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/
This does not rule out whimsy, it supports it.
We either go with this or we go with a limited God who is not omnipotent, omniscient, or either.
And if we end up with a God who is capricious, we've agreed we end up in error.
So, somewhere we made a wrong turn, yes?
Maybe we could start exploring where we end up if we do not assume that free will necessarily contradicts an omnipotent God and that predestination is not required of omniscience.
Appealing to their "honest intentions" is weak, as that can be applied to Gnostics and Muslims as well as the authors of Masoretic text, the Septuagint(s), and the Dead Sea Scrolls. They all believed their version was correct!
Trouble is we don't know which is more correct. But there is circumstantial evidence which is less reliable. Certainly Textus Receptus is one of them.
Going back almost 1700 years, we read from the Retractions of St. Augustine that Mat 5:22 contains the phrase "without a cause" in some Latin translations, which is absent in Greek originals.
Whether he was using the Old Latin Bible or not, I don't know. But if something is not in the text used for translations, but appears in the translation, chances are the translation is the culprit.
And when it come to translation nightmare, the KJV is based on Textus Receptus, a retro-engineered "Greek" source based on Latin text! In addition to that the KJV is sprinkled with reformist terminology that could not have existed in the originals! These changes were put into the KJVC intentionally to reflect theology and terminology unknown to Christianity up to that time.
Finally, my opinion of KJV is just that, my opinion, and does not qualify as an ad hominem even if I call it a fraud for all the good and valid reasons stated and then some.
"Were you saying Ni! to that person???"
The Knights that say Ni would never refer to Dr. E. as "that person"; not if we wanted to live our usual, nondisabled, harmonious lives. Saintess, yes; role modeless, yes; distant (as in far away) queen, preferable; but "that person", never. He said it, Bogger said it, I didn't.
Forgot to thank you for your post.
I have to go out, so if you reply, I'm not ignoring you...
The only problem, as I see it, Dr. E, is that your random verse generator is not working properly.
Many are called but few are chosen. God calls all, but chooses some. Why I don't know but I can assure you it is not because of HarleyD's actions.
Amen.
It's just like fallen man to concoct a man-centered philosophy around the miracle of Christ's birth.
Jesus Christ was born of woman by the will of God through the Holy Spirit in order to redeem God's elect, according to His good pleasure and for His glory alone.
What our Orthodox and RC FRiends do not understand is that we Protestants have a visceral repulsion to this puffed-up Mariology. And that reaction is God-given. Thank God.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." -- Acts 4:12
Go back to Scripture and read it, Kosta. By the grace of God, all the answers are found therein, "generated" by the Holy Spirit.
From the year A.D. 50 through A.D. 405, several writings appeared claiming to be written by an Apostle, or someone close to an Apostle. These were often read in Church. See Figure, Writings Which the Catholic Church Decided to be the "Canon" of Scripture of the New Testament. The Catholic Church, the only Christian church in existence at the time, had to decide which writings were authentic and inspired, and which would make up the "canon", or the list of the sacred books of the New Testament. The standard used to declare a book as belonging to the canon of the New Testament, or the Church's official list of sacred writings:
1. Written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle.
2. Liturgical use - use at Mass was an official approval.
3. Orthodoxy in doctrine - the teaching had to agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
A list of the inspired books of the New Testament, as we have them in the Bible today, was first put together in the 39th Pastoral Letter of St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in A.D. 367. He wanted this list of sacred books to be the "canon", or list of sacred books of the New Catharsis. He lists the 27 books of the New Testament and declares all are apostolic and canonical. St. Athanasius said, "In these alone is proclaimed the Good News of the teaching of true religion." This list was confirmed by the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), both in North Africa (St. Augustine being very influential in both councils), Pope Innocent I (405), and the Council of Trent (1546). The Old Testament books accepted as Canonical were "officially" declared to be the "Canon" of the Old Testament Scripture by the Council of Trent. The Canon of Scripture consists of 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books on the New Testament, 73 in all.
To Tell You The Whole Truth about the Church and the Holy Bible
The Bible: Important Translations of the Bible
Septuagint and Catholic Bible
The Septuagint (which comes from the Latin for 70, "septuaginta") was a translation of the Hebrew Books of the Old Testament into Greek, by 70 Jewish scholars. The translation became necessary when it was found that most of the Israelites in exile, especially as a result of the Babylonian Captivity of 586-536 B.C., did not know Hebrew, but wanted to read the sacred books. The work was done in Alexandria, Egypt, sometime between 250 B.C. and 100 B.C.. This translation was warmly welcomed by Jews outside Palestine, as was read by many Gentiles. Consequently, many Gentiles were familiar with the important ideas in the Old Testament and were thus prepared to hear and accept the teachings of Jesus Christ.
In the early Church no list of inspired books had been accepted or approved. Christ, and then the Apostles, did not give us a list of books which were inspired. However, the Septuagint was extremely influential among Jews living outside Palestine (and some inside Palestine), and was the sacred writings adopted by the early Greek-speaking Christians. Throughout the New Testament there are more than 300 direct quotations or paraphrases from the Septuagint Bible out of some 350 Old Testament references. Scholars regard this as an indication that the Catholic Christian writers of the Apostolic Era had adopted the Septuagint as their own. The Christians took the Septuagint over so completely that the Jews decided to adopt their own version. This was done about 90 A.D.. The Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), and Pope Innocent I (405) listed the 46 books of the Septuagint as inspired. The Catholic, Greek, Russian and other Orthodox Old Testaments are based on the Septuagint.
Vulgate
The Vulgate is the Latin version of the Bible prepared by St. Jerome (382-404), at the request of Pope St. Damasus I. He translated the Old Testament directly from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and revised the existing Latin text of the New Testament. "Vulgate" means "common" or "popular", since Latin was the popular language in Europe at the time. This translation was done in a language they could understand. Very few knew how to read. The Vulgate was used through the centuries and was declared the official Latin text of the Bible for Catholics by the Council of Trent (1545-63). It was from the Vulgate that almost all English Catholic translations were made until the middle of the 20th century, when scholars began to use original sources. It remained the official Latin text of the Bible for the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II replaced it with the New Vulgate in 1979.
Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This belief is based on their acceptance of the fact that the Catholic Church had the authority to declare which books were inspired and should be included in the list of sacred books or "Canon", and which should not be included.
The Catholic Church knew it had this authority and guidance because:
1. "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16-17)
2. "However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, as come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)
3. "... I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20)
4. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19)
5. "... it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 3:5)
6. "... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)
For more than 1500 years the Catholic Church has accepted and taught that these 73 books of the Bible are inspired and make up the list of sacred books. Jesus gave His Apostles and Church the gift of the Holy Spirit when He said. "... 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" (John 20:22). Jesus also said, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). It is impossible that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead the Church in an error for 1900 years. Such a promise was made to the Church alone. Martin Luther decided to reject that and to accept the Hebrew Bible since it did not have the 2nd Book of Maccabees which says, "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sin." (2 Maccabees 12:46 NAB). Luther did not agree with praying for the dead. He did not accept seven books of the Old Testament, and also did not accept these New Testament books: Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, 2 Peter and Revelation. These books contained teachings which did not agree with his teaching. By the year 1700, however, Lutheran scholars had restored these books to the New Testament. We must remember that Jesus promised that His Spirit would be with His Church (John 14:11-12) and that the Spirit of Truth would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13). Paul said, "... which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). So the Spirit of Truth guides the Church in all truth, not an individual person.
Hebrew Scriptures and Protestant Bible
Jewish scholars set up four criteria which sacred books had to pass in order to be in the Jewish canon (official list of sacred writings):
1. They had to be in harmony with the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible).
2. They had to have been written before the time of Nehemiah (c.400 B.C.).
3. They had to have been written in Hebrew.
4. They had to have been written in Palestine.
These criteria excluded the seven books which are not in the Hebrew canon or Protestant Old Testament of today. These books are Judith, Tobit, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. (Taking the first letter of each book, we have the name J.T. MacWeb - an easy way to remember them.)
The Protestant Old Testament is the same as the Hebrew canon, and their New Testament is the same as the Catholic New Testament. Most Protestant Bibles, while not accepting those seven books as inspired, are now including them at the end of the Old Testament, as did the 1611 King James Version (Authorized Version).
The Bible In English (before printing)
Various parts of the Bible were translated into Saxon, the language of England at that time, by:
c. 670 Caedmon, a monk
c. 709 Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne
c. 735 Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow
c. 849-901 King Alfred
c. 955-1020 Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury
c. 1020-15thC. English, as we know it today, was developed during this time, and translations appeared in the language of the time.
c. 1382 John Wycliffe produced the first complete translation of the entire Bible in English
Printed Bibles - (A) Protestant
1525 Tyndale Bible
Translated by William Tyndale. It had many errors in it, and was not complete.
1535 Coverdale Bible
This was the first complete English Bible to be printed, and was commissioned by King Henry VIII's Secretary of State, Cromwell.
1537 Matthew's Bible
This was the work of John Rogers.
1539 The Great Bible
This was the work of Miles Coverdale. It was the first official Church of England Bible. It was in the language of the people and set up in every church in England.
1560 Geneva Bible
Sometimes called the "Breeches Bible". "They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches." (Genesis 3:7 GB). It was a revision of the Tyndale and Great Bible, and was the Bible of Shakespeare, Bunyan and the Puritans.
1568 Bishop's Bible
Replaced the Great Bible as the official Bible of the Church of England.
1611 King James Bible (Authorized Version)
King James I appointed 54 of the best scholars in England to revise the Bishop's Bible. It took them seven years. The authorities authorized this translation which had enormous influence on the minds of people, and on English literature. The New Testament in the King James translation was taken, with few exceptions, from the Catholic Douay Rheims translation, which was completed 29 years previously. Like all translations, the King James translation had errors in it. In the last century, Protestant Scripture scholars met to come up with a better translation because there were several thousand errors in the existing King James translation.
1881-1885 Revised Version
The King James version was revised.
1952 Revised Standard Version
King James translation again revised.
1970 New English Bible
1973 New International Version
1980 New King James Version
1986 New Revised Standard Version
Printed Bibles - (B) Catholic
1582-1609 Douay Rheims
This translation was done from the Vulgate by Gregory Martin and William Allen in Douay and Rheims, France.
1749-1763 Challoner Revision
Bishop Challoner revised the Douay-Rheims and this remained in almost universal use among English-speaking Catholics for nearly 200 years.
1941 Confraternity Revision
It revised only the New Testament.
1944-1950 Knox Bible
Ronald Knox was commissioned by the English Bishops to make a new translation from the Vulgate.
1952-1970 New American
This translation, from the original languages, was commissioned by the American Bishops, and in 1964 was adopted for use in the Liturgy.
1966 Jerusalem Bible The Jerusalem Dominicans edited this French translation. It was then translated into English.
1965 Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition New Testament was prepared by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It included wording which reflects Catholic Tradition.
1966 Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition Old Testament was an updated translation of the KJV which included the Deuterocanonical books.
. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS:
1. Written the New Testament.
2. Decided which books went into the Bible, i.e., decided what books are inspired and should make up the "Canon" of scripture.
3. Compiled those books into a collection which it named the "Bible."
4. Preserved the Bible, for the first 1500 years by hand writing each book over and over again on fresh papyrus, or on fresh skins of animals.
5. Preserved the Bible from destruction.
6. Preserved the Bible from error.
7. Defended the Bible through the last 1900 years.
8. Grounded her doctrines upon the Bible.
9. Held the Bible in highest veneration.
10. Interpreted the Bible for Her people.
11. The right to call the Bible Her Book.
St. Augustine; "I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church."
*And yet y'all are protestants (not that there is anything wrong with that) who think you know what the Bible means better the the Catholic Church.
Please feel free, any of you, to post a history of how protestants came to be the authoritaive interpreters of Scripture.
Oh, and please cite in Scripture where it identifies some 16th century revolutionaries as the luther-come-lately's who will assume Divinely Constituted authority
As far as I can tell, y'all had not a blessed thing to do with the new testament, not that that has stopped y'all from claiming authority over it.
It is as though I was in a testate hearing about my Father's Will and the officer reading it declares "..leaves everything he has to his only son....
And, suddenly, a stranger bursts into the room and shouts, "That's me. I'm his son."
And I sit there shocked..."No. I am his only son.
"Nah", says the intruder, "Son really means..."
And then the proceeding bogs down into Monty Pythonesque absurdity.
You, obviously, think the New Testament was meant to be interpreted by you. OK, Prove it.
Show me how you were involved in its creation.Show me the criteria you usd to decide which, among ALL of the texts them circulating, were the ones which were to be Canonised. Show me how you were involved in its preservation. Show me the historical evidence you have. Show me which of your authoritites have a direct link to Peter. Show me which of your authorities have a direct link to any of the Apostles. Show mw which of your authorities have the same beliefs and practices, the orthopraxis, of Peter and The Apostles.
Do something more than just make an unsubstantiated claim
It is true that they left after they received the entire explanation of the Real Presence, and that included the fact the Jesus is the Christ. But their initial objection was to the offer of His flesh in the literal sense; the explanation Jesus gave confirmed the literal sense.
Read the entire book of Romans, the entire book of Galatians, the entire New Testament and then compare James with that.
I have. The Church has. She wrote all these books. You are left to assert that James did not mean it when he said "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only", or Jesus in Mathew 25 does not mean it when He lists charitable work as the criterion by which sheep are separated from goats, or that Christ doies not mean it in Apocalipse when He said "I .. judge everyone according to his works", or again, Jesus did not mean to say, in John 6, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you do not have life in you". The references to works that are not salvific are works of obligation, or works of vanity, or works for reward, or works of Jewish ceremonial law. There is never a characterisation of works of love (=charity) as not salvific; to the contrary, love is set forth as the greates virtue and exhortations are made in every book to do them. The reference to the works being in plain evidence, as opposed to faith being an inward quality are meant to explain that one is impossible without the other; James never says that works are a mere outcome of faith, as the protestant spin suggests.
This assertion [that mass is a presentation across time of one sacrifice of Christ] is taught NOWHERE in scripture
"This is my body; do it in memorial of me" is in every synoptic gospel.
Then salvation is not a gift. It is a merit.
You do not die on the Cross to make the Eucharist possible. Christ did. To freely do what He asks is not a merit in the sense of commanding God to save you; the sovereignty of God does not suffer because of the salvific character of certain works. Is there a merit in acts of piety? -- definitely. But God remains sovereign through this, and your objection vanishes.
Don't be twisting things around, HD. The KJV is based on retro-engineered "original" from the Latin copy of a copy and passed on as "Byzantine."
Re Timothy: I said that our Lord did not teach that bishops are to be married or not. It's not part of theology or Christology. It's a matter of ecclesial discipline, and when it came to such issues as celibacy or morality, or virginity, +Paul was expressing his own opinions (cf Cor 17:25). On other occasions, if he spoke on authoirty from the Lord, he makes that well known.
"Filled with Grace" would be acceptable, yes. Full and filled are synonymous. The important part is that the "filling" is in the past relative to the moment the angel is speaking.
"highly favoured" is not specific of the past time of the "favor" and it replaces "grace" with theologically insignificant "favor", despite the root being "charis", with primary theological meaning of "grace".
-menos is generally describing the person. For example, "fortomenos", loaded. Likewise, "charitomenos", "graced".
I 'spose we will have to use a lot of words to iron this out :)
The original is different and reference to past is missing, "pleres charis", in case of St. Stephen, as I alone explained to you a hundred times by now.
God calls even on those He knows He will not choose? Don't you think the reality is that God calls on all but some respond? Oh, wait, there is no free will, right? Even when God knocks on your door you can't open it; He has to do everything for you. That's cozy. Just lay back and enjoy the ride...if you are on his "lucky list." Deep, real deep.
Of course SOME republicans would like it, but most Christians would go - T'Hell's up with George? He's gone right round the bend...
I personally dislike the argument that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not apply to the New Testament, for these reasons you cite. Nevertheless if one takes 2 Timothy literally, this is what it refers to the Old Testament, inclusive of the Deuterocanon.
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.