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/
What the church is telling me is correct as an article of my Christian faith, as the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit primarily, and I -- merely through her. The question is, how do I verify that my impression of what the Church teaches is correct.
First, any meditation on the truths of the Gospel has to be prayerful. Frequent centering prayer such as the Rosary is the foundational ingredient without which any growth in the understanding of the scripture would not be possible. Besides, I ask for assistance from saints such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Ignatius Loyola.
Second, frequent confession and reception of the Eucharist give me necessary strength in penetrating the more mystical layers of the Faith; this is expecially important in understanding the mystical role of the Virgin in the life of the Church.
Thirdly, a reference to the Greek original and to the Fathers of the Church helps, because without it one cannot be sure the mentality brought along from our corrupt culture is not also corrupting the understanding of the Gospels. A reference to the living members of the Church militant today, who travel the same journey, is very helpful. A lot of my spiritual growth is thanks to Catholic and Orthodox Freepers on this and other similar threads. The friendly concerns from the Protestant corner, such as yours are what prompts further study, and I thank you and your fellow Protestants for that.
Lastly, there is the resource of the actual magisterium of the church: the homilies I hear, answers I get from priests, evangelists, apologists, and, of course, the Catechisis.
I am well taken care of.
I think you would agree that whether many or few believe certain thing does not make it true or false. I think that Luther and his collaboratiors in the Reform movement succeeded in forming a theology that generally is accomodating human error, encourages schism, and is in sync with the modern times. This is because of the notions such as salvation through faith alone, anticlericalism, antimonasticism and sola scriptura, and various variants of surety of salvation. These theologies fit the modern man, so whatever scant scriptural support there is for them, the modern man clings to it. This is what makes him what he is.
Try to follow my train of thought.
I have never said that Jesus is NOT the WORD of God. John 1 clearly states thus.
MY ENTIRE POINT WAS THAT THE GREEK ORTHODOX COMMENTATOR DISHONESTLY IMPLIED THAT THE VERSE IN QUESTION STATED THAT HE WAS THE FIRSTBORN WORD. THAT SPECIFIC VERSE STATED NO SUCH THING. IT DID NOT MENTION LOGOS PERIOD. His argument was that since Jesus is the firstborn WORD that firstborn doesn't have to imply a second born since there was only one WORD of God. It was a dishonest argument since his proof text did NOT mention the WORD but only the phrase firstborn. As a matter of fact, I don't know that the phrase firstborn word even appears ANYWHERE in Scripture.
Regardless,it is a fallacious argument to say that somehow anything in Scripture negates Mary having other children. Even though Jesus is wholly unique in his person, and there isn't another like Him, he was still Mary's blood child. He was her firstborn blood child. His unique nature has nothing to do with whether or not there is a second born child and the natural understanding of things is that if there is a first there is a second - else, you would see something like John 3:16 which calls Him God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. There is a difference between first and only, would you not agree?
There was a general agreement before the 300s as to what was Canonical and what wasn't. All of the Hebrew OT was settled long before the 300s. Lists of books circulated before then which included what we have as canonical today. The vote was a formality for the most part.
Regardless, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity did come later than anything written by the early church that was canonical.
There is no indication what happened after Christ was born in Matthew 1:25 because "eos" can just as easily mean "evel till". Compare Mt. 27:8, "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, [eos] this day.".
"Firstborn" is legal status that has nothing to do with subsequent children or their gender.
I agree that it doesn't matter how many people believe something; rather, it is whether the WORD OF GOD teaches it.
As to your understanding of Luther's theology, I do not see it that way at all. A lot of what Luther believed was frankly still quite Catholic. His baptism of infants, for example (which Calvin also held to); and a slight variation on the eucharist (almost semantics but not quite in comparison to say Zwingli's view concerning Lord's Supper) all showed Catholic influence. He also seemed to be quite informed by Augustines views on things in many areas.
Where Luther differed was in what you call the "notion" of salvation by faith alone.
Contrary to your assertion, these theologies do not fit modern man; for modern man's invented religions ALL without exception create a salvation that is at least in some way shape or form dependent upon MAN being good enough in some aspect of life. Luther recognized man as a lowly worm incapable of pleasing God on his own. And, he used Scripture to back it up.
Annalex, I will repeat what I said before. Please pick up the WORD OF GOD itself - exclusive of commentaries by Catholic (or Protestant) theologians. Look at it. Let the Words tell you what they mean. You will not come up with a theology that is too far from Luther's on Salvation.
I always thought of the Blessed Virgin as the Tabernacle and the Holy Church, and at the same time I pray to her and it would never occur to me that she is anything but a human being.
Typology is indeed hard to comprehend at times. Here is another quandary: the Church is (1) the body of christ, and (2) the Virgin Mary, and (3) the mystical bride of Christ.
This is another subject. God hears such prayer. Whether He approves, or more pertinently, whether He answers is another question.
I would say, that if a prayer was done for intercession under the sincere presumption that X is in heaven, and the presumption is wrong, then the same thing happens as if the prayer was sent directly to God, and what exactly the answer will be would depend on the nature of the petition.
But if X is indeed in heaven, then he will join you in the prayer, and God likes that.
It's not the same. The rule is when it is found with ou or outou it means until the time when. See again Thayer's Lexicon http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Mat&chapter=27&verse=8&strongs=2193&page=1&flag_full=1
This rule for use of EWS does not apply in Matthew 27:8
Superabundant refers to that verse in St. Paul, "where sin abounds, grace abounds more".
I agree that the "Treasure of Merits" is a foreign concept to Orthodoxy, but it is a separate controversy from the Immaculate Conception.
"Presbyteros" can mean all these things, but in Christian usage its primary meaning is "priest", from which "priest" is derived. "Hieros" is primarily pagan or Hebrew priest. I don't think it was ever used as a Christian priest; got a patristic source?
It does NOT mean some elite group
In Matthew 18 it does, because it makes a disctintion beteween an appeal to a group of fellow believers and the Church as a whole. One meaning is not exclusionary of the other, as indeed, "church" can mean the entirety of the believers as well. Context rules, not the dictionary.
That would assume that the Scripture alone is sufficient for faith formation. It is not, -- the scripture itself says so, many times.
Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?This being said, I am firmly convinced that anyone who reads the scripture without the Protestant conditioning will end up Catholic or Orthodox, at least in matters of soteriology and ecclesiology. He may not become a great marianist, because Marian devotion is a mystical experience rather than a direct result of the study of the scripture. But he will cease being Protestant.(Acts 8:30-31)
How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?
(Romans 10:14-15)
Incorrect on both counts.
In Scripture, Presbuteros is I know of no instance where Presbuteros is translated priest. It derives from presbus which means elder or elderly (old man, old woman) or possibly bishop or overseer, but not priest.
The word translated priest in Scripture is hiereus.
It is used of pagan priests (see Acts 14:13); Jewish priests (Matth 8:4; Luke 1:5; believers (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6 1 Peter 2:5; ); and the New Testament knows nothing of a particular class in the hierarchy of the church which is to offer sacrifices. Such is the duty of all Christians (Romans 12:1; Phil 2:17; 4:18; Hebrews 13:15; 1 Peter 2:5; and finally it is used of Christ Hebrews 5:6; 7:11,15, 17,21 and 7:1.
Archiereus is High priest by the way.
"ou" in Mt 1:25 simply points to the time, "till such time as".
Matthew 26:36 also has "eos ou", but there is no indication the disciples were to leave as soon as Jesus was done praying. See also 2 Peter 1:19, where "until" would be an innatural reading.
Actually, Alex, ο ιερας does mean priest and in the Christian sense even to this day. But ο πρεσβυτερος also means priest in the Christian sense. BOTH of them imply an ordained office. Protestants often misinterpret, through their pride, +Paul's phrase "the priesthood of all believers" to mean that the office of "priest" is some sort of fraud. This is not what the fathers taught at all and such an interpretation would seem to fly in the face of +Paul's own actions. +Peter of Ravenna, called Chrysologos, who was a bishop in the 5th century wrote:
"I appeal to you by the mercy of God. This appeal is made by Paul, or rather, it is made by God through Paul, because of God’s desire to be loved rather than feared, to be a father rather than a Lord. God appeals to us in his mercy to avoid having to punish us in his severity.
Listen to the Lord’s appeal: In me, I want you to see your own body, your members, your heart, your bones, your blood. You may fear what is divine, but why not love what is human? You may run away from me as the Lord, but why not run to me as your father? Perhaps you are filled with shame for causing my bitter passion. Do not be afraid. This cross inflicts a mortal injury, not on me, but on death. These nails no longer pain me, but only deepen your love for me. I do not cry out because of these wounds, but through them I draw you into my heart. My body was stretched on the cross as a symbol, not of how much I suffered, but of my all-embracing love. I count it no less to shed my blood: it is the price I have paid for your ransom. Come, then, return to me and learn to know me as your father, who repays good for evil, love for injury, and boundless charity for piercing wounds.
Listen now to what the Apostle urges us to do. I appeal to you, he says, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice. By this exhortation of his, Paul has raised all men to priestly status.
How marvellous is the priesthood of the Christian, for he is both the victim that is offered on his own behalf, and the priest who makes the offering. He does not need to go beyond himself to seek what he is to immolate to God: with himself and in himself he brings the sacrifice he is to offer God for himself. The victim remains and the priest remains, always one and the same. Immolated, the victim still lives: the priest who immolates cannot kill. Truly it is an amazing sacrifice in which a body is offered without being slain and blood is offered without being shed.
The Apostle says: I appeal to you by the mercy of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice. Brethren, this sacrifice follows the pattern of Christ’s sacrifice by which he gave his body as a living immolation for the life of the world. He really made his body a living sacrifice, because, though slain, he continues to live. In such a victim death receives its ransom, but the victim remains alive. Death itself suffers the punishment. This is why death for the martyrs is actually a birth, and their end a beginning. Their execution is the door to life, and those who were thought to have been blotted out from the earth shine brilliantly in heaven.
Paul says: I appeal to you by the mercy of God to present your bodies as a sacrifice, living and holy. The prophet said the same thing: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but you have prepared a body for me. Each of us is called to be both a sacrifice to God and his priest. Do not forfeit what divine authority confers on you. Put on the garment of holiness, gird yourself with the belt of chastity. Let Christ be your helmet, let the cross on your forehead be your unfailing protection. Your breastplate should be the knowledge of God that he himself has given you. Keep burning continually the sweet smelling incense of prayer. Take up the sword of the Spirit. Let your heart be an altar. Then, with full confidence in God, present your body for sacrifice. God desires not death, but faith; God thirsts not for blood, but for self-surrender; God is appeased not by slaughter, but by the offering of your free will."
As we can see, the priesthood of all believers is a term which describes what we are doing when we die to the self and advance in theosis.
Because King James, and all Protestant translators superstitiously avoided it. Still "priest" derives from "presbyteros" and has the same meaning.
See 1 Timothy 5:1, 4:14.
I stand corrected as to ieros, we do see it in 1 Peter as "ierateuma", priesthood.
I would take you up on that challenge.
Constantly, in Scripture; you find Jesus and others appealing to Scripture alone to support what they are saying.
Jesus chastised some saying :"Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Repeated Mark 12:24)
But, I will give you this. Without God's help, one can not truly understand Scripture.
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures...
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Still, this does not negate one's responsibility to dig into God's Word. Jesus commanded it:Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Paul reasoned from them (not tradition, Scripture)Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, and prised those who searched the Scripture: Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
They are our source of Hope
Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
They are our source of soteriology 2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus
And, they testify of Jesus Himself and how He fulfilled the prophecies concerning Him in Scripture.
Only Satan Himself would cause you to back away from studying Scripture.
Don't let him win.
Ever actually study the translation of the King James Bible? The men who did so were quite competent and careful scholars - and King James wasn't one of them.
Actually, ever study King James? He wasn't exactly unfriendly to Catholics, so I don't know why you would say he was avoiding translating presbuteros "priest"
The verse in Timothy is translated ELDER, and such translation makes perfect sense since the verse reads
1 Timothy 5
1Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
The other verse reads: 14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
The verse before that by the way reads: 13Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
Actually, the whole chapter is meaty.
It starts out this way:
1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I don't know of any protestants who forbid people to marry or abstain from meats.
What? The passage you cite puts the first responsibility on the children if the mother has no other means of support. It does not say, for example, to take care of one's rich mother who does not need taking care of. Jesus, as the oldest child of His widowed mother, did take care of that, thus relieving the obligation of the other children. This is in full compliance with the passage. Besides, it is not even clear that the brothers of Jesus were even believers yet. That would have disqualified them from the requirement here.
Obviously, Jesus loved John. That is a tautology. Do you think He didn't love the other Apostles as much?
What? I was clearly referring to all of the many verses describing John as the ONE Jesus loved. Surely you are familiar with them. I do not think this designation meant that Jesus loved any of the disciples more or less in a Christian sense, but it does indicate to me that Jesus had unique relationships with His disciples. For whatever reason, John was favored. At the darkest hour, he was the only one among the Apostles who showed up. It makes perfect sense that Jesus would choose John.
To me it is strange modern evangelicals desire to throw-in with Helvidius, and even repudiate the reformers as a way of doing that.
I'm not sure what you mean by repudiating the reformers, but by my limited reading on this, it does appear that Helvidius was correct on this issue. He sure took a beating from Jerome, who called Helvidius an "ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, ..." (New Advent). As a Reformer, when I hear this my first thought is to think that this Helvidius guy must have been alright! :)
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.