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/
The Divine Hypostates (Persons, not personalities) are how God revals Himself to us in the Divine Economy of our salvation. Divine Nature, on the other hand, His essence, is immutable and unchanging. Christian theology 101.
Your argument is with God, not with us
Hardly. My argument is with those who deny that Christ is God as much as the Father and the Spirit are the same God. My argument is with those who suggest that the eternal God is changing, mutable, subject to passions, subject to necessity, etc.
...wasn't it you who accused me of Nestorianism ...
When what you said appeared to be denying dual natures of Christ, yes. And it wasn't only I, but many others who had the same impression.
your orthodox brethren might beg to differ with some of your commentary tonight
No doubt, some may, but I would wager that they would recognize their own beliefs in my insistance that God is not subject to passions and mutation. It is rather we, who experience God's love differently depending on our spiritual state. We are the mutable creatures, not God.
I look at God as HE reveals HIMSELF in Scripture. Not on how some churchmen have defined him. When one looks at Scripture, one does see God as an angry God. He declares such. I'm not going to argue with Him.
That I do believe. Are you suggesting that your idea of what a Christian is must be what a Christian is?
Just recently when asked if God is grieved by our sins, you said "no."
Well if you find that strange, you perhaps need to read more rather than presume that it is wrong.
Why would God in your Calvinist framework of faith grieve for something He created, something He not only knew would happen, but actually choreographed and set in His plan like in stone from before all ages? Is God not the author of this world?
You deny our sin necessitated redress by Christ and you appear skeptical of the "ransom" Christ has paid for us
Of course I do! God is under no obligation to redress our sins! Banish that idea! Christ died willingly for us out of love in order to free us from the shackles of death. In that sense, he paid a ransom.
Luke 15:
...4 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.8 "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[a] and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.
... 31" 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "
Cordially,
So, all the "saints" you meet have made a covenant "by sactifice?"
You got it, dear friend, and there were many before him who clearly understood that God is incomprehensible, unchanging and simple.
"RC Piety includes an apology for sort of offering personal insult to God in the act of contrition. And I would maintain, as I said earlier, that God is "at least personal" (which requires a re-assmenet of what "personal" means and that both the OT and the Incarnation gice permission, as kind of a hermeneutic, to talk about and to God in a personal way."
I wouldn't say it was "an apology for sort of offering personal insult to God in the act of contrition", I'd say it is exactly an apology for what we perceive as an insult to God. That's the way we think. But the Act of Contrition, a wonderful prayer by the way, is for us, not God. God doesn't "need" our repentence, we do. You are absolutely correct that the Incarnation does indeed give permission to talk about God in a personal way. +Athanasius makes that very point.
"when I tried to articulate the "Satisfactory" doctrine I talked about justice rather than insult -- bearing in mind that for a long time, it seems, all matters of justice were "personal" in the sense that a misdeed offended some individual and/or the king (or "king equivalent")."
Again, this is the way we think. In England, violations of the law were seen as offenses against "the King's Justice". Speaking of offenses "against" God or "God's Justice" are, as the Fathers said, useful for the edification of the simple people. I know that's a hard statement, but its true. Each of us to the extent we are able, needs to go beyond those concepts, to put away childish notions, and move towards a fuller, though certainly not by any means complete, knowledge of God and what He has done for us. Of course there's nothing easy about "understanding" He Who doesn't even exist in any way we comprehend. We can only observe what He has done, His effects as it were.
Sticking with notions of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", maybe useful to "spiritual children" at least for awhile. But thereafter it is pernicious as many come to reject the Dagon god that image gives birth to.
There is nothing centralized about the Eastern Orthodox Church, FK.
Being Orthodox is either 100% or nothing, personal views and errors notwithstanding, FK. You can't say I am Orthodox "a little bit." It's like being married or living; either you are or you are not.
Being a Calvinist is different. You can pick and choose those parts of John Calvin's theology with which you agree in principle and if they dominate your personal convictions you can say that you are a Calvinist (a little bit, a lot, mostly, etc.).
Herein lies the rub, FK. God is not relative and his Church is not a man-made institution that is subject to relativity. One cannot say I believe in God a little bit, or I agree with Him on some things. The Church is not-man made. One cannot agree with the Church a "little bit."
Your thinking is of this world. You are of this world. The Orthodox/Catholics are not.
D, how would you have Luke, in teaching pagan Greeks, speak about the theosis of a former sinner? Of course he speaks in terms of joy. After the Incarnation, it was and is appropriate to speak of God in anthropomorphic terms. The danger comes when one moves from anthropomorhic terminology to attributing human reactions to God as a matter of fact. The Fathers all used terminology from Greek philosophy to make theological points. A bad result of that was the rise of true Neo-Platonism in some and true Aristotelianism in others, notwithstanding the fact that the original users of Platonic or Aristotelian vocabulary and constructs absolutely rejected those philosophies. The bad result of believing that God is moved by emotion the same way we are is that it transforms God into a being moved by necessity and that, D, is heresy.
Okay, I will say it quietly:
Hebrews 10 is anything but what the Church practices
And the Bible says that everyone will be judged.
It's that "spiritual high" kawaii. Thomas Merton aptly describes it.
Nothing like the good old Laconic brevity, Kolo. Sure you are not part Spartan?
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. John 14:7
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: - John 15:26
However, when it comes the Holy Spirit the Scriptures reveal something of His Person which often (at least in my case) gets a deer in the headlight look when it is mentioned, namely this:
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Rev 3:1
And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. Rev 4:5
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13
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. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:5-8
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: - John 11:25
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. Col 2:20-23
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Col 3:3
But we must remember that doubting Thomas was an apostle, too and be patient as was Paul here:
[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.
So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. 1 Cor 15:35-45
Thank you for your reply.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "necessity." Are you speaking of it in a particular philosophical sense?
What do you think the following means?
Hebrew 8:3
"Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer."
When Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazurus that wasn't anthropomorphic, too, was is?
Cordially,
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:14-15
See 6,018. In Hebrew 8:3, what was it that was "necessary" to offer?
Cordially,
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.