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 Jews who wrote the 8th century Maeorhetic text were HARDLY 'Christian Forefathers' they denied that Christ was the Messiah and they added vowels to the Hebrew Scriptures.
This was already AFTER the NEW COVENANT.
Noting that these Jews 'fixed' the Masoretic text 150 years AFTER Christ and no complete copies of said text have been found to be older than the 9th century.
"Fixing of the text
The earliest labors of the Masoretes included standardizing division of the text into books, sections, paragraphs, verses, and clauses (probably in the chronological order here enumerated); the fixing of the orthography, pronunciation, and cantillation; the introduction or final adoption of the square characters with the five final letters (comp. Numbers and Numerals); some textual changes to guard against blasphemy and the like (though these changes may pre-date the Masoretes - see Tikkune Soferim); the enumeration of letters, words, verses, etc., and the substitution of some words for others in public reading.
Since no additions were allowed to be made to the official text of the Bible, the early Masoretes adopted other expedients: e.g., they marked the various divisions by spacing, and gave indications of halakic and haggadic teachings by full or defective spelling, abnormal forms of letters, dots, and other signs. Marginal notes were permitted only in private copies, and the first mention of such notes is found in the case of R. Meïr (c. 100-150 CE)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_text
You write in response to my statement ("You are also suggesting that the Apostles, knowing that tzur was 'erased' by the scholars who translated the OT into Greek 300 years before Christ, would use LXX nonetheless almost exclusively!"): I am not just suggesting it, I am declaring it.
And I would like to ask you to provide proof that it was 'erased' from the Scripture used by the 72 scholars who wrote the Septuagint (LXX) three centuries before Christ in Alexandria.
There is nothing whatsoever in those two verses you singled out, that is in any way demeaning to God in the LXX rendition.
You don't know, and no one alive knows, or has, the original copy of the Hebrew Bible used by the scholars to translate it into Greek. You don't know, and no one alive knows, that the word "tzur" was in their copy in those two verses.
You are basing your outrage on the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew Bible, whose oldest copy is barely ten centuries old, in which the word tzur does appear in those verses.
You have no way of knowing for certain why the word tzur is not in LXX, what transpired when LXX was translated from Hebrew into Greek, because the original has notbeen preserbved.
However, you should know that just because the pre-Christ Old Testament (LXX) differs from the post-Christ rabbinical Masoretic Text (MT), better known in the West as "the" Hebrew Bible, does not make MT "right" and LXX "wrong."
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) agree in with MT, but also with LXX, and also disagree with both, thereby indicating that the "Hebrew Bible" was not a single version with identical passages, but a heterogeneous group of documents that show considerable variation, and even disagreement, just as various Jewish sects disagreed on many issues.
Neither the Jewish Scriptuire, nor pre-Christ Judaism, represent a single canon of beliefs and doctrines, and therefore one cannot use one set to call the other "wrong."
Thus, you have nothing whatsoever to base your dramatic statement on, except the available Masoretic Text which the Apostles, as a rule, did not quote from.
You use my favorite Apostle, +Paul, 1 Cor 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." to prove your point.
Thank you. It shows how +Paul combined things to make his own gospel as he called it. He could do that because he was preaching to the ignorant Greeks and Romans, who knew nothing about Judaism.
The verses you quote (in full, 1-4) are related to Exodus 17:6, Numbers 20:11, and Ps 78:15 and in none of those is the word "rock" used to mean God! In fact, in the Numbers' verse, the word used is not even tzur but cela.
The NAS version of the Christian Bible does not even capitalize the word "rock" in your example of 1 Cor 10:1-4, indicating it is not God's name. It was a 'poetic' way, shall we say, for +Paul to give the Greeks and Romans preach the his own gospel before the Gopels were written.
But the bottom line is that those who knew Christ in Person when He walked the earth (that would not be either +Paul or +Luke), and who listened to His ministry, quote the Lord in the Gospels almost exclusively, if not exclusively, from LXX, which is the Old Testament you say 'erased' the name of God. How strange! I say again, this takes the cake!
Gentiles were grafted into the tree of Jewish believers; not the other way around. As far as I know, Christ is still a Jew.
Being a reformed Baptist, FK, you must believe that whatever happened, including the Fall, was in God's design and that God controlled the events as they unfolded. He wrote the script, and He choregraphed it. He was not driven to do either. It was by His choice that man sinned. Did man really have a choice to change God's plan?
"Did man really have a choice to change God's plan?"
How can the created change the plans of the Creator unless it was defective and the Creator did not know this? All that was created and all that occurs was planned before the foundation of the world for the glory, praise, and good pleasure of the Creator.
Don't dodge the point; the Masoretic text was created AFTER Christ.
Can we or can we not have faith that the folks who transcribed the Hebrew scriptures in creating the Masoretic text did so accuratly? Especially given their anti-Christ bias?
LOL!!! Brilliant, kawaii.
Well, then, where is the injustice of man's Fall? Or maybe all this is not about injustice, as western Christianity thinks.
As a Catholic, I did not take my kids to see it but my wife and I did. I think the biggest problem with me in regards to the movie is that it was a huge BORE!!!!! I was disappointed at how horrible the movie was. I could be the only one I don't know, but I was disappointed that is for sure.
And the Holy Spirit?.. Is the Holy Spirit interpreting scripture today or at any time?..
And if so whom does he interpret it to?..
And if not, why not?...
Is the Holy Spirit functioning in THIS CONVERSATION?...
Yes, I've heard Sola Scriptura better defended than on this thread.
Teaching comes from men (man) and these teaching - and Sola Scriptura itself - come from a tradition.
So, this "not the traditions of men" is also a misnomer.
thanks for your reply.
"Well, then, where is the injustice of man's Fall?"
I guess I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the fall of man was an injustice according to God's plan?
There IS no point to dodge. The Apostles and Christ frequently refer to the scripture. The church fathers considered the Old Testament to be inspired by God. The Church confirmed the inspiration in the 3rd century so they must have know which text to use. Which text this was I don't know but it must have been the one we have now.
Would that all the world knew the magnificent joy of that statement.
"...Thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven..."
We establish [sic] it through faith? I though God established the Law and gave it to Moses. Here my favorite Apostle is establishing (no pun intended) a different story: that believers, through faith, "establish" God's law! We are the founders, the "architects" of the Law (that's what "establish" means)! Amazing.
Then you quote Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. . . For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin
The Law is holy. Of course, it comes from God. But we shall have none of that holiness! In fact, the law makes us slaves to sin, the Apostle says. Holy God's Law makes us slaves to sin, just think about that!
So then, though we are not under the law--which is to say, we are not under the curse...
Oooh, that really makes sense, now! The holy and spiritual God's Law puts us under a curse?
The issue is not one of keeping Torah vs. not keeping Torah, but of keeping Torah in order to be saved vs. keeping Torah because one already is saved
Who is already saved? You will be judged for what you have done, says the Bible. There is no salvation on earth. Being saved here and now is a Protestant heresy. Salvation is in the world to come.
For my part, I do not keep Torah in order to be saved; I keep it (or do my best to) because I am already saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way. Even down to not eating what He wouldn't eat
That's commendable, but what exactly won't you eat? Did not +Peter have a 'vision' that says 'kill, eat' and that everything God gave us is good?
Tell me, exactly where is the "law" in allowing a guilty party to transfer his guilt to an innocent party so that he might not be punished?
If anything, the OT makes sure everyone understands that NO ONE can atone for someone else's sins; yet that is the foundation of Protestant Christianity.
As to your question, apparently the goat can (Yom Kippur). Isn't that what the Jews do when they touch the goat's head and let him run away with their sins? I would say the poor goat is rather innocent.
And did not all of these sacrifices point forward to the coming of the Innocent One, who took on our guilt in a show of ultimate Grace?
Christ was not the Yom Kippur goat but the Passover Lamb that delivered potentially all men, not just believers, from certain death. The Paschal Lamb is equivalent to the Passover lamb, which is killed and eaten (not sacrificed and burned, or let go), out of thanksgiving (eucharistia). The Passover lamb has nothing to do with atoning for sins, but with deliverance from death.
The juridical approach to Christ's sacrifice is exactly where +Pauline Christainity begins to diverge form the rest.
The Didache and your view is wrong on this point
I won't say that I am not wrong, but Didache was a little closer to the times when the events we are speaking of were taking place.
Tell me, what was the first thing Rabbi Sha'ul did when he arrived at Rome?
Asked where he can stay?
--Illustrious Men, ch. III...Hmm, what a shock that the Apostles used the Hebrew Scriptures with a Hebrew-speaking audience
Can you provide a link to that? As for Jerome's assertion almost 400 years after Christ, and a solitary one too, one must really take it with a grain of salt. The Pope did not fully agree with him, as you know. Isn't it funny that the Church Fathers who brought Christain canon into being did not find LXX quotes, or Greek as the original language objectionable? Nor do they mention any Matthew written in Hebrew until Jerome?
Amen, FK. Warfield has a great few paragraphs that respond to the "obligation of the Creator...
Even worse would have happened, indeed, than the destruction of the universe. God would have ceased to be God in a deeper sense than that he would have ceased to be the Lord and Ruler of the world. He would have ceased to be a moral being. It is an immoral act to make a thing that we cannot or will not control. The only justification for making anything is that we both can and will control it. If a man should manufacture a quantity of an unstable high-explosive in the corridors of an orphan asylum, and when the stuff went off should seek to excuse himself by saying that he could not control it, no one would count his excuse valid. What right had he to manufacture it, we should say, unless he could control it? He relieves himself of none of the responsibility for the havoc wrought, by pleading inability to control his creation. To suppose that God has made a universe-or even a single being-the control of which he renounces, is to accuse him of similar immorality. What right has he to make it, if he cannot or will not control it? It is not a moral act to perpetrate chaos. We have not only dethroned God; we have demoralized him...""...I say that it is more accurate to say that we will not admit that we are controlled. For we are controlled, whether we admit it or not. To imagine that we are not controlled is to imagine that there is no God. For when we say God, we say control. If a single creature which God has made has escaped beyond his control, at the moment that he has done so he has abolished God. A God who could or would make a creature whom he could not or would not control, is no God. The moment he should make such a creature he would, of course, abdicate his throne. The universe he had created would have ceased to be his universe; or rather it would cease to exist-for the universe is held together only by the control of God.
The Holy Spirit was sent to the Apostles according to the Gospels, and witnessed by others, to guide them, not to teach them. The Apostles were 'inspired.' We are not. They chose LXX as the course of the OT, and they quote our Lord jesus Chirst as using LXX in His references to the OT. That should be good enough for all Christians.
The important thing to remember is that the Holy Spirit did not teach them. Christ did.
This is the crucial difference. +Paul claims that God revealed Christ in him, not "to" him. He was not only converted to Christ instantly, but given all the knowledge to interpret the Christ he never knew. That is Gnosticism dear friend. Not even +John the Forerunner (Baptist) was that audacious!
If anything happens contrary to God's will, it is unjust (by definition). The way Protestants see it, man's Fall, then, was not (could not be) against His will and therefore is not an injustice to God that requires justice.
That would be the end of the 4th nneough for the Apostles, the LXX.
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.