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/
Ping me again when you've read the thread. Until then, please leave me alone.
The 16th century was a deformation of the the deformation, not a 'return to that pure doctrine' of justification which Anselm invented.
not what man added to them.
Anselm was a man. Luther was a man. Their theories of justification were not what the Church taught, what the Apostles preached, from the beginning.
Mainline Protestants, contrary to that self-perpetuated myth of sola scriptura, actually do believe the concensus patrum concepts of the Holy Trinity, the dual nature of Chirst, etc. first defined by the Councils.
The Councils also formulated the Creed which many mainline Protestants recite, and the deformed Lutheran concept of justification is not in it.
Nevertheless, the fact is that a branch of the Orthodox church did in fact embrace a catechism that was Protestant in nature, written by a high Orthodox church offical
The Orthodox Church does not operate on catechisms. I have no clue why the Russian Church issued it other then by the devil's deception, trying to imitate the deformed Christianity of the west, to 'look' more 'western' for the outward consumption. No one followed it, no one used it, the Church as a whole (all Orthodox Churches) never accepted it.
The good news is that the Church is liturgical and does not change. It doesn't follow 'catechisms' but liturgy. It doesn't preach 'catechism' but the Gospel. It doesn't read from the 'catechism' but from the Old and the New Testaments.
Philaret was wrong, and un-Orthodox in his claim. Period. St. Gregory of Nyssa was wrong and un-Orthodox in his postulation of universal salvation. Constantinople was wrong and un-Orthodox to embrace iconoclastic heresy. Cyril Lucas was wrong to embrace Protestant heresy.
There were many 'major' errors committed by major humans in the Church. Judas was the first. That does not poison the rest.
What you mean is that [seven ecumenical councils] no one uses them today
Your ignorance is fascianting. As far as I know, the Orthodox Church, in the very strictest sense, holds exclusively to the decisions of those councils, and there was never a time when the Church did not.
As for something being 'binding' I am sure that nothing is truely binding for you, and that you can find justification in believing anything but the truth in those councils.
The Church Christ founded and gave to his Apostles was a conciliar Church from the beginning, always has been, and always will be. Protestant heresy, on the other hand, was a narcissistic, individualistic man-made "church" and so persists to this day, based on individual interpretations, equating individual opinions with the word of God through the 'indwelling Spirit.'
The fallen angels have been deceived and are following Satan to eternal damnation. And many religious people are doing likewise
The good news is that one can awlays return to the Church Christ gave us in 33 AD and follow Him in the other direction rather than being one's own amateur tour guide.
Well, in the strictest sense, he is not a "Greek" but a western Father (Alexandrian), but I will agree that he had many things in common with the 16th century Protestants.
His remains celebrated in the Church both east and west, solely because of his stance an Arianism. The Church is willing to shove all his other "Protestant" characteristics aside -- instigating riots, and forcefeeding his views to the peope.
He was certainly "Protestant" in insisting that what matters is not theology (yet he was the one who used force and every other means to shove his down everyone throat) but salvation.
More importantly, his view of the OT is not what the Church as a whole accepted, although his canon is what the Church pretty much finalized as catholic (universal).
That's important, because the Church operates on the basis of the consensus and not individual truisms, as is the case among Protestants.
I can accept that as fair and reasonable. That lens is really rooted in "freedom" generally, and American freedom specifically. I do freely admit that lens when I first started reading the Bible. It is amusing that we find ourselves in these positions vis-a-vis the "free will" debate. :)
Illogical? Shirley, you jest. :) The proclamation is actually a few verses later and the Bible is clear:
1 Tim 2:5 : For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...
What else is there to say? I know you believe in ONE God. This verse leaves zero room for interpretation or inclusion of anyone else as mediator. This verse clarifies your verse. Yours talks about living people praying for one another, which is all well and good. Verse 5 leaves no mistake that there is only one go-between.
Me neither. He has opened a way of thinking that is not in contradiction to the Scriptures or the teachings of the Church. If "he" did so, I would know it was not from God. I used to keep a journal but admit to being lazier now than I was then. It was a great spiritual exercise and I may try it again. It's good to see things in print. Later, when they pan out, it's fun to read what I wrote early on.
Another thing to try (that I have also gotten lazy on, but it did work pretty well) was to daily document how many times you sinned in a particular manner. Say you would like to become less angry. Two or three times a day, you would sit down and think over that portion of the day and see how many times you were subject to possible outbursts of anger - but did not OR how many times you DID respond with anger in any form. Keep a running total. After about two weeks, I began to see a resistance forming against that particular sin. But as you said, it takes some effort... That is from St. Ignatius of Loyola.
Sounds like you have lived a full life and that God was there every step of the way. It is good to look back and see God's work in one's life.
Regards
Don't get me started about Catholics! Most of them, I will agree, have the theological mentality of a second grader. It comes down to priorities. Whether a person is Catholic or Protestant, one needs to set God as a high priority. When a person, either Catholic or Protestant, does not, there will be problems. That goes without saying. I think that while Protestantism can awaken within people the desire for God, I think that it stands on shaky theological grounds - especially Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. It ignores the Living Tradition of the Church - which is guided by the Holy Spirit of God (as Jesus Christ promised). Some things that we NEED to know are just not in the Bible! I can't find a WORD about stem-cell research, but the people of today need guidance on proper moral action. We need interpreters with authority given from above, not private interpretation subject to error. That is my view on the matter.
Anything that brings people closer to God is not a bad thing. Thus, while I disagree with Protestant theology, I realize that God's Spirit works through their communities, as well.
Regards
Brother, we had this converstation before. Paul NOWHERE states "very clearly" that we are saved without ANY works - he says we are not saved by WORKS OF THE LAW! You are making a big presumptuous jump in your logic when Paul dismisses ONE type of work and you believing it includes ALL work. Works of Love are INDEED part of salvation, as Paul clearly writes in 1 Cor 13, one of the most beautiful passages of the New Testament. Paul says that faith without love is WORTHLESS!
The English language does not support your theology. Just because Paul says that works of the law do not save, that does not automatically mean that NOTHING saves except works!!! Paul could have just have easily said "we are not saved by works of the law, but we are saved by works of love." Such a statement IS in line with the rest of his writings - not your idea. Paul is ONLY excluding works of the law from the formula. Thus, dietary rules and circumcision mean nothing, as Paul details in many other places, to include Galatians and Romans.
James and Paul agree. We are saved by faith and works of love. Without either, we are not saved.
Regards
Ah, so Abraham's justification was NOT one moment, was it...
Glad to see you got the point.
Regards
Quix: "So it was an impostor who met him on the Damascus road and taught him in the wilderness???"
I guess??? I honestly didn't know what to make of that.
Quix: "So it was an impostor who met him on the Damascus road and taught him in the wilderness???"
FK: I guess??? I honestly didn't know what to make of that
Don't "make" anything of it; read what we know about +Paul without an apriori made up mind.
The easiest thing to do to subvert any knowledge is to not read the book and already "know" how it ends.
We do know that what +Paul taught was not the same gospel Christ gave to the other 12 in person. Now, what is more believeable, that +Paul served a purpose or that Christ changed?
Alex, the "lens of our understanding" is not that we believe the individual to be the final authority in his faith.
Protestants believe Scripture is the final authority because it is the means which God has ordained that the Holy Spirit will reach us and guide us in all understanding "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Protestantism is not anarchy. It is a family with Jesus Christ as the head of that family.
We may quibble about exactly what the Scriptures say. That is what we're supposed to be doing -- "rightly dividing the word of truth." But we do this knowing full well that God's truth is singular, perfect and able to be found within the Bible.
"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." -- Hebrews 5:14
The more we learn in Scripture, the more our discernment as Christians grows "by reason of use" -- as God wills.
"Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments." -- Psalm 119:73
To fully understand the NT, which I would think would be something all Christians, not just the Orthodox, would aspire to, the answer quite simply is yes, as Kosta so very completely explained.
In that case God's word, and indeed Christianity itself, is NOT transcendent. It is bound by the Greek. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say "fully", I take that to refer (in part) to key differences in core theology. I disagree. God chose Greek as the original language for the vast majority of the NT fair and square. However, if we believe that Christianity is a revealed faith, then I can't accept that very important truths would lie buried only within the Greek. God already knew all about all the translations that were coming, and it doesn't seem consistent for Him to "hide" the real truth only within one language.
Of course knowledge of and study of the Greek is highly commendable and profitable for the understanding of scripture. Many people of varying Christian faiths have spent years in that pursuit. I just don't think that ALL Protestant translators throughout history were either liars or factually wrong. IOW, I do not think there is a monopoly on understanding Greek for only the followers of Apostolic faiths.
Hi, ftd. Ping to 12,032.
AMEN! The foolishness of the EO to presume God is not in control of His word is really a knee-slapper.
Do the EO believe we should ALL be using ancient Greek texts rather than translations? How do we fulfill the Great Commission then if we're supposed to preach God's word in an archaic language which bears little resemblance to its modern counterpart?
If we begin with the presupposition that God intends to speak through Scripture to His children on earth, then we can be assured God's word will be heard by those to whom He has given ears to hear.
Either He is God and His truths are transcendent
or they aren't.
If they are . . . they can handle translation fine.
Hogwash.
OK
Amen. Van Til couldn't have said it better. 8~)
YES, and I fully copped to this in a later post. Your criticism is fully justified here, to my regret.
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.