I know, I use it as my dishwashing liquid; leaves all the dishes squeeky clean. But, get this, it's like an antibiacterial soap #151; kills germs and the some. :)
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 read it and now I MUST take a nap...Love, Mxxx
I was primarily referring to the RCC because I thought it was pretty much settled among Apostolics that the basic NT Canon was laid out at Hippo and/or Carthage. I have seen Orthodox comments that appear to disagree with this, but I haven't heard any follow up to date on my asking about it. In any event, my point was that the deuterocanonical books are called such for a reason. They are not scripture.
Eventually you'll understand the noah flood story as a myth based on a KATRINA type hurricane that he survived on his raft out in the gulf of arabia. The problem was that the only way these illierate pakistanis had of retaining historical events was thru family lore. All primitive peoples have certain persons designated as "memory people" who memorize their own tribe's history.
You can demonstrate how entropy(chaos)creeps into order(signal)very easily. Sit 10 people in a circle, facing outwards. Each person whispers a nonsensical sentence in the person to the right's ear, like : Jack's rabbit jumped over the quarter moon. Thus as each of the 10 sentences travel around the circle, it is filtered thru 9 other ears/minds/memories. When it gets back to you, in your left ear, it will be practically unrecognizable.
Go ahead, DO IT. Then you'll understand how the noah sea survival story gets jinned up, made into a MYTH over the 7 succeeding generations of ILLITERATE people. Still another 7 generations to young ABRAM when it's finally WRITTEN DOWN...and one can see how a true story, fit for the Readers Digest Book Section, is warped into a MYTH.
So, like linus with his security blanket you hide away from the TRUTH, but I sir am a righteous man. I seek TRUTH wherever it may be found. As a five year old you were taught the noah myth in sunday school, you're no longer 5 years old, yes?
And yet the world is FULL of suckers(PT Barnum)ripe for the anti-christ to lead astray. The devil has always been the trickster, the flim-flam man, the con artist and if you don't have the sense to see the noah myth for what it is, he'll snare you too.
Once again he'll use the trick hitler used on the german people : You are BEAUTIFUL, FANTASTIC, SUPERIOR in every way. A CON ALWAYS SOUNDS WONDERFUL. It wouldn't work if it didn't SOUND WONDERFUL. That's how the SUCKER is always hooked.
Thus you have noah = pakistani propaganda = jewish myth; and hitler = aryan superiority = nazi killing machine. As the sign on the post office wall says : If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. How many pieces of junk mail do you get that tell you that you won the BIG PRIZE?
Jesus said that you are worth more than the whole earth. What he's referring to is your QUALITATIVE SPIRIT, not your puny little body walking around on an ocean bottom. When you die it's your SPIRIT body that goes on. Me? I'm a righteous guy, finding out the TRUTH of things is what I'm about, not going with the buffalo herd over the cliff....
And speaking of cliffs and floods : the flood road in next ping.
How do they say here? "Great minds think alike?" :)
It's a wonderful day, Dr. E, because I enjoyed your reply and, miraculously, agree with most of it. :)
However, the verses you quote — although they address the topic — propose a self-test. That is not reliable, because there are no checks and balances.
And, IMO, that's why a presbyterian structure of the church is optimal -- a system of checks and balances among equals, rightly dividing the word of God, subject to a community of like-minded elders and presbyters
That is your opinion and I respect that, but checks and balances among equals and like-minded people are little more than patting each other on the back, imo.
"How do they say here? "Great minds think alike?" :)"
Has to do with breathing the same clear, clean and honest Balkan mountain air! :)
I don't even understand what prompted Vatican II, let alone what promoted the Roman Catholic Church to turn everything upside down and "Protestantize" itself almost to the point of being unrecognizable to the Orthodox.
Thank God, that period is now behind us. As Kolo once observed, this Pope has our ears. He speaks and thinks patristic.
Thanks, BAC. You got my interest.
Then again, maybe the real idiots are those who just can't place enough faith in God to accept His revelation of exactly what happened in ancient history.
The more things change, the more people stay them same.
Those who fail to remain in fellowship with God have a propensity of creating and believing myths in an effort to form their own worldly system of rationalism and empiricism, while those who believe in God through faith in Christ are also gifted with supernatural perception of faith. Those in the later category who remain in felowship with God through faith in Christ have no problem accepting the Biblical account.
That much is obvious just by reading Thomas Merton.
Glad you found my links informative. Don't thank me. Thank God. :)
I know, I use it as my dishwashing liquid; leaves all the dishes squeeky clean. But, get this, it's like an antibiacterial soap #151; kills germs and the some. :)
Kolokotronis: It's really simple. It is the Holy Spirit Who consecrates the bread and the wine, not the priest. Indeed that is so in all the sacraments of The Church
It's amazing how they can say the Holy Spirit guides them reaidng the Bible but they simply refuse to accept the possibility that the Holy Spirit somehow makes sacraments 'efficacious,' which is why they call them 'mere rituals.'
The rest of your post is, of course, what we recite every Sunday before the Eucharistic Communion.
Geez, what is it with old threads today? I just got pinged to one that had be resurrected from Aug '05. Had to be among my first posts.
Now Mad Dawg. You know me well enough than to think that is what I was saying. I am a Calvinist. Calvinists are 100% about giving God the credit.
Go back and reread my post. I'm trying to get into the head of an Orthodox or Catholic Christian in regards to the sacraments and concluding that the church is not that Institution in Rome but the people of God whatever stream they flow from. A true Christian will be known by the works he performs. Performing the sacraments with regularity isn't what makes one a Christian. What? Alexander VI can go out and father bastard children and have orgies but as long as he says mass the right way, by golly gum, he is a Christian! Such a thought is foreign to Scripture.
So what does the church look like? Is it folks that repeat the right formulas and perform the right rituals but live like sinners the rest of the time? Or, is it people who trust Christ with their very lives? I would say that in Luther's day that people were saved in spite of the Church but not because of it. The same is today since all human institutions be they Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Presybterian, Methodist or whatever are human institutions are just that- human. Christ works through them in various ways - but He draws men unto Himself in spite of human failings.
There was nothing sacred in the Roman Church of Luther's day that he should have clinged to it. Rather, Christ alone would become his banner since all others were but cheap imitations.
i think if you'll look closely ou'll notice that the councils are silent on the canon because it was very established before the councils really took part.
the septuagint is still held higly even among the Jews; Israel keeps many secrets about the dead sea scrolls; they're well ware that the maeoretic text isn't what the Hebrew scriptures had been prior.
must say i prefer the Russian take on alcohol too...
Katrina's flood waters lapped against your home, yes? About 6 years ago this architect began pondering on possible flood solutions following the Des Moines IA river flood.
No, not sand bags or levees, something automatic that stops the floodwater w/o much human labor. First idea : miles of refrigeration lines that freezes the rising water into ICE. Very costly and ice FLOATS = the water comes right under it.
Next : bouyant boxes in deep-set chambers that float up as the water rises. Top of boxes is a roadway. Not too practical either. Too much excavation required.
Third idea : 20'x20' hinged, buoyant road panels, piano-hinged atop landward concrete walls and river/sea side dead man anchors to hold them vertical as they FLOAT up into a vertical seawall. Then when the waters abate they float back down into a roadway again.
All natural forces, buoyancy and gravity operate the system, no human effort required. No view-blocking levees or sand bags, NATURE does all the flood protection for your property.
Sketched out the idea, sent it to Des Moines, nat'l FEMA : NOTHING. Then comes KATRINA : maybe NOW they'll listen. Think of the buoyant bridge sections piled top the freeway stanchions in Lake Ponchatrain....
So built a table top model in a lazy B pattern w/5"x5" plywood pieces, styrofoam blocks under them, red thread for dead man anchors, flex webbing between...a year ago december, tested in local swimming pool. It WORKS of course(keeping the interior dry)as the panels swing up to vertical. Took pics.
Sent off pic copies, description, sketch package to 22 coastal states governors for christmas. Half ***ed reply from OR and thank you letter from Gov Riley of AR. He then sent it to his state FEMA guy, where it DIED as I knew it would. He wished me luck in doing it for them for FREE. eeyeah : millions/mile roadway out of my own pocket, eeyeah....
So, on the one hand is this flood road concept that I KNOW works(the model is getting covered with dust/pine needles out in my yard)and burro-mentality governors on the other hand. And yours is Blanco...
You've heard the story of the mexican priest and his burro haven't you? He gets word that one of his flock is dying, on his death bed = extreme unction. He grabs his bible and beads, runs out of his church and jumps on his burro : YAVA BURRO, ARRIBA!
Burro just stands there, unmoving. He jumps off, slaps burro on the rump, prays to its face : burro just stands there, unmoving. Jumps on, SINKS spur, VAYA BURRO, ARRIBA. Nothing.
Jumps off again, grabs a big tree limb lying there and WHACKS burro on the nose as hard as he can.
Burro jumps up and trots off. Father Pepe jumps on and away they go. Little Pablito has taken this all in and yells to him as they trot off : Father Pepe, you are such a kind man, why you hit burro so hard?
I know my son, I know. I slapped burro, I prayed to burro, I spurred burro, then I realized that I first had to get the JACKASS' ATTENTION!
Sadly Katrina didn't get the JACKASS' ATTENTION, just throwing MONEY at it willy-nilly doesn't solve the problem, building a FLOOD ROAD would = modify existing coastal roads.
Yes they can...they have their own sandbox now, with one forum set up strictly to bash FR, Jesus, Christians, etc
Bring a barf bag if you go...
Kosta: Let me get this straight: God writes the script and says "Man must rebel against me. The only reason he shall rebel against me is that I say it must happen
FK: You say it like it's a bad thing
Well, if He is 'offended' and 'angry' with us because of the 'rebellion' it must be a bad thing.
My point is: if He scripted it, as you claim, and it had to happen that way, no reason for anger and offense, let alone deicide.
Kosta: So, in truth, man did not have a choice, but was predestined to rebel.
FK: God could have created Adam and Eve to be immune to sin. He did not. Therefore, that sin would happen was part of God's plan
Fine, but that doesn't explain the 'offense.'
Kosta: Then, if I am reading your theology correctly, man was trapped from the get-go to fall into the pit of sin created by God.
FK: No, God did not create sin. However, it was part of God's plan that man would sin
I said man was trapped to fall into the pit of sin...let's not paraphrase and change the meaning.
If man had no choice, but to act as God directed, then God created man destined to commit sin. The sin, then, is not the result of man's will, but his inevitable, predestined fate, of which God is the author.
I don't have a problem being God's 'thing' that He can do whatever he pleases with. I am asking why is God 'offended' by us things, doing exactly as He wants us to?!
God is offended, but He chose to "go through it" because He has greater good in mind
Greater Good? What are you talking about? God is trying to get us restored to the original state. We are just trying to get back to the beginning.
There was no need to "go through it," FK. What God created was as good as it gets.
(If you think this still doesn't answer your question, then just say so and I will try again. :)
So. :)
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.