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 the inference the Protestants like making, both in discussing the role of works and discussing the purgatory. This inference is illogical, as is it precisely sacrifice of Christ and the mercy of God that make our works count for anything, and make purgation of sin possible.
Exactly. I think this is where Van Til comes in handy. If we assert that the Holy Spirit works all truth through Scripture, then it is just a matter of discerning correctly.
But if we deny the power and intent of the Holy Spirit to reveal God's will in Scripture, then we're left with all sorts of error, like man-made and man-centered and man-manipulated institutions. We can come to no real and correct understanding of God if the basis from which we discern God is variable.
"... the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For God alone is a fit witness to himself in His Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaim what has been divinely commanded… By this power we are drawn and inflamed, knowingly and willingly, to obey him, yet also more vitally and more effectively than by mere human willing or knowing." -- JOHN CALVIN
Here's an excellent excerpt by James Swan from James White's website, Alpha and Omega Ministries... With the contemporary rise of Catholic apologetics, there has been a consistent trend to highlight the, “conversion story”. That is, Joe or Suzy was previously some sort of Protestant, but now they’ve “converted” to Roman Catholicism. Books, television broadcasts, radio programs, and internet web pages, all tell a similar glorious tale of journeying to Rome, and so should you. These are not conversion stories of the broken sinner bowing his knee to the merciful God, given by the Father to Christ and irresistibly drawn (like Paul’s recounting in Galatians 1; cf. Acts 9); rather, these are accounts of people accepting the alleged Roman Catholic “fullness of truth”, and a rejection of Protestant essentials like sola fide and sola scriptura. In other words, the emphasis is not on spiritual rebirth, but rather the acceptance and realization of a “higher knowledge”. The conversion is not to Christ, but to an infallible church. This apologetic use of the “conversion story” is directly borrowed from Protestantism. Being raised in an independent non-denominational church, I heard countless inspiring stories of the wayward sinner finding and choosing the love and grace of Christ. As a youth, I was always interested to hear how possibly my favorite rock star accepted Christ. These tales could be used as a “witnessing tool” to my non-Christian friends. “You see, person x converted, so should you.” With the current trend in Catholic apologetics, Joe Protestant became Catholic, so should you. As Evangelicals swam the Tiber, they brought their Evangelical methods with them to the shores of Rome. They brought their vocabulary and their communication skills: Catholic apologetics had been rejuvenated by disenchanted Protestants! Listen to the description of the glorious journeys of finding Rome as told by Scott Hahn: These glorious tales of “former theological step-children” are nothing more than aspects of what Martin Luther called the “theology of glory”. The late medieval Roman church Luther was confronted with was a church filled with “glory.” By “glory,” Luther meant that the emphasis was not on the achievements of Christ, but on the achievement of the Roman Church, and those achievements were accomplished by the churches’ own power. Luther rejected the “glory of the church” and said the church is a suffering church, rather than a church of beauty and splendor. The church is not supposed to be a “glory” of political power and luxury. Conversion stories repeatedly put forth by Catholics are just that: examples of achievement and glory. They point to the abilities of a person and the supposed wisdom gained by crossing the Tiber. They do not point to Christ---they point to a triumphal entry into a magnificent human institution: the Roman Catholic Church. Their conversion stories are about what they did. They are about what wisdom and glory they achieved. Rather, Paul informs us that the message of the cross is foolishness, and God chooses those who are weak, lowly, and despised to be his children. “It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God- that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.’” Becoming a member of the church is to be given a life of trial and tribulation (1 Thes. 3:1-5). The Scriptures do not speak of joining a powerful visible institution, as judged by the world’s standards. Rather, the strength and splendor of the church is Christ and his Spirit that indwells His people everywhere. His people comprise a church that the world despises and seeks to destroy. To join this body is to join with those the world sees as fools. Hahn goes on to speak of the “anguish endured” by those who made the journey to Rome. The Bible though tells of how we should consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus, for whose sake we have lost all things. We should consider them rubbish that we may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of our own. Our conversions should be to know Christ and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death (Phil. 3:7-11). When someone converts to Christ, they are receiving His Lordship and ultimate rule of His word over their lives. I have not denied the Roman Catholic usage of the word “conversion” in their journey to Rome. For in this voyage, they have indeed made a decision from the heart, a conversion. They have received the Lordship of an alleged infallible church magisterium as the ultimate rule over their lives. It is not sola scriptura, but rather sola ecclesia. I submit the Scriptures do not speak of being transformed into the image of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather being transformed into the image of Christ. The Scriptures do not speak of the power of such a testimonial conversion to a “fullness of truth” in joining a particular church body. Rather, they speak of spiritually dead sinners being raised to spiritual life. By this resurrection they become members of Christ’s bride, His church. If you are to boast about your conversion, boast only that once you were blind and now can see. Boast only that you were once enslaved to your sins, but have now been freed by the perfect Savior.""Have you read the book, 'Surprised by Sovereignty: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming a Calvinist?' No, I don’t think you’ve read that book. Within Reformed circles, there is not a tendency to write about how one became a Calvinist. Sure, we talk about it sometimes. But it is not a primary tool of evangelism, nor are our testimonies a key method of directing people toward the “fullness of truth”. Rather, when one explains the basics of Reformed theology, Bibles are open and pages are flipping. What happened to me really doesn't’t matter. Rather, It’s about “what are you going to do with the clear teachings of Scripture?” “Do you see that you bring nothing to Christ and that salvation is the result of His mercy on an undeserving sinner?”
We converts have been made so rich. We have been given wealth beyond our wildest dreams! What words can express the sense of the child who, after passing through a series of orphanages and foster homes, finds himself standing in the doorway of an unfamiliar mansion staring into the loving faces of long-forgotten family members? He is reintroduced to his Father, Almighty God, and to Mary, his mother and queen, who is standing, arms outstretched in welcome, next to his elder brother, King Jesus- in the midst of that glorious company of angelic and saintly siblings who stretch forth from heaven to earth and under the earth. Can you imagine a more royal reunion? Few joys surpass the ones related here by these former theological step-children who have finally come home. [Patrick Madrid (ed), Surprised By Truth (Encinitas: Basilica Press, 1994), p.10)]
There is no "house" there of any kind. "House" is "oikos" or I beleive "oikia" at times. The word there is "ekklesia", that relates to community or assembly.
Nothign about the faith is "magical". However, the fathers of the Church gave their lives to the Church, in celibacy and total dedication, and in martyrdom. You?
I suspect I've been celebate and on the mission field in Asia longer than
. . . a number of folk hereon.
And, I suspect I've freely given up a significantly greater proportion of things and people dear to my heart for THE KINGDOM
than . . . a number of folk hereon.
But that's God's affair. He knows well enough. It doesn't matter that much what others know.
You would if it was Martin Luther or John Calvin's picture. :O)
The dilemma was, to bury the dead or to follow Christ Who gives life. What He said was that in following Christ without delay, the dead father will be also honored (cf Lk 18:20). He did not say that the saints are dead, but rather that if one is dead, then life with Christ is more important.
Reflecting . . .
It's kind of been interesting at times . . .
an interesting number of folks have cautioned a few occasional . . . critics . . .
insisting that God has made it clear to the first folks that HE HAS VERY STRONG FEELINGS about my contributions to The Kingdom.
I'm often amused by such contentions but then I'm cautioned to not treat FATHER'S FAVOR on the matter lightly.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH,
SOOOOOOOO!
Context matters to RC's in interpretation of Scripture TOO!
LOL.
GTTM!
Daaang. This thread is like, one giant sidebar, or a giant collection of sidebars. Where did the original topic die? Back at like post 50? LOL
Shades of "the Neverending Story" methinks!
"There is no "house" there of any kind. "House" is "oikos" or I beleive "oikia" at times. The word there is "ekklesia", that relates to community or assembly."
Alex is right, bd.
No where is Scriptures does it say that baptism is required before the Holy Spirit gives faith. Baptism is a sign and seal of the election of God and is a grace provided by the Holy Spirit. This is where the RC practice differs greatly from the Protestant understanding of infant baptism. To the RC, baptism is an actual removal of sin. To the Protestant, sin is not removed by baptism; instead it's a promise to us that our sin has been forgiven by God through Jesus Christ's work on the cross.
More narrowly, this passage does not say anything about the perfection of the laity at all, and it does not mention either perspicuity or self-sufficiency of the scripture outside of the Holy Tradition and the magisterial teaching.
Are we reading the same words?
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:
In those verses there is no mention of "tradition" nor any "magisterial teaching." Only an assurance that we are to live by God's word in all things and that in doing so, we will more perfectly reflect the glory of God. As God wills.
We cannot serve two masters.
"There is no "house" there of any kind. "House" is "oikos"
I think you will find the word house is in verse 3:4, 3:5, 3:12 and in 3:15, and in fact, "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth", modifies it. And you are right the "word there is "ekklesia", that relates to community or assembly", not an institution or place. Since Paul is using the word house in 4,5, and 12 to mean family or household, it stands to reason it carries the same meaning in 15.
1Ti 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
In those verses there is no mention of "tradition" nor any "magisterial teaching." Only an assurance that we are to live by God's word in all things and that in doing so, we will more perfectly reflect the glory of God. As God wills.
We cannot serve two masters.
= = =
WELL PUT. and sooner or later it DOES come down to the TWO MASTERS ISSUE--even in Protesty congregations where people are over idolizing their leaders.
1Co 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
"Since Paul is using the word house in 4,5, and 12 to mean family or household, it stands to reason it carries the same meaning in 15."
The word for family is close; its oikogennia.
"The word for family is close; its oikogennia."
I understand but the context of "house" in verses 4,5 and 12 is family or household otherwise Paul is telling Timothy to make sure he makes the beds and his clothes are picked up and make sure the building, the structure, obeys.
1 Tim. 3:4-5, "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)".
1 Tim. 3:12, "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well".
The word that Paul uses for "house" and "houses" in these verses is oikos, the same word he uses in verse 15 for "house of God" and he says if Tim can't rule his own household how can he rule the assembly of God.
Yes, and I think the right word is "contribute". I agree with Blogger in his excellent 8,783 , which I commend to anyone who hasn't read it yet. There didn't appear to be any accountability of any kind. I'm not sure whether it is more correct to say that the people and lower clergy "forgot" their role, or whether it was simply snatched away from them by a corrupt hierarchy. In either case, under corruption, resentment is inevitable.
At the same time, I believe the Reformation was inevitable anyway, regardless of how "bad" it was at the time. We believe that the Reformation was instituted by God Himself. (If we believed it was man-made, then we would be dead before we started. :) He did not institute it because of any mistake that He made in guiding His Church, but rather as a correction to the mistakes of men over time. Of course, there is all sorts of Biblical precedence for the idea of "bringing back".
Naturally, this brings us to whether Reformed Protestantism (in terms of theology) was a brand new thing or was it a return to the original. There is no way I have the background to write a thesis on this, but it is clear that Calvin and Luther both found great favor with Augustine, especially as against the Pelagianism that both saw in the Church at that time. In addition, I think Kosta referred to us somewhere as practicing a "Pauline Christianity", in the sense that it was something new. I for one am absolutely fine with that label. :) Of course, I don't think it was anything new at all. Pauline Christianity is the same as Petrine Christianity, which is the same as Jamesian Christianity, etc. If the Church actually did see them as being different, then that tells me much about the first 1,500 years.
In the meantime, the reformers, having cut themselves off from The Church and its "oneness" and "apostolicity" and, frankly, its holiness, spun off into all sorts of directions, ...
I take it this relates to your hypothesis that while the Reformers may have had a good idea, they went too far and wound up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I suppose all I can say is that IF God really did institute the Reformation, then this would not be possible. Here, I think the "Pottery Barn" rule would apply. If God ginned it up, then I don't see how He could have left its original form in ruins from the beginning. On the core issues, we claim to follow what was from the beginning.
IF, however, God did not institute the Reformation, well then, ................. that would be bad. LOL!
aside from astetics and the fact I consider what they managed far from heroic or Christian i'd still prefer it to the garbage that normally shows up posted near bus stops...
And I for one am counting on not being held accountable for the sins of those who went before me.
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.