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/
As to Genesis : Where did Cain and Seth's WIVES come from? God didn't make them, like Adam and Eve, from the dust. So where did THEY come from? Simple answer : Adam and Eve were made/placed in a world already populated with people.
As to "eve", DNA evidence, the known drift rate in mutations thereof, points to a cro-magnon "eve" between 125,000 and 250,000 years ago, as the mother of all people living today.
Also, mitochrondial DNA points to a "bottleneck" of just a few hundred people surviving some great extinction between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago. 74,000 years ago the indonesian SUPERvolcano(15 mi x 15 mi caldera)blew up, creating a 3.5 year long nuclear winter. The human race was almost completely wiped out(like the BIG dinosaurs).
Gen 2:6 briefly describes the .5B year long age(4.4B to 3.9B)between the perturbation-out-of-orbit of the original terran ring system onto the earth's surface by the captured moon, and the first ocean. No, the incoming mars didn't directly hit the earth, and thus slow down(the I-S theory), it "hit" the Roche Lobe, and was torn into 2 parts(comma head and tail).
The head slowed down by less mass(g force)and greater orbital radius, was further rightward deflected, and thus went into a highly elliptical but CAPTURED orbit around terra. It then quickly destroyed the ring system , dumping most of the wet-gravel planetisimals onto the equator; the origin of our later continents/oceans. Tectonic forces then massaged that ring-debris layer for 500,000,000 years, ie, Gen 2:6.
The long tail of mini-moon/asteroids from the equatorial lunar bulge was thrown at high velocity entirely OUT of the terran gravity well, much like the 20 SL9 comet-train fragments in 1994 that first "hit" jupiter's Roche Lobe, then later impacted it directly.
Drop a spinning oil blob onto the eddy of a draining bathtub and you'll see the comma shape for a brief instant.
"So quick to judge, so slow to learn" was how an old black librarian described young blacks. It applies to far more people....esp, those who deny science and its ability to discern TRUTH, from biblical clues.
Last evening you posted this:
"Have never felt particularly compelled to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy at all.
But since pressed . . .
I think the indiosyncracies of individuals and social groups are more than sufficient to explain the vagaries of Orthodoxy."
What exactly do you see as the "vagaries" of Orthodoxy? The theology and praxis, liturgical and otherwise, haven't changed in any material respect in about 2000 years, so I am assuming you don't mean that. Orthodoxy spans a rather broad range of cultures and social groups, who all believe the exact same thing and while there are very small differences in praxis, differences that it is likely only an Orthodox would notice, nothing of any consequence. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the term "vagaries"?
My question had to do with your apparent agreement with FK's assertion that the medieval Latin practice of keeping the scriptures out of the hands of the laity somehow affected the theology and praxis of the Latin Church. Since Orthodoxy never did that, how does one explain virtually the same theology and liturgical practice in Orthodoxy as one sees in the Roman Church. Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?
its prolly not worth the bother k,
k
Again you see, but do not PERCEIVE. Jesus was an in itro implant by aliens. Many MANY documented cases of aliens implanting fertilized ova in human females, then harvesting the fetuses. Like the NH woman, horse breeder by trade, having herself examined by a gynecologist : she has TWENTY SEVEN birth/placenta scars in her womb, and she's NEVER had a BABY!
Thus Jesus was an implant in the host mother Mary by this cosmic PETA group. He came as a MISSIONARY to us monkeys. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. WE are the Animals, get it?
Is it possible that the old Latin practice, as lamentable as it may seem today and indeed may well have been then, really had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the theology or liturgical praxis of that church?
= = =
I can agree with that, I think, fairly wholesale.
By vagaries . . . maybe I should have said congregational distinctives.
I don't care how homogeneous a doctrine is . . . even rules and bylaws . . . each congregation will have it's own distintives of greater or lesser importance.
Freud's IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP stuff still functions in spite of all of us--far too often and far too much.
And those not exactly like us--and who is--especially group-wise-- are suspect in at least a few ways.
Perhaps the Orthodox have preserved more healthiness significantly than the Roman system. I believe that's true. Have always gotten on well with those Orthodox believers in my social network.
I just know that the older organizations are and the larger they are, the more deadly they tend to become--to individuals . . . and, imho, to The Gospel.
FWIW, there are some posters I won't post to because it seems they are trying to get those of differing views banned.
I find when I am hurting someone's feelings or being accused of "ad hominen" attacks I'm better off ignoring that person.
I think we all ignored one so well he kind of went away
FWIW, there are some posters I won't post to because it seems they are trying to get those of differing views banned.
= = =
There does seem to be far too much of that from time to time.
wise as serpents; harmless as doves . . .
Guess I struggle on both ends of that one! LOL.
I would disagree with that as well. I see my time as extremely valuable and don't care to waste anything so precious as my time. There are times I'll ask some folks to stop posting to me for various reasons and they can always make their points to somebody else.
I hadn't thought of that!
Maybe that's what's behind this sudden epidemic of "don't post to me", if you are really strong on some points and can reference Scripture to support the point the next best thing is to silence the poster.
Do you get mail from posters who disagree with you, or want to accuse you of some bigotry? I've had that happen a couple times now and figure I must have really made a point.
Technically, no. There is such a thing as a "conditional" gift. For example, a man gives a woman an engagement ring. It is a gift, but it is considered "conditional" on the woman actually going through with the wedding, not just her promise to get married. I am not certain, and Kolo can correct me, but I think most courts would give the ring back to the man if anything went wrong. That's not true in every case, though.
Anyway, in this light, when WM speaks of the "free gift" of grace, he makes a legitimate distinction because God does not give us that grace with any expectation of performance of anything from ourselves. It is truly free with no strings attached. (There are no takebacks on saving grace.) The nature of the grace certainly causes things to happen that God wants, but these things are not of ourselves.
Bears by 4. Manning's thumb is not a problem. Just the whole team play makes the difference in the end.
"I don't care how homogeneous a doctrine is . . . even rules and bylaws . . . each congregation will have it's own distintives of greater or lesser importance."
If you mean in areas like friendliness, openness to "outsiders", what they eat, what minor feastdays are celebrated, then yes, I agree there are such differences from parish to parish and certainly from one ethnicity to another. I guess I fail to see what if anything that might have to do with faithfulness to The Faith as delivered.
"I just know that the older organizations are and the larger they are, the more deadly they tend to become--to individuals . . . and, imho, to The Gospel."
I think as a general observation what you say is true. But consider that Orthodoxy has believed the same things and worshipped in the same way since not all that long after Pentecost. There have been conciliar definitions of particular points of theology in response to various heresies through the 7 ecumenical councils and there have been some surface changes in liturgical practice (styles of iconostasia, vestments, the adding or dropping of a prayer here and there) but really nothing of any consequence. The theology of Orthodoxy and its praxis is so fixed and so ancient that itis likely that if I were to be dropped into a church in 2nd century Corinth, I could participate in the liturgy and discuss theology with the people and priest in exactly the same manner as I can this Sunday here in 21st century America. In sum, what you see in orthodoxy is for all intents and purposes what anyone at anytime virtually since Christ would have seen. That can't be said of "Protestantism" at all, and of Roman Catholicism somewhat more, though not to the extent of Orthodoxy.
In your understanding of what God requires of us in the way of belief and praxis, would you say that Orthodoxy has had it wrong pretty much from day one?
1Pe 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
We need to work on the meekness, no doubt about it
The day they start loving me is the day I better get back to work, lol
Beautiful defense and introduction of Paul, you're whole post...
I agree.. Almost all the other Apostles were Uneducated teenagers.. Paul was educated to the hilt in several languages the Talmud, Torah, Prophets and other semantics and scripture.. Paul was even a Roman citizen.. and a Jew amongst Jews.. a Pharisee..
The Apostles WONGLY elected Matthias as an Apostle to replace Judas.. But Jesus himself elected Saul/Paul to replace him.. Paul's heavenly vision raised the other Apostles spiritual visions to greater heights.. I believe..
No concepts known among men exceed the Letter to the Ephesians in the New Testament, I know of.. Even a brief reading of Pauls writtings in the New Testament can set your spirit loose.. Paul was special among all those God called to service.. Paul didn't heal the flesh of men as much as he healed the spirits of men by drawing then to the throne of grace by the Holy Spirit... I think I LOVE Paul.. No, I know I do..
In your understanding of what God requires of us in the way of belief and praxis, would you say that Orthodoxy has had it wrong pretty much from day one?
= = =
NO. But I'm not that detailed familiar with Orthodoxy in any comprehensive way.
I can accept what you say to a large degree on faith.
But I have had plenty to disagree with posters hereon supposedly from the Orthodox standpoint. So, I'm not sure where I'd draw any lines.
Theoretically, I could have a problem with the iconography. Supposedly it could be as big a problem as the RC statues etc. But I usually don't have the same cold evil feel about Orthodox iconography in my spirit. It MAY be the case that the Orthodox successfully avoid idolatry more than the RC's. I don't know.
I still have a hard time and cannot accept the praying to departed saints or to Mary. That is just wholesale contrary to my whole understanding of Scripture and of my experience with Jesus, The Father and Holy Spirit. I cannot imagine a common ground on that in the RC or Orthodox directions.
But mostly, LOVE GOD WHOLLY; OTHERS AS SELF; DO UNTO OTHERS. . . . SEEK GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST, FOREMOST AND ALWAYS . . .
and I'll happily consider someone a brother or sister in Christ--almost always--regardless of A LOT of garbage otherwise.
Not sure how to sort it out more . . . if you care to ask more specific questions about such praxis, fine. Just avoid assuming I know a lot of special terms etc.
In terms of congregational distinctives having to do with faithfulness to the faith delivered . . . It sounds like you are asserting that every Orthodox congregation is balanced and healthy and focused exclusively and wholesale on God, His will etc. I'm exceedingly skeptical that that's true. And, it would likely be the congregational disctinctives that had gotten a given congregation askew.
Sometimes we get in trouble doing what we do best far too much. Sometimes it's a relatively initially small pride that satan gets amplified and then all kinds of evil slid in on. It's usually human stuff that gets rationalized as justified according to this or that belief, tradition or custom of men. . . . and sometimes even true doctines are used to hide all kinds of evil.
I think I LOVE Paul.. No, I know I do..
= = =
As do I.
But we have no choice. We said yes to Jesus.
Courtesy and respect is necessary in public discourse, particularly about religion, and being a jerk is a non-denominational affliction.
I don't believe I've seen anyone who was making a real effort at basic respect and courtesy be asked to stop talking to someone. Some people enjoy a flame war, but some don't and some are more sensitive than others. I think you have to respect their requests.
And sometimes stopping the conversation is best for the posters and the forum as well.
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.