so that "Sola Scriptura seems to become "Sola the majority of texts in Scriptura".
Since today I remember a brace of martyrs, Patrick O'Loughran and Conor O'Devany, drawn and quartered in 1612 by Protestants (the amount of whose time spent in Bible study is unknown, but presumably it wasn't quite enough), we just pray a little harder, knowing that we too have shed blood very wrongly indeed.
It is not clear to me that letting just anyone read the Bible has had a good outcome. I'm not saying it isn't right, I'm just saying the data aren't conclusive to those who haven't made up their minds ahead of time.
Who considers salvation to be a strictly legal issue ?
Not you, but many whom I have spoken with that believe in a legal imputation of righteousness alone believe that salvation is merely a legal issue. Once we accept the Lord as our Savior, we have already been legally imputed with His Righteousness and nothing can take that away (so the idea goes). With such thinking, there is no point in sanctification, because Christ's righteousness is applied to the credit line, and it erases any debt we have on our side of the ledger ...
I believe that you might be seeing that some see justification as merely a legal issue.
I don't know any christians who view salvation as merely a legal matter, ... or even regarding justification only.
Salvation is about hearing and believing the truth, ... about being reunited with our spiritual Father, ... about rediscovering our real selves, ... about becoming part of a loving family, ... about learning to work with your brothers and sisters to accomplish some good in the world.
Of course. Glad to see you agree with me. Perhaps you have misunderstood my posts. I am not saying I believe that sanctification is pointless. I am posing a rhetorical question to those who believe in "once saved, always saved", those who believe that they cannot be disinherited from the Kingdom of Heaven and believe that our actions have nothing to do with eternal heaven.
It seems that you are proposing that assurance of one's salvation ... or belief that one's salvation cannot be lost ... somehow negates any motivation such christians might have toward sanctification ... or service.
It sounds like you feel that christians need some sort of 'Sword of Damocles' (i.e. the threat of loss of one's salvation) ... to motivate them to live christian lives.
If this were the case ... then Protestant churches would be empty ... because noone would bother to come and/or render their service ... because they don't get anything (salvific) out of it.
Interestingly, the statistics seem to demonstrate that Protestants are at least as consistent as Catholics at being involved and/or serving in their churches, ... which tends to suggest that there are other motivations for living the christian life then threat of loss of one's salvation.
I don't live and serve as a christian to attain (or to hold onto) my salvation ... I live and serve as a christian because God is my Father ... and I wish to please Him. Also His love has been infused into me ... and it is only natural ... that I share it.
One may be able to consciously decide to walk away from such as this salvation, ... but it is certain that we don't work to maintain our standing with God. Our works proceed as the result of our relationship with God ... which is based upon our faith.
Yes. And how do you walk away from salvation, Quester? Don't your actions have something to do with that? I am certain you are familiar with the concept of love - and that "doing something" is not work, but an act of affection towards the beloved. I buy flowers for my wife out of love, not out of try to earn something... We obey the commandments out of love, not out of trying to earn salvation.
My actions (work) stem from my faith. Faith is the key. If I were to give up my faith (as is postulated in Hebrews 6) ... then my works would reflect that loss (or repudiation) of faith.
So long as I have saving faith, ... my works will reflect that faith.
Best Wishes
How could the whole Church hierarchy (save the Pope) go apostate if the Church was sanctified (completely) at Pentecost? It would seem impossible, wouldn't it? Therefore, that would seem to eliminate the concept of papal infallibility, and even the need for a Pope.
We keep coming down to another differing assumption. I would say "one and the same Spirit ... diversities of gifts". To me your question doesn't follow at all, because I assume diversities of gifts. And I think the Pentecost experience bears consideration. The Apostles (and Mary) are in the upper room where the rushing mighty wind and tongues of fire are. They are not the whole Church. I'm just asking, not saying.
Hmmmm...sounds like us Baptists.
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.