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/
It renders sin meaningless too. Robots cannot sin. The way Protestants describe it, I have visions of the "saved" walking around with God's tractor beams attached to their foreheads, leading them around like zombies.
If they do good, it's because God made them do good; if they sin, well, God made them do that too. It's a masochistic kind of love they exhibit in my opinion. How can you love someone like that?
For God made a man and a woman, happy and content and then He made them disobey so that he can punish them and all their generations in order to have an excuse to sacrifice His own Son for His wounded "pride."
Calvinism believes it was all choreographed by none other than God, of course. All the suffering is God-made by their theology, although they deny it (then again, abused people deny violence too; it's called repression). It really makes you wonder of the mindset that is attracted to that kind of thinking.
Of course the need of a teacher to teach the teachers what to teach is part of what I'm looking for in our discussion.
Without getting too far astray, I'd be interested to hear what you make of "to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." in this same chapter.
There is no irony there - as once again, you neatly ignorred the Scripture I posted. I posted two portions of Scripture. One said we have no need for men to teach us and the other said that babes in Christ need to be fed milk until they are strong enough to teach. The writer of Hebrews was lamenting the fact that they weren't teachers yet.
As a Christian who has studied Scripture and known Scripture since I was a child, I have grown from the milk of the word to the strong meat. I am a teacher. I'm called to be a teacher by God. My heart knows that and the areas He has allowed me to minister testify of it.
Why did I go to Seminary? Quite frankly because I love to study, especially about the Lord. Theology class brought now real revelations theologically, for I was already familiar with theological issues from my own studies. What it did do is help me to be better at framing my arguments, understanding counter-arguments, and in general being more prepared to be a teacher. Not everyone is called to teach. But everyone is called to grow to the point that they no longer are the babes crying for milk, but are adults thriving on the meat of the Word.
My trust was not in the Seminary. As a matter of fact I vocally disagreed with some of my professors on a couple of issues. They are mere men; and when I saw one of them being inconsistent with Scripture or influenced by the world in their thinking, I called them on it. I guess you can say I have a touch of prophet in me as well.
Bottom line is, everything, even one's own thoughts is to be tested with Scripture. To test with Scripture, you have to be familiar with Scripture. To be familiar with it, You have to study it. The more you Study it, the More the Spirit of God reveals the truth to you and the more able you are to stand.
I'm signing off for tonight. Have a good evening.
He was writing to the Hebrews and speaking of the High Priest sacrificial system. He was showing them that rather than their old system which only provided a temporary covering, that we have a High Priest in Jesus who after having made one Sacrifice for sin declared the work to be done and sat down at the right hand of the Father.
I can't see the theology leading to any other conclusion about God, as I said.
I do think, however, I am finally seeing how you get there given the underlying assumption of Sola Scriptura. I understand that other adherents arrive at different conclusions, but I'm beginning to see how it would lead to predestination in particular.
Thanks. So this was not to be done anymore. The same with teachers needed for teachers, or is this still true?
What confuses me is that they talk of sinners as if they have a choice in sin. Even more befuddling is when they begin to speak of the "guilt" for the sin they had no choice to reject. With such mindset, Judas becomes an "obedient servant" of God, and we begin to see parallels with Gnosticism here.
Have a good evening too. I appreciate your patience with me tonight.
And I appreciate your Seminary experience. However, I don't believe you would have come upon your theology on your own. I think you'd agree here, I hope.
Thus far, you've pointed out you don't agree with anyone, Seminary, Calvin, Luther, even your church.
This makes me wonder if you believe anyone but yourself teaches the full and complete Gospel. Doesn't this occur to you also sometimes?
Anyway.. I'm gonna let you have the floor a great deal tomorrow, I promise. I'll lay way back - until you've got in at least a paragraph or two. :)
Thanks again..
That is merely your fallible opinion. Where does it say that in the Bible? What guarantee do you have that your opinions are Spirt-guided and those of others are not?
I promised Blogger to leave him the floor, but posting to you doesn't count.. I hope. Or maybe I can just provide some flamebait anyway.
What occurred to me tonight is that if you are alone with Scripture, truly sola and have no Church to trust for what is the True Teaching - "trust no man.." etc.. then either you become the best lawyer, c.f. Calvin, the best charismatic orator, c.f., Benny Hinn, or what? Why is your contradictory interpretation any more true than the next guy flying sola? And why would anyone else's be either?
There's no foundation under you, or a multiplicity of foundations, none with any more claim to Truth than the other.
Do you compare experiences of the Holy Spirit then? No, no, experiential, mysticism? That's verbotten also.
There's no where to go from here and I see a short drop to the worldview of a deterministic crapshoot in a meaningless game.
I'm sure the Protestants will be all over me for this one, but maybe I'll just hide out tomorrow.
;0)
Repentance is a gift from God.
If God had to wait until men repented of their own volition before He forgave them, He'd still be waiting.
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." -- 2 Timothy 2:24-26"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." -- Acts 11:18
III. Although repentance is not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.
Question 76: What is repentance unto life?
Answer: Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God's mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and endeavoring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.
D-Fender, did you have to end the evening distorting what I've said?
Do you agree with the Catholic church on its pronouncements against Saddam Hussein's execution? Against the Iraq War? Did you agree with the church on its selling of indulgences during Luther's day? On Simony? On Pluralism? Did you agree with Alexander VI and his many mistresses and daughter Lucretia, while he was a man of the cloth?
Some of those examples are more extreme than others.
On the essentials, I agree with Calvin, Luther, my Seminary, and my church. It is only on secondary issues where I may disagree. Calvin, Luther, my Seminary, and my Church all have a very biblical view of salvation itself. There are disagreements on other issues - but gee, didn't Peter and Paul have a disagreement or two? Didn't Barnabus and Paul? Is Paul just a big old fuddy duddy who only wants to believe what he wants to believe?
The full and complete gospel is found in Scripture. Men & women of God, as they follow Scripture, will find no qualms with me. In reality, they will find I'm quite tolerant of diversity of beliefs because I know that there can be multiple views on certain subjects - just not the essentials.
In essentials - unity.
In non-essentials- liberty.
In all things, charity.
Have a good morning.
The priestly sacrificial system for salvation is through.
Hebrews 10
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
You speak of guarantees and proof as if we have to have everything nailed down 100% now or we have no basis for belief. Wherein is faith in that? Without faith, it is impossible to please God. My faith is in God. I believe that He will do and has done what He said He would do. He promised to guide me into all truth. I will not make Him into a liar and neither should you. Either He told the truth when He said the Holy Spirit would guide us or He lied. I choose the former. With the way some on this thread kick against ANY KIND of scriptural interpretation that hasn't been spelled out by a priest or patriarch, one wonders if everyone proclaiming themselves to be Christians feels ths same.
2 Timothy 2
15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
# 2 Timothy 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.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
God does not shun human agency in spreading His gospel. But that human agency MUST be 100% lined up with God's Word or else it is not speaking from Him. Doesn't mean that humans don't sometimes blow it. But those who are led by the Spirit of God will not get any essential wrong.
Ephesians 6:16-18 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
16Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints
If you go into the world without the Word of God at your side and in your heart, you are going as an unarmed man to battle. When times of trouble come, you will be destroyed.
Try answering the question I asked in the post.
Since you are into merit, your questions don't merit a response.
The point remains that the scripture does not contain a claim of self-sufficiency, but contains indications of other revelations given the apostles. Whether they were necessary or auxiliary for our salvation, we don't know because they were not recorded as gospel. Possibly, they were recorded as non-canonical teaching of the Church fathers.
If the scripture were sufficient for salvation, how did the Christendom survive for decades without the bulk of it, and for centuries thereafter without a definitive canon? What does it do to the Protestants who threw away canonical books because they did not like them?
Yes, there are passages in the scripture that state that the scripture is inspired (all of it, including the parts Luther threw out), necessary for complete clerical education, useful to the point of being the absolute proof for argumentation, and not to be contradicted. This is precisely what the Church teaches about it.
Do you agree with the Catholic church on its pronouncements against Saddam Hussein's execution? Against the Iraq War? Did you agree with the church on its selling of indulgences during Luther's day? On Simony? On Pluralism? Did you agree with Alexander VI and his many mistresses and daughter Lucretia, while he was a man of the cloth?
For sake of clarity, the policy recommendations of the Church are distinct from de fide doctrines of faith and morals. They are, of course, of great authority, but they are not dogmatic and disagreement with them confers no anathema. Personal behavior of popes is just that, personal behavior. One is free to form any moral judgement of it, including the severest of condemnations.
I understand your point. For sake of clarity, please understand what I was trying to say. In both of our traditions we have had individuals who have said or done things that we disagree with. This does not mean that we disagree with them entirely, or invalidate areas of agreement we do have. D-Fendr had stated "Thus far, you've pointed out you don't agree with anyone, Seminary, Calvin, Luther, even your church." The statement was false. I have areas of disagreement with lots of folks, but on the essentials, I am in agreement with all of the above for we all have the same source for our beliefs- Scripture. That's all I was saying.
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.