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/
He was free to leave an evil institution and preach God's Word.
In fact, Luther was compelled by the Holy Spirit to leave and preach God's word.
No, it's actually "look upon a woman with a view to desire her has committed adultery already" is what the original Greek text says.
It's not the desire itself but the object of that desire that is adulterous (coveting someone else's spouse). Not looking once, but twice, three times, or more...going back for more of the wrong desire is sin, even if that desire is manifested by looks, or expressed only in thought/fantasy.
The Greek word used is epiqumew which is the same word used in the rest of the NT, such as "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." [1 Pet 1:12]
Surely the angels here are not committing the sin although the word used is exactly the same word used by +Matthew.
By all means. Dwelling on covetous thoughts is as good as doing them. Those who are spiritually mature will reject such fleeting images and immediately repent; those who are not will dwell, and continue to look and desire.
Well, like the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), there is evidence that Jewish canon was not uniform. The same is true of the New Testament.
There are significant differences between the Hebrew version (MT) and the Greek version (LXX), as well as DSS.
+Paul was a Pharisee and he probably didn't even see LXX until he started to preach to the Greek-speaking Jews and later on to the Greeks themselves. But, then +Paul is an enigmatic figure and a subject of much debate and even hate and discontent on this thread, so will leave it at that.
Fact remains that the LXX is the backbone of the NT. If it's good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for the Apostolic Church.
However, if he is self-serving then the two could be mutually exclusive – but in that case, he would have bigger problems.
Are they not clubs?.. There is only one Bride of Christ.. one church..
I prefer to call the various confessions and churches "assemblies." Of course, every time we get together and talk about Christ on the forum, that too is an assembly.
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Matt 18:18-20
Exactly..
The Vatican's position on homosexuality is that until the act is commited then it is not sinful. This contradicts the scriptures which, as you seemingly agree, is sinful before being acted upon.
Sorry but that's nonsense and directly contradicts scripture and what our Lord Jesus stated. Sin is a condition of the heart-not the acting out. Can you provide me with a SCRIPTURAL verse that would show otherwise?
Likewise, a homosexual aroused by some situations is simply being what he is.
Indeed, the Word lived in them!
(PS - I'm praising the Glorious Giver for your good abilities, for this display of them, of Him.)
Amen!
Actually, according to Josephus it was pretty well settled at 22 books (combining certain books, such as the Twelve Minor Prophets, together as single volumes) by the first century (Against Apion, 1.8), which would leave out the Apocrypha. This is substantiated not only from the Apostolic Scriptures (the NT), which never cite the Apocrypha as Scripture, but also from the witness of Philo, Ben Sira, the authors of the Maccabees, Hillel, and Shemmai, which also never cite the Apocrypha as Scripture!
The DSS can't be used to establish normative canon, since in addition to a number of apocryphal works which no current body of the Ekklesia accepts as canon (e.g., the Book of Enoch), they also contain personal letters, practices and standards of the Qumram group, and non-canonical commentaries on the Scriptures. It'd be like finding a Bible with a copy of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, and the "Gospel" of Peter and assuming that just because they were found with the acknowledged Scriptures that those who collected them believed the latter three to be canon as well!
The same problem occurs when trying to cite collections of the LXX from the fourth or fifth century as establishing the normative canon of the Tanakh from the first.
If it's good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for the Apostolic Church.
But then, that's the point: It wasn't always good enough for the Apostles. If they saw fit to go back and render a fresh translation from the original Hebrew text in many cases rather than simply citing the LXX consistently, then we should follow their example and do the same.
Thanks for the encouragement, both of you! Oh, and I forgot to ping you to my latest post--scroll up one.
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.