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/
a thing is true because God says it.
And the corollary is that if something does not make sense to me, it is my carnal failing alone. Thus, I “hit the knees” begging forgiveness for my pride and listen quietly and patiently as the Spirit leads me whereever He wants me to go.
= = = =
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
“’The existence of God is in doubt because there is no doubt about the existence of the fool’; that is the only reason the existence of God is in doubt.”
Now THAT’s a line to remember!
= = =
INDEED!
Without that love, Q, we can't even properly proclaim our Faith. That's how basic it is to our existence as Christians. We Orthodox are reminded of this at every Divine Liturgy just before we recite the Creed, when the priest chants:
"Let us love one another that we may with one mind confess."
And the people chant in reply:
"Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Trinity, one in essence and undivided.", going on thereafter to recite the Creed.
The Greek Fathers speak endlessly on this Love which we are to have for one another. +Maximos the Confessor wrote that those who manifestly love God, first loved their brothers. +John Climacus taught, at Step 30 of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, "Love bestows prophecy; love yields miracles; love is an abyss of illumination; love is a fountain of fire, in the measure that it wells up, it inflames the thirsty soul. Love is the state of angels. Love is the progress of eternity."
Of particular relevance to us here on FR, well, of particular relevance to all Christians actually, is this from a saint through whose intercessions miracles from God have occurred in my own family:
"Love should never be sacrificed for the sake of some dogmatic difference." +Nectarios of Aegina
Thanks very much. A belated Cristos vaskres! my friends. :) I hope you had a wonderful Pascha with your churches, families and friends.
LoL.. beautiful and delicious metaphorical irony..
Knee-Mail is the highest technology..
Knee-Mail is the highest technology..
= = =
INDEED. In at least a couple of ways.
seemed to be headd in that direction was trying to head it off at the pass...
that said do you beleive in the branch theory. do you think that all or some christians groups are all branches of the one true church?
” GOD’S NATURE IS UNCHANGEABLE. His NATURE and what HE DOES are NOT IDENTICAL constructs, sets, realities.”
That’s good, Q, very patristic; divine essence (ousia) vs. uncreated divine energies. The latter we can experience and share in, the former absolutely not.
I can only say that God's statement about HE CHANGES NOT is not fully comprehended by our finiteness and that I am not 100% certain which of His many attributes, aspects, habits, Natures, actions, etc. He was referring to, including vs excluding in that statement.
It is quite plausible to me that every aspect OF HIS NATURE--CHANGES NOT. So, I could assume that ALL of His NATURE TYPE ATTRIBUTES remain enduringly consistent, unchanged eternally.
I do not assume that GOD NEVER DOES nor NEVER WILL DO A NEW THING since history and Scriptur indicate clearly otherwise persistently. One of His persistent ATTRIBUTES OF HIS NATURE, in fact, is His evident DELIGHT in doing new things. It seems rather like a DADDY loving to come home from every trip with a new surprise for his favorite son. God Loves springing things on His kids.
Some of it seems to be just that--HIS GOOD PLEASURE.
And some of it seems to be HIS DISCIPLINE FOR US--His kids--that we not become locked into a ritualized static rut where we treat Him and our relationship with Him as some sort of automatized vending machine pseudo relationship that all the life has leaked out of. HE KEEPS US ON OUR TOES, ON OUR KNEES AND PERSISTENTLY SEEKING HIM JUST TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT HE'S DOING GENERALLY IN CREATION AND IN OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL LIVES.
We can say that flux is not a property of God and it is a property of the Creation, both spiritual and physical - which includes man of course.
I don't think I can say that. Depends on what's meant, I suppose. As Frances Shafer articulated so well--The Trinity is UNITY IN DIVERSITY. They can have eternal dialogue ALONE. Yet, they are supremely ONE. Solves that eternal conundrum. Would their dialogue equal flux? Depends, I suppose.
Certainly Scriptural descriptions of Holy Spirit moving over Creation--over the waters, breathing . . . into man . . . the FIRE of HOLY SPIRIT--sounds like a paragon, SUPREME FLUX, to me.
Sometimes, it seems like DADDY'S NATURE is SOOOOOOOOO SUPREMELY CREATIVE . . . that He's more than a little like DADDY WARBUCKS LOOSE IN TOYS-R-US delightedly cooking up surprise after surprise for HIS KIDS. Much more of a flux sort of behavior than a sitting on the throne eternally contemplating His navel sort of behavior.
I think Scripture indicates He delights in creating and hiding things for us to discover.
It is possible that we will be permanent in the new heaven and earth – it is also possible that God will provide for flux or change. But I’m very sure there will be no evil at all in the new heaven and earth, i.e. no evil flux.
Certainly no problem agreeing with "no evil flux" wholesale. I think it is our finiteness that would even dare to ascribe any Godly flux as being evil to begin with. Some just have a hard time wrapping workable comprehension around CHANGES NOT/IS MAXIMALLY ETERNALLY CREATIVE AND DYNAMIC.
Or perhaps there will be permanence in heaven for only some of us? This is the promise to the church of Philadelphia:
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name. – Rev 3:12
I don't think we have much of a clue about what that REALITY, EXISTENCE, BEING will BE like. But whatever it is--given that it's an honor--I CANNOT IMAGINE IT BEING MORE LIMITING, less glorious, less expansive, less involved, less in-touch with Creation . . . than those who go in and out. I CAN imagine it being MORE glorious, more exapnsive, more involved, more in-touch . . . with Creation than those who go in and out.
Compare that to this promise to the church of Ephesus:
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Rev 2:7
Fascinating. God did not make us to be “cookie cutter” Christians. After all, there are twelve very different gemstones representing the very different apostles in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.
The leaning I have in the Spirit is to the church of Philadelphia, the apostle John and a burning desire to be transparent in Christ so His Light may shine unobstructed by me. Perhaps I shall be a column in the temple? Perhaps kosta50 whose testimony on the desire to be transparent in Christ will be a column, too?
More than plausible, to me.
And perhaps you, Quix, will be one whose personality remains in flux (albeit a good flux) as you dwell in the Paradise of God?
I still have a great deal of difficulty believing that even a 100% transparent column believer will have their personality obliterated. Makes absolutely no Biblical sense, to me. But I can more than agree that I don't happen to know everything about such things! LOL. We shall see.
Will Peter's Personality be a rainbow hued high volume glorious set of gems in God's right hand play-ground vs John the Beloved's being a totally transparent crystal chandelier? Plausible, I suppose.
But personally, I am confident that GOD ALMIGHTY, HIS SON, HIS SPIRIT DELIGHT THOROUGHLY IN JOHN'S 100% DEVOTED-LEAN-ON-CHRIST'S-BREAST LOVE AND BURROWING INTO GOD. And I suspect that 100% of those and other aspects of John's peronality will be glorified, embellished, multiplied, enriched, enlivened, expanded IN HEAVEN AND ETERNITY vs . . . transparentized into oblivion.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - I Cor 2:9
We'll see...
INDEED. PRAISE HIS NAME IN ALL RESPECTS AND CASES REGARDLESS.
Marvelously beautiful, Biblical truths from an obviously rich tradition.
Thanks.
Kolo: That’s good, Q, very patristic; divine essence (ousia) vs. uncreated divine energies. The latter we can experience and share in, the former absolutely not.
I don't know that I can agree 100% with the latter statement. Seems to me CHRIST IN US; HIS SPIRIT IN US AS IN THE TEMPLE indicates that we do/will share in the former. Not fully, of course. We shall always be finite compared to His INFINITENESS. Yet, we shall have a much more . . . HIGH BAUD RATE CONNECTION, IMPARTATION, COMMUNION WITH, INDWELLING OF; FEEDING ON; ENLIVENED BY; . . . HIS INFINITE NATURE AND ALL IT'S WONDEROUSNESS that He determines moment by moment to be fitting for each of us.
I think there's something INCREDIBLY AWESOME AND WELL BEYOND our finite comprehension--beyond what man has [been able] to imagine--something incredibly awesome about DADDY'S CHOOSING TO CREATE US, REDEEM US TO BE HIS KIDS AND HIS BUDDIES. I don't imagine the least bit of . . . stinginess [for lack of a better word] . . . about His SHARING on such scores.
If course, I don't pretend to have my finite mind wrapped well around such things either. Just seems that some notions fit my understanding of Scripture and God than others do.
I think kosta50 is right abut this, Quix: If a thing is already "perfect," how, in what direction, could it change? You don't get "more perfect" than perfect. Perfect implies a certain completedness in time, and thus something that is static: something impervious to time and change.
I think kosta50 has verified the business that the better construct in English is completed, finished, whole.
However, I think that even with the distortion from the original that "perfect" is . . . it is a finite--and our particularly human finite perversion of the notion of "perfect" that insists there could be NO CHANGE.
WHO ARE WE to tell GOD!!!! THAT HIS PERFECT canNOT include DIVINELY PERFECT, ONGOING, ETERNAL CHANGE IN ANY ASPECT, FACTOR, COMPONENT? We, in our finiteness, REALLY do NOT KNOW what "HE CHANGES NOT" means exhaustively, comprehensive, thoroughly. The most plausible thing, to me, is that it 'merely' means HIS NATURE DOES NOT CHANGE.
That leaves a list of comphrehensible aspects, behaviors, factors that WE HUMANS CAN CONCEIVE OF and an unknown number we can't conceive of--which could easily involve DYNAMIC CREATIVE CHANGE.
But we do not have completedness in creation before the final Judgment, which is where the perfection of God's creation is achieved -- not before. God created a "good," not a "perfect" creation, as He Himself says.... "Goodness" accords with His purpose; "perfection" would leave no room for development toward God's end or goal in creating. There would also be no role for man, for human free will in a "perfect" universe.
I can't imagine The CREATION . . . the MULTI-VERSE or however we care to Biblically construe it . . . I can't imagine it EVER being "complete." That would require, imply, translate into God being a much smaller GOD ALMIGHTY THAN THE GOD ALMIGHTY I observe in Scripture and in my pico-gram's worth of observed REALITY.
Of course, if creation were not involved in a time process (according to God's Will), then we wouldn't need to be discussing such things.... But since creation is involved in a time process (i.e., it develops or evolves in part in collaboration with man), Augustine's remark -- "The perfect is the enemy of the good" -- seems both faithful and reasonable to me.
I'm beginning to think that our finite construct "perfection" is a perverted trap of the enemy. Certainly in human psychology and relationships it's extremely destructive.
Yet, we have the Scripture about being perfect as He is perfect--yet that clearly doesn't mean in this time/space dimension before RESURRECTION/TRANSLATION into our Heavenly bodies--unless He's going to make some interesting exceptions in these END TIMES for a portion or all of those PERFECT IN HIS BLOOD.
But the notion that PERFECT is some sort of static, UNDYNAMIC, MOTIONLESS, DEAD BLOB sort of state of being just does NOT resonate with any understanding I have at all about DADDY, SON, SPIRIT. NONE. None, at all.
The GOD ALMIGHTY I KNOW is the OPPOSITE OF STATIC, UNdynamic, MOTIONLESS, DEAD.
imho, of course.
I don't buy that an existing __________ [whatever construct we'd care to follow that with] must be bound by our space/time continuum/construct. Perhaps I didn't understand or follow the logic well enough but I just can't buy it in my understanding of Biblical realities.
Whether we construe eternity as having ANYTHING to do with this current space/time continuum, OR NOT, GOD AND ALL THAT "IS" does NOT just wink out of EXISTENCE at the finilization/obliteration of this time/space continuum. That would make absolutely NO SENSE, AT ALL.
GOD IS MAXIMIZED BEING, EXISTENCE--AND ALWAYS WILL BE. Nothing else makes sense, to me. And if those words don't quite fit folks notion of the math or the whatever--then whatever God filled words would best substitute will still ahve something to do with GOD BEING MAXIMIZED BEING, EXISTENCE, REALITY, PARAGON-NESS.
. . . though as I recall from an FR thread not that long ago, the old business of light being a particle or a wave DEPENDING ON whether it is observed or not--HAS NOW BEEN PROVEN FALSE.
I don't know that it matters. Perhaps all of observed aspects of the 'multi-verse' are 'mere' lights projected on God's living room wall by God's computer for God's children.
I don't know that it matters what REALITY IS. We are, in our EXISTENTIAL THROWNNESS tasked with dealing with what we observe as though it were a tangible reality that we are responsible for making choices amidst and performing actions within.
And, somehow, those choices and actions in this bootcamp will have SOME INFLUENCE on SOME ASPECTS of our RULING AND REIGNING WITH CHRIST throughout endless ages and perhaps countless multi-verses.
” I don’t know that I can agree 100% with the latter statement. Seems to me CHRIST IN US; HIS SPIRIT IN US AS IN THE TEMPLE indicates that we do/will share in the former. Not fully, of course. We shall always be finite compared to His INFINITENESS.”
Look at it this way; God is Triune, as the Fathers put it, Three Hypostasia, One Ousia or using some kind of English translation, Three “Persons” in One divine Essence. Remember what you say when you recite the Creed and what Christians believe, that The Son and the Holy Spirit are “One in Essence” (omoousion) with The Father. There is no sharing of that. Here’s what +Gregory Palamas said:
“The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or ‘eros’ experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos’s discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit’s distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says ‘the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father’ (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:’I was She who rejoiced together with Him’ (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply ‘rejoiced’ but ‘rejoiced together with’. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God’s image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it.”
In a later section of the same work, he wrote:
“Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, ‘He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him’ (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.
Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.
Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the ‘spirit’, according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God.”
Because we are NOT God, we cannot share in His divine nature, but since and because of the Resurrection, we can respond to God’s uncreated divine energies (its a way of speaking about grace, in part; think about the sun and the rays of the sun), partake of them and come to better know God and when the entire focus of our being is on God, we will experience Him as a vision of uncreated light as the apostles did at Mt. Tabor.
In a way, your belief that we do share in God is correct because He does indeed dwell in us as the uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit. It is the reality of the uncreated energies which allows + Gregory Palamas to say that we share in those and not the divine essence and still be faithful to +Paul. As I understand it, the West has no concept of uncreated divine energies, only that of created grace. It is therefore understandable that since the scholastics of the Middle Ages, Western Christianity has said that humanity does share in the divine NATURE. Uncreated energies are in fact divine; created grace, while having a divine source, is in fact created and therefore quantifiable and if quantifiable, not divine. But +Paul says ‘He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him’. The only “thing” to be one spirit with is the divine essence if there are no divine energies.
Just as an exercise, and if you have the time and the inclination, think about the implications for Protestant thought carried by the concept of created grace vs. uncreated energies.
Clearly we don't know much about it. We don't know the dimensions, shape, intensity, degrees etc. thereof.
And, we mostly merely know that ALL CREATION GROANS EXPECTANTLY, EAGERLY FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SONS OF GOD. Whatever that means.
We can imagine, assume, infer, extrapolate that somehow satan's rebellion and adam's fall polluted things to vast 'reaches' and terminally deadly degrees. And that Christ's Cross and Resurrection LEGALLY set such to right. And, that evidently when satan is permanently locked up and that key 'thrown away,' those of us ruling and reigning with Christ shall have a rather unfettered go of it--as far as we can imagine.
So, does that mean it will be boringly easy that any automaton orangatan could do it and we can all go fishing? I don't think so. Somehow, I just can't imagine all this boot camp training is conditioning us for an eternity of laziness and passivity because the context we are ruling and reigning in is so boringly nice and easy.
Kind of boggles the mind as to therefore then what. But I suspect that challenge, development, exapnsion and growth will always be on God's agenda for His kids. IT'S JUST HIS NATURE.
I don't know that THAT construction on "reality" is THE 100% TRUE AND OPERANT ONE from GOD'S PERSPECTIVE. It's somewhat plausible.
But that and the essence vs divine energies split are all finite, human constructs, inferences, assumptions, extrapolations.
Perhaps they are accurate ones. Perhaps not.
My own 25cents is that we don't know diddly squat about what THE INCARNATION means to us; what HIS INDWELLINGNESS REALLY MEANS to us.
Nor do we begin to know the dimensions of it; the dynamics of it; the completeness-in-eternity of it; etc.
Sure, pontificating about such can be fun and puff us all up--especially when we see row upon row of books on the shelves with our name on them. But, in the final analysis, I can imagine that all our assuming, inferring and extrapolating about such will be whisked away as so much inaccurate useless dust motes.
I can't think of a single Scripture which would 100% fool proof indicate anything of the kind. I actually can't think of a single Scriptural phrase which would infallibly 100% reliably prove, indicate that CREATION will ever be "completed" in our notions of the construct.
I can think of quite a few from which we could infer, assume, extrapolate that God WILL BE FOREVER CRFEATING, EXAPANDING, EMBELLISHING, UNFOLDING, FLOWERING, BREATHING INTO CREATION "ALL" HIS LIMITLESS EXAPANSIVENESS . . .
There is also that interesting Scripture at the Tower of Babel . . . about how unless they confuse the languages, man would discover the secret of life itself. DNA?
I personally can't imagine a COMPLETED CREATION with God Almighty that I know--after the "Final Judgment" or any other "time" in history future.
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.