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/
Unfortunately for you, it is not the same "Canon" that you consider the Old Testament to be... Just because Jesus mentions "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings" doesn't mean there was an established canon.
According to you, Jesus denies the historical books of the Old Testament as being Scripture.
As I said before, you stretch the meaning of the passage in question...
Regards
FK responded "I meant it as an innocent expression. How about like-dislike? :)
FK, I think you are confusing Catholics with Orthodox. Catholics don't have a "dislike-like" relationship with St. Augustine. Much of our theology and the explanation of it is to some degree influenced by him.
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.
I am curious to know why you would apply 1 Cor 11:28-30 to unbelievers?! That is nonsense. Paul is writing to Christians who are abusing the Eucharist. Catholics STILL do not just invite anyone to the Eucharist. How could Paul be speaking of non-believers who are unworthily taking the Eucharist and dying as a result? I think you need to sit down with that passage, FK, and really try to look at it with a more open mind.
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.
Basically, you are telling me that you have an idea of what God is and what He has revealed, and will tend to agree with ANYONE who agrees with your own preconcieved ideas. See, FK, in a revealed religion, it is supposed to be the other way around. God REVEALS HIMSELF to us - WE don't tell God what WE think about Him. Thus, when God reveals Himself through the Church, it is up to us to change our views when necessary. This is the difference between you and the Catholic.
Of course we receive the Word of God from outside ourselves.
You receive the letters from outside, but the meaning you derive from your own ideas, rather than the mind of the Church. Again, it comes down to the question posed at the very beginning of Scriptures... Do you want to obey God, or make yourself "gods".
Regards
God did this long before Martin Luther came on the scene and decided on his own initiative to deprive other Christians of the entire Word of God in Scriptures.
These authorities had no say in what was truly Canonical. Only God did.
It should be quite obvious that God spoke through men to determine the Canon, since God didn't leave a book a la Koran. Thus, the Christian Church recognized the various Councils' determinations of what was Scripture, to include St. Jerome. Even HE recognized that God had spoken through the Catholic Church's Councils on the subject. He obeyed what he saw as God speaking through men to determine the Canon.
Again, your logic makes no sense. Why on earth should anyone believe Luther was right on this subject?
After I did this you made certain claims that I rebutted in a rather lengthy post which followed.
I don't see where your "rebuttal" refuted anything I wrote.
Logically, I have received a theological education and have been schooled enough in the GENUINE Word of God that I recognize the counterfeit when I see it.
St. Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostics who used the very same Scripture to "prove" their own disturbing theological theories. St. Irenaeus showed that only the Church gives the correct interpretation - since a book cannot speak for itself on matters it only describes vaguely. Thus, God gave man a Sacred Book and a Sacred Body of believers to interpret correctly this book.
Your argument totally ignores the fact that MANY books claimed to be "Scriptures". It was the Church, with its Apostolic Traditions and teachings, that were able to discern what was truly Scripture - which coincided with what they had been taught by the Apostles. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas was left out, because it disputed what they had been taught. You would have us believe you would recognize the Gospel of Thomas as non-Scriptural WITHOUT this body of teachings?
And lest we forget what brought up the subject to begin with - namely, the latent, and I would now say BLATANT anti-semitism in this thread
The only anti-semitism here is in your imagination. In your effort to cover your tracks, you try to call us names? I am telling you that the Jews of "Jamnia" were in no position to accurately tell us the Canon, since they couldn't determine that the Crucified One was the Messiah, nor did they recognize that the writings about Him were from God. I have said nothing anti-semetic. You are merely trying to direct the attention away your lack of logic by claiming we are calling Jews names. That is ridiculous and really sad that you have to stoop to such a level... Now, if you want to continue to side with the Jewish determination of what the Scriptures are, to include the removal of the Gospels, that is your perogative. But then you can no longer be considered Christian.
Regards
As I said, this subject proves that the "Protestant apologist" is merely a wolf in sheep's clothing. They'll do or say anything to "win" an argument - even if it means denying simple logic. I am STILL waiting for the answer to WHY they accept the NT Deuts, but not the OT Deuts. They quote writers when it suits them, totally ignoring these same "authorities" when it doesn't suit them. All in the effort to "win" an argument. These people are not concerned about the truth, Kosta.
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.
Exactly. Jerome was the only Church Father I found who denied the OT Deuts belonged in Sacred Scriptures. But he deferred to the Church, realizing that IT is guided by the Spirit. We would NEVER know what the Bible WAS if we relied on Calvin's way of determining Sacred Scriptures - "let the Spirit tell me what is Scriptures"...
You have done a terrific job exposing the truth on this subject.
I hope other people who are sitting on the fence will also realize this. Only God can help the more obstinate who defer to their own opinions over common sense.
Regards
who defer to their own opinions over common sense.
= = = =
Over the years, I've increasingly construed
RELIGION [vs RELATIONSHIP]
and
COMMON SENSE
to be mutually exclusive events, states, realities.
Jo Kus. Evidentally you have failed to read what I said. I have REPEATEDLY - R E P E A T E D L Y - said I wasn't talking about the Jews at Jamnia. Since I REPEATEDLY SAID who it was I wasn't referring to and you still accused me of supporting one John calls "Anti-Christ" then it is a logical conclusion that you must mean the other Jews i.e., those not at Jamnia since it wasn't the Jews at Jamnia I was supporting.
Neither have I named Luther as a source of authority for determining the Canon. My use of "protestant" does not imply that I rely on Luther or any other protestant as the source, rather, it was to distinguish it from the Catholic Bible. But, I suppose you knew that (or should have based upon the clear meaning of my words in the previous post and in the very quote you lifted from it). You have superimposed Luther's name because that is what Catholics do when they want to stir up the troops.
You lower the canon to something that Man identifies and determines and lower God to one who relies on man to determine his Canon as if it wasn't in existence in whole before some council somewhere stated that it was. You fluff off Jerome's statements concerning the canonicity of the books and do not realize that by the council's own standards in the 1500s dear Sainted Jerome would have been declared anathema.
Finally, you elevate the teachings of men to that higher than the teaching of the Holy Spirit by proclaiming that there was no way that we could know that Thomas wasn't scriptural outside of the teachings of the higher eschelon of the Roman bureaucracy. Nevermind that the Holy Spirit was promised to teach us. God evidentally felt we were too dumb to learn so he placed over us a bunch of second sons of European Aristocracy so that we would get it right.
I don't expect for you to understand. It is clear that you have bought the RCC's view hook line and sinker. However, I do draw the line between inability to understand and outright deceptiveness when you deliberately misstate what I have said. You have deliberately misstated what I have said explicitly about Jamnia in the hopes that people can't or won't read the long responses I have had towards your assertions. But, for the record, and for the casual reader picking up the thread at this point I will repeat - I NEVER SUPPORTED THE JEWS AT JAMNIA NOR DID I EVER PROCLAIM THAT THEIR AUTHORITY DETERMINED SQUAT CONCERNING THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. In fact, I stated the opposite and referred to the Jews prior to Christ as the ones who were led by God in the determination of the Old Testament Canon. I have also asserted that this occurred prior to the time of Christ based upon Jesus' statements concerning the Scriptures being the Law the Prophets and the Psalms. I noted that the Jews considered the historical books Jo Kus referred to as part of the prophets. Former prophets verses latter prophets. Such an explanation is deliberately ignorred as Jo Kus tries to deceive the unsuspecting into believing I said something that I did not. I have answered Jo Kus in other posts and welcome ANYONE to read what was actually said.
As to name calling, I have noted how expressed views on this thread are full of latent and blatant anti-semitism. To this, Jo Kus takes great offense. But, since we are on the subject of name calling...in your post 10787, Jo Kus, you may recognize a few names called such as 'hypocritical', one who 'sides with the anti-christ', a 'smearer of the church' , one who 'sides with those who deny Christ and the inspired words of the gospel', ' a manipulator who stands on illogical points of view', 'desperate', one who has the goal of 'wounding the church' one who has the goal of 'leading the sheep astray' a 'wolf amongst the sheep' 'nonsensical' 'obviously not concerned with bringing souls to the truth, but with leading people astray.' So, dear jo kus, before you feign great distress over the charge of anti-semitism, observe the mote in your own eye.
If you can find anywhere where I said we should follow the Jews at Jamnia in their determination of Scripture - produce it. I can show you at least 3 and now 4 times where I said precisely the opposite. By continually stating that I support the Jews at Jamnia, you are being dishonest as you were in the above referred to thread when you said " I for one have made my point and will not discuss this issue again."
So, here we are, rehashing what has already been addressed and getting nowhere. You have your authorities you trust. I trust the Holy Spirit to lead me. I trust Christ when He spoke of the Scriptures to have known that there were books that were considered Scripture. It isn't reading into anything to assume such. It is contra-logic to suggest otherwise. But go on your way. You don't see because you don't wish to see. I have made my point and can truly abide by the idea of not discussing the canon of Scripture with you again if you wish to renew your declaration from the previous post. If not, I don't find arguing with you very productive either. As long as you are going to say I have said things which I did not, I might as well bow out and allow you and your straw men to dance their little dance in peace.
That shouldn't be the case. But perhaps I am being naive about this...
Regards
And think of the tiny christian community in china, persecuted by the satanic government. Out of the vast OCEAN of 1.3 BILLION people, they will be the only survivors from what is to come.
Pity. The chinese value SCHOLARS above all others. And yet they don't STUDY the bible and put 2 + 2 = 4 together. Ah well, the BIG dinosaurs never knew what hit them 65 million years ago either. Such is the way of evolution...and the meek shall inherit the earth...
It is clear that you cannot explain why you take such a two-sided stance. IF you accept the NT Deuts, explain why you do not except the OT Deuts. I have asked you this before - so what's the answer? Or are you again going to call Catholics anti-semetic and go off on a tangeant about "such and such Father didn't accept the OT Deuteros..."
Your argument is special pleading based on the idea that you have some special and unproven access to what the Scriptures are WITHOUT the Church.
I trust the Holy Spirit to lead me.
What evidence do you have that He leads you to determine the Scripture canon? That is a self-serving statement if I ever heard one. It didn't work for Jean Calvin, so why would it work for you?
Regards
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.
Basically, you are telling me that you have an idea of what God is and what He has revealed, and will tend to agree with ANYONE who agrees with your own preconcieved ideas. See, FK, in a revealed religion, it is supposed to be the other way around. God REVEALS HIMSELF to us - WE don't tell God what WE think about Him. Thus, when God reveals Himself through the Church, it is up to us to change our views when necessary. This is the difference between you and the Catholic.
And where do these preconceived ideas come from ... ?
What is the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant other than that they appeal to different authorities ?
Catholics and Protestants heed the teaching they receive from their own respective clergy ...
And each group has had the opportunity to peruse and study the accepted scriptures for hundreds of years.
Protestant theologic conclusions are no more pre-conceived than are Catholic conclusions ... they're simply different in some areas.
Did God give new revelation to mankind in 1520?
Regards
What is the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant other than that they appeal to different authorities ?
Did God give new revelation to mankind in 1520?
The revelation was the same as it always had been ... the scriptures.John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
If in a believer, then "yes". If in a non-believer, then it depends on how you look at it. If you are going where I think you're going, then consider a soldier who is an unbeliever. He throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies nearby. Was this God's love through the soldier? Well, it certainly wasn't God's love FOR the soldier through him. If any of the buddies were Christians, then it "could" have been love for them. (Another example would be God using an unbelieving doctor to heal an elect.)
The point is that it is a completely different operation depending on whether the actor is a believer or non-believer. When believers show love that is God not only benefiting the beneficiary, but also the actor. We experience God working His love through us. All unbelievers, in their sinful natures, are separated from God. He does not hear their prayers, He is not in communion with them, He does not shower His love upon them. He uses them for His purposes. So with the soldier, I would not normally describe it as God showing His love through him. I would only use that description for believers.
i think u rrrrrrrrrrr much more rt thn wrng
Well "HI" right back to you. :) I'm actually doing relatively well now in "only" being 4 days behind. :) I set my own worst record on this very thread by being 9 days behind at one point. Even for me that's pretty ridiculous. :)
As you know, I have no problems with searching the Scriptures. I happen to love the Scriptures. However, as you also know, the interpretation of these same Scripture has changed after 1520. Again, I ask, "has God revealed Himself differently"? Do we now look at Sacred Scriptures totally differently then the first Christians do?
Regards
"8:1 But as for your fasts, let them not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second [Monday] and fifth [Thursday] days of the week, but do ye fast on the fourth [Wednesday] and sixth [Friday] days [this is still observed by the Eastern Orthodox 2,000 years later].
8:2 Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord hath commanded in his gospel so pray ye: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."
Our Lord Jesus Christ calls the Pharisees hypocrites (and worse!) on more than one occasion.
The trouble is that many a Protestant apparently refuses to acknowledge that besides the Pharisees there were other Jews who neither used the Pharisaical 'Jewish canon' nor recognized the monopoly of Pharisaical 'Jewish canon' as normative.
The only surviving sect of Judaism are the Pharisees and naturally they declared the 'norm' in Jamnia (end of 1st century AD).
That's fine,as long as we recognize that there were many other Jews whose canon did not agree with that of the hypocrites, a term used by the Jews to describe the Pharisees. Such other Jews included the Sadducees, the Essenes and the hellenized Jews in Asia Minor, Greece and Italy.
+Athanasius, for example, as well as +John of Damascus, considered Didache to be canonical. But the Church didn't! So, while +Jerome was allowed to voice his opinion, he coud do so without condemnation as long as it was not stated as fact but as a theological opinion (theologoumena). As you mention, however (and this is crucial) he submitted to the wisdom and the Apostolic authoirty of the Church
Wow, BD, I can't add anything to that! :) Thanks for a great post.
Yes, Alex I don't think I was remembering your using this term. I think I was remembering, what now seem to be, Orthodox quotes I have been showed. I know I've seen the expression "Blessed Augustine". Thanks for clearing this up, Kosta.
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.