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/
There was the Old Testament present at all times in the 1c., including at the Pentecost. The New Testament -- the scripture that gives the Good News -- has not been written.
The descent of the Holy SPirit (vv 2-4) preceded Peter's sermon. But the descent happened to an existing assemply. That descent made the assembly Church.
Something else happened at the Pentecost and before the sermon: the Apostles spoke in tongues. Thus, they were not citing scripture: they were speaking from their hearts to the people, to the point of appearing delirious. Well, that was the Church speaking,-- speaking before she wrote.
Read the lives of saints, especially the early martyrs, and come back to me if they still appear to you ordinary people.
Thanks.
Alas, I think it takes eyes that wish to see . . . to see a lot of it.
Some is brazenly blatant . . . but blindness is not an aid to seeing.
I guess I could have taken a page from the Protestant book and declare that the Holy Spirit taught me my interpretation. Yes, the Church is a communion of people, -- the people who are baptized and obey the Church. That Church is declared infallible by Christ in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. It is a very plain text, too, -- no particular exegetical effort is needed.
Amen. And if we don't, are we still "saints"?
But, you see, Judaism does not believe that. I doubt Ezekiel believed it too. Judaism does not associate Satan with the devil; in fact, Judaism does nto believe in the devil, but they do believe in the Satan (ha-satan). "He works for G-d" they will tell you.
But Ezekiel is not free of controversy. Some have postulated that over 1,000 verse of the Book of Ezekiel have been added at a later time. that might explain the "Christian" twist to the book. The original (oldest copy really) shows that the book was edited. It could have been Ezekiel himself or someone esle who did that.
Not the same, because we are taught not to bring our baggage into the scripture. We are told to check with what the Catholic Chruch as a whole teaches.
the RCC support the Gideons
I don't know for a fact either way. I would not be surprised if we do, as it is sometime a useful thing, but I also would not be surprised if we don't because it is a truncated Bible.
If you attend all the services you'll hear all of them eventually.
I have a Bible that was issued by the Serbian Patriarchy.
I have seen the Gospels, the Epistles, the Old Testament. We sing biblical verses as part of the liturgical services, vespers, etc.
Thanks for the offer, anyway. I don't need your Bible. Besides, its OT is not the one used by the Apostles.
And is your translation correct? Assuming it's written in Greek, is the translation from Hebrew to Greek correct?
Honestly, after I've looked into this and thinking about it, this is one of the most nonsensical arguments I have ever come across. The Orthodox position is that one doesn't know if the translations are correct and yet they provide translations and sing Bible songs that are suppose to be correct. Hello??? Does anyone else see a problem with this logic???
You've complained that Ezekial is translated incorrectly. Well, provide the correct translation and we'll compare notes. It seems that it should be a simply matter if the Orthodox have the "Bible" and everyone else made it up.
Your statement was that there was NO SCRIPTURE at Pentacost. The Old Testament is Scripture. When they spoke in the languages of the people present, they weren't just sharing from their hearts - rather, they were prophesying as the Spirit gave them utterance - as Peter indicates at the beginning of his sermon - tying the event directly with the prophecy of Scripture. It wasn't 'the church' acting apart from Scripture, but the church uttering Scriptural truth. And Peter's own words were no doubt heard as the voices of the others were heard - in the language of the hearer. And those very words were laden with Scripture. The words of Peter's sermon gained their authority from the direct quotation of Scripture. Peter didn't reference any supposed "Super-apostolic" authority; rather, he pointed to Joel, and David, and the miracles of Christ Himself as the authority for the words he was speaking. In other words, Peter was a tremendous example of Sola Scriptura and Solos Christos in his sermon at Pentacost.
I think you've all got the wrong idea about metanoia, however:
"As far as the prodigal son, his returning was the fruit of his repentance not repentance itself."
The main point of the parable is not the repetence of the son, but the greeting of the father. It didn't make any difference to the father what his son had done. The son, on the other hand, in order to return to the father, had to lose every "thing" that meant anything to him, every "thing" his father had given him and including his own sense of self importance; in other words, he had to die to himself and in that state realize that his only hope was that his father, whom he realized he loved still loved, him and would take him back, even as a sort of slave. But his father greeted him and treated him as a prince.
One can "end up" in that state of personal nothingness and helplessness, or one can strive through a sort of praxis to arrive at the same end, dying to the self. In the first instance one can end up humble enough to come crawling back and be received like a prince, to speak in temporal terms, or simply dissolve into some sort of depraved end. In the other, one can experience the uncreated light of God, to speak in theological terms. Neither way is even remotely easy.
I don't need your Bible. Besides, its OT is not the one used by the Apostles.
= = = =
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, Well!!!
EXCUZZZZZZE US!
Should we kowtow several dozen times at the SHRINE OF TRADITION?
Or is it that we must kiss the toes of the ICON OF TRADITION 100 times?
Or maybe say "HAIL BYSANTIUM FULL OF GRAPES" 12 times?
Maybe we should build an altar to THE OLD TESTAMENT THE APOSTLES USED???
Perhaps we should put on sackcloth and ashes and weep that we have been plagued with such a burden as to struggle on so flawedly with an INFERIOR OT???
HOW, OH HOW OH WAILINGLY MORNFULLY HORRIBLY--HOW COULD GOD ALMIGHTY have managed to have drawn us to Himself and matured us in His Word and Spirit with such a FLAWED foundation??? OH THE HORRORS OF IT. How God's hands must have been tied!
Whatever can we do? How can we survivie? How will God manage with us? What an eterminally terminal tragedy. What a GALACTIC TYPO!
And where, oh where is the ocean of White-out to correct it? Oh, me. Oh, MY!
/sar
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
THE MESSAGE:
I'll tell you exactly what I was told: You're all picking sides, going around saying, "I'm on Paul's side," or "I'm for Apollos," or "Peter is my man," or "I'm in the Messiah group."
13-16I ask you, "Has the Messiah been chopped up in little pieces so we can each have a relic all our own? Was Paul crucified for you? Was a single one of you baptized in Paul's name?"
AMPLIFIED:
12What I mean is this, that each one of you [either] says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas (Peter), or I belong to Christ.
13Is Christ (the Messiah) divided into parts? Was Paul crucified on behalf of you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
KJV:
1 Corinthians 1:12
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
AMEN! These passages are very powerful, Dr. E. Thanks so much for posting.
"The main point of the parable is not the repetence of the son, but the greeting of the father. It didn't make any difference to the father what his son had done"
I think that's what I said way back in reply #10027.
"Notice the Greek conjunction "but" that limits what the son is doing and changes the emphasis of the parable to what the father is doing. He could care less what the son is saying or doing, just that "my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found". For that, there is joy in the house."
I agree that repentance is dying to self, for it is a turning away from the direction you are going, here self will, and changing direction.
Kolo, there are a couple of things you say here that I think are eisegetical.
First of hall, the idea that the son 'had to' go through all of these things to come back. I don't believe that is the case. The son, as a son, could have turned around at any point and could have avoided a whole lot of bad effects of the sin in his life. Nothing made him cease being a son. He didn't realize this for he would have disowned himself if the shoe were on the other foot - yet, he was born a son and nothing could make him cease from being a son. Not even 'death'.
Second, I think it is eisegesis that the son realized how much he loved the father. I don't know that we see that here. He realized what he had done wasn't working. He remembered the good old days with the father. But he hoped that he could make a deal with the father to where he could be a servant. He just knew he couldn't be a son any more - after all, that's the way he himself would have treated any son who had done to him what he had done to the father- if even that good. So, devoid of anything he could offer the father but service, he went with his tail between his legs to beg for mercy. I think the love for the Father came after he experienced the Father's mercy (and is something we don't see in the parable)- for only after his restoration could he understand and appreciate how great the Father's love was for him.
It is true, the greeting of the Father is of key importance to the parable. The Father saw the son and went running to him. The son had nothing, could do nothing, came empty handed. The Father, out of pure grace, mercy, and love, restored him to all of his former glory.
But there is another point that all of us have ignorred here. It is in the elder son.
The elder son did all the right things, stayed with the Father, and he never strayed. He was the poster-boy for right living. When the son who had strayed returned, the elder son was indignant. He said "look at me! I stayed with you. I served you faithfully these many years. I never transgressed! Look at how good I was. And this other son, he spent all of your blessings on depravity! And yet, you accept him back and give him your very best! " (definite paraphrase)
At this point, in the parable, Jesus does something interesting. In verse 31, rather than calling him "huios" or "son" (a term used throughout the parable to this point), he says "teknon" or "child".
Since Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees, his overall point seems to be that the faithful children of the Father should rejoice and not act like spoiled children when the one who has strayed returns and love that person as a full brother without undue burden or conditions of acceptance.
I don't know. You'll have to ask God.
[James Swan:] 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.
AMEN! These passages are very powerful, Dr. E. Thanks so much for posting.
= = = = = =
INDEED INDEED INDEED!
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.