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/
Still, for some, we know of their sanctity and we can prove it.
= = =
Still, for some, we know of their sanctity and we
THINK
we can prove it.
- - - -
Of course, how y'all distinguish from "A" vs the high quality "APPEARANCE OF 'A'"
utterly escapes me . . . but anyway . . . I don't think I ever accused the magesterical of absolute truth.
how the Protestants want to play church.
= = = =
eeeewwwwwww! Slick one.
You are missing the intent of repentance. The intent must be genuine and uncoditinal. The younger son did not yearn for the comfort of his father's home when he had money and was engaging in fun things. It's only when he hit the rock bottom that he 'repented.' False intent, dear Sir, does not make an act honorable.
I understand the intent of repentance. It is a change of mind, which results in a change of life direction. The younger son had been previously motivated to move away from his father and family. In the end he was motivated to move toward his father and family. Such is an example of repentance.
It doesn't presume that the young man was now a saint, ... only that he was now moving in the right direction.
God drives many persons to rock-bottom ... so as to get them moving back in His direction.
Once they arrive home, He can begin to work on making them honorable.
You say love is not based on reward? Is not love rewarding? How many people would go to church if they thought all this is for nothing? We could count the number of people in all the churches of the world on the fingers of one hand, maybe.
You expect 'unconditional love' from sinful, fallen humans because God's love is unconditional? Can you match anything God is capable of?
The love that God desires that we demonstrate is not based upon reward.
It may initially be reward-based, but God desires that we grow to give love like He (our Father) does.
Obviously few of us have arrived at that point ... but God continues to mature us as we are willing.
The fact is that parents exhibit fairly (not perfectly) unconditional love to their children even now. It is not so impossible as it might seem.
The fact is the younger son was an irresponsible, self-loving, I don't care punk who sauqndered his father's money and 'repented' only when he was out of it and had nothing to eat. The older brother was the kind of a kid everyone would like to have. Instead of punishing the younger brother for his irresponsability before being restored to his fathers hiome, he get's a party! There is something seriously wrong with that picture.
Of course it is Jesus' parable. Perhaps you should try to approach it from His point of view.
Let's take a look at the text ...Luke 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:How is it that you think that the younger son should have been punished ?
12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
You should note that the older son had no love for his own brother. I would rather deal with a bit of young foolishness, ... than such lovelessness as the older brother demonstrated.
Who do you think that Jesus is advocating that we emulate ... the Father ... or the older brother ?
Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?" 7 He replied, "As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again.
Very strange stuff, compare the book of Hebrews and how the angels are to worship God alone as we are to also
"It's also true that most of those images and likenesses will wind up in Hell. How does this translate to what God "owes" us?"
None of those who are created in the image of God and attain His likeness will end up in Hell, FK.
" Just the opening statement tells me everything I really need to know about this man on this subject. First, with all due respect, right out of the chute he is blatantly misleading. He says "As long as we are in the hand of God ..." and then connects that to John 10:28. It isn't even close:
John 10:28 : 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. KJV
The preface is an outside conclusion he has drawn from somewhere, not this scripture. The reader who didn't bother to look up the verse would be very misled."
Your problem is with the English translation of the Greek verb "pluck" or "snatch". The form is one for a third party actor. The Greek is only referring to third parties, FK, not ourselves and says absolutely nothing about falling out of God's hand, or jumping out, or "plucking oneself" out, all of which could have been said but weren't. +John Chrysostomos understood Greek quite well, FK. As for him plucking his interpretation out of thin air, well all I can say is that his exegesis is consistent with what the other Fathers wrote and believed. When it comes to the idea that one cannot jump out of God's hand, that's simply a Protestant innovation with absolutely no basis whatsoever in the Greek text. No Father ever taught what you propose.
"Is it correct then that the Orthodox do not hold to any notion of election or predestination?"
I think it is safe to say that Orthodoxy does not hold with the notion of predestination as taught by Calvin. Indeed, that has been expressly declared heresy. Election is a more complex matter. Here's a link to an essay on the issue from the GOA website:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9285.asp
Its called "The People of God, An Orthodox Perspective. I think it will answer your question.
But you should -- because what is it that you know and they did not?
We let God's word speak for itself. The hierarchy does/has not due to the necessity that the Bible match Tradition. Naturally, this will lead to different conclusions and knowledge.
I agree that the "30,000 denominations" rap is reaching.
Thank you for saying so. :)
More to the point would be mainstream protestant denominations that have gone leftist on social and sexual morality teaching. They are not obscure sects or cults.
I would agree that they give real Protestants a bad name, and I wholly reject them. They have decided to go out on their own and reject the original principles of the original Reformers. IOW, they reject scripture. To anyone who does know the scriptures, like you, they are also easy to spot. So, when those who actually adhere to Reformed theology say something, you can easily distinguish it from what these others are saying. In the same way, when I hear a Catholic say something I know is contrary to official dogma, I know to dismiss it as to Catholicism.
Another example I'd give is free will denominations versus Calvinist denominations. These -- a few major denominations -- is what I have in mind.
Yes, that's fair. It is probably the weakest link in our claim to unity because it is a big deal. However, there is still a ton of theology on which we agree. I have made a very "loose" comparison to the differences between Catholics and the Orthodox.
Second, while you are all united on the four solas, I believe I have demonstrated sufficiently that the Catholic interpretation of what scripture has to say on the Eucharist, free will, the role of works, and apostolic succession is likewise following the scripture, and often with greater fidelity to the text than the Protestant reading. What gives?
Not sure what you mean. Given the gulf between our interpretations, it doesn't seem possible that we are both following the scriptures with fidelity. We each have our views, and there are plenty of other interpretations floating around out there that we would both immediately dismiss as wrong.
[On Rom. 3] The point is that the children and Christ are not excepted either.
Christ is specifically excepted, by name, and by PAUL! :) That has to count. According to scripture, children MAY be excepted, or they may be exempt due to the doctrine of impossibility. A reasonable case can be made. However, with Mary we have none of this.
FK: "No scripture covers Mary according to Catholic beliefs."
Oh, please. Genesis 3, Luke 1, Luke 11:27, John 2, John 19, Acts 2. Mary is an important part of the scripture quite apart from Catholic Marian devotions.
Sorry, I meant that no scripture covers Mary in terms of her sinlessness. BTW, where do you see Mary in Acts 2? Of course I would disagree that Mary appears in Gen. 3 :) It just doesn't fit the flow of thought.
More baloney. The Sadduccees and the Pharisees and the Essenes all had different ideas of what was the content of Scriptures. The Diaspora considered the Septuagint as Scriptural. I don't know where you get this idea that the Jews had already set the Canon, but that is a ridiculous idea proven wrong by Scriptures themselves.
Regards
Perhaps you should actually read the passage in question rather than relying on something you are obviously taking second-handedly... Is this your idea of searching for the truth???
"I will now tell you the whole truth: I will conceal nothing at all from you. I have already said to you, 'a king's secret is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be made known with due honor'" Tobit 12:11
And then read on...
I was SENT to put you to the test. At the same time, however, God commissioned me to heal you and your daughter-in-law Sarah. I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord" Tobit 12:14-15
See, this is exactly what I am talking about. Making such vicious attacks without any basis, just because you love to hate. A simple reading of the passage in question would have silenced any thought that Tobit speaks of worshiping angels. But no, in your rush to judge others, you make such a blatant error...
Hopefully, you don't make this a habit when you spout off your theological opinions without actually reading the Scriptures in question...
I apologize if I appear to be coming off harshly, but I am sick and tired of these wild and baseless accusations that have NO MERIT whatsoever. A simple reading would have prevented such an accusation. It is plain you are not concerned with what Catholics believe, but only in smearing anything that the Church teaches.
Regards
The Treaditon is what produced the New Testament. If your reading does not match the consensus patrem, who knew the Tradition from Christ or nearly directly form Christ, your reading is no tthe intended meaning, -- like in the misunderstanding of Chrysostom in the post referred to by Kolokotronis above.
They have decided to go out on their own and reject the original principles of the original Reformers. IOW, they reject scripture.
Ah, so to reject the principles of the original reformers is to reject scripture? Why don't you say what you really mean, that the Reformers have their own unwritten tradition, and so a reading of the scripture that is contrary to that particular tradition is anathema? The Protestants who are for gay marriage would vehemently disagree that they reject the scripture, and they would argue their position form scripture. I know -- I argued with them.
Given the gulf between our interpretations, it doesn't seem possible that we are both following the scriptures with fidelity.
I do not think that the Protestants follow scripture with fidelity at all. On the issues of the Eucharist and on the role of works, the Catholics follow the letter of the scripture (see John 6, Romans 2, James 2) while the Protestants interpret and interpolate.
A reasonable case can be made. However, with Mary we have none of this
Neither Jesus or the children are excepted in Rom. 3. From other scripture we can make a reasonable case for Mary as well.
where do you see Mary in Acts 2
Acts 1:14, sorry.
I would disagree that Mary appears in Gen. 3 :) It just doesn't fit the flow of thought.
Who will crush the Serpent, and seed of which woman is He?
For example, many Jews have not believed in our Savior, because they have been attached to the literal meaning of the prophecies made about him and have not seen them physically fulfilled. They have not seen the prisoners set free, (Isa. 61:1) nor the city of God built in the way they imagined it, (Ezek. 48) nor the chariot cut off from Ephraim, nor the warhorse from Jerusalem, (Zech. 9:10) nor butter and honey being eaten and the good chosen without prior knowledge of evil or preference for it (Isa. 7:15).
So then the reason for so many mistaken ideas about God consists solely in the inability to interpret Scripture in a spiritual sense. It has been taken in its literal sense only.
Those who receive the Word, even the most literal-minded, know that some truths revealed in the sacred Books are full of mysteries. Wise and humble people recognize that they cannot explain them. What do we say, for instance, about the prophecies? They are packed full of obscure words. And who has not been struck by the unspeakable mysteries contained in the revelation made to John?
The literal-minded person finds edification in the sacred Books. He finds the bare bones, so to say of the Scriptures. But the person who has made some progress attains to the soul of the Scriptures. The one who is perfect, then, discovers the spiritual law.
Origen, c. 185-254
Yours does not say, son=cat
Therefore, you are wrong
It must result in son=cat
Sure, a pastor could do that, but that would just make him an apostate. He would only have the backing of other apostates. There's nothing to stop a priest from doing exactly the same thing. He just couldn't call it a Roman Catholic Church. I'm sure it has happened.
By the way, I had a scripture-only discussion with someone who maintained that our stance on homosexuality is overstating the scripture. His view was that every time (or at least in most striking passages form St. Paul) homosexuality is condemned it is "lying with a man as if with a woman" is condemned, and he interpreted it as bi-sexuality, not as someone who is 100% gay and does not pretend otherwise. Ridiculous? Yes. But he made a solid case from scripture. I was amazed.
That's interesting. I'd like to see that. I can't imagine a (wrong but) plausible scriptural argument for homosexuality. I wonder what Biblical "sexual perversion" would be to a homosexual. Maybe I shouldn't ask. :)
FK: "You told me yourself that there is nothing necessarily eternal about "eternal life"."
What?
The Catholic view is that there is nothing eternal about eternal life until one faces final judgment. During physical life, "eternal life" only lasts until the next mortal sin. That isn't eternal, that is temporary. One comparison might be to time itself. Outside of God, a scientist might say that time is eternal. If that scientist had the power to literally stop time in its tracks, then he would not make such a statement. For a thing to be eternal it must be assured.
[From "Saints Praying for Us on Earth":] If we need Biblical proof of saints in Heaven praying for us on earth, we need only look to the book of Revelation, which was written by John, the beloved disciple of Jesus. The martyred called out to the Lord for justice on earth (Rev. 6.9-11).
Thanks for the article, but this part is not persuasive. This is talking about the end times, and there will be MANY first and only time occurrences. I don't think this can be fairly used to say it has been happening all along.
[Ibid.] ..."(Heb. 12:1-2) Who are the witnesses surrounding us to whom the writer refers? If we look at the context from the previous chapter of Hebrews, the witnesses referred to are the faithful! ...... These people comprise the cloud of witnesses that surrounds us. ...... And these saints, along with all those who pass from this earthly life to the fullness of life in Heaven in Christ, intercede for us constantly until the day when Jesus returns ...
What? This is talking about the memory of their examples, not that they were literally floating around them right there. If they were literally "surrounded" then that would mean they were in the earthly presence of spirits. Does Catholicism teach that? In addition, there is no connection made between the "surrounding" and that they intercede for us constantly during life. Where does that come from?
That is better than CSA which can be construed by some as politically incorrect.
I know I said that works accompany faith, but I wouldn't phrase it this way. Faith is what is salvific, works are a result of faith. It's more like faith is both of the legs, and works are being carried.
The plain text is "snatching". Do people snatch themselves?
Oh, come on. :) Is that the official line? The verse also says that Christ does give them eternal life, and that they will NEVER perish.
why did you not post 12:12, the verse I referenced?
"Oh, come on. :) Is that the official line?"
Yup, cause that is what the Greek says, FK. :)
"the professor isn't able to understand that the passage is speaking about GOD'S WISDOM"
"I think the confusion is quite intentional: these people went to seminaries, so that they know how to better lie about the Gospel. Witness the lumping together the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanon: this cannot be an honest mistake."
Well, let's just see who isn't "able to understand" and who is "lying". The professor said, "Wisdom 8:19,20 is another contradiction between the apocrypha and Scripture. “For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin. "Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men... by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (Romans 5:18, 19). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). The author of Wisdom believes he was an exception."
Now the Apocryphal book called Wisdom was allegedly written by Solomon and describes his fictional search for "wisdom". In Chapter 8 he says "Wisdom 8: 17 "Now when I considered these things in myself, and pondered them in my heart, how that to be allied unto wisdom is immortality; 18 And great pleasure it is to have her friendship; and in the works of her hands are infinite riches; and in the exercise of conference with her, prudence; and in talking with her, a good report; I went about seeking how to take her to me.
19 For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. 20 Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled. 21 Nevertheless, when I perceived that I could not otherwise obtain her, except God gave her me; and that was a point of wisdom also to know whose gift she was; I prayed unto the Lord, and besought him, and with my whole heart I said,"
So it was "Solomon" who is speaking about being born "good" and "in a body undefiled" (even though he was conceived in an adulterous and murderous relationship, but that's beside the point); it is not "God's wisdom" that is speaking and it is not "God's wisdom" he was born into or was born in him. So the professor was right in his interpretation.
We'll just chalk this up to your not having the time to actually read the passage or not completely understanding who was speaking.
"Witness the lumping together the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanon: this cannot be an honest mistake."
No mistake, it is intentional since they contain the same books with the exception that the Apocrypha contains the two Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, a precaution in case someone decides to add them like they did the other books around 1500 A.D.
See Apocrypha means "those having been hidden away" and that accurately describes what "are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned". However, your use of "Deuterocanon" does have some legitimacy to it since it means "second canon" or a "copy of the canon", which does set it apart from the accepted canon of the recognized 66 books of the Old and New Testament.
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.