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/
Why do you believe that man is free when Scripture says he is a slave to sin? Nobody but MAN keeps him from God. Not God. Not the church. Man's own evil will keeps him from turning to God.
You are preaching to the choir. If something happens it happnes because God allows it. But that's not Calvinism explained on this Forum. Calvinism is, in fact, reptuted for its denial of the free will. Calvinists not only deny free will, they mock it!
So we have "to gar phronema tes sarkos thanatos, to de phronema tou pneumatos zoe kai eirene." The phronema of fleh is death, but the phronema of spirit is life and peace. And he continues "For the phronema of flesh is enmity to God, for it is not obedient to the law of God because it can't be." [Dawg translation]. Anyway, if we grant that phronema means mind, then "Carnal mind" is a scriptural usage, so we have to wrestle with it. Wow, that was some movie, wasn't it?
We do not deny free will. We just deny it in the way you mean it. Man is free in that nobody is stopping him. Man is not free in that his will cleaves and is bound by sin.
If you look at the confessions I posted, many talk about how God preordained to PERMIT the fall. It also showed where Adam and Eve WERE completely free to choose both good and evil. The effects of sin were so destructive that now, though he is invited, though the goodness of God is all around, and though NOBODY, not even God, is stopping him - man will NEVER choose God on his own. Again, I can own a slave and take the cuffs off and say you are free to go, but if he insists on staying in chains and never leaves, then he isn't free and it isn't because of me.
For those of you who might be wondering, "APul" was +Paul's secretary and agent. He was an itinerant scribe and bookie from Apuleia who met +Paul on his first missionary journey and travelled with him ever after, keeping the minutes of all +Paul's meetings. He didn't convert, he just figured that since +Paul was always rejected at the synagogues and then went to the streets is he stuck with +Paul he'd always end up where the interesting stuff was happening.
However late in life he gave all his earnings from making book to found the first Gambler's Anonymous chapter in the Middle East. He planned to write a biography of +Paul, but he couldn't sell the idea to a publisher and died bitter, broken, and destitute.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
"That is an oxymoron."
No, it is a statement of fact; flesh, "denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God".
1 Cor. 1:25-31, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
Rom. 12:2, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
2 Cor. 10:4-5, "(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"
Man is free. Nothing stops him from choosing. In his ignorance, he chooses that which satisfies carnal desires. But he also chooses that which makes him feel good spiritually.
Stop for a moment and think: who made us carnal? The same Creator who made us rational. Unless we assume the responsibility for our "slavery" who will? Certainly we didn't make ourselves carnal, or rational! We didn't enslave ourselves. It's like keeping yourself a prisoner. It's an oxymoron. But, did God?
God knew how we will turn out, so the only way that God cannot be blamed for our evil is if He gives us reason and freedom to choose. Otherwise, our decisions are not ours, but His.
God wrote the book. Whatever happens in that book, whatever course of action the characters take is up to the fancy of the author, and none of their doing. We are just characters in the book, doing whatever the author wants us to do! If the author wants to give us free choice, we will have free choice and our decisions will be ours, for better or for worse. If we are enslaved, who is the Enslaver? The one who is in charge, the author! Denying freedom to man is shifting blame to God. That would make God evil.
For if we are not free, we are not responsible for our evil choices.
If we are not responsible for our evil choices, we are not guilty.
If we are not guilty, we didn't transgress.
If we didn't transgress, we are innocent.
If we are innocent, we don't need redemption and the Redeemer.
The only way that we can be held accountable, guilty and offered redemption is if we are free and capable of making the right decisions but choose the wrong ones.
Obviously, we don't hold our children accountable, even if they cause harm to others, because they cannot use their faculty of reason fully. Instead, they react carnally and impulsively. If the mind is not dominant, flesh predominates. But flesh is innocence.
Animals are flesh. When animals kill, they are not guilty. If children kill, they are not guilty either. They are not free to make decisions. Someone has to make those decisions for them. A fully developed human being is equipped with reason and freedom top choose. Ultimately, our condemnation is our own doing as much as our salvation is God's mercy.
You prooftext, then you sloganeer.
Ephesians 2:9 speaks of works for social reward. Galatians speaks of works of ceremonial obligation. Romans speaks of work of any obligation, social, ceremonial or for earthly gain. Catholics do not discard these teachings: they listen to them and obey them. Nothing in these areas has any salvific value. James speaks of works of charity or love, done after the obligations have been satisfy. These works show the man's heart. They were called for directly by Christ in Matthew 5f, Matthew 25, Luke 17:5, Luke 18:18f, 2 Peter 2:2f.
brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election (2 Peter 1)Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? ... Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? (James 2)
St. Paul knew the salvific value of faith. Nowhere does the Bible say that faith is alone of salvific value. But it says one every page that good works working in faith and with grace have salvific value.
To a believer, works are salvific and he is judged by them. To a non-believer, it is not clear, but he is still called to good works because there is a "law written in his heart". Exactly what the Church teaches.
In Matthew 25 the general judgement of everyone is described. Faith is not directly mentioned. Likewise in the last chapter of Apocalypse.
Generally, what Christ taught is addressed to all. With the trick of noticing who Christ is addressing and then saying "That does not apply to me" anything can be dismissed. You found a way to selectively negate any of the scripture.
I can tell you where the audience is important: when an action is described. When Christ heals a paralytic, He heals that man only. Likewise, when He breathed the Holy Ghost, He breathed It to the Apostles only -- your earlier mistake from the Erasmus thread.
Now, earlier did you indeed maintain that the Beatitudes are solely for the Apostles' consumption, or did you misspeak? Because if you dismiss the Beatitudes, it is hard to take any of your theological opinions seriously.
My example is perfect legitimate on the state of man.
Because the child cannot reason, he can be tricked, fooled and trapped. What happend in the Garden of Eden was nothing like that. Adam and Eve had a full faculty of reason. God's instructions were clear. They were not tricked into taking a cookie.
Don't tell Eve who was deceived.
That's because dogs are dogs. Their nature is carnivorous. We, on the other hand, have a choice; we are not defined solely by our carnal nature. It comes with reason.
If that's the case, statistically throughout the billions and billions of people over time, at least one other person should have been able to live a perfect life. These odds are worst than the lottery.
Man chose evil freely
Why can't anyone not choose evil?
I'm floundering here, and I'd like to flounder a little further.
YEAH, decisions under duress - what you said.
Did I say the quotes were from Romans 8:6-7?
Here's my glib attempt - with all the inadequacies of glib brevity - of what I think +Paul means: Flesh without Spirit is moribund. Death is the inevitable consequence of our turning our back, in our first parents, on the source of the vivifying Spirit. We have cut ourselves off from the Spirit, and so we are flesh and moribund. Jesus comes to take that tendency to its inevitable conclusion -- and beyond, reaping, so to speak, so bountiful a harvest of Spirit that He can share it with us all. We die in Him (especially through Baptism in which we are Baptized into His death) and rise with Him, vivified now by HIS Spirit. So we are dead men walking! And as such we experience ourselves as torn between our old moribund and fleshy selves and our newly (died and) vivified spiritual selves. The phronema tes sarkos inclines us toward the fleshy and dying aspect or tendency of ourselves. The phronema tou pneumatos inclines us toward life and peace, etc. in the risen Lord.
To be clear, what this is is an attempt to understand how Paul uses Sarx and Pneuma. It is NOT a global statement but an attempt at a critical statement.
I will now take refuge and comfort in your professed gentleness for the feeble-minded while you respond.
I'm just beginning to really study these different sects of Christianity. I know that with the Donatists that when they were over run by the Saracens their churches were destroyed and many fled north. In the east when were the EO abandoned by the RCs to the muslims?
E*N*A*B*L*I*N*G A*C*T*
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." -- 1 Peter 2:8-10"And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10
I'm kind of liking this post for starters.
How we coming on the "Substance" question? Surely you see that once you so grossly mischaraterize our teaching on something as accessible as the doctrine of the Eucharist I am going to have a really tough time with issues concerning judgment and sources and whatnot? It really looks like FIRST you decided we were credulous idiots and THEN you hastily constructed and misintepretation of one of our teachings. I'm going to need some help getting over this impression.
Of course I'm aware that a number of people have a sort of symmetrical blood libel against us. I'm also aware that any responsible enquirer would see that, at worst, it's not a slam-dunk either way, and that, at best, Pius XI did pretty well.
God created Adam and Eve in HIS image with the moral will to do good. In that respect, they were 100% entirely free. Nothing compelled them to do evil. Yet, they freely chose to do so. When they did, that moral will was so corrupted and destroyed that they and their progeny would only ever choose against God. The spark of God's image still resides in them as they are not UTTERLY depraved (As Sproul put it, even Hitler loved his mother); but they are totally depraved in that they can not by nature choose not to sin. God still doesn't force them to do so, but Adam and Eve and we ourselves have wrecked the perfection that God originally created. God, being sovereign, allows this to continue and has a detailed plan of how He is going to work through it. This includes allowing the lost to continue to exist and eventually reap what they have sown and having mercy on the elect according to His own purpose.
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.