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/
Please explain more fully what you mean by saying:
“Hell is for those who want to set things right with God by their own efforts”.
Give it up, A8. Recognize the liberty Christ has given you through His one-time sacrifice which has been offered and accepted by God for all the sins of Christ's flock.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:9-14"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
You didn't address that comment to anyone. Were you simply declaring yourself the winner in this discussion? 8~)
Protestants, like any Christian on the planet, should be able to join Paul in testifying with confidence -- "I know whom I have believed."
We don't need any miracles. The children of Israel wandered for 40 years in the wilderness being fed by manna from heaven. Their clothes never wore out and God provided for them. They experienced miracles every day just picking up the manna and having enough to eat. It didn't do them any good.
Why specifically do we need miracles? What has God not given us that we feel we need a miracle? I'm not trying to be mean but just think about this for a moment. What would we like God to do for us at this very moment? Cure a sick child of cancer? Part the Red Sea? Help me to win the Power Ball? (That would be a miracle!)
These are all external things that will NEVER change the heart or soul. They will not open up the ears to hear or the eyes to see. Only the miracle of the Holy Spirit can do that and, unfortunately, we no longer see this as a significant miracle-or at least no longer acknowledge this is God's doing and not our own choice. Personally, if the choice comes down to parting the Red Sea or opening up the ears of ONE sinner so they'll come to Christ, I'd would choose the latter miracle.
Nor would Roman Catholicism seek to satisfy God's Wrath themselves in the atonement of penance whereby a human atones for the sins Christ has not covered.
Roman Catholicism asserts that penitential works are meritorious before God who accepts those works as a payment for the temporal punishment due to sin, all of which merits God’s mercy, forgiveness and justification. Trent states it clearly:
Canon IX. If anyone saith, that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring sins to be forgiven to him who confesses; provided only he believe himself to be absolved, or (even though) the priest absolve not in earnest, but in joke; or saith, that the confession of the penitent is not required, in order that the priest may be able to absolve him: let him be anathema.
Canon XII. If any one saith, that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them: let him be anathema.
Canon XIII. If any one saith, that the satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, by the punishments inflicted by him, and patiently borne, or by those enjoined by the priest, nor even by those voluntarily undertaken, as by fastings, prayers, alms–deeds, or by other works also of piety; and that, therefore, the best penance is merely a new life: let him be anathema.
Canon XIV. If any man saith, that the satisfactions, by which penitents redeem their sins through Jesus Christ, are not a worship of God, but traditions of men, which obscure the doctrine of grace, and the true worship of God, and the benefit itself of the death of Christ: let him be anathema.
Trent unambiguously states that satisfaction is made to God through the works of penance and that through these works men redeem their sins, such a construct is antithetical to the Gospel of Christ, and an insult to His precious Blood.
For those who would say that we don't understand the language of Trent, John Hardon confirms it in John Hardon confirms it in, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism;
********************************************
Penance means repentance or satisfaction for sin. If we expect God’s forgiveness we must repent. Penance is necessary because we must expiate and make reparation for the punishment which is due our sins...Christ instituted this sacrament to give us a ready and assured means of obtaining remission for the sins committed after baptism...A person must be in a state of grace to merit divine mercy for his venial sins...Satisfaction must be made for sins already forgiven because normally some—and even considerable—temporal punishment is still due, although the guilt has been removed...We make satisfaction for our sins by every good act we perform in a state of grace but especially by prayer, penance and the practice of charity...All prayer merits satisfaction for sin...The patience acceptance of trials or humiliations sent by God is expiatory. Our works of satisfaction are meritorious if they are done while in a state of grace...Sacramental satisfaction is the penitential work imposed by a confessor in the confessional in order to make up for the injury done to God and atone for the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven. The penitent is obliged to perform the penance imposed by the priest, and deliberate failure to perform a penance imposed for mortal sin is gravely sinful...Sins can also be expiated through indulgences
******************************************************
Pay attention to the words, atonement, expiation, reparation, satisfaction, redeeming sin and merit.
Roman Catholicism's dogmas on penance are an afront to and denial of the sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus Christ. It places the burden on humanity which must supplement the work of atonement done by the Lord Jesus on the Cross by their own works of atonement to satisfy the justice of God and to merit justification and the reward of heaven.
Key statement by Hardon is: Christ instituted this sacrament to give us a ready and assured means of obtaining remission for the sins committed after baptism.
The conclusion is that in baptism original sin is remitted, and the Roman Catholic is restored to a state of grace, but sins committed after baptism must be atoned for by the penitent themselves. Therefore, Christ's Atonement only made it possible for original sin to be remitted in baptism.
The gospel of Roman Catholicism ultimately is: "Get baptized and do penance."
The Biblical Gospel is: Believe on Christ and be baptized.
The Biblical Gospel is God reaching down to man to rescue those whom God has chosen, the gospel of Roman Catholicism is man trying to win God's approval by his own efforts.
“Hell is for those who want to set things right with God by their own efforts”.
I did that already at the end of the comment.
What part of it do you not understand?
Now, now, for some reason you refuse to see a reasonable middle-ground. :) The Bible lays out positions of church authority and I am fine with that. However, all of them are still subject first to the scriptures. They are also subject to the will of God's people on interpretation, i.e. they are accountable. Obviously this is not so in Roman Catholicism, since the hierarchy proclaims and determines, on threat of excommunication, what the interpretation is and means.
Unlike other faiths, I do not "subject" myself to my pastor. Sometimes I do disagree with my own pastor on what he preaches, since I am a staunch Reformer. Most of his preaching is in line with my view of classic Reformed theology, and the few times it is not, it just isn't that big a deal. I also disagree with other good Reformers on minor matters. Again, no big deal. We are all learning and being sanctified.
If for some reason our pastor started preaching outside the faith, then we, as an autonomous laity, would have the right to remove him according to our church by-laws. Fortunately, this has never been an issue in our church. Our pastor understands that he is there to serve Christ, not the Southern Baptist Convention, in leading us in worship of Him.
One core of our pastor's preaching is a direct one-on-one personal relationship with Christ. Almost every Sunday he says that Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship. I think that's beautiful.
Indeed, the Pharisees witnessed miracle after miracle, witnessing the healing of a paralytic man yet attributed the "miracles" of Christ to Beelzebub.
Miracles do not change anyone. Only God can give the new heart, new spirit and new life promised in Ezekiel 36.
Amen, Harley. God knows what we need before we even ask for it. And again, it all comes down to trusting in Him and in His word."I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." -- Psalm 37:25
I do agree with Quix that Christians need to keep their eyes and ears open for any incoming mortar fire as we've been told to expect it.
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -- John 16:33
However, God will always be our fortress; we should have no fear of the future because it is by His will for His glory, every jot and tittle of it. As Christians, we can expect joy with the morning that is Jesus Christ.
"Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness" -- Psalm 30:11
AMEN!
Clearly . . .
God disagrees with that assertion . . .
He disagrees plainly in Scripture.
And He overtly disagrees daily in the lives of countless administers of His Power and Miracles and more keenly and to their great thankfulness--in the lives of the needy desperate for a mighty touch by His Great Hand.
Cheeky denial of their need and desperateness for His touch AND OF HIS EAGERNESS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS--throughout the church age . . . is more than a LOT sad. It's outrageous--on a par with the Disciples trying to keep the children away from Jesus.
I've heard RC Sproul say many times that due to sin, the best that any theologian(which ALL Christians should be) can hope for is to be 80% correct, and even that is a stretch. However, there are the essentials which must be correct for one's eternity depends on it.
God disagrees with that assertion . . .
He disagrees plainly in Scripture.
That's a bold assertion, I suppose you can produce some Scripture to support it?
Words—even Scriptural words
JUST DO NOT CUT IT
When the desperate father seeks Jesus touch with his dying daughter;
When the demonized son has terrorized the whole extended family for months or years . . .
Thankfully, as demonstrated in Scripture
AND
in the lives of those who believe SCRIPTURE
THESE SIGNS SHALL FOLLOW . . . WHO?
THOSE WHO BELIEVE . . .
If they aren’t following . . . perhaps something is wrong with the beliefs!
Holy Spirit is a gentleman . . . He won’t force Himself on or through someone who believes He forgot how to do miracles 2,000 years ago.
See above.
As history has illustrated . . . reading plain Scripture does not force belief nor compliance.
Nevermind. I think I understand.
Amen. Would that they had ears to hear and eyes to see.
Amen. Would that they had ears to hear and eyes to see.
Yes, but in the natural state, the natural man seeks his own righteousness, being afflicted with the nature of Adam to be his own god, and therefore the sole arbiter of what is good and evil.
God has a court prepared for those who deny the sufficiency of Christ's Blood in which they can make their case for having atoned for the sins Christ did not cover.
Sometimes I imagine that in that final court, James may very well be called as a witness whereby he cites James 2:10, testifying that they are infinitely guilty and that it will take infinity to atone for just one sin.
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48
Yet even Paul seems to imply that the days of the Apostles is an ending of a sort...
"For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." -- 1 Corinthians 4:9
But I do understand your insistence on the contemporary occurrence of miracles. Maybe it's just semantics. I view so much of life as a miracle that it's difficult to say where non-miracles leave off and miracles begin.
For the Christian, every speck of life is a miracle because it is all leading to our eternal residence with Jesus Christ. For the reprobate, I don't think life holds any miracles and he probably likes it that way.
God certainly forced Himself on Paul, striking him blind in the process so he could see.
If miracles were normative they would cease to be miracles, they would be normals.
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.