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/
As an aside, this is why I think the unity of the East and West will be restored sooner than it appears. The two worlds has interpenetrated again, for the first time since 5c. It is for the first time that Orthodoxy comes in direct contact with the dark forces of Reformation; it is bound to change the long-held assumptions about the Latin Church, that had to put up with them for centurues now.
And absolutely NONE to some club(church) that men join and elect officers in.. I agree.. All the bright clothing, consecrated vessels, ceremonial hu haw, mood music, passion plays, and dogma and litergy.. are merely playing church like a child..
In one sense we must remain as a child in demeanor but in another sense we must grow in spirit/Spirit into a full grown man..
Therefore, ALL glory to God and NONE to mans playhouses..
I am looking at the title and it clearly says How are Human Souls Created. It doesn't say "Propagated," HD, does it? Just wanted to make sure we are reading the same words. In this post you argued that souls are propagated-not created...My post was in regards to your traducianism/creationism argument in post #13,844. You made a statement that it is Gnostic and pagan to believe in the pre-existent theory
My reply to your post says "The soul doesn't propagate; the soul is created at the moment of conception." (13,921). I don't remember making a case for propagation of the soul; just against its pre-existence.
More importantly, post 13,844 clearly states that – regardless which theory is correct – both agree that the soul does not exist prior to conception. Are we reading the same text, HD or did you not read all of 13,844?
Talk about noticing a thorn in your brother's eye, and not seeing a log in yours! If you read post 13,844 as you seem to imply, you would realize that it contains at least six references that lead to the conclusion that the soul does not pre-exist the body — which references you simply choose to ignore.
Ecc 12 makes no reference whether the soul pre-existed or not. It simply states what we believe, namely that God gives us the soul and that, after death, the sould goes back to Him.
Jesus' soul was created at Incarnation.
I am speechless. This is one of the most convoluted, out-of-the-left-field "conclusions" I have read so far. Where and when did I ever suggest that man creates the soul? Please provide a quote.
Origen was condemned for both his teaching of the pre-existence of the souls and his universal salvation theory, both of which are alien to Christianity. Sadly, some early Church Fathers (i.e. +Gregory of Nyssa, a one time student of Origen) subscribed to the universal salvation theory.
The Church never considered Hell "temporary." the bible even states that God prepared a lake of eternal fire for the devil and his angles (cf Mat 25:41). (The idea of purgatory doe snot include Satan and his demons. But the idea of an interim state of the soul is based on the particular (immediate) judgment after death (cf Heb 9:27) which is not the Final Judgment.
No offense taken. The Orthodox teaching is based on the NT, that we should strive to be(come)* perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. (cf Mat 5:48) It is a commandment, HD, for us to honestly try to achieve that even if we honestly fail.
*the Greek text is actually in future tense
annalex-I choose, however, to match my rewards and punishments to what the child actually does, because I love my child.
So, let's put what you've just said into God's words:
And you don't believe this is Pelagius' error?
My source is Jewish commentary in the Torah. Go ask a rabbi
A-G, thank you for your post. Hebrew concepts are helpful as an introduction, but Christianity is not Judaism, and that includes concepts of spirituality. So, I am not concerned with what the Jews believe. They reject the very essence of our faith (our Lord Jesus Christ), and there is nothing but an unbridgeable divide between us and them.
We read the same Old Testament and see the foreshadowing of Christ in it; they don't. So, what's the point of stating what they believe? We read the OT through the lens of the NT; they don't.
Saint Paul seems to speak of Trichotomy. The Church disagrees with that interpretation. The Gnostics embraced it, as is the case in some groups to this day.
Thank you for your charitable answer. You are a real sport. Is there a problem with sharing your source with the rest of us? Or did you just mnake this up?
And you don't believe this is Pelagius' error?
Of course not. Nothing here denies sovereignty of God, denies original sin, and it follows the scriptural model to view God as Our Father.
I don’t understand your response. The source is Jewish commentary. Many Jews no longer read the Torah, but rabbis do. They can confirm that whatI say is true.
This is propagation. If you don't believe in the pre-existence of the soul, then you must believe in parential creation of the soul (propagation).
Well, now how did he draw THAT conclusion. Does he know when God creates a soul?
The six references posted by this author that you feel argues against pre-existence are not very convincing. For example:
(B) Adam had a son in his own likeness (Genesis 5:3). (Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:) - This doesn't state anything about the soul. All it says it that Seth was in his likeness.
God did no further creating (Genesis 2:2-3). Seems to me that if God did no further creating and ALL things were made through Him as John 1 states, that means all souls were created in the beginning.
It states very clearly that the spirit shall return to God. If it is returning then it must have pre-existed.
I don't dispute that what you are saying is what rabbinical Judaism says. I dispute that it is Jewish. The belief in the pre-existence of the souls is a pagan (Greek and Persian) belief that was added to Pharisaical Judaism, and survives to this day in its direct offshoot, rabbinical Judaism — and, apparently, in some corners of various Protestant sects as well.
This is what Jewish Encyclopedia has to say about this:
This belief is, therefore, not "intrinsically" Jewish but pagan. Thus, the JE continues:
Clearly, then, modern Judaism is a mixture of old Judaism and (Greek, Persian) pagan beliefs.
What fascinates me is that some Protestant groups will adhere to this type of (rabbinical) Judaism rather than to Christian beliefs which — regardless whether based on traducianism or creationism — agree that the soul does not pre-exist the body.
Rabbinical Judaism also says that the souls of the Gentiles are created by the demons.
Do you believe that too? Are some Protestants unsure if they are Christians or Jews? Or do they consider themselves a little bit of both?
Jacob had an additional soul
Which from archangel Michael he stole
This miraculous feat
Left Gentiles incomplete
Till at Pentecost they became whole.
God is not the "Father" of all. Our Lord Jesus specifically told some that they were sons of the devil. Only those who are His sheep will hear His voice. It depends upon God's mercy to open our eyes to the truth.
Under your view grace becomes universal for which man makes a decision. The only difference in this view and Pelagius is that man "cooperates" with God. But some obviously cooperates more than others. Tsk, tsk.
Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins. - New Advent
I don’t know what kind of Christian you are, but Jesus is the true vine. As to where souls are and come from it’s not something that concerns me. I was pinged over here and gave an opinion from what I know.
WELL AND ACCURATELY PUT. THX.
The hierarchy in Scripture and as evidenced by Paul and his wanderings is a far, far, far, far, far
cry
with many tears . . .
from the horrid structure and practices in all large denominations, especially the RC edifice
Well put.
Strongly agree.
Man’s VAINHOUSES.
These are all Calvinist theories, in which I have no interest. I do what Christ and His apostles tell us. You are curious what is it, I'll tell you, but it looks like you can read NewAdvent for yourself. That is a good start.
Christians may speak bluntly, but we have never waged war on your faith.
Rome has waged war on us both, yet your hatred is so great for Justification by faith alone that you would side with those who killed Orthodox followers, (who believe in a works system of salvation, as you do), in attacking Christians.
These valid points have been illustrated on this and other threads, much to the surprise of most of the Protestants here.
But we can be assured...
"But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." -- Acts 11:9
That’s what you say.
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.