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/
“we also dont generally accept the branch theory...”
We don’t accept the branch theory at all, K. I didn’t get the impression that that was what AG was speaking of.
Well, we do and did, but you are on the right track. The words are τελειος, πληπης and τελειωμενος. All of these words imply either completeness or fullness or a state of being finished. These concepts don't really apply to God, but we do have to say something, don't we? :)
This, like ancient Greek philosophy in general, is an example of the "σποροι", or seeds of the Faith about which The Fathers wrote. These are found throughout human history and all over the globe. I find it fascinating the way God prepared mankind for The Faith and the coming of Christ from the earliest times.
The English word "perfect" might be a utopian concept..
Complete or finished means something, perfect is nebulous..
Yes, that is completely fair to say.
The question is not whether something is lost in translation, but how significant that loss is.
Well put.
That's why mathematics are great when creating a working model that has nothing to do with reality, such as Ptolemaic navigational system.
In mathematics, you add a function the way you would add a molding or a knob on a piece of furniture, in order to complete it.
if you need a function called time you add it too! The Ptolemaic navigational system was based on observed "movements" ("tracks") planets left on the sky relative to stars over a course of one year. When noted positions were connected with dots Ptolemy had a "shape" and once he had a shape finding a formula that will produce that shape is relatively easy.
Once you have a formula (a relationship between given elements) you can "plug" in any one of the unknowns and get the answer. Thus for a given time of the year the position of a plane is known (i.e. is "predictable").
Science is interested in working models and working models can use any number of dimensions, inlcuding time.
A dimension is anything that can be measured. Time is a man-made measurement. But three-dimentional properties of physical things have been created by God.
Our earth travels through "space" at thousands of miles an hour, but it is really not going anywhere. It runs out it is circling the sun (going around in circles!). The Sun is going around in circles, but traveling around the core of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is turning around in circles relative to an intergalactic gravitational center of the local galactic group of some five proximal galaxies.
We are really traveling at about 1,000 miles/hour just rotating around our own earthly axis!
But if we had a nuclear holocaust and only some children of afar off island in the Pacific survived, "time" would cease to exist as none of them would know how old they are, what year it is, or even what day it is. They would only know day and night. Until they invented time and started counting. But the universe would continue in spite of their ignorance and in spite of no one counting time.
“The English word “perfect” might be a utopian concept..
Complete or finished means something, perfect is nebulous..”
Maybe, but you know, theology expressed in Greek as by the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers tends to be both precise and nebulous at the same time. As the theology of the Councils and the The Fathers is expressed, the precision of word often expresses a certain nebulosity of concept. The West, as heirs of the Latin tradition and language, generally has a problem with this. The Scholaticism of the Middle Ages Latin Church is just such a reaction to the apparent contentment of the East with less than precise conceptualization and definition. For example, the Christian East believes wholeheartedly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It stops right there; it doesn’t try to explain the hows and whys of the Mystery. The Holy Spirit does it and that’s that. There is no issue about whether the bread and wine still exist qua bread and wine. The Latins went on centuries later, after the Great Schism if I recall correctly, to try to define and explain the Mystery, calling it “Transubstantiation” and speaking of substances and accidents.
God appears as three distinct Hypostases in the Divine Economy of our salvation. So, again, we have a human factor. Yet we know that God is simple and indivisible, a Monad. Clearly, this Singular Trinity is beyond our comprehension, so we call it a paradox.
“God appears as three distinct Hypostases in the Divine Economy of our salvation. So, again, we have a human factor. Yet we know that God is simple and indivisible, a Monad.”
Exactly. Three Hypostasia, One Ousia.
Exactly. Perfection is a divine property. As such it is not part of Creation and therefore doesn't "exist" in terms the Creation exists; but is "outside" of it.
Good apophatic thinking on your part. In other words: it is possible for us to know what God is not rather than what God is.
What's really amazing, though, is that we actually know something about Perfection, even though it doesn't exist.
Excellent point, I fully agree.
...... That said, aside from the Lutherans and the Anglicans, the rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist took the very core out of the community and for this reason the Pope could say that Protestant groups are not strictly churches at all but rather “ecclesial groups”.
I don't understand this at all. Without the real presence, we still have a strong community. We just worship differently and under a different theology. Perhaps I am not missing what I have never known, but in terms of living faith, I see no superiority at all among the laity of any of the three groups over any other.
But within a generation, the centrality of the Eucharist, which both Calvin and Luther recognized, was gone, replaced by sola scriptura (in a way, I am convinced, that Luther certainly never intended).
Why do you think that sola scriptura REPLACED the Eucharist? Sola scriptura has to do with authority, and I am not aware that the Eucharist does. SS is not a method of worship.
“Perhaps I am not missing what I have never known, but in terms of living faith, I see no superiority at all among the laity of any of the three groups over any other.”
Superiority, FK, is not the issue at all. Its a matter of what The Church is. Read this as sort of an overview from a conservative Orthodox pov:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.11.en.the_ecclesiology_of_st._ignatius_of_antioch.01.htm
I strongly agree with you that God chose Israel - and the Hebrew language - for a reason. Moreover, I assert that we can benefit from understanding ancient Hebrew word concepts - especially as those word concepts are translated into Greek word concepts.
I'm glad you raised Justin Martyr, his description of his studies in philosophy are quite revealing, as is his manner of conversion.
Personally, I do not see Paul as an enemy of Greek philosophy per se - but rather an enemy of Greek idolatry.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. - Acts 17:22-28
Parables are like tiny "myths" which Christ spoke to hide Truth in plain sight. The characters were not, however, central to Christ's parables:
At any rate, no matter how one views the importance of the Greek philosophers, I am very sure that everything is unfolding according to God's will.
One side sees three spatial dimensions evolving over time. That is the view you have described, kosta50.
The other sees four dimensions - three of space and one of time (space/time continuum.) And admits that there may be additional spatial and temporal dimensions. I hold to this view.
The space/time continuum is a postulate to special relativity, general relavity, geometric physics and physical cosmology.
The bottom line is that space and time do not pre-exist, rather space/time is created as the universe expands. IOW, the universe is not expanding "into" anything.
That the universe is expanding (and thus had a real beginning of space and time) was confirmed by measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960's. It is also known as the most theological statements ever to be made by modern science. (Jastrow)
In using the term "branch" I meant that some of the Orthodox known to me have suffered terribly like the church of Smyrna and some of the Orthodox known to me are obsessed with love for God and neighbor like the church of Philadelphia.
Kolo, I believe this particular work attributed to +Ignatius has been shown to be a 14th century forgery. Unfortunately much of the Majority Text is questionable and of late origin.
I find your insights to the Eucharist - East v West - to be particularly illuminating, suggeting that some cultures (or mindsets) may be comfortable with broad concepts whereas others need specificity.
To me, it suggests we could benefit by exploring the languages or culture behind a word/concept before assuming a difference and leaping to a pro/con posture.
hosepipe would probably appreciate that because he and I are always at odds over the word "dimension" since I am somewhat committed to the meaning wrt geometric physics. LOL!
Thanks.
"In the absence of time, events cannot occur. In the absence of space, things cannot exist."
OK, and thus, God does not "exist" in any way that physicists, or the rest of us for that matter, exist or can meaningfully comprehend, except through the Incarnation.
I don't think even physicists know much about what the nature of BEING will be or is apart from OUR time/space dimension. Postulations, inferences, assumptions, extrapolations are all likely to fall short.
I THINK, [MY bias] that it is reasonably safe to say that OUR PARTICULAR time/space dimension will not be the priority operant one in eternity. I think that's a very safe statement. At SOME point, it Biblically appears to be scheduled to be wrapped up and flushed or stored away or some such.
I personally don't THINK [MY personal bias] that it is BIBLICALLY SOUND to assert a lot of THEREFORE WHAT'S about time and/or space otherwsie in eternity. Not that saying so will stop anyone from postulating and pontificating about possibilities; including me.
I consider that it is AT LEAST Biblically plausible that there will be myriads of 'spheres' of 'existence' [given no better words] where BOUNDED TIME AND SPACE are uniquely and markedly different from ours.
I do NOT consider it BIBLICALLY PLAUSIBLE that there will be NO 'existence', BEING [more in the Martin Buber sense?] involving some
God's NATURE displayed IN SCRIPTURE and IN CREATION is AT LEAST
GOD'S NATURE IS DYNAMIC !!!!PLUS!!!! a host of things--but it is NOT BIBLICALLY A HOST OF THINGS MINUS DYNAMIC.
GIVEN GOD'S UNCHANGEABLE NATURE--it is BIBLICALLY VERY SAFE TO ASSERT, postulate, infer, assume, extrapolate that the DYNAMIC aspect of GOD'S NATURE will persist throughout the countless 'ages' of eternity in at least virtually all contexts and STATES OF BEING.
1. In The Garden, God was dynamic with Adam and eve and satan.
2. On Mt Sinai God was dynamic with Moses . . .
. . .
3. On The Mercy Seat between the golden cheribim, God's PRESENCE was dynamic--vs a lump of motionless, static, dead gold or anything else.
4. In the fiery furnace, GOD was dynamic.
. . .
5. In Soddom & Gomorrah, God was dynamic.
6. With Noah, God was dynamic.
. . .
7. At the Tower of Babel, God was dynamic.
8. With King David and Solomon, God was dynamic.
. . .
9. Announcing Christ's coming to Mary and Joseph, God was dynamic.
10. Christ's birth, Life, Crucifixion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension were supremely, paragonly, maximally DYNAMIC and the fulcrum of all creation for all ages, eras, states of being; dimensions; . . . at least as far as I can Biblically infer and postulate.
. . .
11. The concluding of history as we have known it in this time/space dimension is evidently [as Biblically indicated] again to be supremely DYNAMIC.
12. The entire universe and all observable and remotely comprehensible, conceivable about the universe and all that IS--all that BE's--all that is God's overt observable, detectable expression of Himself beyond any localized manifestation of His PRESENCE--IS INCREDIBLY DYNAMIC.
. . .
13. Even some scientists are now postulating that the universe as is observable, conceivable and comprehensible may well go on infinitely expanding, 'generating' endless galaxies and 'existence.'
14. Dozens upon dozens of Heavenly visitations viewing THE THRONE and even the LIVING STONES would describe all such as EXTREMELY DYNAMIC--SUPREMELY PROFOUNDLY PREGNANT with MOVEMENT. I can't actually imagine The God of The Bible as anything less than or other than DYNAMIC AND ABUNDANTLY FULL OF MOVEMENT--pressed down, shaken together and overflowing, with MOVEMENT. 15. Even "common" structural components in Heaven such as building walls; the transparent gold streets etc. are characterized as having a LIVING DYNAMISM to them--CONSTANT MOVEMENT--IN A MYSTERIOUS SPIRITUAL, IMPOSSIBLE TO ARTICULATE SENSE.
I think folks like kosta50 and many of my denomination have an inherent aversion to conceptualizing in anything beyond fairly strict black/white; on/off binary terms.
Yet, I have observed repeatedly in Scripture and in my life and in countless lives of others that GOD IS QUITE OFTEN IF NOT MOST OFTEN, BOTH/AND.
GOD IS UNCHANGEABLE IN HIS NATURE. YET HIS NATURE IS INHERENTLY DYNAMIC--ALWAYS MOVEMENT--ALWAYS CREATING, MATURING, ENHANCING, NURTURING, MANIFESTING UNFOLDING DRAMAS AND EXPRESSIONS OF HIS GLORY; OF HIS NATURE; OF HIS LOVELINESS AND LOVE-ISHNESS. I canNOT IMAGINE He will pull in His shingle and quit such when the last saint is HEAVEN 'located.' For His Nature does not change.
I guess I should be held responsible for this “undead” thread. ;-)
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.