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/
Kolo: Yup, cause that is what the Greek says, FK. :)
Well, then what does the Greek say about the whole verse, specifically about "eternal life" and "never perish"? The two references to "them" (and one to "they") must all be to the same people. If some of those were allowed to dive off His hand, then the verse makes no sense.
John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." KJV
Some saints declared 2 Peter and Revelation as uninspired. Yet, there they are in your Protestant bible... Seems to me you are trying to cite saints ONLY when it suits your purposes. We should look at the entire picture, not to the fact that ONE saint didn't like the Greek Septuagint.
BD has posted several articles on this thread exposing the weaknesses of these books, including the issue with the Jewish canon, provable historical inaccuracies, and contradictions with established scripture.
Maybe you didn't see that I responded to these? There is no "contradictions", just like there is no contradictions in other Scriptures. And what Jewish canon are you speaking of? The Greek Septuagint WAS a Jewish canon!
But as I posted to Joe recently, I find it absolutely amazing that in the 10,000 posts here and the 12,000 on the L&E thread that I have seen Apostolics quote from the Dueterocanonicals MAYBE 3 times altogether.
When two people discuss issues, they must meet on a point of common agreement. What good would it do to my point of view to quote a book that YOU do not accept as Scriptures? You would promptly deny that it had any force of argument. Thus, we Catholics and Orthodox condescend to your level of what is Scriptures so as to prove a theological point. This does not mean we accept your canon. We certainly can quote the Deuts. But honestly, what would it do to convince you of our point of view?
Regards
This conversation began when some Protestants took offense to the fact that WE Catholics have "added" books to Sacred Scripture, then went about trying to defend that point of view, despite the departure from logic that had to be undertaken to do just that.
I find no "authoritarian compulsion" to do anything regarding Protestants. I am merely defending the Catholic view - providing information to those who are are not obstinate on the subject and are willing to look at both points of view before making an informed decision.
Regards
AMEN! And me too. :) There is no substitute for taking assurance in the promises of God.
And Catholics submit to whom ?
To the Head of the Body, Jesus Christ. However, we do so knowing that Christ left people in charge on earth over the community. That is pretty clear in the Scriptures.
Of course, Protestants submit to Jesus Christ as well, ... though we are persuaded that we can be more direct with Him (with less middle managesment, perhaps) ... than Catholic tradition suggests.
Meanwhile, Protestants hold to their own personal interpretations, which is subject to change, depending on the mood that strikes them. I am sure that God presents Himself to people in this manner, but it is not the means He gave His apostles in the Scriptures.
This really is a mischaracterization of Protestant belief and practice.
Protestants, for the vast majority, believe their preachers and teachers, and are homogenous regarding the core doctrines of Christianity (i.e. as they are found in the Apostles, Nicean creeds, etc.).
When asked a question, or challenged, (as He often was) Jesus would always appeal to the scriptures (i.e. It is written, What saith the scriptures ..., Search the scriptures, etc.)
ALWAYS? He often times referred to HIMSELF as the Law, such as in Matthew 5 - "You have HEARD (NOTE, He doesn't say, 'you have read ...') it said, but I tell you ..."
I don't recall where Jesus referred to Himself as the Law.
But He did use the formulation you speak of quite often ... "you have heard, ... but I say unto you ..."
He, typically, would use this formulation to correct some point of misinterpretation (or shallow interpretation) ... of God's word to men.
YEAH! And I'm not even that bright and I can get this. What's the deal around here? :)
Disputed Books of the Old Testament
The table below shows which of the disputed Old Testament books are included in Christian catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century.
Y indicates that the book is plainly listed as Holy Scripture;
N indicates that it is placed in an inferior class of books;
M indicates that the terminology of the author may be construed as a reference to the book as Holy Scripture.
S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection.
KEY Esth. - Esther/ Bar. - Baruch/ Eccl. - Ecclesiasticus/ Wisd. - Wisdom of Solomon/ Tob. - Tobit/ Jud. - Judith/ Mac. - First and Second Maccabees/
1. Greek Authors. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. Melito 160 S S S S S S S Origen 225 Y M S S S S N Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y N N N N N Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y S S S S S Athanasius 367 N Y N N N N S Gregory of Nazianzus 380 S S S S S S S Amphilocius of Iconium 380 M S S S S S S Epiphanius 385 Y S N N S S S Stichometry of Niceph. 550 N Y N N N N N Synopsis of Sac. Scrip. 550 N S N N N N S Leontius 590 S S S S S S S List of the Sixty Books 650 N S N N N N N John of Damascus 730 Y S N N S S S
2. Syrian Greek. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. "Apostolic Canons" 380 Y S N S S M Y
3. Latin Authors.* Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac. Hilary of Poitiers 360 Y M S S M M S Cheltenham List 360 Y M S M Y Y Y Rufinus 380 Y M N N N N N Jerome 390 Y M N N N N N Augustine 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y 3rd Council of Carthage 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Codex Claromontanus 400 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Letter of Innocent I 405 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cassiodorus 560 Y M Y Y Y Y Y Isidore of Seville 625 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
* NOTE: The Latin authors often subsumed the book of Baruch under Jeremiah, and so do not name it separately
Disputed Books of the New Testament
The table below shows which of the disputed New Testament books and other writings are included in catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century.
Y indicates that the book is plainly listed as Holy Scripture;
N indicates that the author lists it in a class of disputed books;
M indicates that the list may be construed to include the book as Holy Scripture;
X indicates that the book is expressly rejected by the author.
S indicates that the author does not mention the book at all, which implies its rejection.
KEY TO BOOKS Heb. - Epistle to the Hebrews/ Jas. - Epistle of James / Jn. - Second and Third Epistle of John/ Pet. - Second Epistle of Peter / Jude - Epistle of Jude / Rev. - Revelation of John/ Shep. - Shepherd of Hermas/ Apoc. - Apocalypse of Peter/ Barn. - Epistle of Barnabas / Clem. - Epistle of Clement /
1. Greek & Latin Date Heb. Jas. Jn. Pet. Jude Rev. Shep. Apoc. Barn. Clem. Muratorian Fragment 170 S S M S Y Y X N S S Origen 225 Y N N N N Y S S S S Eusebius of Caesarea 324 Y N N N N N X X X S Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S Cheltenham list 360 S S Y Y S Y S S S S Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S Athanasius 367 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S Gregory of Nazianzus 380 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S S Amphilocius of Iconium 380 Y N N N N N S S S S Rufinus 380 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S Epiphanius 385 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Jerome 390 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Augustine 397 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S 3rd Council of Carthage 397 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Codex Claromontanus 400 M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y S Letter of Innocent I 405 Y Y Y Y Y Y S X S S Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y X S S S Isadore of Seville 625 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S John of Damascus 730 Y Y Y Y Y Y S S S S
2. Syrian Date Heb. Jas. Jn. Pet. Jude Rev. Shep. Apoc. Barn. Clem. Apostolic Canons 380 Y Y Y Y Y S S S S Y Peshitta Version 400 Y Y S S S S S S S S Report of Junilius 550 Y N N N N N S S S S
Agree. We are finite beings and that which is finite can never know the infinite. At best, we can be a bad imitation thereof.
I do know, that for authentic Love, there must be a REAL measure of REAL, authentic FREE WILL with applicable consequences. Nothing else makes sense, to me
Within the confines of our finite world and mind, God created us free. Unlike animals, we are not driven by necessity. We were created in God's image and likeness, endowed with the capacity, as rational beings, to be moral and even holy because we have choices.
Unless we are free to come to God, we are machines that can only react. Such creatures are incapable of unconditional love.
Our freedom does not affect God's plan, as there will undoubtedly be those among us who will choose to follow God and not satan.
The Scripture reminds us that our destinies are tied to our decisions from the heart. "I have heard your prayer, and have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years." [Isa 38:5, LXX]
Our decisions must be from the heart, not from the flesh, for there is no love in the flesh. As Saint Paul reminds us, "if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." [Rom 8:13]
In order for us to resist the flesh, our heart must be free. We must "think" not by the flesh but by the heart. For love is foolish in the realm of the flesh, as much as flesh is dead in the realm of the heart.
Because God created us body and soul, we have a choice, if we believe. Those who believe in God always have a choice.
You know that is not true. You ultimately subject yourself to your current understanding of Scriptures. Thus, if a pastor begins to teach something that doesn't sound right to a Protestant - they disagree for whatever reason - then they can and do opt to leave the congregation and go elsewhere until they find someone that fits THEIR particular paradigm and understanding of the Gospel. Thus, in the end, you follow only as long as you agree with the shepherd. Who then are you obeying?
By the way, this conversation is not directed at you personally, but a discussion about the Protestant mindset in general.
Regards
Two that come readily to mind are prayer on behalf of the dead and an explicit Scriptural basis for the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (no in neither the Hebrew nor the Greek is the word in Genesis a technical word that means creation from nothing, the word translated 'create' means make, period--only in Second Maccabees is there an explicit statement that God made the world out of nothing).
Some of books excluded by the protestants also have a salutory emphasis on repentence, and make plain that the general resurrection was an Old Covenant doctrine with a Scriptural basis in contradiction to the position of the Sadducees.
He, typically, would use this formulation to correct some point of misinterpretation (or shallow interpretation) ... of God's word to men.
Misinterpretation? Jesus is setting the bar higher with His RE-interpretation of the Torah. He is going beyond the letter of the Law, which was all that was required previously. Those in the Spirit have a higher standard.
Regards
Interesting, but quite irrelevant. The Sixth Ecumenical Council gave the African Code of 419 universal force, thus settling the matter.
Namely, the key is incorrect and misleading.
S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection.
That is faulty logic. Jesus Himself doesn't mention all the books of the Old Testament as we know them. Would anyone suggest that He was rejecting Chronicles or Nehemiah?
Secondly, the listing is NOT accurate. For example, Origen DOES discuss some of the Deuterocannonical writings that your list supposedly says he didn't.
"You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon.Origen,To Africanus, 5
Origen is defending the Greek version of Daniel (which the Protestant reformers of the 1500's removed), as well as the story of Bel and the Dragon.
Later, Origen writes:
"Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders." Origen,To Africanus,9
Origen gives his explanation to why the Greek version of Daniel was removed from the Hebrew Bible. Origen definetely considers it Scriptures.
How about this? "But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12
Can we agree that Origen considered Sirach as Scripture?
"Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, "Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver" (Tobias, 1:12-14). Origen, To Africanus, 13
Origen speaks highly of Tobit. Elsewhere, he says "And it is written..." the formula used to describe a Scriptural passage.
"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.'" [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2
2 Maccabees is SCRIPTURE! Boy, Martin Luther would not be happy to hear this quote from Origen...
He also writes similarly about Wisdom as well. Thus, just in Origen, the website you post is woefully inadequate for those in search of the truth...
Regards
Thanks for the detail on the questionable books.
It would take me some research on that. But regarding Origen, there is some inaccuracies. This makes the whole site suspect.
Origen makes numerous references to the Shepherd of Hermas, and on one occasion, in his later years, he describes it as 'a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired' . (Comm. in Rom. 10.31, written about 244-6). See p. 140 of [Metzger].
According to [Grant]:
It would appear that while he [Origen] was at Alexandria he regarded the Didache, Hermas and Barnabas as canonical, but that after moving to Caesarea he became aware that they were not accepted there. (p. 171)
Origen quotes from the Epistle of Barnabas 3 times; in fact on one occasion he calls it 'Barnabas'general epistle'. (Contra Celsum 1.63).
The proceeding quotes were from Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance". It is a highly recommended book on the subject of the NT Canon.
For a better website on the NT canon, I suggest
http://www.ntcanon.org/
Regards
So the Council just ignored the ante-Nicene tradition of the church in making its decision??? It appears that the tradition of the ante-Nicene church was that of an Old Testament similar to the Jews who rejected of the OT deuteros. That explains Jerome's statement that the church [with a small "c"] does not recognize the deuteros.
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" [1Tim 4:1]
"and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame" [Heb 6:6]
"You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness" [2Pet 3:17]
The Scripture tells us that many will fall away, that the Spirit explicitly says some will fall away, that this is irreversable, etc.
Clearly what you quote in Luke 15 reflects God's desire to find all His lost sheep, but it is also clear from the rest of the Scripture that those who reject God because they decide to follow the "error of principled men" and pay attention "to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" are not snatched but are doing is willingly and knowingly.
Those who know God have choices. From what you write it seems clear that you deny that we have choices. You believe in 'captive' love; love that imposes. You keep bringing up the example of not allowing your children to walk into traffic or jumping off the cliffs...nonsense. God allows calamity and evil. God allowed Adam and Eve to 'jump off the cliff' and ruin it for themselves and all subsequent generations.
The Parable of the Sower [cf Luke 8] makes it clear, if you read all of it, that the soil we, as seedlings, end up on depends on our hearts and not on chance, nor where God placed us.
We must be free to give back to God what God has given us freely. Otherwise we have something other than love. Love is not a duty. Love is not an obligation. Love is not captive. You cannot make someone love you. Those whom you love you will protect, but if they want to leave because they don't love you, you must let them go. Love is not imposing. Love only gives — freely.
But I am also sure that we all realize that citing Origen as authoritative on anything is fraught with errors as he was a well known heretic and corruptor of the texts of the scriptures.
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.