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/
Problem is in Post-Soviet Russia the norm is wolves as far as most protestant groups go. In fact I'd go so far as to say fringe protestant groups are overrepresented for this reason (mormons, jehovah's witnesses, pentecostalists etc..) The one's that are not simply snake oil cultists are still often poor representations of the western practice of their doctrine, usually very liberal in comparison (gaining support by coming off as liberalized or easier to practice in comparison to the ROC). Many are simply political discontents mascarading as faith groups with little or no ties doctrinaly to their western counterparts.
Yet when the government cracks down on con artists Christian groups in the west scream bloody murder with zero clue as to what the situation on the ground is.
That's to say nothing of the 'bibles for Russia' organizations in the west conning unsuspecting folks in the west to donate lots of money when a decent copy of the Bible is available for a few dollars in Russia, and free from numerous Russian groups. (I can assure you that not all of that cash is going to Bibles.)
You must have a remarkably holy priest and bishop, or do you duck out during the homily? Do you really believe that even the Harps of the Spirit, who in council spoke infallibly in the Acta of the Ecumenical Councils lived up to that prescription?
BTW, there is a notable story of a hesychast who was vouchsafed to see the Uncreated Light without retreating to a monastery, and a recent convert at that--a cross-country trucker from Eastern Kentucky, who prayed the Jesus prayer in his rig (though I guess the interstates are a kind of desert). That he had received the grace only came to light when he innocently asked Fr. Thomas Hopko why he no longer saw it.
I guess that should be an encouragement to those of us living in the world to pray more, and more fervently.
The keys are really considered to have been given the church.
Granted whether the rock is Peter or his faith changes that as well.
If one accepts that it's Peter's faith which is the rock, then the church which has maintained that faith is the rightful 'heir' or successor to holding the keys.
If one thinks it's tied to Peter's office it's still questionable seeing as Peter founded more than one church, and frankly more than one ancient see. That said the church fathers do indicate which See has primacy over the rest.
(Though I'd question exactly what that primacy entails, and whether that primacy is due to the keys being 'inherited by' that see alone).
It seems to me that the protestant penchant for dividing and confusing has worked.
There's still enough crazy-eyed protestant innovation being bandied about here that might best be answered in unison...
And after the Judas situation the Apostles determined to appoint another Apostle to take Judas place (matthias).. The Holy Spirit had other ideas.. and chose Saul.. One who knew the official Jews and Judaizers intimately and was also a Roman.. Schooled in several languages in the sematics and law of the time and the Talmud.. (a very educated man)...
The other Apostles were just uneducated teenagers unschooled in the ways of this world.. Saul/Paul was the Holy Spirits gift to the Church and the Bible.. Peter was known for doing the wrong thing.. No doubt Paul schooled Peter in many things beyond what scripture tells us.. and the other Apostles besides.. Stephans diatribe prepared Saul for this to happen, I believe.. Could be why that particular event was included in Acts(Stephan).. and not the murder of many many other unmentioned Saints/Martyrs.. of the Rabbis and Jewish officials appointed by the Romans at that time..
Yes the Holy Spirt was in charge.. even of those martyrs..
What a story, a plan, a message.... that nobody really dies..
That martyrdom was a GOOD THING...
And defeated the Romans and spread the church like wildfire.. among the conquered gentiles and Romans also..
I might agree with that.. depending on what those terms mean..
The Holy Spirit determines whom is in the church(Bride of Christ)..
And also allows those in the church to form clubs(sheep pens John Ch 10)
I think that the Protestant belief would be that one is elect before the foundation of the world. This is also scripturally correct (Mt. 25).
ALEX! I write you a nice, friendly post, and this is what I get??? :) To be clear for EVERYONE, let us review what I actually said in 5,001:
I guess what has me squirming a little bit is that when I read what you wrote I think to myself that the view being expressed is that before the sinner's prayer, one is not of the elect, but after saying the prayer, THEN one is of the elect. Is this what you were thinking? (emphasis added)
I followed up with:
While we're at it, what is the Catholic view of the moment within time when a person becomes one of the elect? We would say from before all creation.
Do you think you were fairly representing what I was saying here??? It's fine if you don't want to answer my questions, but come on! :)
The Protestant belief stemming from this one is wrong: the notion that "saved" is a one time event in the life of man. It is not: one has been saved by the sacrifice of Christ, continues to be saved by working on his faith through his life time, and hopefully but not surely will end up saved at the end of his life in the Particular Judgment.(emphasis added)
I agree with everything I underlined. POTS is the difference between knowing it and wishing for it. If we are both Christians then we wind up in the same place, IMO.
That I realize; but the "point", the false doctrine of surety of salvation, objectively encourages cavalier attitude about sin.
Really? How do you know that? Do you know of Reformers who cry in the town square "Once Saved Always Saved" and then go out and lead a life of total depravity? I have never heard of this happening, even once. That's because it isn't taught. For anyone to be doctrinally aware of OSAS, or POTS, it is almost always the case that they are also aware of the further teaching that scripture through Paul SPECIFICALLY REJECTS the attitude you are concerned about. "BY NO MEANS" says Paul over and over. You have to take into account the complete teaching, not just that HALF of it "sounds" bad.
I have definitly heard of that.
FWIW, from the Roman Catholic catechism:
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
I think the RCC is able to interpret things so uniquely because they fill a human need. It is our nature to suspect a free gift. We look for the "secret handshake", or the deed we must do, or the unstated price that must be paid. We just can't believe a free gift is free, so when GOD gives us a free gift of GRACE and all we have to do is have FAITH in JESUS we look for the the hidden "kicker".
They may be holy, I don't know. I hope they don't judge as most people do. You would know what I mean if you read Tolstoy's "Three Little Hermits."
I have no reason to duck during homily. Mercy, humility, purity of heart, etc. are things that are mentioned at homilies. It's all good. If we had all those characteristics, the world would be a much better place.
BTW, there is a notable story of a hesychast who was vouchsafed to see the Uncreated Light without retreating to a monastery
And +Symeon the Theologian says "I neither fasted, nor kept vigils, nor slept on bare ground, but — to borrow the Psalmist's words — 'I humbled myself' and, in short, 'the Lord saved me.'" ("On Faith," Philokalia, Vol. IV, p. 16)
It's not where you are physically, but where you are spiritually that counts, TRD. It's not the vestments or how much tithe you pay, or if you have memorized the Bible in three languages, but if you have attained the likeness of Christ that makes the difference; in other words, what you have become, so that you may receive grace.
Not only voting patterns. Look at the historic position of the RCC about: separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. None of these concepts are consistent with RC teaching. The fact that these things occur here is due to our Protestant and Baptist brothers and sisters who came before us.
The writer of this quoted excerpt has asked me not to ping to him. This request followed my questioning of what seemed to be a speculative psychologizing of a mischaracterization of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. So I addressed this to the two of you as represntatives of differeing viewpoints.
And I think that we have here a suggestion that the RCs teach something we don't in fact hold. At the RCIA/Enquirers Class I attended last night, the Dominican priest who was teaching repeatedly and emphatically declared that even merit is a gift, a gift following a good work, itself a gracious gift and the result of a gracious gift. The notion of Grace, a diverse and multifacted grace, grace as in the first instance God's response to sin and then as His response to the fruits of grace, was the principal theme and the refrain of the class, and it transferred into the small group Bible study which followed.
We were looking at the assigned readings for this coming Sunday, with the emphasis on Nehemiah 8:2-4a,5-6,8-10,and Luke 1:1-4;4:14-21, with minor touching on i Cor. 12:12-30 and the second half of Ps 19.
At first we contrasted the Old Law, read to the people by Ezra, with Jesus' presentation of himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy. And then, mindful of Ezra's urging the people to rejoice at the re-discovery of the Torah, we talked about the whole thing as a gift, the gift of the teaching and the gift of its fulfillment and the gift of the consequent benefits to us.
One person said, "Thousands of people have labored for thousands of years to set this feast before ME! All I have to do is enjoy it!"
The Torah, law, instructions, teaching, looked like a burden, and the people wept. But they were urged to celebrate it, sweeter than honey in the comb, more precious than refined gold. Evidently what we RCs and EO's think of as the Church strikes some as burdensome. But when I looked around the class, I saw some questioning, but plenty of radiant smiles.
I would agree that some people look for the catch. And throughout my ministry, ordained and lay, I have certainly seen the misuse of the Gospel as a device for psychological control. The most grotesque example in my experience was in a Mennonite family in which the notion of "Making Jesus sad," was used as a major child behavior control and guilt trip inducing device, deployed with a minimal understanding or recollection of what it's like to be a kid. I await with dread the adolescence of those children.
But if psychological speculation about the reason those with whom we disagree are too unhealthy to see how very right we are were a legitimate consideration (as I think it is NOT), then maybe some time would be properly spent on why so many seize on misunderstandings and half-truths in their eagerness to "prove" that Catholics principally and also EOs are evil. I think it's all a waste of time, myself, but if we're going to waste time, let's waste it equitably.
Historically you had your shot at the state religion thing and look at what you did. It wasn't pretty and it sure wasn't a testimony to our Savior.
I am not Catholic and frankly the Tsar was a hell of a lot better ruler than the athiest-communists.
I would never say that. Divine justice is mercy. At the same time, Christ said "if you love me, obey my commandments". It is therefore presumptious to rely on mercy when there is something for us to do, -- unlike the Good Thief, we are not, generally speaking, nailed to anything.
The logic is that it is not necessarily the Holy Spirit moving your transmission belts. Could be any number of demons.
That, incidentally, is a horrid translation. Read Douay.
So, what do you think of Matthew 25, Romans 2, James 2?
The first two "rocks", by the way, are problematic. Where do you see "rock" in the Hebrew or in the Septuagint in Dut 32 or 2 Sam 22?
It is not incorrect, however, to see rock as a type of Christ in light of the book of Daniel and 1 Cor 10. Therefore, when Christ names Simon Peter, he is grafting Peter onto Himself, and it is because of the revelation of the Father, correct.
Again, the renaming eposide should be seen together with the giving of the keys, the charge to feed the sheep and the promise of Christ's prayer so that Peter coverts his brethren.
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.