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/
This is some kind of obsession with death in you. The saints are not dead, if you believe the scripture already cited by me to you. Read it again:
every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting (Mt 19:29)
We judge the angels because without seeing, we have believed. They do not have the ability to disbelieve.
Lucky them.
Yes and yet they can be disobedient.
That darn "free will" curse strikes again.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Apparently, you have missed the logic of your own position. Let me restate what you wrote...
hd-But there was never any disagreement over the apocryphal books, because they were always rejected by the Jewish church
Now. With this fresh in mind, tell me, why do you accept the Jews disagreement over the deuterocannonicals, BUT NOT THE GOSPELS? Sounds like a double-standard excuse. If you hold the Jew's opinion so highly, then you need to work on that canon of the New Testament...
Regards
I'm not sure of the precise theology, but as a Texan, I reckon you're right.
Actually, I may have accidentally used a Reformed term incorrectly. :) OOPS. Years ago, before I became a Reformer, my mentor taught me that to "reckon" one's sins was to agree with God that they are indeed sins, and to want forgiveness and repentance. I thought that agreed with what you were saying.
Now I've come to learn that in Reformed theology the word "reckoning" has to do with imputation of sin. When an unbeliever sins, it is "reckoned" to his own account. He is guilty and must pay. But when a believer sins, those sins are "reckoned", in terms of guilt, to the account of Jesus, who has paid for them. The corruption of the sin of believers, however, remains with them.
This entire question came about because you mislabeled "free gift" an oxymoron HERE, which it clearly is not.
Frankly, since you haven't retracted this incorrect statement, I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Well-said. Reckoned is a good word. I like "acquitted." By Christ standing in our place and taking on the punishment rightly due us we are actually judged "not guilty" by God.
Such a deal. 8~)
Amen. God and the only mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ.
They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together. The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint. The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house. He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it. Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:8-20"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I (the Lord) told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
"Th epurgatory is plain uin the scripture"
How can it be plain in the scripture when it runs afoul of basic Roman Catholic soteriology; that one can't know he/she is fully saved until after he/she dies and the account books are opened? If the person in "purgatory can't do anything to help him/herself and must rely on God and the prayers, good deeds or indulgences of those left behind, how can anyone know that the dead isn't already in hell and all their efforts are a waste of time and they are just "whistling by the graveyard"?
The same goes to praying to the saints. How does anyone know that anyone except Jesus made it eternally into heaven, with the possible exception of Moses and Elijah since they appeared on the mount of the transfiguration?
Both of these beliefs run counter to the works based salvation taught by the Roman Catholic Church since no one knows what kind of life anyone lived in the spirit here except God and He ain't telling anyone here.
So, based on your definition, both of those beliefs and rituals are superstitions: "belief in an supernatural quality of a object contrary to logic or divine revelation" since they both are based on nothing but wishes since no one knows where the people are they are praying to or for or whether what they are praying for will ever be heard.
Amen. And yet, men love their chains.
Well put.
Thx.
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What did God leave out here that you find "necessary for salvation?"
Gee, Annalex. You were only making benevolent comments towards me :) I don't know what part of " I think Blogger's reading is to Greek what Japanese appliance instructions are to English." Following that comment you said "and "I merely was making a reference you how you want to read it. I, in fact, can see why, and so does Kolokotronis." I took that to mean that you could see why I, being a protestant, would want to read it that way but Kolo and I know better... If I mistook your agreement with at least the POSSIBILITY that God is the pillar and not the church (grammatically that is), I apologize for a moment of paranoia - but just because I was paranoid doesn't mean you aren't out to get me :)
The phrase we are dealing with is the which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
It seems to me the most literal interpretation of the verse is : "But, if I tarry long, in order that you may understand how you should in the house of God to turn yourself about (Metaphorically behave yourself)which is the church of God the living one the pillar and the ground of the truth." As such, I don't see it very far fetched to compare this phrase with a phrase like "The church of the Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega" In a sentence like this, it is clear that the Alpha and Omega is Christ because we know that those are titles of His. But the structure is similar to the church of the living God the pillar and ground of truth. We don't know pillar and ground of truth as titles of God, but it could, it seems, apply to God - who DOES refer to himself in Scripture by architectural titles. Witness these:
Acts 4:
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
# 2 Samuel 22:3
The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
#
# Psalm 31:3
For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.
#
# 1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Psalm 61:3
For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy
# John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Exodus 33:9And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. 10And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.
So, You can see God referenced as architectural elements with regularity. I'm not saying that this is how this particular verse HAS to be interpreted. But it is an interesting thing to consider. For Protestantism it doesn't have huge ramifications because we believe it already. For Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it has more implications. Devastating implications? I wouldn't go that far, but something to consider when looking at the Church and its representation of God and His Word.
And, with the objection being made that God can not be a part of something he is as a whole (i.e., being the pillar and ground of truth and the truth at the same time), we see other examples in Scripture such as Jesus is the Life and the Lord of Life so that too isn't wholly out of the ordinary.
Just something to consider...
Incidentally, I did write one of the best Greek scholars at seminary for his input. We'll see what he has to say about it.
What did God leave out here that you find "necessary for salvation?"
Perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Oh, Dear me! Looks like the magesterical has been trumped by Scripture 100% all over AGAIN! The Living Word and Spirit must be grinning in Heaven from ear to ear . . . so to speak.
Notice who is furnished with the good works too. It is the man of God. The person is already "of God" not aspiring to be of God.
I was trying to be both funny and serious. OOPS, again. :) What I meant is that it is not true that all believers say that they are assured. You might be an example. Perhaps in your mind you do not have assurance, so for you, the assurance which I think is true is not "assured". This in no way affects your salvation.
When I first became a believer, I probably would have said that I was 90% sure that I was saved. Then, after reading the Bible for a while, I said that I was 99% sure. Then, after a few years I was 100% sure. The assurance was actually there all along, it just took me a while to apprehend it. This was all according to the Spirit's plan for me.
Assurance in a particular believer is no test of salvation. It is a gift given in scripture. Assurance itself is guaranteed in scripture, but any believer's apprehension of it might vary from other believers.
You'll understand if I say this gets way too judicial for me. I can see perhaps some value for a theologian, but personally as close as I come is my repentance and that not due to avoiding a sentence. You could say I always plead guilty and ask the mercy of the court, and cannot be the judge for anyone else.
But I still reckon you got a point there. :)
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.