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/
But FR Catholics, and especially the Orthodox, quote liberally from the Fathers. If Tradition is either equal, or nearly so, to the scriptures then it should all be the same. When you all do quote from the Fathers, Protestants here do not cry foul. Most of the time we simply answer from scripture. No problem. Sometimes, we also quote from our writers, knowing they carry no special weight with you, and you answer accordingly. No problem. We would just treat quotes from the Deuteros in the same way.
I generally don't quote as much from the Old Testament, because the disagreements with Protestantism center around the New Testament. When I do, it is to refute some bizarre interpretation offered by a Protestant poster, so it is naturally not from the Deuterocanon.
I remember myself quoting from Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 15 on Free Will, following Aquinas. The Maccabees are standard prooftext for prayers for the dead and therefore purgatory, see, for example, The Early Church Fathers on Purgatory - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus , especially post 20.
... to elaborate the point already made from scripture, that is.
All well and good - except that you are using a false premise to "prove" that the Deuterocannonicals are not Scriptural. According to you, because we do not cite them, they must not be of importance to us. This is a false premise, because I have yet to see someone cite Philemon or Obediah... Jesus Himself did not cite from a number of books from the OT. So this line of reasoning that you have presented is a faulty one.
Would it make a difference to you if I DID cite the Deuterocanonicals more often? I doubt it.
And to be honest, citing Calvin does little for me personally. He was a heretic who has led many countless astray on his false theology.
Regards
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.
The Bible will lead one to God's Church, yes. But to the RCC subset of it, no. The growth of "Bible-believing" churches worldwide is one example. The RCC is another because no one would be fit to become a Catholic based only on a reading of the Bible. Of all the converts to Catholicism, I would imagine that only a small handful would honestly claim to convert because of only their readings of scripture, without Catholic interpretation. They would say that Tradition won them over.
FK: "If 15 meant Mary then there's only one offspring,"
Correct, only one offspring, Christ, crushes the serpent.
Here is the passage:
Gen 3:13-16 : 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals!You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you."
If 15 is read your way then there is only enmity between Mary and satan, as OPPOSED to all other people (or at least believers). Do you think satan has enmity toward you? I know for sure he has enmity toward me. I also toward him. The woman's "seed" refers to man generally, and Christ specifically. There is no Biblical evidence that satan went after Mary especially, over and above the way he went after any other believer. I would expect to see such evidence if there is only enmity between satan and Mary.
FK: "... FROM NOW ON, Christ will have enmity for the spawn of satan?"
Yes. Why does it not make sense? Is Satan real today?
If offspring ONLY means Christ, then that strains Christ's pre-existence. I thought it was generally accepted that satan was already banished at this point. I.e., there was already enmity between Christ and satan, including any spawn. It would be superfluous for God to announce it here. If, however, offspring includes all men, or all believers, then that matches better because we know that satan has enmity toward all of us and acts upon it. God could have put an impenetrable barrier between satan and men. Clearly He did not with Adam and Eve, and this announcement confirmed that He would also not do so with the rest of mankind.
FK: "... 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.
There is no symmetry present because there is no comparison made or implied. Look at the flow of the passage without using the Catholic lens. There is no way in the universe a straight reading of this scripture leads anyone to think of Mary for a moment. The idea was manufactured later in order to glorify Mary. While many Jews certainly blew it on recognizing Christ, they were supposed to be looking for a Messiah. I'm not aware they were ever looking for a Mary figure. That would mean that every single OT Jew, especially the righteous, got it all wrong on this prophecy. How many other OT prophecies were completely missed by the whole world until the RCC came along?
The Fathers are not Holy Tradition. They are not infallible. The Scriptures, the Ecumenical Councils and the Liturgical life of the Church express one and the same infallible truth, are inseparable from each other and represent three expressions of the faith once delivered and believed from the beginning.
The Fathers play a role only in their consensus, not individually. That to which the Father consented is what the Church considers the correct doctrine. Naturally, it is consistent with the Holy Tradition which is: the Bible, the Ecumenical Councils and the Liturgical life of the Church.
By referring to the Fathers, we know how the early Church treated issues that we deal with, how the early Church responded to heresies, how the early Church understood the Holy trinity and Christology, as well as how it understood the Scripture (based on commentaries of the Fathers).
Through Fathers we also learn of some of their own theologoumenna (hypotheses) which did not necessarily become doctrine because there was no consensus on them. The Fathers are our eyes and ears and mindset of the earliest Church, and also a measuring stick as to whether we profess the same faith they did. That is our only assurance that the Church has not changed, or re-invented itself.
Meant to include you on the ping list 11,326. Sorry.
THANKS.
GREAT, ACCURATE, BIBLICAL points.
Thanks.
Well, just the Gideons by themselves give away over 63,000,000 copies of scriptures (usually in the form of the complete NT plus Psalms and Proverbs) every single year. They are just a part of the Bible-believing Protestant global missionary effort. My own denomination, Southern Baptist, is very involved in distributing free Bibles, and especially translating them into languages that have never had a Bible before. This is a defining part of who we are. While I know there are and have been Catholic and Orthodox missionaries, I am unaware that nearly the same emphasis is put on these endeavors in your respective churches.
What discrepancy? :) I think the difference in our views is in the separateness of the concepts of faith and works. I think you all see them as very different things. Over here there is faith, and way over there are works. One key point is that you believe it is possible to have true faith, but to not do works, thus forfeiting salvation or theosis. We do not think that is possible. We see works as an included component of true faith.
In some of Paul's writings, he focuses on the main element, faith. Here it is understood that he means true faith and does not break it down. In some of James' writings, he does break it down and distinguishes between true and false, or claimed faith. James says that without works a claimed faith is false. We agree.
While Paul also speaks of the importance of doing works, I see Rom. 2:13 as an admonition to the Jews. He who keeps the law perfectly will be justified. I think Paul is trying to show them that no one can do that. This fits in with Paul's central message that faith is the absolute key to salvation.
You are inserting a motive here for the giving of the motor. I could just as easily say that the giving of the motor was to ensure that it would take me all the way to Heaven, infallibly. If the car carrying it crashed, God would simply install it into another chassis, and I would be on my way again.
Why would you say it is impossible to protect me from driving into a telephone pole? We're talking God here. :) I could give a baby a certain toy and only let him play with it while I was sitting right in front of him and looking right at him. This would protect him from injuring himself. I think God watches us that closely all the time. He will certainly let us stick a block in our eye from time to time, but He would never let us choke on it.
This is the verse [John 6:] 54, again: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you". The condition is right there: take the Eucharist, and the consequence of violating it is there, too: you shall not have life.
Here you are only showing one condition and I am saying that you are really asserting two on this point. I know we honestly disagree on whether this verse is talking about the Eucharist or not, but that's not even what I'm talking about.
We started with your saying that God's promising "eternal life" is consistent with the possibility of losing it for failure to keep a condition. I am saying that your posit requires TWO conditions and not just one. First you are saying there is a requirement to (in your interpretation) take the Eucharist in order to get eternal life in the first place. Verse 54 DOES take us this far. But then, in order for eternal life to actually BE eternal, you impose a second condition, that of repeating the sacraments along with everything else one needs to do in order to keep eternal life. This second condition is not found in the verse, nor do I believe it is found anywhere in scripture. Eternal means forever.
FK: "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."
You then list several verses presumably as examples of the possibility of losing one's salvation:
he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved (Mt 10:22, 24:13, similar Mark 13:!3)
Very true. POTS says that perseverance is guaranteed by God for the elect.
Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor 10:12, also see the entire preceding discourse)
Right, we should never rest on our laurels. The plain meaning of OSAS is false. Earlier it says:
It wasn't the performance of ritual or task that was important. Paul says faith is what matters. Verse 12 follows this. We should not think we are "covered" because of our race or our deeds AS THE REASON for our salvation. We should also be constantly examining ourselves for potential correction.1 Cor 10:2-5 : 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.
by good works you may make sure your calling and election. (2 Peter 1:10)
YOU may make sure. By faith first, you knew it originally. That is different from it being sure in fact, it has to do with our knowing it continually. This is a perfect verse for showing that works are an evidence of an already held faith, and not an independent component of salvation.
On Romans 2:6-10, Paul was specifically talking about deeds, evil ones, and to drive his point home he focused on the back end of a higher truth. The whole chapter is about deeds, but elsewhere he puts them into context. Faith comes first, then deeds.
The text does not say anything about "represents" in either Chapter 5 or 8. Besides, what difference would that make anyway: obviously incense is not the prayer itself, but the reality described in Apocalypse 5 and 8 is still saints praying to God who knows of the prayer as He is judging us.
The difference is whether saints, after physical death, actually pass along prayers they have received from us or not. So I agree that the incense is not the prayer of the living person on earth itself. The prayers of the people on earth go directly to God.
God has used progressive revelation to unfold His Plan.
Thus, God hasn't changed, but His dealings with man has.
29. How did God prepare men to receive the Saviour? Through gradual revelations, by prophecies and types.
Well according the Catechism that I cited, they at least rejected the Apocrypha books because they were not in Hebrew It's not an official Orthodox Catechism. There is no such an entity. Maybe the Tsarist Russia issued something "official," but it certainly is no more Orthodox than a 17th century Calvinist Ecumenical Patriarch was. It's an aberration if it truly says what you claim it says. No Orthodox Church Rejects Apocrypha because it is part of the Orthodox Scriptures, even less so because they are not in Hebrew
31. How many are the books of the Old Testament? St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)
Those are Greek Fathers that are being cited, not Latin ones.
III. THE LONGER CATECHISM OF THE ORTHODOX, CATHOLIC, EASTERN CHURCH. Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of all Orthodox Christians, by Order of His Imperial Majesty. (Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1830.) [The large Russian Catechism of Philaret, approved by the holy Synod (although omitted by Kimmel in his Collection, and barely mentioned by Gass in his Greek Symbolics), is now the most authoritative doctrinal standard of the orthodox Græco-Russian Church, and has practically superseded the older Catechism, or Orthodox Confession of Mogila. Originally composed in Slavono-Russian, it was by authority translated into several languages. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.iii.html
We may divide them into three classes:
I. Primary Confessions of public authority:
(a) The 'Orthodox Confession,' or Catechism of Peter Mogilas, 1643, indorsed by the Eastern Patriarchs and the Synod of Jerusalem.
(b) The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, or the Confession of Dositheus, 1672.
To the latter may be added the similar but less important decisions of the Synods of Constantinople, 1672 (Responsio Dionysii), and 1691 (on the Eucharist).
(c) The Russian Catechisms which have the sanction of the Holy Synod, especially the Longer Catechism of Philaret (Metropolitan of Moscow), published by the synodical press, and generally used in Russia since 1839.
(d) The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use.
His longer Catechism (called a full catechism) is, upon the whole, the ablest and clearest summary of Eastern orthodoxy, and shows a disposition to support every doctrine by direct Scripture testimony. It follows the plan and division of the Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, and conforms to its general type of teaching, but it is more clear, simple, evangelical, and much better adapted for practical use. In a number of introductory questions it discusses the meaning of a catechism, the nature and necessity of right faith and good works, divine revelation, the holy tradition and Holy Scripture (as the two channels of the divine revelation and the joint rule of faith and discipline), the Canon of the Scriptures (exclusive of the Apocrypha, because 'not written in Hebrew'), with some account of the several books of the Old and New Testaments, and the composition of the Catechism.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.ix.html
Maybe it is you who needs to do some homework.
Now, I am not saying that the Orthodox Church believes that today, but it was taught as dogma by your own theologians, so it is not a 'Protestant bias'.
Very true. So that equally applies to prayers that involve saints, the initial controversy we discussed.
I thought you were morphing it into a predestination/free will thing. :) But it certainly does make a difference whether we are including (departed) saints in the discussion. The Bible speaks often of living humans praying for other living humans. Therefore, we know that is good. However, we have great dispute as to whether the Bible supports departed saints receiving and passing along prayers made by humans on earth. I don't think your verses from Rev. 5 and 8 support that.
Using three Fathers as the "rule" (Cyril, John Damascene, etc) is ignorant because the Orthodox Church functions on consensus patrum, and not on individual teachings. The Orthodox Church, as a WHOLE, never, ever, said or wrote what Philaret wrote about the OT canon, nor did the Orthodox Church as a whole accept only 22 books of the OT, rejecting Apocryphal books. His teaching on this is profoundly Protestant and un-Orthodox.
You are reading these aberrations out of context and with a mindset that is alien to Orthodoxy, the way a Russian may form opinions about America without ever having been in America or knowing the American mindset.
I also know that you have copied Philaret's staments in your previous posts as your arguments without referencing them (regarding OT and NT).
In another one of his works, he states "The only pure and all-sufficient source of the doctrines of the faith is the revealed word of God" [(Ware), Praying With the Orthodox Tradition. SVS Press, 1996, xi.] which is in stark contrast to the fundamental Orthodox/Catholic unbroken teaching on the Holy Tradition (Bible, Liturgy, Ecumenical Councils) as being the source.
Your claims, out of context, are as if someone were to try to 'prove' that Armenianism is the only true form of Reformed theology.
then i'd suggest yo endeavor to visit such a missionary church.
it seems to me that yours is the sort of thinking that leads to missionaries figuring that anyone in the 3rd world or east europe etc are backward pagans just waiting for protestants to show them Christianity when in fact they are already baptised and beleiving Christians.
Also you may want to read up on St Cyril and Methodius.
Not only have the Orthodox long sought to make scripture available to all, they were the first to work to have it be available in local languages. (Much to the chagrin of West Europeon nations who thought the idea foul even after the pope had approved it!)
But we don't believe perfectly either! How much of faith is required? How perfect a faith is needed? Why would 'perfect keeping of the law' be a requirement for salvation and not 'perfect faith?' How can one measure his faith? +James is saying by works.
Obviously, it's the intent that counts and not perfection. The poor old woman who gives her last two copper coins to the synagogue is giving everything she has to God. A rich Pharisee who tithes 10% of his wealth is not, although his sum may be greater. Who is justified in the eyes of God? We all believe it's the woman for giving everytyhing to God. I am sure both the woman and the Pharisee have faith, but that's not all that is required.
Regards
Amen. Dead people are not mediums between men and God. We have to ask ourselves "what point is there in believing God created a transit to Himself other than Jesus Christ?"
The answer is because he who would control that earthly transit controls other people. It's the human condition of fallen man to seek control over other people and at the same time, to submit to another's power over us. We are schizophrenic without God's grace.
But Scripture is clear there is no intermediary between men and God but one man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). No idols, no falling down to the stock of a tree, no prayers to dead people who cannot save us.
But then, in order for eternal life to actually BE eternal, you impose a second condition, that of repeating the sacraments along with everything else one needs to do in order to keep eternal life. This second condition is not found in the verse, nor do I believe it is found anywhere in scripture. Eternal means forever.
Amen. Grace cannot be bartered for; it is a gift of God. Once given, eternally saved. And God's grace was given to His children from before the foundation of the world, not according to him who runs or him who wills, but according to God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16).
The Bible will lead to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, or at a stretch to the pre Chalcedon churches such as the Armenian or Ethiopian churches. Obviously, there is not enough in the scripture to differentiate between nuances of Christian practice and theology between the latter. It will not lead to Protestantism, because Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are not scriptural principles.
The numerous well-educated converts to Catholicism such as Marcus Grodi, Scott Hahn, Stephen Ray, Tim Staples will argue scripture with you and never refer to any tradition. Now, it is true that the Divine Liturgy is what ultimately converts, but that is because all conversions come by the will of the Father, to who the Liturgy speaks.
If 15 is read your way then there is only enmity between Mary and satan, as OPPOSED to all other people (or at least believers). Do you think satan has enmity toward you? I know for sure he has enmity toward me. I also toward him. The woman's "seed" refers to man generally, and Christ specifically. There is no Biblical evidence that satan went after Mary especially, over and above the way he went after any other believer. I would expect to see such evidence if there is only enmity between satan and Mary.
The woman's "seed" refers to man generally, and Christ specifically indeed. But it is Christ alone who crushes the serpent, so that particular reference is to Him alone. But since Christ is referred by way of the woman, "your offspring", we have to conclude that while the entire passage speaks to the women generally, it also speaks specifically of Eve (of course) and of Mary. It is not coincidental that Christ refers to His mother "woman" throughout the scripture.
If offspring ONLY means Christ, then that strains Christ's pre-existence
The "offspring", like we agreed, refers to man in general, and Christ in partucular, but the crushing of the serpent refers to Christ alone, hence that reference is to Mary alone as His mother.
There is no way in the universe a straight reading of this scripture leads anyone to think of Mary for a moment. The idea was manufactured later in order to glorify Mary.
The reading of the passage alone, without the witness of the Gospels, would indeed not indicate Mary, -- this is why the Jews do not see her there (neither they see Christ). But since the gospel tells of Him Who crushed the serpent, we gain the meaning not plainly seen. This is rather typical of how a Christian reads the Old Testament in general. It is not a Catholic mariological lense, it is Christian and therefore Catholic lense.
The notion that the symmetry in question was a mariological invention is not accurate. Veneration of Mary was developed as one outcome of combating the christological heresies of Nestorius, but the symmetry is noticed by the earliest of the Church fathers:
Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.' " Luke 1:38 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.(Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 100, St. Justin Martyr, AD 100-165)
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.