*A Gene Krupa Rim Shot...
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/
Amen,brother. But, some who profess to be believers really have very ideologially circumscribed/ truncated beliefs derived sola oral revolutionary tradition
Apparently, angles do intercede (Zech 1:12-13)
When the Catholic Church teaches us that prayer to the Saints is right and useful, it is God teaching us that truth through His Church. But the doctrine is clearly enough indicated in Scripture also. I have mentioned Abraham's prayer for Sodom. The Jews asked Moses to go to speak to God on their behalf. God Himself said to Eliphaz, the Themanite, "My wrath is kindled against thee . . . but my servant Job shall pray for you. His face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you." Job XLII., 8. Earlier in that same book we read, "Call now if there will be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the Saints." V., 1. His enemies meant that Job was too wicked to be heard, but they knew that it was lawful to invoke the Saints. Long after the death of Jeremiah, Onias said of that prophet, "This is the lover of his brethren and of the people of Israel. This is he that prayeth much for the people and for all the holy city; Jeremiah, the prophet of God." 2 Mach. XV., 14. St. James says that "the prayer of a just man availeth much." If his prayer is valuable, it is worth while to ask his prayers. If you say, "Yes. That is all right whilst a man is still in this life and on earth," I ask whether you think he has less power when in heaven with God? In Rev. VIII., 4, St. John says that he saw "the prayers of the Saints ascending up before God from the hand of an angel." If I can ask my own mother to pray for me whilst she is still in this life, surely I can do so when she is with God! She does not know less when she rejoices in the Vision of God; she has not less interest in me; and she is not less charitably disposed towards me then. We Catholics believe in the Communion of Saints, and are in communion with them. But for you the doctrine of the Apostles Creed, "I believe in the Communion of Saints," must be a meaningless formula. Christ is not particularly honored by our ignoring those who loved and served Him best, and whom He loves so much.
I don't see questioning this as a change of subject. But to be clear I'll stipulate the "NO WHERE ...", while stating the obvious, that that means one to Catholics and Orthodox and another to most Protestants.
I think it's very important that while they have died, they are not dead, and that consequently characterizing them as dead is really a mischaracterization and skews the consideration of the question.
You got your Witch of Endor, who presumably able to use mojo to compel Samuel to come up from Sheol. But then you have Jesus' declaration about the Patriarchs living to God. It's not a slam-dunk.
We don't worship the Bible. It is there to instill faith in us and to understand God. Highlighters are welcomed.
"Where is there evidence that there was prayers to saints or veneration of icons in the Apostolic age?"
The letters of +Ignatius and the Martyrdom Of +Polycarp. But frankly, B, that's neither here nor there. You Protestant types are often very successful in framing any discussion aboiut religion in terms of your innovative sola scriptura ideas. Prayers to saints are part of the Holy Tradition of The Church. That's where the practice comes from. Its also where the canon of the NT comes from. The KJV you read comes from neither the canon of the NT as established by The Church nor from Holy Tradition. If you choose to believe that if the KJV was good enough for God then its good enough for you, fine. If you choose to believe that the hierarchs who established the canon of the NT didn't pray to saints or believe in the Real Presence or preside at incense filled Divine Liturgies, that's fine too. If you believe the Holy Spirit guided our hierarchs only just far enough to determine the proper canon of the NT 1200 years before Luther and left them to paganism and damnation after that, cool. If you believe that the People of God were left to languish in spiritual darkness until the Reformers arrived, great. But you are historically and spiritually wrong and you make God out a gamesman, the author of evil and a liar.
We don't worship the Bible
You're splitting hairs.
(I didn't say it was a funny joke.)
Well, the acute ones do. And, of course, the right ones. But I'm not so sure about the obtuse.
From the context of that chapter, and the term presbuteros it is clear that +Paul refers to a bishop. First, presbuteros was used for the Jewish Sanhedrin who are equivalent of bishops. Second, immediately following Titus 1:5, +Paul says that this 'elder' is to be "blameless" and "of one wife" (qualities of priests and bishops defined biblically), and in Titus 1:7 the Apostle says "for it is necessary for the overseer [episkopon, a bishop] to be blameless..." (dei gar ton episkopon anegilon).
So, since a bishop must be ordained priest (being a bishop is a rank within ordained ministry, first rank being deacon, then priest, then bishop), translating presbuteros as priest is perfectly correct.
The source of error is your KJV because it was man-made to be acceptable to the Geneva-worshipping lost sheep. The authors of the book known as the KJV made sure many words were changed so as not to sound "Catholic." That book is also based on a retro-engineered "Greek" text from the Latin translation of the Greek original back into Greek!
And this book has been the pillar of Protestant Christianity ever since!
You see, HD, prooftexting never provides you with a correct answer. It only confuses you. You need to read the whole thing and get rid of that random verse generator, and the KJV. Just a friendly suggestion. :)
Sorry. I get the message.
It would have to be through the side door because it isn't in the front door, ie the bible.
The condition of the dead is not the point. The bible uses the word dead too so changing the subject when that word is used is avoiding the inevitable. That prayer to the dead is unscriptural. I said dead again.
Whatever.
*A Gene Krupa Rim Shot...
What I want to say is like this: (1)There not being a scriptural precedent obviously doesn't mean to us what it means to you. (2) If all we mean by "the dead" is those who have died -- as opposed tgo meaning those who are currently not alive -- then the term loses its argumentative force, and I'm fine with it.
So your position (just asking for verification) is regardless of their current vitality, once folks have died, you cain't ask 'em for stuff. And ours is that the communion of saints is all around us, a cloud of witnesses with which we are surrounded, and all that.
I don't see a brige across this. Do you?
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
*Feel free to post Holy Writ where Jesus established the New Testament Texts as the sole rule of Faith, OR, where He told His Apotles- "Look, ya better write this down, Capiche?"
I'm sorry, not paying attention. I was busy counting the population of the head of this pin here ....
Bah dah BOOM!
If they are incorporeal, they occupy no space so the number is, potentially, the same as the number of angels created, no?
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.