Douay has, I think, the Orthodox numbering of the psalms. I was always wondering why the discrepancy, by the way -- anyone knows?
Merry Christmas and God bless you richly.
Annunciation
Pietro Cavallini
1291
Mosaic
Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome
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/
Your filioque is repeating the tradition of men. Double procession is not from all eternity.
Adam and Eve did not have that and they were fully human.
Incarnation is a mystery, not ordinary conception. There is nothing that necessitates or justifies any speculation as regards to that miracle. Least of all claiming that Mary's egg was somehow "fertilized." Fertilized ovum is a separate individual. C hrist was one and the same Divine Person, Logos, before and after.
Likewise, Howard. May we all fall and worship Christ on this festive day. Blessed Nativity to all!
Kosta
The Son was sent, but the entire Godhead was still present in Christ. What part of Divinity stayed "behind"? It is a mystery on exactly what happened at the Incarnation. Only the Logos became flesh, but the entire Godhead became flesh because within the Logos is the entire Godhead. Unless you believe in three Gods.
Regards
That is an out of context interpretation. Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles, not about every individual person. God desires ALL men to be saved. God died for ALL men's sin. God graces ALL men - although not all equally. We believe God graces ALL men sufficiently to be saved. Otherwise, this makes God a liar that He desires all men to be saved. If man cannot save themselves, then God MUST provide at least "sufficient" grace so that ALL men CAN be saved. Because ALL men are NOT saved, we must postulate that God "awaits" man's response individually to the grace He gives. Thus, only SOME grace is "later" considered efficacious to actually save a man. Romans 9 deals with God's actions towards the Jews and the use of the Gentiles to call Jews to repentance.
Naturally, I agree that God is just. But for this to be true, He must give us the necessary ability to obey His commmandments - even if it is "sufficient" ability. Thus, our free will is the determining factor. If God judges man on whether we obey His commandments, then God would give us the means to do it. Otherwise, we could ask God "how could I obey your commands if you made me not able to do it?". Would we condemn a man who could not benchpress 2000 pounds without any mechanical aid or other help? Thus, God gives us the ability to do it, but we have to also step up to the bar. I cannot say how this interaction works on this side of heaven.
There is no cause for mockery in the final judgment for nobody can stand up and say that they deserve anything other than Hell.
Of course. I couldn't lift 2000 pounds myself! But even if I have a winch or a lift, I still have to step forward and execute the lift - with the help given me. Is this analogy useful in understanding God's graces are absolutely necessary AND WE must do something as well? (which do not mean we have earned anything)
We will never be judged for our sins because Christ already took our judgment/punishment. But we are judged for our works.
Where does the Bible make the distinction between sins and works? I am not sure where you get this from. Anytime the Bible says we are judged, it is refering to our actions, our works, what we do, which includes both our sins and our good deeds. Christ paid the price for our sins, which deserve eternal punishment. Thus, God's justice is met. But that doesn't mean that God will ignore our sins that are unrepented of!
Hyper-Calvinism/double predestination is not biblical. Man is still responsible. God is still sovereign. God works out the balance and we follow and obey Him.
I agree with that statement, but probably the nuances of the final sentence we see a bit differently.
Regards
What are you doing messing with this? You should be enjoying the day and your family. We have plenty of time to discuss this right after the Cowboy's game.
Merry Christmas jo.
Howard
A serious question on your post:
Does this reading have truth based on how you know God to be, or do you know how God is from this reading?
Hope you understand what I'm asking..
LOL! They are off visiting friends this evening. I stayed behind because I have to get up early tommorrow to go to work and they can come home late and sleep in. The Dolphin-Jet game was not worth watching after the first half.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Joe
Douay has, I think, the Orthodox numbering of the psalms. I was always wondering why the discrepancy, by the way -- anyone knows?
Merry Christmas and God bless you richly.
Merry Christmas to you both, first off, and thank you for your questions and skepticism. It enriches us both. It is inevitable that I come off rough at times, but I truly enjoy these arguments and enjoy explaining the Catholic faith.
Regarding Mary's full awareness of her being the mother of the Messiah, the scripture I think leaves that open to interpretation. The verses that relate to the infancy of Christ indicate a degree of confusion. The "do as He tells you" is her last spoken word recorded in the scripture. I think, this word signifies the fullenss of her transition from obedience as a "handmaid of the Lord" to the adoptive mother of Christians everywhere and the type of the Church. On some mystical level one can place her role as the first disciple as early as the Visitation, when she brings the Word to St. John:
My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
The Protoevangelium is evidence that temple virgins were married to custodial marriages so that they not defile the Temple at puberty. This is the only point here. The Church does not teach thaqt definitively, but the doctors of the Church did notice that Luke 1:34 does not quite compute without some similar state of mind at the time of annunciation.
If you want to argue that Luke 1:34 does not definitely proove her perpetual virginity, I agree, -- but it points to it. That was Forest Keeper's question, and I answered it.
You are missing a teachable moment.
Malista.
Douay has, I think, the Orthodox numbering of the psalms. I was always wondering why the discrepancy, by the way -- anyone knows?
The Hebrew version of the OT apparently numbers it differently. The question is — since when!?
And we vehemenently disagree that Luke strongly points towards Mary ever being a "temple virgin."
Also, the Protoevangelium does not prove custodial marriages either considering that someone made the entire book up. It can not be trusted a source for anything.
Really, it is both. I look at Scripture and see this is how God has operated throughout history. He chose the Israelites, but not the Gentile nations. He chose Abraham. He chose David. He made Jeremiah a prophet from his mother's womb. He came to the Apostles and chose them one by one. He filled John the Baptist with His Spirit from His mother's womb. These were all God's initiation and at times entirely without human interaction at all (Jeremiah and John were not given a choice. They were immediately filled).
You couple this with what we know of man. He is a sinner. Our inclination is to go against God. Man makes up a gazillion (theological term there) religions in order to fill his need for God without submitting to the true God. He makes idols, though the real God has at least revealed something of himself to man. As Romans says, he will not turn to God. As Jesus says, he CAN NOT unless the Spirit draws him. Yet, God isn't standing with his foot on man's neck and saying you can't come. For those who God does not choose to quicken to Himself, he allows them their desire. They love their sin. He lets them go their way. For the ones He does choose, He makes them alive towards His truth and regenerates their hearts so that seeing, they will see, and hearing they will hear, and they will realize who He is.
We don't know who is chosen and who is not. Completely beyond our "pay scale." Our job is to go and tell the world about Christ indiscriminately. We sow seed, the Lord reaps the harvest.
In my own life, I've also experience the sovereignty of God. I was only 9 when I was saved; but, I was still a sinner. I felt His urging me to come to Him. I was given a desire by Him to love Him and serve Him. The saving faith that I experienced was borne in me by the Holy Spirit. And I give Him 100% glory for my salvation and life.
I do work. But not in order that I may be saved. I'm very active in church (teach, musician, drama) and life for my Lord. But not out of a debt I have to pay. Out of gratitude and love towards Him. I sin. I don't want to. But I do. But even in my sin, I am thankful that He forgives and HAS FORGIVEN me once for all. He will not let me go. I can not lose what He has given me for it was all Him. I didn't win my own salvation. I don't keep my own salvation. The Lord Himself is the one who holds me in His hand and his promise is that He will never let me go.
If I did not show works in my life, it would be an indication that I had never been saved in the first place. When the Lord comes into Your life, He changes your "want to." Those who are truly saved will see a change in their lives. Their want to changes. If you see no change, chances are they are not saved (but only God and they know that fact).
You'll probably have more questions. But hopefully I'm following your line of thought and answered what you were asking.
In vehemence you don't lack.
someone made the entire book up.
Even granting that, his contemporaries in the 2nd c believed it, and they knew the culture.
That pretty well answers it. And I tend to agree with you up to the point of - reversing the phrasing - God choosing some for eternal damnation.
This wasn't the case with you or I and I know of none that it was the case for. This is not proof of course. My "proof," outside of Church teaching and doctrine, is God as I know Him. That's the basis of my question.
I would reject your reading of Romans because it describes God quite differently than I know from experience. In Protestant terms, I think I would say the Holy Spirit would not guide me to this reading. (I should add that I read about God as revealed to some OT writers differently than God as revealed in the Gospels.)
I mean this as a discussion of views, not as personal criticism.
thanks for your reply..
FK, a little history will tell you that life on earth for early Christians was not what it is to our society which is in love with the world. Being martyred was an honor for the earliest followers of Christ. You are interpreting John's longevity as a "reprieve" and a reward.
I don't think that's really where I was going. My only point was to give one small piece of further evidence toward the consistency of the view that Jesus had half-siblings, as opposed to step-siblings or "other" cousins. I was saying that the thing about martyrs is that they're dead. :) Therefore, they cannot take care of other people to the extent a non-martyr can, etc. It's not a slam dunk by itself, just one piece that fits. That's all.
I hope all of you had a wonderful Christmas! :)
What you are describing is double-predestination - which is not what I believe the Bible teaches. Again, God forces nobody to go to Hell. And the "fairness" doctrine I hear so much about isn't really what people want. People don't want God to be fair because fair is sending ALL to Hell. Fair is not having His Son pay our penalty.
Romans 9 says that God basically "puts up with" objects that are fit for destruction in order to illustrate to those objects fit for His grace what His grace is all about. He allows those people THEIR own choice. I reject the concept of free will however for the lost because they are bound by sin. But, it's their desire to be against God. So, rather than telling people "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO COME" God, recognizing that NOBODY would come on their own, chooses to save some while allowing the others their own inclinations. Again, He'd be fair to send ALL to Hell and isn't obligated to save anyone. Mercy and grace are what God exhibits when saving the individuals who will be saved.
You've made too broad of a statement. SOME contemporaries have believed it. Others did not see evidence of perpetual virginity. You can't say everyone agreed with this interpretation. Best you can say is that some did.
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.