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/
Here is the commandment and reason given to Moses for writing the Song of Moses which will also be sung in heaven:
I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. [They shall be] burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling [also] with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men: Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, [and] lest they should say, Our hand [is] high, and the LORD hath not done all this.
For they [are] a nation void of counsel, neither [is there any] understanding in them. O that they were wise, [that] they understood this, [that] they would consider their latter end! How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up? For their rock [is] not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves [being] judges. For their vine [is] of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes [are] grapes of gall, their clusters [are] bitter: Their wine [is] the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. Deut 32:19-33
How many nations have survived two millennia of diaspora?
I strongly reassert that the statements in Romans 10:19-21 applying Deu 32:21 to Gentiles are Truth.
Correct, because in the Zwinglian model they do not confer grace.
We do not believe that they confer any special grace, though those who participate are certainly blessed for having done so.
Can you define the nature of this blessing scripturally? If they are not a means of grace (i.e., that which builds us up wrt our salvation in Christ), then what other sort of blessing is implied?
Christ ordained that we should participate in them, however, or lack of participation in them does not in any way diminish the fact we are saved.
Lets not confuse terms. Christ said, if you love Me you will keep My commandmants. The means of grace do not contribute to our justification. That rests entirely on the work of Christ. However, part of our salvation is our sanctification, which we may not neglect to the peril of our soul. The means of grace (or evangelical graces per the WCF) relates us to our sanctification. If you say you belong to Christ yet neglect habitually His sacraments, is that not hypocrisy?
Does good fruit grow on a bad tree? A good tree will produce good fruit. A bad tree will produce bad fruit. Participation in the means of grace is evidence (good fruit). But more than that they are like fertilizer, to strengthen the fruit that is being produced by the tree.
I think you have a stunted (baptistic) view of what salvific means in toto. Thus the view of (optional) ordinances vs. sacraments as a true means of grace.
Regarding the Lords Supper, the Second Helvetic Confession puts it this way:
Sacramental Eating of the Lord. Besides the higher spiritual eating there is also a sacramental eating of the body of the Lord by which not only spiritually and internally the believer truly participates in the true body and blood of the Lord, but also, by coming to the Table of the Lord, outwardly receives the visible sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. To be sure, when the believer believed, he first received the life-giving food, and still enjoys it. But therefore, when he now receives the sacrament, he does not receive nothing. For he progresses in continuing to communicate in the body and blood of the Lord, and so his faith is kindled and grows more and more, and is refreshed by spiritual food. For while we live, faith is continually increased. And he who outwardly receives the sacrament by true faith, not only receives the sign, but also, as we said, enjoys the thing itself. Moreover, he obeys the Lord's institution and commandment, and with a joyful mind gives thanks for his redemption and that of all mankind, and makes a faithful memorial to the Lord's death, and gives a witness before the Church, of whose body he is a member. Assurance is also given to those who receive the sacrament that the body of the Lord was given and his blood shed, not only for men in general, but particularly for every faithful communicant, to whom it is food and drink unto eternal life.This link might offer more insight into the Reformed perspective.
Exactly..
If there were only two views, than you would be correct. I believe the Reformed view provides the via media between two extreme views; memorialist vs. infusionist.
The Roman view is not that the sacraments impart grace to the believer, but rather that it infuses grace into the believer. You may not see the difference between Reformed and Romanism, but there is one.
I suggest you locate a good study of the Reformation esp. wrt the Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Reformed/Calvinistic positions on the sacraments, all of which are non-Roman Catholic. Calvin has an extensive treatment of the subject in his Institutes.
Gee. You managed to say all that and throw in an insult against Baptists to boot.
As to a blessing, a blessing is something that God gives to us that may or may not be in reward for something we have done. Grace is wholly the unmerited favor of God upon us.
Zwingli, while I agree with him on many things, is not the model for Baptists. We are sola scriptura and have quite a healthy understanding of soteriology, thank you very much.
Scripture for “Blessing”?
Genesis 22:18
and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
Matthew 5:10
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Oh, come now. Were not that thin skinned around here, are we? Its not like I called you an anti-Semite.
As to a blessing, a blessing is something that God gives to us that may or may not be in reward for something we have done. Grace is wholly the unmerited favor of God upon us.
Seeing as you are a sola Scriptura person, can you give me those definitions from the Bible?
Scripture for Blessing?
I know how to use a concordance. I really was interested how you come to use blessing vs. grace wrt the sacraments of baptism and the Lords Supper without being arbitrary.
Behold, [it is] written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and [one] saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing [is] in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me. But ye [are] they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number. Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose [that] wherein I delighted not.
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name: That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever [in that] which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree [are] the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they [are] the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
Religions are indeed Clubs.. that think the God that made the universe is a moron and a member or sponsor of their club..
When the reality is they are sheep pens(John Ch10) all the true sheep have been released.. The unprofitable servants remain penned up.. The plan is beautiful in its simplicity..
I answered your question Topcat. You wanted a Scriptural definition of blessing verses grace. I gave it to you. Now as to the nuance of blessing as specific to Lord’s Supper and Baptism, I refer you to my previous post. Regardless what the topic is, Grace is wholly unmerited, whereas a blessing may be bestowed with or without the good deeds of the individual. When David cries “I will bless the Lord!” He is sending praise towards Him for both WHO He is and for WHAT He does. If God had done nothing for us, simply by virtue of who He is, He is worthy of our praise, blessing, honor and glory.
In Baptism, we are obedient to Christ. In Lord’s Supper as well. In obedience, there is blessing. But God’s grace is wholly unmerited and He gives it to both saint and sinner alike as He wills. (Are not the heathen participants in His grace by simply being alive and in not cast into the fire at any given moment?)
Contrary to being thin-skinned, I’m just noting that you are starting a conversation as you always seem to start it off - with an insult. I try to get you to further clarify your statements as non-salvific (i.e., in the sense of Catholicism), and you smear my denomination. I am trying to be civil, and was trying to clarify what you were saying. On this particular issue, we are a lot closer together than far apart. I can set aside disagreements on other issues. Can you?
I'm sorry to say, but you did not. Since that is critical to the discussion, I'm afraid we cannot progress until you are willing to share exactly from the Bible "grace" vs. "blessing" and how they may relate to the sacraments.
I suspect you have an opinion, but until you can substantiate it from the Word of God I dont have much to go on.
Grace is wholly unmerited, whereas a blessing may be bestowed with or without the good deeds of the individual.
You are only repeating yourself. You need to demonstrate these things wrt the sacraments from the Bible. Why is that so hard to do?
Contrary to being thin-skinned, Im just noting that you are starting a conversation as you always seem to start it off - with an insult. I try to get you to further clarify your statements as non-salvific (i.e., in the sense of Catholicism), and you smear my denomination.
I dont think I said anything about anyones denomination. If I said something offensive I apologize.
Looking forward to it.
BTW, “baptistic” is not a denomination.
KOSTA; So that she may be resurrected.
Frankly, that's a non-answer since anyone who has been cleansed of their sins by Christ's atonement will be resurrected. Period.
Unless you know of someone, Kosta, for whom Christ died who will not be resurrected.
That is why I also cited John 4:21-23, John 10:16 and John 12:20-24. While He knew the Jews would reject Him, He also knew (John 12) that His death would bring forth much fruit for the Father, i.e. obviously beyond the Jews who would reject Him, which is to say, fruit among the Gentiles.
Here it is again in summary form:
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:13-27
In reference to my quote of John 12:20-24 the appearance of the Greeks seeking Him and His reply that The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. You said:
However, religious people that they were they not only continued in many of the pointless Jewish traditions (which Christ condemns in Mark 7:7) but gave the new Gentile converts the impression they were expected to become Jewish by custom as well. Paul corrected them in Acts 15 and 16.
This story is being told to us for yet another reason a theme which goes from the law and the prophets all the way to Jesus message to the church of Ephesus. It is not enough to be doctrinally pure, to be religious in behavior and appearance. We must love God absolutely and our neighbors unconditionally (Matt 22 paraphrased) or we will suffer the fate of the Ephesians who did not overcome their religiousness. (Rev 3)
Who do we believe?
God knows our hearts, that oftentimes we choose to believe a religious system or organization or another mortal or ourselves rather than Him. We must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth - nothing can be above Him in our hearts and minds.
Any that says different are delusional.. and arrogant..
You: You then quote Mat 11: 11:15 and Matt 17:9-13 (both of which speak of Elijah). As you know, Elijah never died, so incarnation is not an issue, but I am talking about the disciples saying Christ was John the Baptist and Jeremiah (both of whom were dead).
We have discussed re-incarnation previously. The resurrection body we shall receive is a re-incarnation, we retain our identity. The two witnesses in Revelation are re-incarnated (then die and are re-animated) and retain their identity. I have no further leaning in the spirit concerning re-incarnation nor am I suggesting that all of us are merely re-incarnations of previously existing identities.
But Christ made it very clear that John the Baptist is the prophesied Elijah who would appear before He comes, and did. This requires spiritual discernment like the body and the blood of Christ we are to eat in John 6 and being born again in John 3.
John the Baptist was not the same, whole identity as Elijah, re-incarnated (John 1:21) as we shall be in our resurrection bodies. He was John the Baptist. Nevertheless, he was also Elijah.
Elijah again appears with Moses on the mount (Matthew 17) in his own, whole identity. Notably, Moses died (Jude) but Elijah did not and neither did Enoch. Some believe the two witnesses in Revelation will be (or were) Moses and Elijah others say Enoch and Elijah because neither died. I have no leaning in the Spirit, but my musing is Enoch and Elijah.
At any rate, the apostles were not expressing a Judaic pagan-influenced belief by answering Jesus question. Nor is Christ's response or lack thereof - nor is His declaration that John the Baptist is Elijah - a Judiac pagan-influenced belief. It is Truth.
Interesting concept eh!.. John the baptist being Elijah..
Would be an easy task IF "the body" was just transportation for the spirit..
i.e. Elijahs spirit was John the Baptists spirit.. different bodies..
Would also explain much of what Jesus was TALKING ABOUT most of time..
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.