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/
It has been a long time since I read it, so it would take time to look it up and refresh my memory. The writing is lucid, but the subject manner is not simple...
It's in the papal bull.
Or encyclical, if you prefer.
…when really getting into what different Bible verses say, have a couple of different translations from different strains of thought.
It would seem the selection of translations would be important also, somewhere along the line someone needs to be trusted to understand the languages and the context, and then, as Kosta points out, there are differences between original selections before one worries about the correct translation into English.
I can't see most, or many, Sola Scriptura adherents doing this - each for his or her self. It seems to me, obvious to me, that the system of transmitting the Gospel by this means is far from practical and even further from the commission from Jesus.
When you can prove that without appealing to the Scriptures, you'll have an argument with some merit. Until then, you're just begging the question and repeating self-reinforcing arguments.
The Scriptures themselves are only trustworthy in the sense that we trust the community they come from. Otherwise, how do you know that you have the "correct" Word of God? How do you KNOW that the Gnostic Scriptures are not REALLY from God? You know because you have been taught by the Church and the witness of others who vouch for it.
IOW, Scripture derives its authority from the Church since it is the Church which defines it. Yet curiously any questioning of where the Church's authority comes from invariably leads back to the words of Scripture. Circular reasoning.
Now, naturally we are to judge whether something is true or not. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict. But the virginity of Mary is NOT contradicted by Scriptures. It is just not related in Scriptures because it was not a pressing issue when Paul was writing to the various communities spread throughout the Mediterranean.
And why are we to believe the Church can provide such extra-biblical revelation? Because the Scriptures say so! And how do we know that's what the Scriptures say? Because the Church says so! And how are we to know the Church is not wrong? Because the Scriptures say so! And how do we know that's what the Scriptures say? Because the Church says so!
And on and on and on...
So what "ruler" did they use to judge whether the Gospel of Thomas was not from God? Apostolic Tradition. They were TAUGHT a particular way of reading the Scriptures and had already worshiped God in a particular way. Thus, when they came together to define what was Scriptures, they already had an existing paradigm that was taught by both oral and written manner.
WRONG. There was much more to it than that. Books which were in dispute were examined doctrinally in light of those which were not, in terms of authenticity, in terms of internal consistency, and many other criteria. They weren't simply chosen as Scripture because some people before them believed them as such. You're making a very historically ignorant and self-serving argument here, friend.
Oh. so you judge for yourself what is Scriptures. And when if someone comes along and disagrees with you? Which one is full of it and which one is full of the "Spirit"?
Oh, please. You do precisely the same thing when you choose to believe the Church's self-reinforcing claims about it's own authority in light of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture is a historically settled matter. I could certainly go through the same investigative process that the early church did in reaching their conclusions about the canon, and I have to a certain extent, but at the end of the day I choose not to put my faith in the Roman Catholic Church but rather in the Scriptures themselves.
Where exactly in this Scripture does Scripture make that claim? Protestants have invented this as if it is an axiom, but I have yet to find this written down. Thus, your logic is self-defeating. You PRESUME that this is who God reveals Himself - solely through a book. Yet, the Scriptures themselves tell us to hold onto the teachings given, BOTH ORALLY and WRITTEN. Why do you go against THAT teaching? Where does the Scripture abrogate that teaching? If anything, YOU are going AGAINST Scriptures by demanding everything must be written in the Bible before we believe something.
What I am arguing and what you are attempting to refute are two different things. I do not argue against any sort of oral teachings, and indeed I fully affirm "oral" teachings that have been passed down which are not explicitly stated in Scripture, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But such teachings are implicit in Scripture and testable by it, which is exactly the example given in Scripture of the Bereans. It doesn't say they compared what they were hearing with Scriptures and their oral traditions. Scripture presents itself as the authority.
Until you can give me one verse from the entire Bible that says we are to ignore all future apostolic teachings because they are in the already compiled bible, I will go along with you. Otherwise, you need to analyze the logic of your own position.
Speaking of analyzing the logic of your own position, you might want to examine the fact that you presume the existence of "future apostolic teachings" in making your argument for the acceptance of them.
If you're gonna engage in a battle of logic, make sure you're not firing blanks.
That is not part of the definition of the Immaculate Conception, but rather, the concept of Mary being the Mediatrix of grace, which is NOT part of the definition. Notice in the Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX gives the explanations for the doctrine. Here is the definition:
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Nothing about what you are talking about.
Regards
And the alternative? Word of mouth transmission? You realize one of the reason the filique (sp) was put into the Nicene creed was because in the West, there were no copies of the council canons. The Gallic bishops had no idea that they shouldn't just modify the creed to combat a local heresy.
Trusting in an infallible church is great in theory, but leads to some interesting results when one half no longer speaks the same language, or even can speak the language, of the other half. That, more than the filiquoe, was the reason for the schism between East and West. It got to the point that if a common clergyman from Rome and one from Constantinople, each believing in the infallible unchangeable tradition of the Church, met to discuss theology, they had a heck of a time doing it. Neither one could speak, or understand, the others language. Heck, you get that now.
Now, as for what a good Sola Scriptura Christian should do, it does get complicated. The basics are agreed on (who Jesus is, and such) but beyond that everyone, and the Orthodox and Catholics included, pick and choose. Or perhaps a better way would be put more emphasis on certain areas. Such has been the case throughout history since the time of the Apostles. The amazing thing is not how much we differ, it is that we are as alike as we are.
I don't need to approach the Bible as the Word of God. You are making that presumption. I, on the other hand, approach the Bible as just another book (at least I did before believing that the Church is the Church set up by Christ). With extra-biblical evidence, I had very good evidence that the Bible is speaking the truth when it discusses the life of Christ and the ensuing actions of the Church. I see the continuing evidence from the witnesses that followed. And thus, St. Augustine said "I would not believe in the Gospel if it were not for the Catholic Church". No circular argument here, unlike your point of view. You make the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God without proving it from outside sources. That is not true in the case of the Catholic Church, which utilizes outside sources to prove the case laid out in Scriptures.
I do not argue against any sort of oral teachings, and indeed I fully affirm "oral" teachings that have been passed down which are not explicitly stated in Scripture, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But such teachings are implicit in Scripture and testable by it, which is exactly the example given in Scripture of the Bereans. It doesn't say they compared what they were hearing with Scriptures and their oral traditions. Scripture presents itself as the authority.
Sure. Go read St. Irenaeus, who castigated heretics who ALSO "proved from Scriptures" their idea of the demiurge and so forth. He said we can only know what the Scriptures REALLY mean by reading them within the Church. This makes sense - as thousands of Protestant denominations continue to prove the wisdom of Irenaeus.
As to the Bereans, tell me where they found in the Scriptures the practice of the Eucharist, something that they did every Sunday? What did Paul commend them for? Not for Bible reading - the Jewish Thessalonians were condemned and they had the same bible and read it all the time. They were commended because they were opened to Paul's INTERPRETATION of Scriptures. Without proper interpretation, the Bible leads one to destruction, as 2 Peter says.
Regards
About the time the speculation of the Immaculate Conception was being developed, sex of any sort was viewed as bad. Or at least not a good thing. Augustine himself said that sex, even between a man and wife, is at best a venal sin and possibly a mortal one (if you only lusted after the spouse). There were a lot of reasons for this, much of it has to do with the influence of Plato's philosphy.
I try to follow what is taught in Scripture and the examoles given such as the Bereans.
Because a teenage mother out of wedlock in Israel 2,000 years ago needed a man to belong to, to protect her, to give her legitimacy; because God knew St. Joseph would accept his chosen role and because he loved God and Mary. Any number of reasons for the "charade."
Touching the holy makes one holy it does not desecrate the holiness
Remind Judas Isacriot.
Some people's calling becomes their life. Mary is one such person. She devoted her entire life to God. That much is clear.
It's off topic, but about the only good thing that came out of the 60's was the civil rights movement. I think modern feminism, with it's hatred of anything traditional, has infected our culture at every level. Women are indoctrinated that they MUST adhere to the new ideal of having a career first and being a homemaker is bad. It really is a shame.
The person who chooses the life of consecrated celibacy over the life of marriage, has indeed chosen the better part. But that does not make marriage or the marital act sinful. As St. Paul says, "If you have married, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin." (1 Cor 7:28)
-A8
Didn't mean to be rude in my last post. I have had three coffees, two teas, and am trying to keep part of the plant running. Might have been to flippant in that post.
St. Augustine went between the extremes as it were. And yes, he did say that martial sex was a sin. He also changed that view. But the view that even martial sex is a sin was pretty widespread for quite awhile.
Where?
-A8
That's simply disingenuous. I don't start with the foundational presumption that the Bible is the Word of God as though I just looked at it one day and decided it was so. There are many academic and historical reasons why I believe it to be the Word of God.
I, on the other hand, approach the Bible as just another book (at least I did before believing that the Church is the Church set up by Christ).
How instrumental was the Bible in convincing you that the Church is the Church set up by Christ? Did you come to believe the Roman Catholic Church was Christ's "Ont True Church" primarily because Scripture said it was or because you chose to believe others when they told you it was?
With extra-biblical evidence, I had very good evidence that the Bible is speaking the truth when it discusses the life of Christ and the ensuing actions of the Church.
As pointed out above, I have the same evidence.
I see the continuing evidence from the witnesses that followed. And thus, St. Augustine said "I would not believe in the Gospel if it were not for the Catholic Church".
And at the time of Augustine the Church was quite well orthodox and Biblical in its teachings. The church you belong to today is not.
No circular argument here, unlike your point of view. You make the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God without proving it from outside sources.
Horsepucky. You're putting words into my mouth when we've never even had a discussion on Biblical inerrancy, which demonstrates pretty clearly that the "sola scriptura" you are railing against isn't the sola scriptura historical Protestantism holds to.
That is not true in the case of the Catholic Church, which utilizes outside sources to prove the case laid out in Scriptures.
It uses a self-reinforcing argument to support its claims. It points to Scripture as objective proof of its claim of infallibility while at the same time supporting its interpretation of Scripture with that same argument of infallibility.
Sure. Go read St. Irenaeus, who castigated heretics who ALSO "proved from Scriptures" their idea of the demiurge and so forth. He said we can only know what the Scriptures REALLY mean by reading them within the Church. This makes sense - as thousands of Protestant denominations continue to prove the wisdom of Irenaeus.
So Irenaeus has a problem with the example of the Bereans. Oh, wait...I'm sure the Church will come up with an explanation of it that allows them to maintain their claim of infallibility, and that explanation has to be accepted because, after all, the Church is infallible.
Round and round and round...
As to the Bereans, tell me where they found in the Scriptures the practice of the Eucharist, something that they did every Sunday? What did Paul commend them for? Not for Bible reading - the Jewish Thessalonians were condemned and they had the same bible and read it all the time. They were commended because they were opened to Paul's INTERPRETATION of Scriptures. Without proper interpretation, the Bible leads one to destruction, as 2 Peter says.
It says they examined the Scriptures to see if the things they heard were so. It does NOT say they went back and re-interpreted the Scriptures in light of what Paul told them. If you look at the reactions of the Thessalonians and then the Bereans, the former disregard Paul despite his appeal to Scripture because they are jealous and cling to their tradition, while the latter examine his words in light of the Scriptures and believe him.
That type of mishandling of Scripture would certainly explain how you could be persuaded that Scripture support the notion of an infallible Roman Catholic Church.
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.