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/
Let me get this straight: God writes the script and says "Man must rebel against me. The only reason he shall rebel again me is that I say it must happen.
Oh, the rebellion was real, but is was God's will, according to you, that man commit the first sin. And, although you try clumsily to introduce 'free will' so that man can be blamed for his disobedience, at the same time you state that God's will cannot be opposed. So, in truth, man did not have a choice, but was predestined to rebel.
Then, if I am reading your theology correctly, man was trapped from the get-go to fall into the pit of sin created by God.
Man did nothing God didn't allow him to do
No, FK, I believe you are tripping over your own theology. In the first paragraph you said it had to be. You didn't say, God allowed it, so it was a tossup. In your book, there is no choice. God didn't leave it up to us to decide.
Which is it: did God predetermine everything, including our choices, or not? If God predetermined our choices, then He is the author of them and we are simply the vessels who must obey.
If you must obey, you have no choice. If you obey God's will, regardless what your choice is, and you must, how is that a sin?
No, all sin is through free will choice
Tripping...
We follow our nature, unless it is changed by God
And I though you said we follow what God says we must do. Which is it, FK?
If not, then sin in general is what makes God angry and offended
Why? From what you are telling me sin is something that had to happen because God says so. If our rebellion and fall is the result of something God said must happen, knew it would happen, made sure it happens, then why is He 'offended?' I hope you realize you didn't answer my question.
If that were all there was to the thinking, then we would make DUI or even just getting spiffed a felony, or at least a big old misdemeanor. But what we do is leave you alone if you get blotto at home, but if you, having gotten drunk of your own free will then go out and run somebody over we punish you for DUI AND some vehicular homicide charge.
I'm not trying to be smart here. (I try to give up losing battles early.) I'm saying it SEEMS to be a legal notion that sometimes without a mens rea or the possibility of one one can still be held responsible for one's actions as though they had been undertaken of one's own free will IF one is responsible for trashing one's own free will.
Say it again: I choose to get drunk. That is, I choose to trash my ability to choose well. Then I make a crappy choice. So I get punished for the choices I made after trashing my ability to choose. But if punishment were related to freedom (and its misuse) The punishment would have to be just for getting drunk, and the quiet drunk in the corner would be as guilty as the drunk careening down the residential street in his Camaro.
What's wrong with my alleged thinking?
And just to be clear, I'm trying to find a contact with the idea that choices made with a bound will still merit punishment. PART of that is that, in terms of the Divine order, the punishment is integral to the sin - what the sin in fact is -- and only temporally separated. But I'm still looking for the juridical-type argument one step beyond "You're the clay, He's the potter, shut up."
And when God created Lucifer, did He predestine that Lucifer shall fall or not? Did Lucifer really have a "free choice" in his "rebellion" or was it something that, as FK says, God said must happen?
Did Lucifer have a choice to disobey God and not rebel? May I remind you that Judaism considers Satan a loyal servant of God, and not a rebel?
Do you believe Judas, then, was merely obeying what God commanded? Is Hitler, by the same logic, a mere servant of God, who "obeyed" what God "commanded?"
My impression is that Reformed Protestants either don't seem to realize that their theology implies that God is the author of sin, or they find it so threatening that they unconsciously deny it.
You will note that I have never considered not having a clue what I'm talking about reason to be silent.
You mean you ain't lawyer?
"I create weal and I create woe." (Isaiah)
I get that "evil" and "woe" are not the same as sin, but still, the verses give one pause. Mind you, across the gates of Hell, says Dante, are these words:
GIUSTIZIA MOSSE IL MIO ALTO FATTOREAnd, finally, "Knowing and seeing aren't causing." Everything is "now" to God. He doesn't "foresee" my sin, He sees it in His now but my future.
FECEMI LA DIVINI POTESTATE
LA SOMMA SAPIENZA E 'L PRIMO AMORE.Justice moved my High Maker and Divine Power and the First Love made me
These are not offered as refutations nor as red herrings but as statements about what keeps me chewing on these questions.
Then it must have been God's will that Corinthians disobey what they were taught; it was all staged.
The preaching (and teaching) of the gospel is the way that God accomplishes His will regarding the salvation of men
But men will believe (or not believe) because God predetermined them to do so, and not because someone is preaching to them, right?
I don't find scriptural evidence that Paul attempts to correct the reprobate, but rather, ... that he warns the believer against reprobation
Warns them, why? The believers will believe because, according to Reformed theology, God determined before all ages that they will be believers from.
Nothing will change that, right? It's not up to +Paul to add or subtract from God's will, correct? It must have all been then for effect because the believers have believed and disbelievers didn't, regardless of what men say or do, correct?
+Paul was just playing his part in the great God's drama, right?
I believe that there are those [who fall away after having believed]... though I believe that they are few ... that will taste the gifts of God ... and make a conscious decision to walk away from them. For such ... the reprobate ... there is no coming back
But the believing or not believing is not from them but from God, right? So, what do they have in that decision? Nothing! It's not theirs to begin with according to Reformed theology, is it?
Heb 6:4-6...
And who is this author using as authority on that? If anything, God kept coming back and offering unbelieving Jews chances to be redeemed over and over. It's mostly +Paul textproofing +Paul.
The Old Testament is the foreshadowing of the New One. The Jews did not have full revelation. This is, at least, how the Church explains some of these oddities.
The idea of an unchanging, eternal God, is not part of the OT revelation. The idea that God is Love and always love, isn't either. Neither are the ideas that God gives only blessings, to the pious and the impious, or the idea of God who loves even the condemned.
For if God is Life, how can He be the source of death? If God is Perfection, how can He be the author of chaos? If God is good, how can He be the source of evil?
Anything else implies a God that is not eternal and unchanging.
Finally, the Bible (and indeed everything) must be 'understood' in its totality and not by textproofing, which is to say 'out-of-context.' You can't read a sentence in a book and know what the whole book is about.
What matters is spiritual meaning, not literal.
Part of the message of the NT is that the OT does not show the fullness of God's revelation. But it is there, although not necessarily obvious. We see it now, but thanks only to the New Testament.
For right after saying He creates light and darkness1, and calamity...the prophet writes
"Let the heavens rejoice from above, and let the clouds rain righteousness; let the earth bring forth, and blossom with mercy, and bring forth righteousness likewise; I am the Lord that created you" [LXX, Isa 45:8]
1I thought in the beginning darkness existed before God said "Let there be light!" Are we to understand that God created darkness before He created light?
So, God brings righteousness and joy, and mercy. To those who hate Him, His love is camality. to those who love Him, bliss.
God is actually nothing we can ever imagine or fully know. How can be imagine or 'understand' eternal, unchanging, transcendetal? The only way we can approach God in any way is through His humanity in the image and Person of Christ Jesus. Christ eliminates the need for anthropomorphism of God, where most of our erroneous concepts come from.
You must not be familiar with some aspects of the reformed theology.
I'm glad you picked up on my perspective as well. In this process of questioning I see the LORD opening his eyes. If he looks for the answers in Scripture he will find them!
"You mean you ain't lawyer?"
No, I are one indeed!
So we do not believe the same things. In my sect we believe we are justified by Faith alone, there are no works that our justification is contingent upon before, during or after. In your sect you do believe that your justification is contingent upon works, before, during and after.
How about Baptism? Were you Baptized?
After I was justified, I was drawn by a desire to be Baptized? In our sect only regenerate Church members are Baptized.
Baptism isn't a work that I do. Baptism is a gift from God. Baptism is a grace.
Nonsense.
I know your RC sect has never really been that big on Bible study, except for those in your religious caste, but we repent and are saved then we are Baptized.
Trying to say that Baptism is not a work is misleading at the minimum. A work is any physical activity. Your sect requires all kinds of works in order for you to be justified and to remain justified. You must be Baptized. You must attend Mass. You must take communion. You must confess to your Priest. All these actions are works.
Any physical activity is the most direct, simple definition I know.
HD:I would agree with you to a point. I feel doctrine does matter.
I think your right. Scriptural doctrine will lead us into a closer, fuller relationship with our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, but it does not save us. A great example would be Calvinism. Through this spectrum we enter into a fuller understanding of our relationship with God and grow because of it.
" No it wouldn't. "Ο ΩΝ" does not exist in any fashion we comprehend, being the source of existence.
If no one can comprehend God, then they shouldn't be describing Him at all. It appears though, that's not the case. God Himself came to teach who He was. That's where the "Ο ΩΝ"(only begotten) came from. Regardless of the fact, that we exist in His creation, we are in His image, which means we can rationally ponder such things as time, and the consequences of not having time, or a measure of time.
" Indeed, given that "existence" is only something we can comprehend and is a created state, God does not "exist"."
God does exist. He said, "I Am!" I can also read His words, and know exactly where they came from by examination. In order to exist, there must be a timescale to reference such things as eternity, order cause and effect, ponder, decide, act, ect. If there's no time, there is nothing. None of that means that God's clock is the clock of this world, it isn't.
God always had the capacity to extend himself, which is what begotten means here. My point is, that until the Father decided to create and do so, there was no action to beget. John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,["Ο ΩΝ", only begotten] who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Only God Himself could be His right hand man. He was made flesh: John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,["Ο ΩΝ"] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
All these passages identify Jesus as God, and contain action words. The action was the point in time, when God pondered the decision to create. That is where His decision to beget arose in time. His begetting the 2nd person of the Trinity infinitely before His contemplation of the action, makes no sense. The capacity was, but the 2nd person of the Trinity is not capacity, He is a realization of that capacity.
The Nicene Creed contains the words, "before all worlds" which is correct, and it doesn't matter at what point in time that was, as long as it wans't before a decision was made to create. It is not correct to use the word "eternity". Both Gen 1 and John 9 indentify a particular point in time; it is "in the beginning". John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
You are mistranslating "Ο ΩΝ". The phrase "only begotten" is "μονογενις".
not sure what you mean by 'your guys' far as i know there isn't a council about this...
Then what did you write? I don't read Greek, the translator I used gave "only be".
Ah, well that explains it then! :)
"Ο ΩΝ" really doesn't translate into English. The best I can do for you is "He Who creates/created existence", and that's not very good.
It was God's will that he (Paul) do so
Then it must have been God's will that Corinthians disobey what they were taught; it was all staged.
I don't really have a firm stand in any of the predetermination camps.
For me, ... it is a matter of attempting to ascertain how God did/does what He did/does.
I believe that such a knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
So ... however it is that He did/does what He did/does, ... I was really speaking to the grace that God gives us ... to know that we are His children.
It is His desire that we know that we are His ... and that such knowledge is not at all presumptuous.
1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
_________________________________________________
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
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.