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/
I don't think so, FK.
OK, then what do you think he did with those three years (Gal. 1:18), and why?
The Church "put up" with +Paul because he was the only one who could "sell" Christianity to pagan Greeks and Romans.
If true, then this is one time I really don't mind interpreting the word "Church" to mean the Apostolic Church only. :) If Paul was the only one with enough slick to sell to the Gentiles, then what does that say about the other Apostles? They weren't good enough? Paul was a Jew, so he could presumably have ministered to them as well as anyone else. It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite.
What would you say to the crazy idea that Paul was specifically CALLED by God to preach to the Gentiles?:
Rom 1:1-3 : Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, ...
The Church did not "put up" with Paul because of his slick. The Apostles followed their individual callings.
Those are the real reasons for allowing Christians not to follow the Law, to forsake circumcision, to be released of dietary restrictions, and so on. +Paul made it up. Christ never taught that.
As TRD said, those things were decided at a council. Paul didn't simply declare them. If you suppose that Paul made ANYTHING up, then you cannot believe that the Bible was perfectly inspired, and may, therefore, contain error. I'm talking about your personal belief here, not that of the Orthodox Church.
Of course, +Paul was not what the Church wanted, but it was do or die.
This is a truly amazing statement because if the Church really did not want Paul, then by definition, the Church was WRONG and was directly against God. The scriptures are 100% clear that God chose Paul. God wanted Paul. So much for the infallibility of the Church. Further, if the original Church was wrong, then so must the consensus patrum also be subject to error.
The Church had to overlook some of +Paul's own personal interpretations such as his famous and very rarely mentioned verse: "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped..." [Phil 5:6]
OK, so the Apostolic Church overlooks some scripture. Well, I suppose there's nothing new there. :)
+Paulian Christianity is distinct from the Christianity described in the Gospels. The Church had to find a way to mend them.
In Apostolic theology, there can be no doubt. And boy, did you all get to mending fast! :)
"For by Grace are you saved, it is a gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
I guess I'd better go call the Inquisition, huh. Holy Office! Check your messages!
So many of the complaints against us are that we are corrupting the po', ignorant, innocent laity. Leaving aside the implicit condescension in this concern, I here adduce a lay person who seems to get it. And she is not a college graduate and her job is book-keeper. I guess we have her under our pseudo-Tridentine thumb, huh?
I recall a religious survey some years ago. I don't remember the numbers but a majority of the Lutherans surveyed thought works had to do with salvation. So I'm sure you'll find some Catholic lay people, not schooled in the niceties of theological lingo, who will seem to deny the sufficiency of Christ's merit,as evidently you will find them among Lutherans. But I'd hate to build a case about Luther on the basis of a survey of Lutherans, or against the Catholics on the basis of what two Protestants conclude from talking to each other.
Our sins were already judged.
From the divine perspective there is no "already" or "will be". What to us is future to Christ is eternal Now. This is why God knows his elect "from the foundation of the world". The time dynamics of salvation are, however, important to us, and this is why Christ gave us his Church in order to guide us through life. Let us see what the Church teaches.
The scene of universal judgement is described in Matthew 25.
31 ... when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
The future tense is used. The event is in our future, even though the Kingdom is prepared for the elect eternally.
The particular judgement occurs at the hour of our death. It is in our future by definition.
walk in the ways of thy heart, and in the sight of thy eyes: and know that for all these God will bring thee into judgment.(Eccl. 11:9)
26 ...once at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment
(Heb. 9)
This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise
(Luke 23:43)
On the temporal plane both judgements lie in the future.
All sin has been redeemed (in the past), and for many it will be forgiven (in the future). The verses you quote explain that the redemption occurred in the past at the Paschal mystery of the Cross. They naturally do not mention any good works of men, because they did not produce the Sacrifice of Golgotha. Ephesians 1:7 and Collossians 1:14 do mention "forgiveness of sins" as a general outpouring of grace. They do not speak of any particular sin forgiven at the time of the Passion, let alone our present or future sins.
Colossians 2:13 does refer to indivvidual sin, but the context is baptism, whereupon, indeed, the past sins are forgiven. The passage does not speak of forgiveness of future sins, and quickly segues into warning against seduction (v. 18), and, typically for St. Paul conclude in exhortation of good works (faith not mentioned):
12 Put ye on therefore, as the elect of God, holy, and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience: 13 Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another: even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also. 14 But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection ...(Colossians 3)
1 John 2 begins with an exhortation to charity
4 He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him.
He then singles out little children whose sins are forgiven, and continues to exhort young men and fathers to charity and obedience. It is not clear if St. John refers to specific sins of young children being forgiven, or uses the poetic juxtaposition of age categories and reasons he writes. It is however clear that the call is to obedience and charity, and therefore, good works.
Finally, John 3 speaks of the necessity of faith in v.16 and 18. But it also speaks of evil works in v 19, and of good works in v. 21. This is exactly what the Church teaches: that faith powers out good works and good works form out faith; the two are inseparable in truth, as they always go together in the Holy Scripture.
Excellent work. I put a reference to your post and The_Reader_David's on my profile for future reference.
I did not index this thread in the same way as the Erasmus, because we see nothing new here. But keep it up, and I will start indexing.
I also indexed Kosta's statistical analysis, courtesy Buggman's link, at 7207.
Living the faith, dying unto our passions, praying three times a day, charity, loving our enemies, practicing mercy, humility, confessions and communions, repentance, hungering for righteousness, thanking God for everything including bad days, leaving all your earthly cares...I wouldn't call it work. It's a life.
I was responding to your earlier comment: "... So, shed that cozy, don't-worry-be-happy macarena attitude dear protestant brothers, and get to work!" Does this mean that you really, truly believe that we do not do the types of things you list above? You weren't writing to radical Protestant factions, you were writing to the Protestants on this thread. If you mean that none of what we do in worship of God "counts" for anything because we are not Apostolic, that is one thing. But I would be really disappointed if you still think that our view is to simply declare salvation, and then go and do whatever we want in sin. In thousands of posts, you have never heard that from any of us.
FK: "My conception of theosis was an attainment of something, but here it sounds more like an awarding of something."
Yes, it's called likeness to Christ.
So theosis is the awarding of a likeness to Christ? May I assume that this award is based upon the performance of all the deeds you listed above to a certain degree?
OK, OK, you can't say it. Love, Mxxx
Thanks for that insight! I never realized that before. Wow.
Apparently so, my FRiend. I've decided not to answer a couple of them anymore. Pshaw.
Gee. You guys are no fun! Whatsa matter, got an aversion to merry-go-rounds?
In both views, faith and works are seen together (good tree/good fruit - Matt).
That is not to raise election or predestination v free will - but rather, who or Who is responsible for the good that is done in the life of a Christian?
I take the latter view all credit goes to God because apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15).
You keep using that word. If you want to understand the Orthodox conception of salvation, you need to step out of the juridical mindset of the West with its notions like 'awarding' or 'merit' (whether used negatively, as in 'nothing we can do merits salvation' or positively as in the Latin notion of 'superabundance of merit' derived from the saints).
While there are aspects of the juridical model that somewhat illumine what happens in our salvation, by and large a medical model is better. Theosis is health, being as we were intended to be, Christ-like, in full communion with God, filled with the Holy Spirit, living not our own life, but the life of the Undivided Trinity. Sin is a deadly disease. God is the physician, without Him we cannot cure ourselves and attain health, nor--out of love and respect for the freedom He gave us, not out of lack of power--does He cure us without our cooperation. Theosis is not 'awarded', but attained, not though our efforts or merits, but through our cooperation with God's freely given grace.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. " -- Philippians 2:13
The works are a gift. The merit is a gift. It is all gift.
YEAH! HUGE 10-4 -- WITH sprinkles!
I view a lot of what we westerners say as a very noisy kind of apophaticism. The only good of a juridical mindset is to watch it explode. I like fireworks.
You see good works as a gift of God and give Him all the glory.
Praise God!!!
In that regard, we are of a like mind, the mind of Christ (I Cor 2).
But if that truly is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, then why does this word “salvific” keep cropping up when we talk about the importance of works?
And on a related note, why do I read so often Catholics on this forum testifying that the Holy Spirit is not given to the ordinary Catholics?
IOW, if they believe they can do good without the indwelling Spirit of Christ then it is tantamount to saying they did the good on their own.
Then don't tell me anything in terms of theological absolutes. Stick to "I think that the scripture without the oral tradition or the institution of the Church is sufficient for understanding Christ"; "I think that faith alone is necessary for salvation", "I don't think praying to saints is a good idea", etc. You become popes when you interpret the scripture personally but claim it to be the universally correct interpretation.
What? The scriptures are filled with theological absolutes, and we just recite them to the degree the Spirit has led us to date. (The Spirit does not imbue new believers with all knowledge and understanding instantly. It is a lifelong process, culminating at whatever level the Spirit has predetermined.) How does this have anything to do with becoming a self-made pope? As Quix said, we don't claim infallibility. You do for your pope (ex Cathedra). My mind has been changed on a few things. Yours must be fixed on anything important. When your Church hierarchy cares about your views, they will give them to you. :) These are two completely different systems, and ours does not include a pope. Ours includes the Holy Spirit instead.
But if that truly is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, then why does this word “salvific” keep cropping up when we talk about the importance of works?
They are on the road, steps on the way, and thus tending toward salvation. Maybe in that sense? Did you read my extending (boring) metaphor about the gift of a gym membership, from the guy who owns the gym, and drives you there, and supplies the trainer (whom he taught), and encourages you and then it turns out He's the one who made muscles and developed the way they get stronger when you exercise? And then some jerk (Like me) flexes his alleged muscles and says, "Look what I did!"
And on a related note, why do I read so often Catholics on this forum testifying that the Holy Spirit is not given to the ordinary Catholics?
IOW, if they believe they can do good without the indwelling Spirit of Christ then it is tantamount to saying they did the good on their own.
Yes, that would be absurd!
With respect, I think there may be a misunderstanding here. As I understand it, the Holy Ghost (and a bunch of other stuff) is given in Baptism (if not before, which is certainly not impossible -- I would venture to say definitely so when an adult presents himself for Baptism) and again at confirmation, and in lots of other ways. I would venture to say that NOT ALL the charismata of the Holy Ghost are given to EACH believer. It's a little glib, but my (Protestant) professor used to say, "It's 'The priesthood of ALL believers', not 'the priesthood of EACH believer.'"
How's that?
I don't know if you've ever engaged betty boop in a discussion on the forum, but she is Catholic too - and we are so close, Spiritually, that we can finish each other's sentences. Jeepers, we've written a book together and are planning another. And .30Carbine is such a Spiritual "twin" to me that some posters think we are the same person posting under two handles.
This is the way the body of Christ should work, regardless of the labels we wear.
I often raise the point that Jesus chose twelve very different apostles and accepted seven very different churches in Revelation. Peter wasn't like John; Ephesus wasn't like Philadelphia.
Also, that the Spirit of God Whom we all have obviously received is like a seven faceted diamond. (Rev 4) What each of us see may be different based on the facet (the aspect) we are facing - but it is still the same diamond and the same Light.
Truly, Mad Dawg - a person belongs to Christ the moment he first believes. And from then til he weighs anchor from this mortality he continues in the walk of sanctification, of "working out his own salvation."
That walk is different for each one of us as we receive - and ask for, and receive - the Holy Spirit.
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. - I Cor 3:1-7
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.