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/
You cherry-picked while you should prooftext. How can Blogger be clearer?
Transcend, physics, metaphysics, reductionism, objective reality and so on have specific meanings in these areas.
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.
No, I'm sorry, that's not objective reality as the term is properly used. I'm sorry, I don't see how to continue a discussion. It would take forever to define terms anew.
best regards and may God bless...
FK: You just happened to hit all the right buttons on one of my favorite subjects. :)
Isn't calling something a free gift an oxymoron?
Not only does it teach against presumption, but its says "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Cherry-picking- taking one verse or a set of verses out of its context to try to prove a point.
Proof-texting- using the whole counsel of Scripture to support one's point.
There is a difference.
With all due respect to Bishop Elias Minatios, his view is not grounded in scripture. You cannot become a "vessel of dishonor". God made all the vessels, some for honor and some for dishonor. What Bishop Minatios is trying to say is that you can overrule what God has designed.
But from other scripture we know, -- He is basing His election of the works of man.
Oh, brother. What heresy!!! God now base His salvation on how well someone lives their life. Well, throw out grace and mercy, we certainly don't need that!!!
Personally I would rethink this doctrine.
You correctly describe the fact that our salvation comes form Christ alone, but you incorrectly assume that works are mere evidence or product of faith. In fact, the scripture teaches that there is a two-way relationship between faith and works. This is why Romans 2, James 2, and Apocalypse 22 plainly state that were are saved by our works, and the process is described in Matthew 25.
What your cherryproofs show is that "the good works [...] meant for any other reason than our love of Jesus [...] are not acceptable". No argument there. They do not show that works in turn produce faith. How could they? It is St. Paul who likened the Christian life to a race and a battle, who declared love the greatest virtue for us to "put on". The Protestant notion of salvation preceding sanctification is counterscriptural -- it contradicts Matthew 25, 2 Peter 1, Romans 2:1-8, the parable of the rich young man who received a direct answer to the question what saves from Christ, and the exhortations to virtue -- not to faith -- we find at the end of every Pauline epistle.
Rather than changing subjects, why don't you face the problem you have, -- that Matthew 25 described election before the foundation of the world, and judgement at the end of times by works?
Which parts of NOT OF WORKS do you not understand???????
Bishop Minatios got that form Jeremiah, the same source as St. Paul got the vessels similitude.
Well, throw out grace and mercy
Where did I do that. It is divine grace and mercy that make our works salvific.
What part of "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only" do you not understand?
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
None of it. I understand it perfectly because I understand the whole counsel of Scripture and the harmony of Paul and James. SHOW ME YOUR FAITH without your works and I will SHOW YOU my faith By my works. Works is evidence. It is not the cause of salvation. When one claims to have faith but doesn't have works then he is not justified in that claim. When one claims to have faith and shows good works, then he is justified in that claim because true faith is a faith that will work.
Salvation is NOT OF WORKS. But it works. Capisce?
There is so much assurance in Scripture a person would have to be blind to miss it.
And that is because our assurance is built on His strength, His righteousness, His sacrifice, and not our own.
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." -- 2 Corinthians 12:9-10"And he (the Lord) said unto me, 'My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
annalex-Where did I do that. It is divine grace and mercy that make our works salvific.
Blogger and I can see the problem.
How so? The definition of a gift is that it is "free." If we pay for something, it is recompense.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." -- Romans 5:15,16,18"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And Paul
Gift:
1. something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.
2. the act of giving.
3. something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned: Those extra points he got in the game were a total gift.
4. a special ability or capacity; natural endowment; talent: the gift of saying the right thing at the right time.
–verb (used with object)
5. to present with as a gift; bestow gifts upon; endow with.
6. to present (someone) with a gift: just the thing to gift the newlyweds.
dictionary.com
That's very true. And if your waking consciousness didn't convince that you have free will then, it won't convince you now.
I can't imagine someone arguing that we don't have free will. If we don't what's the point of arguing about it?
Or is it that you can't choose not to argue about it?
The position just gets absurd fast.
Dr. E: How so? The definition of a gift is that it is "free." If we pay for something, it is recompense.
Thank you. You just confirmed that the expression 'free gift' is an oxymoron. Something to the effect of a "more perfect Union..." or "at 9 AM in the morning." A gift is a gift only if it is free, so the expression "free gift" a redundancy, suggesting that there could be a gift that is not free.
I hope you realize that the Greek original has no such expression. The word used is "charisma" (grace) in at least two of your three references. The third one doesn't even have 'charisma' or any form of a gift in it.
KJV does it again...
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.