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/
Acts 10...And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.
But it's seeming to me like samiam only said Mary was freed by what God did for her, not what she did for herself. IS ther some expression or hrase she used that set off your heresy (Uh, I mean haeresu) alarm?
Samiam mentions that if Mary didn't sin she wouldn't need saving. That's not true.
The reason for our need for a savior was not only from sin alone, but from the effects of the fall denying us eternal life. Even if she never personally sinned that would not save her.
The idea that it would have is Pelagianism.
Nowhere in so many words, as far as I know.
Thank you for direct and honest answer.
Except for the relatively recent surge in Latino farm worker immigration, the traditional Catholic ethnics indeed preferred cities, as for the unpropertied a city presents greater labor opportunities. Think Irish cop, Italian cook, Polish autoworker. Historically, working class mindset would also dictate socialist sympathies.
All this has changed in the latter quarter of the past century, as the Democrats transitioned from a working class party to a secular moral license party. While an ethnic autoworker may find a lot in common with Democrats' trade unionism, he will find nothing in common with the parrty of gay and abortion "rights". Still, old allegiances linger.
Another aspect is that one has to distinguish nominal Catholicism from the life in the Catholic Church. The poll takers count someone who self-identifies as Catholic based on the church of his baptism and occasional Mass visit on big holidays and funerals, together with someone who obeys the Church (including her difficult and deeply countercultural teaching on family life and contraception), goes to confession often and takes communion weekly. If, however, the depth of one's Catholicism is tested, a different picture emerges. Nominal Catholics basically vote all accross the map and their numbers track the US averages. This time, for example, the US average swung left, so the nominal Catholics swung left. They are, incidentally, in the majority: if Catholic practices were to count for the pollsters rather that nominal affiliation, the serious Catholics would not be anywhere near the number you see on these maps.
Serious Catholics vote primarily pro-life. To the extent that the GOP is identified with pro-life they vote GOP. The serious Catholics (identified by frequent Mass attendance) are often cited as the swing group that handed the GOP its victory in 2004. It is possible that they, too, swung left this time, as the lackluster GOP performance advancing pro-life legislation while they had the majorities and the presidency, as well as the concern for the war in Iraq, took its toll.
The Church distinguishes between "non-negotiables" broadly associated with the pro-life movement, and teachings where a Catholic may take either position. The five non-negotiables are
Of course, other intrinsic evils exist (e.g. blasphemy, murder, contraception or adultery), but these are not in the arena of public debate at this point.
At the same time, there are things that the Church may have a preference for, but the opposing view also has merits. For example, some wars are considered just and Catholics may support them, even if the Church would prefer the war not to be waged. Typically, the Church would refrain from definitive judgement on whether a particular war is just, even as it might urge more diplomacy (as was the case with Iraq lately). in another example, death penalty is something we'd like eliminated through better justice and prison system, but we understand that given the present realities it is only prudent to execute some criminals.
The Catholic Church being the worldwide embodiment of Christendom has a special concern for Christian minorities everywhere, Catholic or otherwise. Our acute concern is for the Christians of the Middle East, that seems to be on the receiving end of every act of war lately, and their numbers dwindle precipitously.
The reason for our need for a savior was not only from sin alone, but from the effects of the fall denying us eternal life. Even if she never personally sinned that would not save her.
The idea that it would have is Pelagianism.
Comments? I'm not sure samiam was saying that. I wouldn't have thought that the act of God that accomplished the Immaculaate Conception was that only thing God did for Mary. Certainly, in all the ins and outs of merit and grace there is always the grace of God operating at every step.
On the flip side, "The wages of sin is death."
I also deny playing "Let's you and him fight." I'd love to read y'all's thoughts on this
You earlier asked about Jimmy Carter's salvation. The answer is, of course, "I don't know". But this gives me an opportunity to clarify something that tends to be misunderstood in the Catholic teaching about the role of works in salvation.
As I hope I already made clear, works of legal or ceremonial obligation, works done for social or material reward do not have any salvific value, as St. Paul nmakes clear in Galatians, Romans, and elsewhere. The works that do count are often called works of love or works of charity (caritas is Latin for love). There are problems with either term in the way the modern context twists them. "Love" here is a theological virtue, meaning desire of salvation of others, or more generally desire for the good of the other, rightly understood. Modernity often understands love incorrectly as emotional attachment and permissive attitude. This connects to the profoundly un-Catholic modern relativism, which presumes that to love somebody means to be nice to them. This is not how love is understood in Catholic soteriology.
"Charity" means nothing other than the love as described above. The modern society offers ways for the governments to use taxation as an instrument of social engineering, and that is called charity. Even when taxpayer money is not used, a charity often becomes a tool of social recognition. The moment an act of theological love becomes forced through law, or is used as a photo-opportunity or any similar leverage by a politician, or generally is not seen as an act of love offered to God, it loses its salvific value. In application to President Carter, his visible role in supervising elections, or in the Habitat for Humanity, counts for him inasmuich as it conditions his heart in the love of God. Its high visibility can only be an obstacle in his road to salvation. At the same time, one doing the works of love is not asked to be a sociological or economical sage. The fact that some, if not all, works of Presidant Carter stem from errors of the political left does not in itself disqualify his works. This a politician who works toward a noble goal virtuously yet achieves the unintended and deleterious outcome as the left is prone to do, may do a lot of harm, but this work will not imperil his salvation as long as his heart is in the right place.
Catholics do not believe in the sacrificial atonement of Christ; Christ paying our penalty for sin. Instead, "new" teaching, teaches that Christ was an example for all.
Catholics have abandoned the traditional doctrine of the Atonement for something more modern.
And, for the record, I don't think what you say adds up. You're claiming that Catholics say Christ did not pay the penalty for sin and then you quote:
It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example,
Part of our estrangement from God is not knowing who Hs is or what He wants (at least no in sufficient detail). Consequentlypart of atonement will be exemplary
A true example indeed, and hope for all of us.
" Catholics do not believe in the sacrificial atonement of Christ; Christ paying our penalty for sin. Instead, "new" teaching, teaches that Christ was an example for all."
I think you are misreading Latin theology on the Sacrifice of the Cross.
"It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, -NewAdvent on Atonement"
Why do you think this is a new teaching? It looks like very "orthodox" Church theology to me. I'm afraid you've lost me on this one, HD.
Well the immaculate conception is a Catholic idea not an Orthodox one.
And since this conversation is overlapping one on a closed, caucus thread – I’m pinging a few there here so that it can be more freely discussed.
The relevant comments from the other thread begin at post 153. By no coincidence I’m sure, that post was made far ahead of the remarks made by kosta50 on this thread to which I agreed. I also do not see it as a coincidence that both sidebars on the two threads have arrived at the very same point!
First the other thread [the subject was leaving our prayers at the Cross, trusting Him, that worrying is akin to saying “I don’t believe you” to God] – the underline was added for emphasis here:
You see, my particular “cross-eyed bears” are pride, ego, vanity and evil thoughts that seem to crop up through word or image associations as the day goes by. It could be something as simple as seeing a character portrayed in a movie who reminds me of someone I know (and thus I become judgmental) – or things sinister that happen in life.
At any rate, once I sense the presence of pride, ego, vanity or an evil thought (which happens much more often than I’d like) – I immediately repent of it and reboot my prayer vigil in the hopes of destroying the wrong before it becomes part of what I say, my facial expressions or actions and actually hurts someone else.
The prayer vigil begins with the “no strings attached” plea: Thy name be hallowed, Thy will be done, Thy kingdom come.
Then comes the pause and meditation that this is truly all that is important, i.e. not family, not friends, not enemies, not nations, not powers, not me – nothing.
Then I turn the prayer inward and pray first for help to keep my priorities straight, i.e. to love God absolutely and as a distant second, to love my neighbor unconditionally.
That’s when I lift up my “neighbors” in prayer for His blessing, peace and guidance. I pray generally and specifically for family, friends, associates and enemies. Then I lift up Christians and Jews, Jerusalem, the United States, Israel, our President and administration, and our service men and women. This lifting up is a continuance of specific prayers for specific people, e.g. healing or whatever.
Then, if I have forgotten any specific prayer request, I raise it at that time and try my very best to leave it there only to be revisited as a “lifting up.” Then I pause again and meditate on how insignificant I am in the face of all of this and reboot my background (always running) prayer.
That one is self-serving as I pray like a toddler, “up papaw, pweese” – asking Him to keep me transparent in Him so that His Light can shine unobstructed by me. And so it continues until I stumble over one of my “cross-eyed bears” again and become an obstruction by having a prideful, egotistical, vain or evil thought – and it all starts over.
Whew! Any hoot, I don’t know whether this personal prayer principle is of any use to you, but I just had to reveal it. You know how that goes. LOL!
Kosta50: One must guard against spiritual pride. Only those who empty themselves of all pride become temples for Spirit's indwelling.
Like glass, the light of God shines through them, yet they have become invisible, never drawing attention to themselves, so that all we see is God's light through them.
Far and few inbetween are such temples.
The Spirit is not effectual when that happens and thus the temple is not effectual either.
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:5-6
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? – I Cor 6:19
Some of us are like rubies, others like emeralds, others like sapphires. And some of us are merely translucent such that His Light shines “off” of us rather than through us. Sadly, some of us are like the onyx. Nevertheless, we are still all Christian (Thomas was not like Peter who was not like John, etc.)
My Spiritual objective and running background prayer is to become and remain transparent in Him. I’m shooting for a diamond but am liable to end up an amethyst because of my "cross-eyed bears." LOL!
But truly, as Kosta50 has said, and to which I agree – it takes humility. Lots of it. And few of us will ever be ‘diamonds.’
Moses was the most humble man on earth. Mary was humble. Peter was humbled as was Paul.
Jeepers, Jesus Himself was humble! (Phillipians 2)
I'm not disparging anyone. I'm simply stating what is the current view of the Catholic Church. Catholics do not believe in the blood atonement of Christ so there is no need for Mary to have had her "debt of sin" paid. Christ dead showed us what true love and obedience is all about. This is very similar with the Orthodox view.
I have given you a reference to the Catholic website of NewAdvent on the Atonement in the above post so that you can read it for yourself. Don't yell at me.
I was stumbling over the relationships among sinlessness, salvation, and death, and the temporal nature (if any) of acts of Divine grace. Someone was saying that IF the Immaculate Conception WERE true, why then Mary would not need a savior. TO me that just doesn't seem to follow necessarily and someone else was saying that to think so would be Pelagian (Sorry, I don't remember who said what.) So I was wondering ...
And Yessir, Kolokotronis: The statement has three of what I think of as the four aspects of the Work of Christ, to wit:
But that's just me.
Back in several hours.
The immaculate conception wasn't created as 'salvation' for Mary it was created under the catholic assumption that Mary had 'inherited' sin so she needed to be absolved from it. Yet still needed to be saved (as she herself indicates in scripture).
Thank you so much for all of your encouragements! I thank God for you.
The Greek letter Ypsilon, also known as Upsilon, meaning "simple Y/U" looks exactly like Y in uppercase, and like u without the snout in lowercase. Like with all Greek letters the pronounciation shifted; it sounded like a kind of "you" long time ago, and now sounds like ... well... several things.
From that four Latin letters emerged, Y, U, V, and W. Latin does not really distinguish between U and V, and in modernized spelling chooses V when used as a consonant or a numeral and U when used as a vowel. LVKAS would these days be spelled LUKAS, but EVANGELIUM retains the original "V". Latin V sounds like W when used a sa consonant, hence it really sounds AyWAhNGhELIOoM.
In modern Greek, the Ypsilon/Upsilon delivers two sounds, EE and V/F. SYNGENES ("relative") sounds like SEEnGhENEES, but EYCHARISTIA ("Eucharist") sounds like EFKhARISTIAh. Also, in a diphthong OY it produces the OO sound, as in OYSIA ("essence") sounding OOSEEAh.
When transliterating Greek I choose either Y or U to better suggest vowelized or consonantal use. So in quoting a Greek text I would spell "syngenes" but "ousia" even though it is the same letter each time.
I also use E for both Eta and Epsilon (disregarding modern phonetics), and I use O for both Omega and Omicron. I use "ch" for single letter Chi. I think this system best reflects the actual Greek sound (as long as OU is phonetically understood as OO and OI phonetically understood as EE).
It is not complicated.
I noticed that Agrarian sometimes posts hyper-phoneticized transliterations where the Delta is rendered as TH reflecting modern phonetics. When you see his name, and a Greek canticle under it, just mentally replace all the TH back to the original D and you will do just fine. EISODOS ADOU, not EISODOS ATHOU.
Like I said, it is not that hard.
But, what is the current position which YOU hold on the question of grace, sinlessness and death?
And how do you get ONLY "example" out of a statement which, as I showed by highlighting mentions also paying "debt" and "sacrifice?".
AND, (pant, pant -- typing fast here) would you say that we can know all we need to know about God and what He wants without the revelation of Christ's life? I would say that PART of how he restored the estrangement was through the revelation which He Himself was -- and that kind of thinking lies behind the "example" language in what you quoted.
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.