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/
umhmmm, and has anyone asked the kids?
God foreknows not because the universe is deterministic, but because He is God. He simply sees the future as we see the present. For example, let us assume that the dice is truly random, like quantum mechanics teaches. Then we cannot predict it in principle: it is not a matter of computing the forces acting on the dice as it drops. But God still foreknows the dice because he plain sees it. Bishop Elias Minatios explains
If you are ill, does not God know whether you will recover or die? But just because of this is it true that you should not call a physician, refuse any medicines, and sit with your hands folded and await either health or death? In such a case you would be very unwise, even foolish. It is one thing that God foresees your healing or death (and this is certainly true). It is completely another thing to assume that God's foreknowledge grants you health or death (and this is certainly false). If you take care of yourself, you will be healed, and in the opposite case you will die. God foresees both cases, yet neither is brought into existence by God's foreknowledge. You will either get better or die. Only one of these two is true, but not determined definitively. Try to understand this more fully. God definitely foresees whether you will be in paradise or in hell. In a mirror we are reflected just as we are in reality. The beautiful are beautiful and the reverse. Likewise in God's pure foreknowledge we appear as we are in actuality, either written in bright letters in the book of life or inscribed in the eternal book of death. If we are righteous, then we are among the ranks of the righteous who are saved. If we are sinners, then we are on the list of condemned sinners. A mirror reflects our appearance. God's foreknowledge reflects our will. This is the view of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "The righteous judgement of God takes into consideration our disposition. He grants to us according to our inner feelings." A mirror, which reflects both the beautiful and the horrid, does not make them so. Likewise the foreknowledge of God, in which one is predestined for paradise, and another is condemned to torment, in actuality does not force one to salvation and the other to condemnation. "Foreknowledge of God, the Theologian tells us, is intuitive and not active." This means that you are saved or condemned, not because God foresees your salvation or condemnation, but that either by your good works you cooperated with God's grace and God foresees your salvation, or that by your evil deeds you avoid the grace of God and will suffer for it, and God foresees your torment. Thus Judas betrayed Christ not because Christ foresaw his betrayal, but rather Christ foresaw the betrayal of Judas because he intended to betray Christ.
8,000! I had 5,000. 8~)
That satisfies one condition of several. There must be a petition that challenges the validity of the marriage and it has to come from one of the spouses. After that is satisfied, the canon law will look into the substance matter, chiefly dealing with informed consent and ability to marry.
Money and connections make the old wheel spin faster though, just another indulgence
I am not a canon lawyer, and I don't know, sorry.
I mean, the kids are not considered illegitimate. Obviously, divorce causes great harm to the children whether followed by an annulment or not.
Ah, symmetry.
Annulments have a fixed fee, waived if the petitioners cannot afford it. It is a fraction of what one would spend on a lawyer. I am sure instances of corruption occur, but note that Kennedy, in the example Dr. Eckleburg posted still cannot get his annulment and come to communion.
that's because he's alittle putz
or synchronicity
LOL
The physics of this world is not the same as in God's world. The physics of God's world is hidden. The world simply arises out of it.
"Transcend has a very specific meaning. Learn it and we can discuss it. "
I gave you the meaning and it's function. The only function it has today is to remove objects from reality into the realm of speculation. The old meaning of the word transcend no longer applies, because knowledge and understanding has advanced to the point that it's meaning and use is obsolete.
"Your problem here is reductionism. "
Reductionism?
"Thought requires a body and brain, but cannot be reduced to either."
The machinery of the brain provides the capacity for thought, without the capacity, their can be no thought. The word "reduce" doesn't apply.
"Else you end with absurdities like "True" is reducible to a biochemical event - and therefore there can be no objective reality."
True is a conclusion. The logical operations that where used to produce the conclusion require machinery to support both the operations and the consciousness of conclusion. That is the objective reality. The same capacity could have pondered another problem and came to the opposite conclusion. It makes no sense to claim "true" is a biological event, nor does it makes sence to say the word "true" exists w/o an underlying physics to support it's perception.
Re: "Time is a measure of existence."
" Not for God. "
Yes, for anything. I proved it, so the only alternative is to say A !=A.
"Theology attempts to explain why physics exists, it is metaphysics. You can't approach this perspective with your methods or requirements."
Theology can attempt to explain why the physics of this world exists. It can not attempt to explain why the physics in all worlds exists, because the physics of all worlds always existed. This world arose out of the physics of all worlds. The anthropic principle applies. We exist, because the physics of this world are just right. Theology must acknowledge what is and can be seen and focus on why it is, that anyone should believe in more than what can be seen. If any theologians insist on disregarding what is known and understood about reality, and embracing some transcendent alternate reality, that contradicts what can be clearly observed, what they say is clearly not a light on a lamp stand. It's a strong wind that attempts to blow that light out.
D-fendr, I object to your post and will not answer you for three reasons.
First, you and I have already had this conversation at length. I do not intend on beating a dead horse as far as you are concerned.
Second, I object to your post based upon the fact that you have closed your mind concerning the subject and are not interested in the truth, just in arguing. I base this upon your words in the post I am replying to where you basically write off any answer to the contrary of what you have assumed as "proof-texting" and "spinning". You haven't even waited for the answer before you dismiss it.
Third, I object to your post and will not provide you an answer because of your anti-Protestant bigotry. You mock the idea of proof-texting (from your opponents) and then go on and proof-text yourself. You can use all of the tools you wish but decide to allow us none in answer to your response. Sorry, if those are the rules of the debate, we are not interested in participating.
With that said, Proof-texting is a WONDERFUL thing. Roman Catholics mock it, but it is what God wants us to do (Acts 17:11, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4) . We do not speak on our own authority but on the authority of God's Word.
The verses you posted are cherry picked Scripture. Most of them did not support your point when taken in the context and two of the verses did not exist. You can not take Scripture out of its full context. There is an answer to the verses you posted, but I shall not be providing it for the reasons stated above.
So, Scripture does not teach that God foresaw what we would do and chose us on that basis. Such a concept is nonsense and makes God's decisions dependent on creatures who would never choose him outside of His direct intervention.
Your view is unscriptural, as Augustine was pointing out in his arguments against Pelagius. In fact, it is anti-Scriptural "Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
What I do not understand, or maybe I do, is why the aversion to allowing God to be God. He made us. He can do with us as He wishes. If He wishes to show mercy to some of us but not to others, then fine. He is God, He can do so. We are not God. We have no right to tell Him what is acceptable to do.
We do not see man seeking out God first in Scripture. Rather, it is God who goes after man. God chose everyone who would serve Him. He still does. And all that God chooses will come. Christ will not lose any of them.
My, my. How far the Church has slipped in Pelagism not to recognize the error.
The "Church" is one slippery institution, that's for sure.
That was the longest non-answer I've ever received.
Repeating it does not make it so. Pelagius was in error, but not on this score. In Matthew 25 Christ explains that the elect are chosen from the foundation of the world but Christ will judge them by their works at the end of times. Hence, the election was based on the foreknowledge of their works.
Bishop Elias Minatios gives several examples where God alters the divine plan based on one's works. They are in the end of his article. Here is one:
I ask you to listen to what God says to Jeremiah the prophet: Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear My words (18:2). The prophet went to the house and found the potter making vessels. A certain pot fell from his hands and became deformed. But, he picked it up and returned it to the form which he desired. Then God spoke to Jeremiah: Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand (18:6). Just as the vessel being made fell was ruined, then being ruined, it was again corrected by the skill of the potter, likewise you, oh man, fall into sin; then, having repented, you are corrected by the grace of God. If you are a vessel of honor, nonetheless, you can become a vessel of dishonor. Likewise, from a vessel of dishonor you can turn back into an honorable vessel. But God continues even further and tells you through the prophet: If (a nation) do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (18:10). If that nation, against whom I have pronounced (to pull down, and to destroy it), turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them (18:8). See how God changes His decision according to how man changes his disposition?
You offer Romans 9 to buttress your denial of free will. But Romans 9 does not teach that. Verse 16 (and preceding) says that mercy is from God alone. It does not say what divine electionis based on. In the example of clay note that this is the kind of clay that makes the potter "endure it with much patience". The similitude of the potter is echoing Jeremiah, -- se how the bishop is treating it in the quote above. Verse 25, that you also cite, explains that God can elect or unelect people. Neither in that verse does it say upon what God is basing His election. But from other scripture we know, -- He is basing His election of the works of man.
Whether the post was long or short did we or did we not have a long conversation concerning the doctrine of election in which you said my view made God "cruel and capricious"? If my Scriptural case did not convince you then, it will not convince you now.
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.