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/
How would you define a "work" ?
The reformers in themselves (not unlike Satanists who view selfishness as the ideal).
= = =
imho, what a hideous falsehood.
The reformers put their faith
IN
GOD ALONE. As God engineered from the beginning.
And in GOD ALONE'S CAPACITY TO LEAD THEM BY HIS SPIRIT INTO ALL TRUTH.
JUST AS DADDY SAID HE WOULD DO THROUGH CHRIST'S WORDS ABOUT HIS SPIRIT.
/ / /
THIS IS MY BELOVED SON IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED.
NOT
This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased who will get y'all kicked off on yet another corrupt monster of a flesh driven powermongering authoritarian bureaucracy wrongly in the name of God but actually having little to do with God . . . but . . . hey, it's a human thing and that's . . . whatever it is . . . so . . . there you have it . . . happy pontificating and abusing the serfs.
The criteria for discernment were formulated by St. Vincent of Lerins.
= = =
No, by Paul in I Cor 12-14.
And the fruits of Holy Spirit are also wise markers as Alamo-Girl is often want to articulate so well.
Thanks thanks.
If they put their faith in God they wouldn't need every man to read the bible and come to a personal interpretation, they'd beleive that shepards should steer the flock not 'every lamb for himself'.
The apostolic church beelived Christ and the Holy Spirit guided them; the Catholics a single man, the prots? Many men.
funny coming from folks who don't heed Paul on silent women in church and head covering...
You seem to have argued yourself into the Arian heresy by over-reliance on created physical categories. For your salvation's sake repent.
The Acta of the Ecumenical Councils and histories of the Arian controversy are readily available. Read them!
And learn the terms of art before arguing theology: economy, as in the phrase 'God's economy of salvation' like the other use of the word is derived from a Greek word meaning the management of a household, and refers to God's dealings with the world, rather than that which is proper to Him alone, which is the subject of theology proper.
As to 'new versions' of the Creed--they are forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council. Modification to the Creed is the most salient reason for the schism of the Latin church. At least the adjective 'eternal' applied to the begetting of the Son is true, unlike the second procession of the Holy Spirit, but there is no authority to put it into the Creed. Nonetheless, there is no new Creed.
Say Whut???!!!
I'll continue to take God's instructions over anyone else's, thanks very much, anyway.
It's really very simple.
Adam destroyed INDIVIDUAL walks with God in the Garden in the cool of the evening.
Christ RESTORED such intimacy with DADDY.
Daddy's REALLY NOT INTERESTED
IN
ANY-
ONE ELSE
HORNING IN ON THE CHAT or the RELATIONSHIP.
We understand Paul in context as he, himself, encouraged.
The "each one is a pope" is a valid caricature because it exposes the conceit thaty you do not deny, that each one can claim guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are not arguing against a caricature, we have a caricature because you have a real problem and we satirize it.
you appear to be saying that confidence may not be had without infallibility
The two are not the same. As a Catholic there are things I say with confidence but they are my personal opinion. For example, someone asked me if I believed in certain personal revelations, e.g. at Fatima, and I said that I do. This is my personal opinion in which I am confident. But the Church does not teach its truth dogmatically, -- like in any approved private revelation I am free to believe or disbelieve the revelations at Fatima. There is a score of other personal opinions that I am confident about, theological and otherwise. There are some I am not so confident about. They are separate from what is infallibly taught by the Church. When I speak I make it clear: This is something I am not sure about, this is something I am confident personally, and this is the teaching of the Church. ButI am yet to see a Protestant admit that his views on Sola Scriptura, or on Sola Fide are personal opinions that he feels confident about. They always say "I know it from the scripture". Then I say, "Where is it in the scripture? Here the opposite is said in the scripture". At this point some loosely connected to the issue verses are cited, or more opinions are offered, or the topic is changed. I've been doing it for thousands of posts now: I can do it as fast as I type. Your claim of interpreting the scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is false: you cannot sustain a scriptural debate on these core issues. Hence the satire.
We say the Spirit leads us in sanctification, a lifelong process
This is the Catholic teaching: lifelong process of sanctification in the individual. The Church, however, received the deposit of Faith from Christ. It was sanctified at that moment, at Pentecost; look it up in Acts.
You are lumping in all Protestants together in order to defeat all of them together
You admit the main statement, that your lines of authority do not converge at the top, even ideologically, right? So I will be brief. All protestants claim the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture Alone. On that premise they are united, and I defeat them on that premise, together, because the scripture teaches the opposite. In contrast to that, we do not have ideological disagreements with the Orthodox: we understand the Tradition, including the scirpture, identically, and vary where there is legitimate room for disagreement inside the same Tradition.
This does not defeat Sola Scriptura.
Sure it does. It shows that two people read the same scripture and arrive at different conclusions, but only one of them can be right. Hence the basic of deciding who is right lies outside of the Holy Scripture.
find it highly ironic that you would be complaining about the plain text of scripture. You cannot seriously look me in the eye and say that you favor it more than we do.
Absolutely I can. When things are in the scripture they are in the scripture. If the scripture said "you are not saved by faith alone" then that is what it is, sola fide is wrong, 'cuz the Bible tells me so. Now, there are things that are not in the scripture. For example, veneration of saints is not directly in plain text in the scripture. Then we can argue tradition, etc. But we read the scripture literally. You don't -- you spin it.
proposed putting 100 spiritually-neutral, but intelligent people in a room with a Bible. They had to read it cover to cover and then answer a series of fair questions to discern what their respective understandings of "faith" were. I boldly proclaimed that the weight of the evidence would clearly show a leaning MUCH MUCH more toward Reformed theology than Apostolic.
First, think of what you just said: The Apostles and men close to them wrote the thing! If the 100 men get something not apostolic from the scripture, well, then they are all wrong. I would say that you may be correct, by the way: the Reformed theology is far better suited for the modern man. This is why modernity is in such crisis, thanks, chiefly, to Luther.
I am predicting something a bit different. If your 100 men read the Bible for what is written, ignore all traditional or historical knowledge, but somehow avoid projecting their 21c mentality into what they read, they will be with the Catholics/Orthodox on the role of scripture, on the resistibility of grace and the role of good works, and on the role of the Church. This is because these things are there in plain text (references available on request, as you know), or in the case of sole scripture absent from the text. They will not be either Orthodox or Catholic necessarily, because they will learn nothing about the liturgical praxis. They will not know about the lives of the saints, but they will conclude that praying to the Apostles, Mary, and St. Stephen (the saints mentioned in the scripture) for intercession is a good idea. They will not know whether to baptise babies. They will not form a solid trinitarian theology. They will be prone to various christological errors. One thing they will not be: they will not be Protestant at the four solas core.
But of course, it is not really opossible not to inject 21c into that experiment. This is why the entire idea is false: the only wat to objectively read the scripture is to read it in the company of the Church Fathers and through their eyes. If one were to do that, he will be 100% Orthodox or Catholic.
I do not condone nor endorse any Protestants with "modern sexual ethics".
:)) Who made you pope? :)) I am sure you do not condone them, but they read the same scripture under the same pretense of the Holy Spirit leading them.
I have never gotten a clear answer
Because the scripture does not give one regarding the end times. The pre- and post-millenial controversy among the Protestants is about some fantasies running wild. Earlier on this thread Kawaii gave an excellent reference to what the Orthodox teach about eschatology, and we agree. The short of it is that the Tribulation is now and has been happening for 2 millenia already. By the way, there is a connectin between the Catholic Mass and the Apocalypse, see The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn.
Arminianism vs. Calvinism. [...] what comes to my mind is Roman Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy.
There is nothing that separates Catholics and Orthodox about fundamentals of the faith anywhere near the degree of separation between Calvinists and the Arminians. Which difference specifically do you think exists that "comes to mind"?
you said that the pope would never claim the conceit of the following: "the authority stops at the individual sovereignly interpreting the scripture under the leadership, he claims, of the Holy Ghost." To be frank, if someone had asked me to describe the Catholic position of the pope's authority, I could have easily used words like this. How would you correct them in the case of ex Cathedra?
The Pope will not and cannot claim leadership of the Holy Spirit on his individual level. He cannot alter the established dogmas of the Church, ex cathedra or otherwise. All he does is refine the deposit of faith "once delivered to the saints" and apply it to the pastoral needs that he sees. His infallibility simply means that if the entire college of bishops goes in apostacy, the Pope can correct them alone, and the Holy Spirit guides him: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren", (Luke 22:32).
And we had corrupt Popes. The comparison St, Clement offers is solid: papacy is leadership of one imperfect and corruptible man, send by perfect high priest Christ.
I'm not quite sure where you are in this discussion. I think POTS and OSAS are the same. As I see it the fundamental difference is "will" are we drawn to saving faith or do we choose saving faith. Either way we should be jumping up and down with joy. Saving Faith means your blessed with God's free gift of GRACE!
You just happened to hit all the right buttons on one of my favorite subjects. :)
In my view, the starting point for the debate on OSAS vs. POTS is actually post-salvational. I see any difference between the two terms being defined by what we actually do after we are saved, and why that happens. When YOU say that OSAS and POTS are the same, I know exactly what you mean and I agree. However, partly for debate purposes, I have chosen to formally reject OSAS in favor of POTS.
The reason for this is what I call the "plain meaning" of OSAS. About a year ago, when I was in my Reformed infancy, I started arguing OSAS right here on FR. The problem was that my arguments really did lead to a plain meaning of OSAS. That is, once one is saved that's it, end of discussion, POTENTIALLY, a person could go off and lead a horrible life and still be saved, because OSAS. I really truly believed that just because I didn't know any better, I had never studied it.
Well, once I started down that road it took no time at all for opponents to start throwing verse after verse after verse after verse at me, all about works. I was utterly defenseless. LOL! Then, one of our mutual friends showed me the superiority of POTS, doctrinally. POTS is superior partly because it openly includes works as part of salvation. Works are a rock-solid guaranteed part, but they are acknowledged. There is no confusion under POTS. OSAS is inferior in my view because guys, just like me from a year ago, misinterpret the words of the phrase and believe a wrong thing. The plain meaning of POTS I see as much more secure.
Now, for practical purposes, this distinction has turned out very well for me in my debating. When I'm talking with Catholics and Orthodox and using terms aligned with POTS I get more agreement. This makes absolute perfect sense to me because if someone is not familiar with using the term OSAS, what are they supposed to think? Probably the same thing I would in their shoes: just look at the words, and their implications, etc. So, that's the short version anyway. :) I just love the topic because I really lived through the transformation, and can really testify that there are plenty of people out there who don't get what OSAS is, as many learned people use it.
Interestingly, this can't help but remind me of the recent discussion on the title for Mary. When any learned Reformer whom I know uses the term OSAS I will know exactly what he/she means and all is well. However, I have chosen to only use POTS because there can be no ambiguity, and lurkers, beginning Christians, or posters not familiar with the nuances of OSAS, cannot be misled.
-----------
Thanks for the kind words, WM. I look forward to your thoughts on all this. :)
See my recent post to Forest Keeper. Private revelations can come from many sources. St. Paul warns about them: "Are all prophets?".
St. Peter says, "make your election secure" and that is in accordance with the assertion that it is secure?
Our difference is whether God elects according to His will or according to man's will.
Nope. We teach that God elects based on his foreknowledge of man's free will choices.
It gives me both hope and presumption
The scripture does not teach presumption. It teaches against it, see the parable of a publican and a pharisee praying.
My loud objection is to any Catholic who points his finger at Protestants and says: "Catholics don't get divorced to the level Protestants do".
That wouldn't be me. The practices of American Catholics by and large shame the Catholic Church in America. What I do is compare the doctrine, not how well it is followed.
But the Church does not teach its truth dogmatically,
= = =
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh,
I think there are countless poor souls who were on the Inquisition racks who would disagree.
I understand your point. In OSAS, as I learned it works are irrelevant. Once you are saved that's it. However, what people fail to recognize is that Sanctification kicks into gear after your saved. The desire to do works not for reward, but to serve our Savior well is a product of Sanctification.
POTS, as I have come to know it, says that once you are justified the Holy Spirit indwelling you will see to it that you persevere to the end. The desire to do works is also a product of Sanctification under POTS.
In either case OSAS, or POTS, the elect will always be saved to the end. In either case works are a product of Faith and do not purchase salvation, just reflect the Holy Spirit in the individual.
[In the article about Joe Kennedy II's annulment:] "Although he has characterized himself as ``a cafeteria Catholic'' and acknowledged that he disagrees with the church on some major issues, such as abortion, birth control, divorce and the priesthood for women, he said his religion remained part of his ``core'' beliefs.
... [two paragraphs later:] ``I go to church every Sunday with my sons, and I can't go to communion with them. Beth can't go to communion. I haven't been to confession in 3 1/2 years. This is a very difficult thing for a Catholic who believes in the teachings of the Church,'' he said.
This is amazing. Yes, it's anecdotal, but with 60,000 annulments per year? I am fascinated that a pol with the breeding and training of a Kennedy would so openly admit that the whole thing is a sham. Of course, he is no spokesman for the Catholic faith, but it still raises my eyebrow that he calculated that he could get away with that statement in front of a huge Catholic audience, the state of MA.
And we had corrupt Popes. The comparison St, Clement offers is solid: papacy is leadership of one imperfect and corruptible man, send by perfect high priest Christ.
= = = =
We disagree that Christ set up Peter as Pope.
Nevertheless, the fact that there were corrupt popes negats the notion that the magesterical elinte are any significant insurance against untruth.
I'll happily stick with St Paul's exhortation to find a wise, humble old f in the local congregation and submit to his Spirit led judgment on a matter.
Not always perfect, certainly--but a trillion billion times better than an elite power mongering group in any denomination.
Doctor means teacher. The "prophesies" are subject to the judgerment of the Church, St. Paul said.
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.