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/
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. - Acts 10:44-48
I don't think protestants think about the attainment of theosis at all. By and large they have no concept of salvation beyond being let off of eternal punishment on the basis of the substitutionary atonement.
The Wesleys, who died as priests of the Church of England, though the Methodists claim them as their founders, and the first few generations of Methodists, had an understanding of salvation more akin to the Orthodox than was found among other protestants, but that is now long forgotten it seems.
Of course, it's one of the many things +Paul teaches authoritatively that is blatantly ignored.
If +Paul's words are inspired by the Holy Spirit, then they must be obeyed. That goes for the women being covered in church and women not preaching/speaking/reading publicly in church.
We are ALL born with a sinful nature. Babies are innocent but they ARE sinful because of the nature with which they are born into this sinful world. I doubt very much that there are ANY babies or children in hell, not even in limbo.
Where do you get such nonsense. I don't 'call upon' the name of the Lord. He lives within me. I am saved. I know where I will be five minutes after I die. Cheez.
Must be he was then!
Truly, I believe that the greatest error in the doctrines and traditions of mortal men (which I personally eschew) is that they try to anthropomorphize God.
Only God knows objective Truth. A thing is true because He says it. And all we can confidently know of Him is what He reveals to us.
But mankind seems to want a small 'god' it can obtain, understand, meet eye-to-eye, tell what to do and wrestle with.
When we ultimately realize that being made in His image doesn't mean that God is like man, we are brought to our knees and that cavalier attitude about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit dies.
And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. - Rev 19:11-16
I get the impression from RC and EO that you folks are the only true church and the rest of us are off the bubble. I know I'm saved. My Lord lives within me. I live a Christian life as much as it's possible to do that as a human being. But I'm filled with HIS spirit and that's how I am able to go through this vale of tears. M
Protestants don't ignore them, and it isn't preaching specifically that is spoken of. They look at them in their context.
The church at Corinth was a mess of a church with a LOT of things going on there that was not normative of Christianity. He wrote what he was speaking of in that context. There was also the context of what was socially accepted at the time and what would end up being a real distraction. In many places, the men and women were separated in the sanctuaries. If a woman had a question to ask her husband, she would have to stand up and yell it across the room. Since 1 Corinthians 14 is all about keeping order in the church, this is one thing that was likely going through Paul's mind and pen at the time.
However, we know what he is not saying that women are to be silent PERIOD. For if women were not meant to speak period, then God would not have called prophetesses. Miriam was a prophetess. Huldah was a prophetess. Deborah is said to have been a prophetess. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. Joel said "Joel 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." ( If anyone has a decent explanation of the difference between prophesying and preaching, I'd like to hear it. ) And, the first verbal witness of Christ's resurrection to the world was, indeed, a woman.
So, Protestants look at the verses in their context. Paul didn't allow married women to speak up in church but rather said that if those women learned something that they should take it home to their husbands to discuss. It was considered a sign of independence rather than subjection for a woman to speak in public services. Paul wanted to keep peace in the services of the early church and made this instruction. He probably also wrote 1 Timothy from Corinth where he makes some similar comments. In that passage, he is also discussing to an extent the order of things and says that women should not usurp authority over a man. This is more of a commentary on a lack of submissiveness of women. He again indicates that a woman should keep silence. But again, such a comment needs to be taken in its full context.
Still, I know that Paul is not saying that God forbids women from speaking about spiritual matters period, for such is not the testimony of the whole of Scripture. I do no have, nor have I ever had a woman pastor. But, my denomination sends out women missionaries and women are very able teachers of God's Word. So, I guess it boils down to CONTEXT.
Now, while we are on the subject of Corinthians and ignorring things,
Paul also made this statement that seems to get dumbfounded stares (or more likely, gloss-overs) 1 Corinthians 1:17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
If Baptism was salvific, why would Paul says something like this or even this:
# 1 Corinthians 1:14
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Interesting book that 1st Corinthians.
Satan did NOT triumph when Christ died!!!! Good grief! You really think that that puny little snake triumphed over God???? He thought he did. But God is, was, and ever more shall be Sovereign. Satan LOST when Christ died. Satan had lost long before that. He lost the minute he decided to set his heart against God. God owed Satan ZILCH. NADA. NOTHING. Christ's death satisfied God's justice, not Satan's greed. As Anselm stated "God owed Satan nothing but punishment."
There is nothing that anyone could say or do that would make me stop loving Him or Him stop loving me. And I am quite sure you have the same blessed assurance, because we share the mind of Christ (I Cor 2, Romans 8, John 14-17)
We do worship imperfectly, but what Orthodoxy never lost is the utter reverence (including bowing, kneeling and prostrations) before God, even if that's the best we can do, it is still God-centered. We are not ashamed to feel utterly humbled in our prayers.
The trembling Scott mentions is manifest at the Communion when the priest calls those who have properly prepared "Approach with the fear of God, faith, and love" reminding us of the awesome act that is about to take place.
The West underwent the Age of Reason that deified man and humanized God. John R. W. Scott makes that very plain when he says
Thanks for the post.
In his mind he did, for a short while at least. But, again, that was not the point I was making. I was saying that he took the body and found God. Christ trampled death by (His own) death. That was His decision and will.
Satan's mind doesn't matter with the atonement. God's does. God is a JUST God. That justice can not be violated. We violated God's justice with our sin. God's law said that a penalty had to be paid which was death. But then, God's mercy and love paid the penalty for those who would believe. The atonement was all about Satisfying the demands of God's justice. Satan doesn't enter into it. He had no power over anything that God was doing and God owed him not a single thing in exchange for our freedom.
In a seeker-sensitive society, I think it is good for all Christians to be reminded of the holiness of God.
No, he said in church. He also said women are to be covered in church.
If Baptism was salvific, why would Paul says something like this or even this:
The Orthodox do not say Baptism is salvific. It is an act of adoption into the Church (Christ) and that is the first step in the faith, which can lead us to salvation.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect
Since +Paul wrote his Epistles before the Apostles, who actually knew Christ, wrote their Gospels, +Paul was by all accounts preaching his own gospel, unaware that Christ's last commandment was to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
So, you are rejecting Paul as being as equally applicable to Christianity as the Gospels? Paul was taught of the Lord. He knew what the message was.
As to women's head coverings, Paul also says that a woman's hair is her covering. 1 Corinthians 11:15
Also, it is questionable whether Paul wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. Mark was likely early, as was Matthew. Luke was before Paul died because it was before Acts which does not included the death of Paul. Paul had full access to the information.
1 Corinthians 15
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
Going to bed. Church in the AM.
That is a very alien (and unknown) concept to the Church in the East. It is rooted in the human idea of justice. This juridical idea of God
Western Christians thought about God’s justice in the same way also; God, the infinite Being, was infinitely insulted by Adam’s disobedience. He decided that the guilt of Adam’s disobedience descended equally to all His children, and that all were to be sentenced to death for Adam’s sin, which they did not commit.
God’s justice for Westerners operated like a vendetta. Not only the man who insulted you, but also all his family must die. And what was tragic for men, to the point of hopelessness, was that no man, nor even all humanity, could appease God’s insulted dignity, even if all men in history were to be sacrificed.
God’s dignity could be saved only if He could punish someone of the same dignity as He. So in order to save both God’s dignity and mankind, there was no other solution than the incarnation of His Son, so that a man of godly dignity could be sacrificed to save God’s honor." [Alexander Kalomiros, River of Fire]
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.