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/
I am not the one claiming that God changes His dealings with mankind, you are.
What you said had nothing to do with the fact that God changes in how He deals with mankind I said nothing.
Well, on that we can both agree!
The Gospel says that God gives the same to the righteous and the unrighteous. God does not change. What changes is how we perceive, understand, (ab)use, (mis)use, corrupt, betray, etc. His blessings.
And that is not what we are talking about, we were talking about the difference between the Old and New Testament, not how God deals with each particular man.
The Cathecism...In what consisted the Old Testament? In this, that God promised men a divine Saviour, and prepared them to receive him And yet, the Jews who read the same OT (in their language) will tell you otherwise! They don't see the divine savior in where we do. They don't see the foreshaddowing, where we do, they don see the aschtypes where we do. And yet they read the same OT the Protestants read.
Yes, and Paul discusses this 'mystery' in Romans 11.
You ought to read it sometime.
He warns Gentiles of becoming 'wise in their own conceits' (Rom.11:25)
At least we Orthodox "know" why this is so (we read that Greek "forgery" that was made to fit seamlessly with the NT as some Protestant schoalrs tell us); what's your excuse?
I don't have to read the LXX to figure out what God is doing with the Jew, it is in the New Testament (Rom.9-11)
It is clear that your own Catechism rejected the LXX for the Hebrew of the Jews, understanding (unlike you) that God gave the Jew the oracles of God (Rom.3:2) in Hebrew.
Mindset, fronhma, dear friend, is what changes our perceptions and our conceptions about God. God does not change; we do.
God doesn't change, but what we know about God is found in His Sacred scriptures, something you have rejected.
In your dreams. God is not partial towards any one in paritcular. He is the way He is, always has been and always will be; that which is Perfect does not change.
Men change how they deal with God. We all worship imperfectly, and always look for a 'more perfect' union with Him.
It is clear that your own Catechism rejected the LXX for the Hebrew of the Jews
No Orthodox so-called 'catechism' rejects LXX in favor of the Chrit-denying Hebrew OT. The entire EOC community recognizes LXX as the OT 7#151; officially.
Sure, a pastor could [preach for sexual impropriety, for example], but that would just make him an apostate. [...] There's nothing to stop a priest from doing exactly the same thing. He just couldn't call it a Roman Catholic Church
The difference is, that church would still be commonly known as "protestant", perhaps with the adjective like unaffiliated, non-credal, or what have you. This is perhaps the liability that comes with being called "protestant", meaning "anything not Catholic". I would agree that the situation is exactly symmetrical for credal Protestant churches, such as Presbyterian or Lutheran, or Anglican. You understand what I am driving at? There is a general toothpaste-out-of-tube situation here, once personal interpretation of the scripture becomes sufficient reason to teach others in a church setting.
I wonder what Biblical "sexual perversion" would be to a homosexual.
It is on a forum that makes searches difficult, so I cannot show it, but the general line was that the most forceful condemnations of homosexuality we both could find were in terms of "lying with man as with women" and he argued, that condemned bi-sexuality only. Silly, I agree.
During physical life, "eternal life" only lasts until the next mortal sin.
Well, sure. This is like saying that a Honda runs forever unless you wreck it. It is a valid statement about an undestructible (hyperbolically, in that case) motor, is it not? Christ used the term in the same conditional sense, e.g when He said "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), right when he devotes several passages to eternal life.
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.
The delivery of the prayers of the saints (Apoc. 5:8, 8:3-4) might be at the end of time, but what makes you conclude the subjects of these prayers are unrelated to the present events? It is the present being judged, after all.
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
This is the passage. It is about the present struggle of the faithful, and it speaks of the "witnesses" that relieve our sin constantly; yes, the Church teaches that we are in their presence all the time:
1 And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: 2 Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. 4 For you have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin: 5 And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. 6 For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 Persevere under discipline(Hebrews 12)
Based on what scripture? "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only" (James 2).
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.
The fact remains that we do not snatch ourselves, and the security of eternal life is conditional per words of Christ, e.g. in John 6 that I just quoted.
Yes, I agree that Wisdom 8 speaks of the seeker of wisdom, rather than Wisdom herself. I apologize for not checking the context before posting. Does the passage, however, contain a contradiction?
I went about seeking, that I might take her to myself. 19 And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. 20 And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled. 21 And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it, and this also was a point of wisdom, to know whose gift it was: I went to the Lord, and besought him"I came to a body" refers to a soul coming to a body and the body thus receiving life. It is immediately followed by "I could not ... be continent", that is, outside of the grace of the Lord I could not remain undefiled. We no longer have a contradiction with Romans 3 and 5, but perhaps we do with some flawed theologies of utter depravity of man, -- which is not my problem.(Wisdom 8)
True; my question was, why ask others to pray for us given that the outcome is predestined.
No one to my knowledge is saying that the Jamnia rabbis removed them expressly for that reason; the point remains that when their opinion is weighed against that of the Apostolic Church, the Church wins.
The Church does not teach anything that contradicts the Apostolic consensus teaching of the Early Church, so no. would you really say that a lost person given a Bible without the Dueterocanonicals would be worse off than with no Bible at all?
The question was, do we support giving people truncated Bibles when complete canon is available; the answer to that is, -- Why should we?
If such individual is not in consensus with the Church, then that is the final judgement on him.
it's a human ritual
Ye,s there is a rutualistic element to all sacraments, but it is not their essence. It is incorrect to describe sacraments, that involve the Divine grace, as a ritual.
God has done amazing things with tribal groups and ONE Gospel such as Matthew or John or Luke.
Acts and Romans are also rather powerful on their own.
And then there's Samuel Morris in his MARCH OF FAITH who initially didn't have a Bible or any info that there was God Almighty and His Son Jesus The Christ.
Jesus still led him through the jungle for 2-3 weeks with dialogue and light until Christ left him at a mission wall compound with the instruction: In there you will learn of me.
NO MAGICSTERICAL
NO CHURCH FATHERS
NO CHURCH AT ALL INITIALLY
NO BUREAUCRACY
NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
etc.
etc.
and etc.
There is NOTHING in the Hebrews passage about the great cloud of witnesses to even suggest that they were/are
ANYTHING
but
observers . . .
Many folks have had visions/dreams of such a cloud of witnesses in stadia, as it were--but the playing field was some scene or scenes from earth.
They had the impression of the heavenly observers sort of rooting for the earthly residents who were believers etc. But not that they were involved in the battle. There was some sort of detachment that indicated otherwise, IIRC.
In that particular sense, yes, the Church is indispensable tot he interpretation of the Holy Scripture, yes. However, you would construct a false dichotomy if you were to suggest that the Church may subvert the scripture.
Individuals wrote the manuscripts, and each was individually inspired by the Spirit, infallibly. The writings were not an act of "the Church".
It does not follow. The Magisterium is the body of the bishops of the Church, so when they write individually, they act as the Chruch as a whole, provided the Church given their writing a canonical approval.
The Church does not teach anything that contradicts the Apostolic consensus teaching of the Early Church,
= = =
Oh, I've not found the Mary-olatry stuff even close to the early consensus you folks try and make it out to be.
But unlike Luther's his opinion -- not a declaration -- had no consequence, as the Bible in use has alwys been the complete set, except in Protestant circles.
BD has posted several articles on this thread exposing the weaknesses of these books
Nonsense all, a result of deliberate misreading, and refuted on the thread.
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
I would not quote from the Deuterocanonical in argument with a Protestant for the same reason I would not quote from the Vatican documents, -- because it is not an authority you recognize. This leaves quotes done for illustration of a Catohlic teaching, and that is unusual because we tend to have good apologetical writings for that reason. However, of greater importance is what the Apostles quoted, and for that see 7207, 7405, 7414, 8277 on this thread.
Of course. This is not attitude, this is the very truth. You want Christianity, come to the Church. If you go to the Bible first, fine, but it will lead you to the Church anyway.
What sort of unwritten tradition are you talking about?
well, for example, there is nothing in the Scripture that teaches that good works are a mere fruit of faith. It is then a product of Protestant unscriptural tradition. Obviouslly, all tradition gets written down at one point.
If 15 meant Mary then there's only one offspring,
Correct, only one offspring, Christ, crushes the serpent.
FROM NOW ON, Christ will have enmity for the spawn of satan?
Yes. Why does it not make sense? Is Satan real today?
in verse 13, "the woman" meant Eve, in verse 15 "the woman" meant Mary, and in verse 16 "the woman" meant Eve again
As is clear each time from the verses themselves; they indeed reflect the symmetry between Eve and Mary.
verse 15 could have meant "any" or "all" women generally, but not Mary individually
That makes no sense. How many Christs are there?
The issue is contradiction. Doctrines do evolve.
There is
AS MUCH CONTRADICTION
between the different factions within the RC church
as there are between different Protesty congregations.
Smothering contradictions over with edifice, traditions, magicsterical, ritual etc. does not wipe them away.
Nor does denial.
Doctrines do evolve.
= = =
IF
as is so emphatically asserted [though factually false]
the early fathers and the 400 years later Roman magicsterical
GOT ALLLLLLLLL THE DOCTRINES 100% CORRECT
WHY
on earth would there be evolving doctrines???
So, now we have rubber Bible, rubber dictionary, rubber history
and . . . . drum roll . . .
rubber doctrines!
ITTM [Incredulous To The Max] GTTM [Guffaws To The Max] SHSMEACAB [Shaking Head So Much Ears Are Creating A Breeze] SHSMIHCBFMLN [Shaking Head So Much I Have Cheek Bruises From My Long Nose]'
AGAIN, I assert that probably all Protesty denominations and most congregations at one time or another have been guilty of such. The issue is not are Protesty's more human than RC's or vice versa.
The issue, for me, is, that the RC edifice is FAR from MORE holy or righteous than Biblical Protesty denominations. And assertions to the contrary are in denial of a long list of historical facts.
And ragingly hypocritical pontifications are hardly a solid foundation for anything good.
And who has denied that?
The fact is that God has made a progressive revelation of Himself through the Old and New Testament, as stated by your Orthodox Catechism I cited.
It is clear that your own Catechism rejected the LXX for the Hebrew of the Jews No Orthodox so-called 'catechism' rejects LXX in favor of the Chrit-denying Hebrew OT. The entire EOC community recognizes LXX as the OT 7#151; officially.
Well according the Catechism that I cited, they at least rejected the Apocrypha books because they were not in Hebrew.
So clearly, that Catechism placed a greater emphasis on the Hebrew than the Greek.
Wow! You're a regular me. :) Good to see you again.
FK: "I wonder what Biblical "sexual perversion" would be to a homosexual."
... but the general line was that the most forceful condemnations of homosexuality we both could find were in terms of "lying with man as with women" and he argued, that condemned bi-sexuality only. Silly, I agree.
That's interesting since the L's and the G's and the B's and the T's all seem so unified and junk. It's funny that they would throw some of their own under the bus to justify their Christianity. :)
FK: "During physical life, "eternal life" only lasts until the next mortal sin."
Well, sure. This is like saying that a Honda runs forever unless you wreck it. It is a valid statement about an indestructible (hyperbolically, in that case) motor, is it not?
I don't think so. There is a big difference between a motor and the vehicle surrounding it. If God gave me an indestructible motor, it would remain in tact no matter how many accidents it was in. The important point is that God would NOT tell me "Here is a car that runs forever". That would be very misleading since God could very well give me such a car. If only the motor was meant to be indestructible, then that's what He would say. I think it is the same with "eternal life". If He really meant "eternal life with a ton of strings and conditions attached" then He would have said so. I don't think He did.
[continuing:] Christ used the term in the same conditional sense, e.g when He said "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), right when he devotes several passages to eternal life.
As above, I see this as two different things. It seems to me that you are building in an entirely new level of condition that I do not see there. The verse by itself says that if you take Christ inside yourself, i.e. accept Him, that you will have life in you. It does not add a further condition that you will lose that life if you do not do a, b, and c. Using the word "eternal" here would be like referring to the whole car when only the motor was intended. I don't think God did that. If He really meant only temporary life, or a "chance" for eternal life, then I think that concept would be clear enough in scripture. I know there are a few verses that "sound" like one can lose his salvation, but the whole weight of scripture is squarely on one side, IMO.
The delivery of the prayers of the saints (Apoc. 5:8, 8:3-4) might be at the end of time, but what makes you conclude the subjects of these prayers are unrelated to the present events? It is the present being judged, after all.
While I can see why you interpret these verses the way you do, I see it a little different. (Shock! :) I don't see the angel and the elders as actually having offered the prayers, but only the incense. The incense represents the prayers, but are not the prayers themselves. The parallel is to a regular Temple service, wherein the priest would offer incense while the people prayed (directly) to God.
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.