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/
"Co-redemptrix", however, is neither. That's just heresy.
= = =
Nice to see the Orthy's get THAT critical issue right!
What blasphemy!
That "no lens" is a lens, - it is a modernist lens. For example, you consider the "power of men" to stand between you and God, but that is a modern age attitude. It did not exist in the age when knowledge was transmitted through men, rather than through books.
= = = =
UHHHH, Hello? The assertion seems to be that folks of yore had not the mental capacity to lay aside biases, cultural gestalt etc. etc. etc. and consider anything from as much of an "objective lens" as possible. I'm sure they are impressed with the judgment of their mental abilities.
Regardless, we can manage such a task to a very significant functional degree in our era. Therefore, those wedded to avoiding a more objective lens in favor of a bias saturated, bias clothed, bias trumpeted TRADITION is . . . dismaying, sad and horrid to see.
"Nice to see the Orthy's get THAT critical issue right!
What blasphemy!"
Indeed it is, to my thinking, but as Alex points out, we do pray "Most Holy Theotokos save us!" :)
But we are talking about salvation here. As we know, the original Hebrew nation was not chosen for salvation because of their race. Many were not saved. Those to whom God gave faith did not suffer fatal crashes into telephone poles. It was the same with Peter. He sinned, but it was not fatal. This matches my analogy of letting a baby stick a block in his eye, but not letting him choke on it.
But I gave you just recently verses about perseverance and making the election sure. Hence the eternal life can be lost through our actions.
And I answered that the surety was to the person's knowledge, not to the surety in fact. It is common for a person to have eternal life, but not to know it for sure himself. Works are an evidence of true faith, and can help the believer to be sure himself.
Was the Eucharist meant to be taken once? This is at least a strange hypothesis. Most people eat every day, and Christ said "food indeed".
No, the Eucharist/Lord's Supper is meant to be repeated. That's why the passage has nothing to do with the Eucharist. You see it as a physical metaphor and I see it as a spiritual one. Yet, we know that Christ was only talking about a spiritual matter.
The parallel is with manna from heaven, and that was eaten every day till the journey lasted
Well, did eating the manna have anything to do with their spiritual salvation? No way! :) Neither does the Eucharist.
POTS may say the strangest things, but where does the scripture say it?
Here are some examples:
John 5:24 : "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
2 Tim 4:7-8 : 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Phil 1:6 : ... being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
John 10:28-29 : 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
---------------
Peter lays out an elaborate programme of growing in virtues just so that you know what you objectively already have?
Yes, salvation is not earned through works.
It is hard to imagine that this admonition is all about subjectively forgetting an objectively assured salvation, especially with the numerous references to perseverance elsewhere.
Well, as I said, there are plenty of perfectly good Christians who know the Bible well and still have no assurance of their own salvations, even though it is objectively there. I could even name names. :)
I'm not saying the prayers are not connected to the people being judged. I'm saying the saints are not "physically" delivering the prayers in the first place. The prayers from those being judged go directly from them to God, no middlesaints.
Thank you for the icon. I assume the one on the left is the Father? Is there any significance that Christ and the Spirit have their heads tilted more downward than the Father?
I think I've heard of typology, but I still looked it up. :) I suppose I don't have a problem with general foreshadowing, but I would probably draw a line with basing doctrine solely or mostly on IT. Seems to me that would be working backwards. I could employ typology with the virgin in Isaiah 7:14, but I wouldn't assign any extra-special significance to her because of the comparison to Mary.
I would imagine that someone could take "anything" and make a big deal out of it, claiming a new doctrine or truth. One example I saw was that when Moses raised his hands while fighting the Amalekites, the Israelites were winning. This was compared to Jesus' hands being raised on the cross, and the victory that meant. I could say "that's interesting", but I would not go so far as to say it means Jesus was the new Moses instead of being the new Adam. This is what I see happening with the promotion of Mary as the new Eve and co-redemptrix. Creative typology could be used to connect anyone to anyone.
"I assume the one on the left is the Father? Is there any significance that Christ and the Spirit have their heads tilted more downward than the Father?"
Here's a Russian interpretation of the Icon:
"All scholars agree that the three hypostases of the Trinity are represented in Rublev's icon. But there are greatly differing views as to which angel represents which hypostasis. Many see Christ in the middle angel and God the Father in the left. Others see God the Father in the middle angel, and Christ in the left one. The middle angel occupies a special place in the icon: it is set apart not only by its central position, but also by a "regal" turn of its head towards the left angel, and by pointing with its hand towards the cup on the table. Both the turn of the head and the gesture are important clues to the hidden meaning of the icon. Equal among equals, the middle angel has such expressive power that one hesitates not to see in it a symbolic representation of God the Father. On the other hand one cannot fail to notice that the left angel is also essential: two other angels lower their heads towards it and seem to address it. Therefore, if we assume that the left angel is God the Father, the middle angel, dressed in the clothes customarily used in compositions depicting the second person of the Trinity (a blue himation and a crimson tunic), should represent Christ. This amazing and perhaps purposeful encoding of these two persons of the Trinity by Rublev does not give us a clear clue for a single interpretation. Whatever the case, the icon shows a dialogue between two angels: The Father turns to His Son and explains the necessity of His sacrifice, and the Son answers by agreeing with His Father's wish.
Neither of these interpretations impacts the interpretation of the Trinity as triune God and as a representation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The cup on the table is a eucharistic symbol. In the cup we see the head of the calf which Abraham used for the feast. The church interprets this calf as a prototype of the New Testament Lamb, and thus the cup acquires its Eucharistic meaning. The left and the middle angels bless the cup: The Father blesses His Son on his Deed, on His death on the cross for the sake of man's salvation, and the Son, blessing the cup, expresses his readiness to sacrifice Himself. The third angel does not bless the cup and does not participate in the conversation, but is present as a Comforter, the undying, a symbol of eternal youth and the upcoming Resurrection."
About all I can say about typology is that The Church has pointed out these things since the very beginning.
Yes, and I appreciate reading what they have to say anyway, along with the heads up. I haven't perceived any problem with this across the threads. I just wanted to confirm the general principle of quoting from established authority unless otherwise indicated.
"Yet, individual Fathers can always say things that are not doctrinal or dogmatic, but are presenting hypotheses (theologoumenna), religious opinions, instead. It is important to state that this is so, lest it be misconstrued as the teaching of the Church."
Let me add that theologoumenna are generally the sort of speculations which may be held so far as the Church is concerned. But there are speculations which cannot be held, like the universalism of Origen which +Gregory of Nyssa picked up to an extent or the speculations of +John Chrysostomos that Panagia sinned in her lifetime. The best example of a theologoumennon which is acceptable is likely the belief in the bodily assumption of the Theotokos after her death. This is not a dogmatic belief among the Orthodox as it is among the Latins, but there is no proscription of the belief and indeed the overwhelming number of Orthodox ascribe to it and the Synaxaria for the Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos on Aug. 15 speak of it.
The point is that there were Greek Fathers who taught as did Jerome and the later Protestants regarding the Apocrypha.
Moreover, that Catechism is a major one, not a minor one.
Also, it was also Athanasis, the great defender of the Trinity, who stated the same view on the Apocrypha books, rejecting them as being Canonical for not being Hebrew.
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 have read nothing out of context, and you are just trying to throw up smoke to deny what a major Catechism of the Orthodox faith taught in the 19th century.
The Longer Catechism Of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church....Schaff states that '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 statement of the orthodox Graeco-Russian Church and has practically superseded the older authority translated into several languages (Schaff, History of the Creeds, vol.2, pg.445)
Since the last of the seven Councils, the doctrinal system of the Greek Church has undergone no essential change, and become almost petrified. But the Reformation, especially the Jesuitical intrigues and the crypto-Calvinistic movement of Cyril Lucar in the seventeenth century, called forth a number of doctrinal manifestoes against Romanism, and still more against Protestantism. We may divide them into three classes:
I. Primary Confessions of public authority:[emphasis added]
(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. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.i.html
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.
There is nothing out of context.
Nor, did I ever cite any work without giving a link to it.
If you have any proof show it.
I cited the Catechism.
Moreover, I stated very clearly that I knew that those views were not those of the Orthodox faith today.
The point that I was making is that the Orthodox had their disagreements among their own theologians, so the 'Protestant' views were not limited to the West and high orthodox theologians can be cited in defense of those same doctrines.
And since you mentioned Cyril Lucar.
Cyril Lucar was born in 1568 or 1572 in Candia (Crete), then under the sovereignty of Venice, and the only remaining seat of Greek learning. He studied and traveled extensively in Europe, and was for a while rector and Greek teacher in the Russian Seminary at Ostrog, in Volhynia. In French Switzerland he became acquainted with the Reformed Church, and embraced its faith. Subsequently he openly professed it in a letter to the Professors of Geneva (1636), through Leger, 55a minister from Geneva, who had been sent to Constantinople. He conceived the bold plan of ingrafting Protestant doctrines on the old œcumenical creeds of the Eastern Church, and thereby reforming the same. He was unanimously elected Patriarch of Alexandria in 1602 (?), and of Constantinople in 1621. While occupying these high positions he carried on an extensive correspondence with Protestant divines in Switzerland, Holland, and England, sent promising youths to Protestant universities, and imported a press from England (1629) to print his Confession and several Catechisms. But he stood on dangerous ground, between vacillating or ill-informed friends and determined foes. The Jesuits, with the aid of the French embassador at the Sublime Porte, spared no intrigues to counteract and checkmate his Protestant schemes, and to bring about instead a union of the Greek hierarchy with Rome.
The remaining ten chapters breathe the Reformed spirit. Chapter II. asserts that 'the authority of the Scriptures is superior to the authority of the Church,' since the Scriptures alone, being divinely inspired, can not err.122122' .... ' In the appendix to the second (the Greek) edition, Cyril commends the general circulation of the Scriptures, and maintains their perspicuity in matters of faith, but excludes the Apocrypha, and rejects the worship of images. He believes 'that the Church is sanctified and taught by the Holy Spirit in the way of life,' but denies its infallibility, saying: 'The Church is liable to sin..., and to choose the error instead of the truth.... from such error we can only be delivered by the teaching and the light of the Holy Spirit, and not of any mortal man' (Ch. XII.). The doctrine of justification (Chapter XIII.) is stated as follows:
'We believe that man is justified by faith, not by works. But when we say "by faith," we understand the correlative of faith, viz., the Righteousness of Christ, which faith, fulfilling the office of the hand, apprehends and applies to us for salvation. And this we understand to be fully consistent with, and in no wise to the prejudice of, works; for the truth itself teaches us that works also are not to be neglected, and that they are necessary means and testimonies of our faith, and a confirmation of our calling. But, as human frailty bears witness, they are of themselves by no means sufficient to save man, and able to appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, so as to merit the reward of salvation. The righteousness of Christ, applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the believer.' The freedom of will before regeneration is denied (Ch. XIV.) This is in direct opposition to the traditional doctrine of the Greek Church, which emphasizes the liberum arbitrium even more than the Roman, and was never affected by the Augustinian anthropology. In the doctrine of decrees, Cyril agrees with the Calvinistic system (Ch. III.), and thereby offended Grotius and the Arminians. He accepts, with the Protestants, only two sacraments as being instituted by Christ, instead of seven, and requires faith as a condition of their application (Ch. XV.). He rejects the dogma of transubstantiation and oral manducation, and teaches the Calvinistic theory of a real but spiritual presence and fruition of the body and blood of Christ by believers only (Ch. XVII.). In the last chapter he rejects the doctrine of purgatory and of the possibility of repentance after death.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.v.html
My Reformed friends (and by the way, I am not Reformed), should get a kick out of seeing this!
If you can find a major Calvinistic Catechism that teaches conditional election, let me know it and I will gladly post it.
Cyril Lucar was a brave and righteous Christian. Think how all Christianity would have been glorified if he had not been destroyed by the same powers that seek to nullify the Scriptures and slay the faithful.
Yes, he was and it seems that the Jesuits were hard at work to stop him.
What it does show is that (along with the Longer Catechism) that truth was being taught in both the East and West.
When you pray that way . . .
is your imagination or construction such that you think, beileve, imagine that Mary has the authority, agency, role of functionally doing the saving?
If so, on what basis???? !!!
If not, then why pray that way? What an affront to THE Savior!
Clearly. Here's his excellent...
We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by hand, faith apprehends and applies unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teaches us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful.
No wonder he was considered such a danger to the powers that were.
Other fathers, John of Damasdcus, Cyril etc. are just that, individual fathers. We do not consider them infallible. You are confusing Rome with Constantinople. Orthodox Doctrine is what the Church as a whole agrees on Synodically, that is all the patriarchs of all Orthodox Churches.
Philaret's canonical crap, excuse the expression, was never accepted by the (pan-Orthodox) Synod of the Orthodox Church!!! Philaret's canonical opinion remains a short-lived aberration that never became orthodox doctrine except for the poor Russioan orthodox who were forcefed his fallacy.
Russian Church also believes in "Toll Houses." They write about them as if they are dogma. Since Russian is a "major" Church (in fact 80% of Orthodox Chirstians are Russian Orthodox), it must be true. No it isn't. That's not how the concilliar Orthodox Church Community works; all the patriarches must be of the same mind to balidate a doctrine or a dogma.
The Orthodox Church recognizes St. Auhgustine as a Saint, but you will not find any of his "original sin," "total depravity" or proto-Protestant redemption doctrine taught in any Orethodox church, even though Cyril Lucas would have loved to do. The Church is coonciliar. The whole Church must consent or else it is not official doctrine. What Philaret claimed is not, never was, never will be Orthodox canon.
the Church of Constantinople didn't include Revelation into the canon until after the 9th century. You are looking at this from a legalistic mindset which is alien to eastern orthodoxy. We establish dioctrine by consent of all patriarchs, not one.
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
I have read his brilliant work many times and it is as clear as a bell. But, then again, one's mind must not be Deformed to see it that way.
Lucas was a heretic and was booted out of the Church. His satanic craftiness got him where he was and, like the satan in the desert, he hoped to fool God and destroy His Church. He failed. There is no winning with satan and his angles.
Oh, it's OK. I was just making an observation and you've made your case. I suppose if you really thought it was the only way to make a point you would just go ahead and use them. I just got my first Bible software this past Christmas and it sure is a lot easier than looking everything up by hand. :)
I was able to see some of rublev's icons in Moscow and in Vladimir-Suzdal last september.
"I was able to see some of rublev's icons in Moscow and in Vladimir-Suzdal last september."
I envy you!
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.