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/
Brenton's. But your question is very much on target. Of the three major versions, the most recent one (5th century) Alexandrian agrees with the KJV (Hebrew) more than the previous ones (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, 4th century versions). The Alexandrian is known to be the least reliable, and most altered. But then so are all the other Bibles to various degrees.
As for the verses mentioned, they are significantly different, even though everyone seems to be in denial. One calls the son a messenger (aggelos) of the great counsel – i.e. of advice, opinion, etc.
The other one calls the son mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace!
I think it takes an active effort of self-delusion to "see" both of these verses as saying the same thing. I submit that someone familiar only with the LXX versions would get a very different impression who the son is from someone reaidng the KJV version.
In the former (LXX), which was the Christian OT, there is no divinity even implied. In the latter (KJV), which is ironically the Hebrew version, the son is called Mighty God, even the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
Likewise, the implications of the verse 9.8 are opposite unless, of course, the reader chooses to bury his head in the sand. In the LXX version God sent death upon Jacob and Israel, and in the KJV version God sent a word (knowledge) into Jacob and it (the word) (en)lighte(ne)d Israel.
Contextually, the chapters may be the same overall but that is a stretch considering how different impressions and meanings are implied in its various verses. You can, of course, believe whatever you like. But I have yet to hear a plausible explanation how can death and word be one and the same, how can death and enlightenment be one and the same, how can a messenger of great opinion be the same as Mighty God, everlasting Father, how can "I will bring peace upon pounces" be the same as the "Prince of Peace."
οτι παιδιον εγεννηθη ημιν υιος και εδοθη ημιν ου η αρχη εγενηθη επι του ωμου αυτου και καλειται το ονομα αυτου μεγαλης βουλης αγγελος εγω γαρ αξω ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας ειρηνην και υγιειαν αυτω
and
θανατον απεστειλεν κυριος επι ιακωβ και ηλθεν επι ισραηλ
Is the numbering different in English too? By the way, that KJV translation isn't even close to the LXX Greek. You're right.
And He is first in everything as a Man. He is Man the way God created man. We are not.
Adopted is not the same as being of the same blood. We are His step-brothers.
No one can be a true brother to Christ. You, of course, are free to believe otherwise. But that's not what Christianity believed all along.
Even if the ridiculous Protestant notion hat Mary did have children after Christ were true, they would have been only human, with one nature and one will, and therefore essentially different from Him. Christ is Unique. He was not firstborn in the human sense, because He was not "made" but rather He took on human nature and became Man; the first and the last; the only.
There is none like Him. There can be none like Him. No man can be His true brother. That much should be obvious to every Christian. Believing anything other than that is indeed something docetists & al would believe, a heresy.
As regards your comments on "Woman behold your son" all I can say there are laws. The laws prevented a woman to go wherever she pleased. Her true sons would have legal rights to their Mother. Besides, following your thinking, all apostles, save for +John, were worthless cowards when they scattered and pretended they didn't know their Lord.
Do you for a moment think that Jesus loved +John more than His own blood "brothers?" God is nor partial. Do you think His blood "brothers" would not have loved their own Mother? You don't think they would have raised legal issues with +John taking custody of their Mother? And do you think the Jewish and Roman authorities would have listened to +John's argument that His Lord, who had been condemned to death as a common criminal, told him to behold His Mother while dying on the Cross? That would really carry a "lot" of legal weight, Blogger.
Not in the linked source I gave, as well as this one, but it's possible that in some versions they are different (although I have not encountered one yet). I know that the LXX Psalms are not numbered the same as those in KJV.
By the way, that KJV translation isn't even close to the LXX Greek. You're right
I know. :) ... (oops, there goes my confession!)
Here's the one I was looking at:
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_009.htm
There's another one in Greek with the same numbering system
http://www.spindleworks.com/septuagint/Isaiah.htm
I'll read them tonight and see where mine double up on a verse.
The text mentioned did not mention Logos, or WORD. It just said he was the firstborn. This was my point.
As far as John goes, Jesus can do whatever he would like, agree? Nothing says it was a legal pronouncement.
And as far as Mary's other biological children- of course they are going to be half-brothers. Jesus was fully human though. He was also fully divine. So, his nature was different since He was God manifested in the flesh.
And the "notion" isn't "ridiculous". It's based on an understanding of the plain meaning of the text. Mary's perpetual virginity was a doctrine that came AFTER the canon was complete.
You are right, but clearly those verses, regardles show they are numbered, correspond to KJV and some LXX Isaiah erses 9.6 and 9.8 -- and clearly they are very different!
Your are treating Jesus as a Person separate from the Word!
As far as John goes, Jesus can do whatever he would like, agree?
He can but who was there to be the witness? Who among the Jews and the Romans would believe the allegations of a follower of a convicted criminal?
What children (such as +James of all people) would forsake their Mother and hand them to someone unrelated? Be real! There was no one at the foot of the Cross to vouch for that.
It's based on an understanding of the plain meaning of the text. Mary's perpetual virginity was a doctrine that came AFTER the canon was complete
Mary's perpetual virginity was a doctrine that came AFTER the canon was complete
The non-canonical Protoevangelium of James appeared about 150 AD. That is about 150 years before the Christian Canon was "complete" (and even then it wasn't fully complete).
As far as I know, the Church never rejected it outright, although it is not canonical.
I am not treating Jesus as a person separate from the WORD!!! Give me a break. My whole point was that the Greek Orthodox source cited was saying that the Bible said the "firstborn WORD" when that is not what that SPECIFIC TEXT said.
Who said Mary's children forsook her? Not I.
The Canon of Scripture was COMPLETE about 90 AD when John wrote Revelation. There were no more canonical books coming out from that point. What the council decided later is not what I was referring to. The lists of canonical books were intact before the Council (some lists had other books as well lest you want to lecture me on history).
You are so right. I missed the last part. I went back and reread the entire chapter, being a Sola Scriptura believer and never wanting to just take someone's word for it. ;-)
I think we are in agreement on the conclusion that can be drawn from that,the historical development of the other churches, and the actions of the Apostles.
The distinction being they were not Apostles. I have not found in Scripture any example of Apostles appointing Bishops. I am beginning to read some of the writings of early Christians and find it fascinating.
The ecclesiology described by +Ignatius presupposes a "syndeesmos" or synergy among the hierarchs, clergy and laity wherein each has a role but all must work together.
The EO who are much closer to this model are much closer to the structure of the earliest Christian communities, IMO.
We are in agreement.
It appears that we can be.
"The distinction being they were not Apostles. I have not found in Scripture any example of Apostles appointing Bishops. I am beginning to read some of the writings of early Christians and find it fascinating."
I have no doubt you are right about anything using the word bishop in NT scripture. You should remember, however, that both +Ignatius and +Polycarp were disciples of +John and both used the term. We know that +Ignatius was writing to +John at the same time he was using the term bishop. +Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks in several places of bishops and their appointment previously by the Apostles and how they, meaning the bishops, appoint their successors. He refers to the OT for scriptural support for this practice. The letter is probably from the mid 1st century so its likely even earlier than the letters of +Ignatius. Several decades later, the Corinithians wrote t the Church at Rome and refered to "..."the letter we received from your bishop Clement, which we still read regularly."
Seems the office arose pretty early, my brothers.
Jesus and the firstborn Word are one and the same. You can't refer to Jesus Christ and not refer to the Word of God, just as when we refer to God, we refer to the Holy Trinity even if not explicitly.
The Canon of Scripture was COMPLETE about 90 AD when John wrote Revelation
Except the Christians didn't know which scrolls were canonical and which were not. The canon was a consensual decision of the Church. It took about 300 years for that to happen. The oldest complete Christian Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) is only decades away from official canonization of couple of dozen scrolls (of over 200+ that were circulationg around) consists of the OT (Greek language Septuagint), New Testament in Greek and the Epistle of Barnabas. Modern Bibles don't have the Epistle of Barnabas.
So, while all the books of the Christian Canon had been written by the end of the 1st century, the actual Christian Canon was not put together until 300 years later, and even then some discrepancies persisted.
decisions were made in a congregational/collegial manner.
Collegial, not "congregational" if by that you mean participation of laymen. So are nearly all decisions of the Church today. This doesn't mean there is no hierarchy though.
Verse 20 perhaps can be read expansively, but it has a qualifier "in my name", and who will decide that? The dispositive verse however is 17: it says that if an agreement is not reached, the Church decides, and since the collective of beleivers has already been dealt with in verse 16, the "church" in v. 17 is the hierarchical organization capable of making a uniform decision.
That difference is not ontological. The difference is that her baptism and sanctification occurred earlier than for the rest of the saints. The superlatives in the encyclical refer to the superabundant merits of Christ and should not be a source of any controversy.
"The superlatives in the encyclical refer to the superabundant merits of Christ and should not be a source of any controversy."
Actually, that concept (superabundant merits of Christ) might be a source of great controversy, Alex. For example, how does God have a "superabundance" of His own uncreated energies? :)
Presbyteros (or oi in the plural) does NOT mean Priests.
Here is the meaning of that term
1. elder, of age,
1. the elder of two people
2. advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1. forefathers
2. a term of rank or office
1. among the Jews
1. members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2. of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
2. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
3. the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
The word for Priest is Hiereus and it refers to all believers.
Regarding the congregational part/ it is hole (holos)ekklesia. Translated correctly, WHOLE CHURCH.
Ekklesia means
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense
1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
It does NOT mean some elite group; rather, the passage speaks of the "MULTITUDE" and the "WHOLE CHURCH". It is congregational and does involved the participation of laity.
Another time Paul uses this exact phrase in 1 Corinthians 14 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
You are not suggesting that he is speaking of some hierarchical authority there are you?
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.