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/
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. If you look at the law given the Jews and later us Christians, then you may interpret his behavior as sinful. But if you look at the law given him, that is, law prior to Moses, you will not have a basis to declare his drunken behavior sinful, and the inspired author of the Bible does not describe it as sinful:
20 And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard. 21 And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent. 22 Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. 23 But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, 25 He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant.
He works; he drinks; he becomes drunk and falls asleep in his tent; his clothes become undone. He is not described as seeking to get drunk or seeking to disrobe himself in public; historically, wine was not drunk for recreation as we do it, but because it was often the only way to hydrate your body in the field. All the emphasis is on the behavior of the sons; Noah's actions are described as completely natural, and this is all you get from the text. It is, of course, possible to theorize that he sinned, and that his exceptional righteousness is somehow not thorough enough to cover every little detail (as Kosta does following your post), but it is still a theory and not plain reading.
John had ABSOLUTELY no excuse
Again, this is a theory, and I am interested in what the scripture has to say. It does not describe the question as sinful, and logically, it does not have to be.
Jesus elevated the faith of the centurion above that of the Jews who HAD seen Him and known of Him
That He did, at the expense of the Jews who we not equally quick to believe in Him without signs and miracles. Mary is not in that circle of comparision. The text says: "such great faith": not any faith but such faith that comes with zero prior knowledge.
She was just the first one whom He knew would say "Yes".
Yes, that is a possibility. The patristic teaching as I know it was that Mary was the first capable of saying "yes" and meaning it. If mankind were ready for Christ a second sooner, He would have come a second sooner. But this is precisely why we venerate Mary so much.
Didn't God's foreknowledge of her "yes" include His giving of the special grace? That would take the decision out of Mary's hands and ruin everything.
No it doesn't, -- God gives all of us grace, but the decision to accept it is ours, as it was Mary's.
None, like all other sacraments, the Holy Orders was something the exact form of which the Church developed after the Pentecost. There is nothing magical in laying of hands per se, just like there is nothing magical in eating bread or taking a bath. They become sacraments when the Church attaches a prayer that asks the Holy Ghost to bring grace to it.
I think, the tilt of the head is to express attention and obedience to Christ, Who is often the central figure, or to other person of God, as in the Pentecost icon.
I think I can agree with where you're coming from here. "I and the Father are one". Perhaps part of the reason for the temptation in the desert was to be instructional to us. I certainly learned how better to deal with temptation by focusing on scripture, as Jesus did. It also helped prove that Jesus understood us completely:
Heb 4:15 : For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.
Good points.
Amen to that, and thank you for the very kind words. :)
FK, God doesn't tempt anyone (+James 1:13), but He does allow it (1 Cor 10:13). That's a far cry from Jesus (I imagine the Apostle here use the name to denote His human nature) was led intentionally by God (Holy Spirit), to be tempted! (+Mat 4:1)
Which brings me to the another mention of temptation, namely in the Lord's Prayer, "and do not lead us into temptation," and how is doesn't "square" with above references to +James and +Paul.
No matter how you twist things around on this, it is clear that Matthew 4 does not see Jesus as being both God and man in one Person, but man favored (adopted) by God (ergo "This is My [adopted] Son]"), as is evident when Matthew described Jesus' baptism (+Mat 3:16).
Otherwise, +Mat 4:1 makes no sense, for neither God tempts man intentionally, nor can God be tempted! And neither would the devil try to tempt God.
I suppose we will always disagree about that. :) I believe that the original was directly from God. Further, in the major Christian translations I believe God has protected the core faith. Sure, it is possible that minor error has crept into some of them, but 100% of the true faith is still there. Thus, if the only Bible I had available to me was the version you use, I would be perfectly fine with that. That's pretty amazing considering how much we disagree theologically. :)
FK: "But Jesus says it as plainly as it can be said. What is your interpretation of: John 3:3..."
Figure of speech.
That's what Nicodemus thought, and Jesus immediately corrected him. Jesus says in effect "No no no, I'm NOT kidding, you must be born again. You are born once in the flesh and you must be born again in the Spirit". That isn't a figure of speech, it is literal truth.
We are born with mud on our hearts because of our ancestral sin. When that mud gets washed off, with the Holy Spirit, we begin to regain our likeness to God (process of theosis). There is no new heart. There is the same heart, except cleansed, "shining like new!" :) (emphasis added)
Scripture disagrees:
Ezek 36:26-27 : 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Another figure of speech? I mean, on one level it is, but it refers to a literal change. New heart and new Spirit.
Baptism is adoption not salvation. We are given a new home, the House of God (Church) in which we can safely grow in the merciful love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and walk in His steps.
But if sins are forgiven at Baptism, as you say, then it must be salvific. That is, if you believe that forgiveness of sins is necessary for theosis. It is, though, only a temporary salvation, since the Apostolic view is that man has the power to trump what the Bible says God did once and for all.
I also maintain that Exodus is a Jewish myth, biblically and historically. It never happened.
Jews of Jesus' time certainly believed it was literal. If you are correct then the Passover is a complete fraud. Jesus practiced the Passover as a religious activity. If He knew it was all a fraud, I wonder why He never said anything.
The original Apostles were not sent; they were picked, chosen on the spot. We could say that the prophets were "sent" but not the 12 Apostles. Perhaps the word is a misnomer. Disciples (students) is a better word. But one of the 12 was the devil, as the Bible tells us. If they were all 'sent," then surely Judas was 'sent" too!
The Greek word is "Apostolos" which means "he that is sent" (Str. 652). By the time of the Great Commission, Judas was already dead. All of the true Apostles were sent.
Occult adj. & n.(referring to the)supernatural; magic.
Deut. 18:10-12 ...or one who practices witchcraft,...,or a sorcerer...For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD...
Far too much truth in your post for comfort, imho.
So prayers are witchcraft? Did not Jesus heal by prayers? Or did He use "magic?" And did the Apostles not heal by prayer also? Or were they mere witch doctors?
once again we see protestants distance themselves from the New Testament church, which was persecuted for performing sacrements before the Bible protestants have re-written through mistranslation was even finished being compiled.
That's the ultimate narcissism (self-love), arrogance and pride, FK, because then one appoints himself as the sole arbiter of what is true and what is false.
AAaaaarghhhhh! But this is what you do! :) You openly default to whatever the Church says as your "official" position, but in your heart you have honest disagreements on the truth of some scripture. From my statement, your "belief in the interpretation" is the Church's. However it disagrees in some cases with "your own belief about its correctness". The Church does not say that Paul was wrong, instead it says that he did not mean what he said. At least your approach is the more honest. :) (And just to be clear, I don't think of you as any of those things from your statement. :)
Also, think about it: if the Bible has more than one interpretation then it has more than one truth. And that is a slippery slope.
I don't look at it that way. The reason for more than one interpretation is that no one is right about everything, EVEN GIVEN that all believers are individually led by the Spirit. God's timetable is God's timetable, and we will know what He wants us to know, when He wants us to know it. Otherwise, sanctification would not be a lifelong process, and I think we all agree that it is.
Depends on focus, attitude and practice—with the mentality in focus in the practice.
Sorry, Q, you didn't answer my question.
It depends. Many prayers are witchcraft . . . in that they are a magical sort of thinking and incantation of the pray-er's wishes, rituals, constructions on reality with little commitment to, submission to God Almighty as the GrantOR of the answers to said prayers. They treat God more as a vending machine and expect Him to comply because the PRAY-ER has jumped--to their mind--through all the right hoops--therefore, God must answer accordingly.
That's a variation on witchcraft. I think some Scriptures would indicate such an assessment in such cases. Don't have the refs off the top of my head here at pottery.
Did not Jesus heal by prayers?
Of course He did--IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH FATHER, PRAYING ACCORDING TO FATHER'S WILL. Huge issues and factors.
Or did He use "magic?"
Or were they mere witch doctors?
You responded: AAaaaarghhhhh! But this is what you do! :) You openly default to whatever the Church says as your "official" position, but in your heart you have honest disagreements on the truth of some scripture.
AAaaaaarghhhh! No we don't! WE default to the Church's dogmatic teachings - but it doesn't follow that the Church is monolithic and narrow on all of its teachings. ALL of the Church's teachings are not dogmatice, FK!
In our discussion on grace and free will, I (Joe) told you that the Church ALLOWS several stances regarding predestination of the elect and so forth (Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and so forth). I (Joe), as a Catholic, can decide for myself ANY of these stances. The Church is broad in its view on this question! We have discussed this and other things over and over again. I have ALSO told you that the Church does not define the entire meaning of the Scriptures. There are only a dozen or so verses that the Church says "this is what it means, and nothing else". The Church allows SOME freedom, as long as our view does not interfere with the body of teachings given to us as a whole.
Kosta wrote: Also, think about it: if the Bible has more than one interpretation then it has more than one truth. And that is a slippery slope.
FK replied: I don't look at it that way. The reason for more than one interpretation is that no one is right about everything, EVEN GIVEN that all believers are individually led by the Spirit. God's timetable is God's timetable, and we will know what He wants us to know, when He wants us to know it. Otherwise, sanctification would not be a lifelong process, and I think we all agree that it is.
I will agree with FK on this one, Kosta. I don't think you meant to write that, because you are certainly well-versed on the Church Fathers and that they had various interpretations (spiritual) regarding the Scriptures. Catholics have been taught that we can derive several meanings from a verse - not that they contradict - but at different levels. You certainly are familiar with the Alexandrian vs. the Antioch schools of Scriptural interpretation back in the day. Neither was wrong, just a different view of God's Word.
Regards
divine I submit to Church dogma. The Orthodox Church has three dogmas in short : (1) Triune God, (2) dual nature of Christ in one person, (3) Theotokos the Mother of our Lord and God jesus Christ, our Savior. These dogmas are immutable and those who reject them are not Christians.
I accept (submit) to those dogmas on faith, as they are illogical and reason alone cannot explain them. They are derived from the Scriptures, which I accept as the source ofm God's truth eve if mixed with myths and cultural biases.
Outside of those three dogmas and scriptures, the Orthodox Church teaches patristic doctrines. These teaching are based on consensus patrum and not on the teaching of any one individual father. While they can become more detailed as new understanding develops, they are not dogmatic in nature; individual fathers have been wrong.
An example of that is +Gregory of Nyssa, a Cappadocian Father and among the most prominent patristics. For a while he was a student of Origen and shared with Origen his belief in universal salvation (a heretical belief that everyone will eventually be glorified, including satan). Today, practically all groups who call themselves Christian reject that as false. So, we are under no obligation to "believe" any Chruch Father individually. However, I believe that the doctrines to which the Fathers mutually agreed (consensus patrum) is wiser and more knowledgeable than I am. ut I do not necessarily agree with individual fathers whose doctrines were accepted locally.
I believe that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the TRUE Church within which one can find the fullness of the Orthodox Faith; that it is the Church Christ commissioned; that its sacraments are real.
Everything else is my opinion. My faith and my opinion are not one and the same. :)
No, the consensus patrum reads +Paul differently then I or the Protestants. I know what my impressions are, but I defer to the consensus.
There is One truth, FK. There is one true God. There is one true faith. There is one true Church. How do we know our God is a true God and not an idol? How do we know we have the true Church?
If no Church knows the truth fully, then there is no true Church. If you are church shopping then you can't believe your church is a true church but a man-made institution.
Exactly.
-A8
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.