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/
There you go again. You must be from Utah. Only someone whose state fruit is the cherry would be so fond of picking them. Be careful though, they stain the hands.
But since you mentioned Scripture...I will let it answer you.
2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Romans 4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 9:11
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
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.
# Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 3:
9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.)
11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Ephesians 2
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith
Titus 3:7
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men
Ephesians 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace
Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Romans 5:15
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.
#
# Acts 16:31
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
#
# Acts 15:11
But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
#
# Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
AS TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SAVED:
1 Corinthians 3
10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
This is at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOST:
Revelation 20
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
(when were the names written??? Go back 3 chapters)
Revelation 17:8
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world...
Annalex, Scripture doesn't hurt. Scripture is precious. The rejection of Scripture hurts. Embracing of a false gospel hurts.
Salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. That is Scripture. Salvation will produce works. That's what James was speaking of. You have been shown the truth from Scripture. Reject it if you will, but you have been shown.
Christ did die for us. We are His sheep. The good shepherd gave his life for the sheep. But the work was the Shepherd's. The grace was the Shepherds. The provision was the Shepherd's. The payment was the Shepherd's. The initiative was the Shepherd's. The gift of faith was given by the Shepherd Himself since it is a fruit of the Spirit of God in our lives. Our justification is because of the Shepherd. Our sanctification is because of the Shepherd. ANd our glorification and even our rewards will be because of the Shepherd. We could contribute nothing to getting ourselves saved. Our works were lower than sewer sludge. Yet, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO about him and not about us. We are the benificieries, but HE is the author.
True. True.
Fittingly true.
Nevertheless . . . at some point . . . one can take that truth to a degree that becomes . . . how to say it . . .
an affront to The Blood that was shed. There, to my mind, is mystery and paradox there while much truth in your assertions.
You look at it from more of an Arminian perspective. I look at it from a Calvinist perspective. We will naturally differ on some issues. Still in the end, Jesus is our Lord and Savior and we love Him because He first loved us.
What does that mean? It's in the Gospels. Are you saying the Gospels were not written in Greek?
Besides, if every reference to Christ's sheep only referred to Jews by birth, then we are all toast!
Christ never, ever taught to the Gentiles. Christ never invited them. Jews could not fraternize or mix with the Gentiles. They could only live next to them.
There was no reason to preach to the non-believers. But the Gentiles are always welcome to convert to Judaism. What Christ taught, and what the Apostles thought He taught was Judaism. There was no reason to preach Judaism to non-believers.
Christ commanded the Apostles to go out and spread what He taught them
He did. He sent them to preach to the 12 tribes/clans/phule of Israel (descendants of Jacob).
that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [Luke 22:30]
the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews. [Acts 26:7]
James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. [James 1:1]
It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. [Rev 21:12]
Sitting at the throne (end times) judging the 12 tribes of Israel (not all nations of the world). The promise to the 12 tribes hope to attain (not all nations of the world), only the names of the 12 tribes will be there...
Those teachings were meant for us too, including the teaching to further spread the word. If they were not, then what's the point?
The point is that the Church failed in Israel. There was no life for it anywhere among the 12 tribes of Israel. I think most people do not understand that the Church was about to become extinct.
The next (and only) logical step was to turn to the Gentiles. I am willing to believe that it was God's way of showing us what Christ really taught but no one understood, not even the Apostles. But the Bible does not seem to provide evidence to support that belief.
We are talking about whether Christ spoke of saving Gentiles. The centurion was clearly a Gentile. Christ said he had great faith, leading us to believe he was saved
You are right, but you are forgetting that as far as everyone was concerned the Centurion became a Jew by converting to Judaism. The Christ believing Jews of the time did not practice "Christianity" as we know it today, FK. They were Jews in belief, in Scripture (they only had the OT), and in places of worship (synagogues).
The Pharisaical sect developed alongside the Sadduccees about two centuries before Christ. They were as far apart as night and day in their end-times beliefs, and many other beliefs. The latter denied even the angels although the OT is full of angelic references.
Judaism was not a "catholic" religion but a bunch of different sects using similar Scriptural sources. It was an amalgam of beliefs and traditions. It still is. About have only one thing they have in common is their dneial of Christ Jesus as the Son of God.
The idea of a messiah, who was supposed to be a mortal human, and was to become [literally] a king of Israel (just as David was), originated at that time. Up to that point, Judaism basically maintained that man was in no need to be saved. They still believe that.
Along with the messianic beliefs, came the beliefs in resurrection, which was also foreign to Judaism up to that time. So, what Christ preached was in of itself not blasphemous. He rubbed the Jewish authorities raw when He suggested that He was the real Son of God (which is polytheism as far as Judaism is concerned, and therefore the worst kind of Gentile-pagan proposition).
But you must understand that no one who accepted Jesus as the Messiah was working outside of Judaism. Gentiles who accepted Him accepted Judaism and became Jews.
Even His own Apostles were not really clear as to just when was He going to take the throne of Israel as a real king (all kings, by the way, were 'anointed by God').
In all instances, Christ is referred to as the King of Israel. Although Christians consider themselves "extended" Israel, and +Paul makes us into 'grafts' to Israel, Christ's ministry was about the Jews, for the Jews and by the Jews until it morphed, by necessity, into a universal religion.
Again, I am willing to believe that this is was one of those mysterious God's ways of telling us what His real plan was, but it's not so clear from the Bible, and apparently not even the Apostles were quite clear about it.
No. The church was never about to become extinct regardless of appearances.
God needed no plan B.
His plan A always works out perfectly.
One of the perks of His being God.
LOL!!!!!! I can't wait to see the answers, TRD!
Shall we add, "Butter Mountain"?
It's not?
Of course, God commands it
There's a clue...
so all Christians should be baptized, but it is not salvific
It washes away our sins. If we die immediately after Baptism we should go straight to heaven.
It's an act of adoption into the Body of Christ. What could be more salvific than that?
For Judaism, circumcision is not an 'option.' If you wanted to convert to Judaism (and Christianity in those days was Judaism), you had to meet the requirements.
What +Paul was suggesting was some new and yet unknown kind of covenant with God which was not Judaism.
Paul is correcting all those who believe that ritual is required to enter Heaven.
Right, he was re-inventing Judaism in the eyes of those present. I have news for you: Judaism was a liturgical religion with "rituals." If that is what +Paul was saying, then he is clearly in conflict with the Church, because these "rituals" are considered sacraments.
Of course, you can say they are only rituals, and I can say the Bible is only a book. The Jews followed the Law (of Moses given to him by God). The Law required "rituals." Observant Jews could not agree with +Paul, as his suggestion was contrary to God's Law. Being a Pharisee, I doubt that +Paul had problems with "rituals."
Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, and He gave His revelation to Paul personally
And God gave the Law to Moses. Please don't tell me Christ personally told +Paul to break the Law God gave to Moses.
I agree, but we have to work in real time and in this world. I have news for you: the Church was rejected by the vassmajority of the Jews. It's survival was not there.
The survival of The Church Universal has always been God's business.
Of course, the OT & NT are/were clear that the house of Israel would reject The Messiah . . . and He would be a deliverer for all mankind . . . then . . . in the closing acts of the play . . . the House of Israel would again recognize their true Messiah . . . stay tuned . . . the play continues.
It was no surprise to God that the House of Israel would, on the whole, reject it's Messiah.
There are two parts to your statement: first, Christ commanded the Apostles to teach and baptize... so I don't see who or where did +Paul find this freedom to choose what was more important than God's own commandment except that he was not aware of Mat 28:19.
Preaching and baptizing go hand in hand, FK. +Paul was making up his own rules it seems.
so no one can say that you were baptized into my name [1 Cor 1:15]
How could anyone say that if they were baptized in the name of the father, Son and the Holy Spirit? Perhaps +Paul was using his own 'formula' (like preaching 'his' gospel) since he was not aware of Mat 28:19.
1 Cor 3:21-23 : 21 ... He didn't leave anyone alone, unbaptized, he just had others do it
If you say so; your references doesn't make that clear.
You're overstating your case. Christ healed the Canaanite woman's daughter, and commended her for her faith, as too the centurion's slave, commending the centurion for his faith (with the implied criticism of His Chosen People, 'not even in Israel'), and spoke, indeed preached, to St. Photini, even though she was a Samaritan.
And you neglect, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Also, in seeing Paul as the originator of spreading the Gospel to the gentiles (a strange notion, given Christ's words just recalled), you forget Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, while Paul was as yet, Saul, the persecutor of the Church.
Gal 5:6 : 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love
Christ never taught that. This is where +Paul is literally building a new religion.
So, do you think that Paul is correct here, or is he breaking God's laws?
He is teaching 'his' gospel, because that was never mentioned by Christ.
Part of that fulfillment can be found in Paul's further discussion on circumcision: Rom 2:29 : 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God
+Paul is re-interpreting Judaism. The "written code" are Laws given to Moses by God. It was not man-made.
We have here the authority Moses claims from his encounter with God on Mt Sinai, and +Paul who claims his authoirty from an encounter to Damascus. +Paul is saying the Law is worthless. That was "new" Judaism.
Great points.
Yes, he is implying that, but his gospel is not what Christ taught the Apostles (sans +Paul and +Luke). What +Paul is preaching was not Judaism and not what Christ taught.
It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is saying that the Gospel he is preaching, "his Gospel", is the same Gospel that was given to him personally by Christ
But it's not the Gospel Christ spoke to the Apostles in Person. Nor does Christ ever hind that there will be some +Paul.
Another way to look at it would be that if Paul did go out and preach his own made-up gospel, then it would mean that God made a colossal mistake in choosing Paul
Obviously not, since the Church survived. But the Church does not teach everything +Paul taught.
and not what Christ taught.
= = =
Hogwash and hair splitting won't make it so.
It is inconceivable to me that the dear Friend and Lord Paul met on the Damascas road would have blessed Paul with anything less than the full Christ-focused; Christ-centered; Christ-modeled; Christ-motivated; Christ-led Christianity.
Paul was no accident. What he taught was no accident. What he taught was nothing less than Holy Spirit's script for Paul . . . as in The Holy Spirit of Jesus The Christ--sent by Christ to lead all believers into all truth . . .
You'd have us believe . . . all believers EXCEPT Paul?
I think not.
I know, not.
Canaanites are Semites. They were condemned for their pagan practices, but they, like the Phoenicians were of the same fold as the Israelites.
Samaritans are also Semites. Their religion is Judaism.
And you neglect, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
No I don't. It was mentioned earlier in another post to FK. The word for 'nations' is not by any stretch a word that applies to all nations by necessity. It means 'tribe,clan' and in the NT context is used for the descendent's of Jacob and Isaac.
you forget Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, while Paul was as yet, Saul, the persecutor of the Church
Anyone could convert to Judaism just as anyone can do so today. No one had specific isntructions to preach to the Gentiles.There was no reason for it. The messianic belief was all about Judaism.
+Paul changed his name from Saul to +Paul after he baptized Paulus, a Roman governor (I believe on Cyprus).
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. - Philippians 3:3-11
INDEED.
All this . . . faulting Paul business is beyond my comprehension if one is trying to do so and still claim to be Biblical, or historical.
Hysterical, probably . . .
but not historical or Biblical.
Why do I love your analyses so much . . . they just resonate in my spirit. Must be same Holy Spirit inside . . . with no apologies to Intel.
Very good. Eglah, David's wife, lol
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.