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/
It's this kind of 'theology' I grew up with. Thanks again.
Thanks.
Appreciate the link.
And I'm very blessed to read that you grew up with such treasures.
Yea God.
INDEED.
On all counts.
Thank you. May God bless you.
Proof of this is in the fact that Origen quotes from Scriptures to prove a point - in some cases, noting 3 Protocanonicals verses and one Deuterocanonical verse to theologically show that the Word of God is to be interpreted in the way he describes. There is no point in claiming otherwise. One wouldn't use the Iliad to prove a theological point regarding the Word of God from the Scriptures. One wouldn't use an Apocrypha in the same sentence as Scripture - it would weaken the argument entirely!
Regards
Regarding Jerome - you consider that authoritative? One person is to overthrow the entire rest of the Church's mind on this subject? Of course Jerome was biased towards the Hebrew Scriptures - it was he who was tasked with interpreting it. Naturally, he would feel that his work was more important than those looking to the Septuagint.
I have already explained Athanasius, and can provide similar quotes for Hilary and for Cyril. They use them when making theological statements, using the Word of God and interpreting it. If they consider Isaiah and Wisdom as equal and without distinction when making a theological statement, it would appear that these saints considered the writings in question as inspired by God, although NOT part of the canon. Remember, canon referred to the writings that were read during the Mass, not writings that were considered inspired by God. That is a relatively new definition.
There are more. Some accepting of the Apocryphal books, some not, some with mixture. But this should suffice to answer your assertion that "Jerome was the ONLY one."
As I said, you are assuming you know what I have found. I disagree with your presumptions, and continue to say that I have found ONLY Jerome as a Catholic saint of the era who was strongly against the idea of including the OT Deuterocanonicals into the Canon that was being formed at the turn of the 5th century... What you ALSO forget is that Jerome, unlike Luther, accepted the decision of the Church, understanding that GOD guides the Church as a whole, not as individual disembodied folks who have thousands of different opinions on an assundry of topics...
Regards
And this takes me back to square one.
The Peshitta Syriac ALSO does not contain 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation - commonly known as the NEW TESTAMENT Deuterocanonicals. Origen also does not make a clear statement about any of these books. Yet you accept them? Your argument reeks of special pleading...
I find this all highly hypocritical and ridiculous. You deny that OT Deuts based on the interpretation of a few Fathers and the Peshitta Syriac bible, but when these SAME sources either deny or do not verify the NT Deuts, this you sweep under the carpet? This logic stands upon sand.
Your view desperately seeks ANYTHING that might show that the OT Deuts were not Scripture. You even side with the Jews, called by John 'anti-christ'. In your attempt to smear the Church, you are willing to side with those people who denied the Christ and the inspired Words of the Gospel???
Then, you AGAIN throw the baby out with the bath water by your hypocritical and selective choices of the Church Father's opinions on the inspired Word of God - but ignoring these same people who DENY part of the Bible that you today claim are inspired by God???
After some thought, I have concluded that on this very subject, the topic of the Deuterocanonicals, that the "Protestant apologist" shows his true colors - a manipulator who stands on illogical points of view, even desperately destroying the ground HE stands on, with the mere goal of wounding the Church. Thus, by your fruits, they are known. While in every other subject, the problem is one of interpretation - here, we have solid and iron clad logic that is denied and ignored, all with the goal of leading the sheep astray. These "Protestant apologists" will even side with the anti-christ to achieve their goals. It is plain. On this subject, the "Protestant apologist" shows him/herself to be a wolf among the sheep.
I for one have made my point and will not discuss this issue again. It should be painfully obvious the "Protestant apologist" stands on sand -
1. Relying on the Jews to determine the Word of God, even if it means they side with those men of 2000 years ago who discount the entire New Testament and the person of our Saviour.
2. Denying the OT Deuts based on the exact same men who questioned the NT Deuts - which these "apologists" accept unabashedly. Why the two-faced attitude?
I will probably ruffle some feathers with this post, but if one reads the hypocritical and nonsensical view taken by these charecters, I hope one will understand my ire regarding those who are obviously not concerned with bringing souls to the truth, but with leading people astray.
Regards
So, you're out of the sick bed(arise Lazarus, ARISE!). You know, that was why the roman soldiers FEARED Jesus so much. Their business was killing enemy soldiers. And yet here is a guy that can bring dead people back to life! So they KILL his followers and he can bring them back ALIVE again!!! How do you defeat an army that doesn't stay DEAD after you've killed them??? It put the FEAR OF GOD into them. No wonder they were very happy to crucify him...
So according to you, Jesus is saying that Joshua, Judges, Chronicles and Kings are not Scripture, since they are Historical books. Some of these books, He NEVER quoted from. I'd say you are reading way too much into this passage, since it does not define WHAT BOOKS ARE the "prophets", nor does He exclude other books. He is referring to those books who speak of Him, not listing the Canon...
Regards
10741 was my answer to you jo kus. I will not repeat myself, nor will I bother trying to deal with your deliberate mischaracterization of what I explicitly handled in another post. The fact that Jesus speaks of things as "Scripture" means that there are books that were settled as part of the canon of Scripture at his time. The rest, you'll have to deal with. I have answered you in a lengthy post. I can't help if you don't wish to read it.
Hadn't thought of that! LOL.
Yes, am feeling better. But a Chinese New Year's dinner after "la Doodze" is . . . interesting.
LUB
I meant it as an innocent expression. How about like-dislike? :)
FK: "Unless the human ritual of Eucharist is salvation itself, isn't death a pretty harsh sentence to proclaim against all non-Apostolics?"
Not entirely... [See 1 Cor 11:28-30]
OK, I can see where that's coming from. You probably already know, but we apply that passage as to any unbelievers generally, not to believers who don't take the Supper as we do.
You have already pre-determined what the Scriptures teach despite what anyone says, and so anything that was written or believed by the entire Church 1000 years ago is inconsequential.
Oh, that's reaching. I agree with lots of authors and theologians who have gone before me. It just so happens that most of them were not Roman Catholics. Therefore, I would have many disagreements with what the entire RCC believed 1000 years ago. I don't say those beliefs are inconsequential. I am just unpersuaded that most of them are consistent with scripture. Some are scripture-neutral, so while I may not follow them, I don't have any real problems with them either.
This is the pillar of Protestantism - rather than receiving the Word of God, accepting as something outside of ourselves, you personally decide what it means.
Of course we receive the Word of God from outside ourselves. We receive it from God Himself, not from earthly men who claim that only they received it from God Himself. It's a similar process. The difference is in the exclusivity.
Likewise, I believe some are frightened to lean on the Spirit and instead want things to make sense, either by figuring it out themselves or by having someone else reason with them why a thing is this way or that. They are like the Greeks in the above passage.
We should remember that doubting Thomas was an apostle, too. Someone who needs the assurance of an edifice or organization or mentor or teacher or leader today - may not, over time.
So we ought to be patient, because as he says, the ones who are called will know Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Saintly Spirit-led wisdom, as always--or virtually always! LOL.
Thanks much. Will ask for a booster shot on the patience thing. LOL.
LUB
A "la Doodze"? Haven't heard of that one before, but I can imagine... Do you remember the alien autopsy movie clip that came out a few years ago? Immediately the CIA/NSC disinformation guys came of the DC woodwork, but you could tell it was real : old bell and howell equipment : went out of focus on close-ups, typical for 1947 technology.
Think of all the PROBLEMS between the mouth and anus...these aliens obviously had machinery in their innards, super livers that recycled all body fluids. Look at all the people with tubes/wires sticking out of them, on life support, in hospitals right now.
Jump ahead 1000 years and that will be all miniaturized, no need to EAT(introduce pathogens into the body), everything is recycled internally. Think of all the FOOD money you'd save. Now you see what JESUS is talking about?
Fascinating construction on reality.
I can spell La Doodze [Chinese] a lot more often than I can spell diarrhea. LOL. Besides, doesn't sound quite as bad in Chinese.
Don't give them ideas Jo! Next thing we will see will be someone posting an 'authoritative' Protestant article claiming that, since the Eastern Orthodox Church never reads from the book of Revelation, it must not be part of the EO canon!
Good points, Jo, just as the rest of your reply. I think your conclusions are right on the money. It's a desperate attempt to smear the Church.
Another 'apologist' recently linked to an article of a famous Septuagint editor who wrote a lengthy and very educated, even objective commentary on the subject considering whe it was written.
The problem is, his conclusions were based on the mid-19th century knowledge, which was proven wrong with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet, this doesn't stop these 'apologists' from presenting an outdated article as 'objective' evidence of their view.
Their assumption, which is often presented as fact, even if silent, is that the early Church, save for a handful of individuals, really didn't know anything about the canon it painstakingly put together, and 'distorted' the faith because it couldn't or didn't want to read the Scripture aright, or — worse — because the hierarchy is inherently 'corrupt.'
But what really amazes me with all such speudo-intellectual arguments is that they miss the obvious, something one doesn't need a PhD to understand and see. They will dig up some obscure line or even an article, out of context, because — just like the random verses they use to prove their notions — they ignore the next sentence or pragraph (perhaps even hoping that the other side will not check) that completely invalidates their 'argument.'
How does one ignore that the Peshitta Syriac denies the NT deuterocanonical books, but accepts its denial of the OT deuterocanonicals? It must be either the effect of 'text-proofing' only the buzz words and forgetting the context, or it must be deliberate distortion. In either case, the conclusions can't be right because the method is wrong.
Thus, if one can find one of the 'fathers,' such as Origen who expresses doubt about the 'canon' (interpreted out of context of course, using modern-day or un-orthodox definition), then he must be right and the rest of the Church must be wrong.
They triumph when they find, besides a heretic, a genuine father of the Church (+Athanasius, +Jerome, +Augustine), who express similar opinions (out of context, of course), because — as you point aptly — no matter what these fathers thought, they always deferred to the Church in the end, which shows that their egos did not constitute a church in itself, as is the case with our Protestant friends.
But, even if there are a half a dozen of those who doubted the Septuagint (in part), and I don't believe half-a-dozen can be found (since only three are mentioned), what does that mean with respect to hundreds of others who had no doubts? That the half-a-dozen are right?
It is also not true that +Athanasius considered all the OT deuterocanonical books as 'apocrypha,' nor did he favor the (Pharisaical) Hebrew canon.
The plainest of these arguments are the facts we find in the NT: the holy Apostles quote the Septuagint as Scripture. If those who, we believe were given the spiritual truth by divine inspiration, are use something as Scripture, would they do so if they were not 'valid?' If what they say is true by the very fact that they are believed to have been inspired, isn't then their choice of Scripture equally valid?
At no time did the Jewish religious authorities of Palestine object to, deny or reject the Septuagint the Greek-speaking Jews used for centuries until it became obvious in the latter part of the 1st century (when the Gospels were written), that the Apostles used the LXX in their witness.
It was only shortly afterwords (c. 90 AD) that the rabbis of Jamnia threw out the NT and LXX along with it, because the two are intimately connected.
As is the case with all issues regarding Scripture: the originals are sadly missing. As you noted earlier in the thread, the Essens and the Sadducees had different 'canons' from the Palestinians (Pharisees), or Samaritans, or Ethiopians. Just as there are three Talmuds, out of which the Pharisaical rabbis use only the most recent version, there are different segments of the OT which do not match our artificial standard: the Palestinian Hebrew text.
The 'apologists' also ignore the fact that only the Pharisees survived and that ti is natural that their version of the Jewish canon is the norm. If only the EOC survived, its practices and teachings would become the surviving norm. That in and of itself is no proof that ti is actually the most authentic 'norm' there is.
You have done a terrific job exposing the truth on this subject.
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.