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/
Well, I'll try and watch that. Glad I didn't say bull----. Maryxxx
Prove that by posting an actual comment or else you are bringing false witness and called to repent.
This is getting tedious.
Kindly abide by the FR religion forum rules of conduct and stop criticizing me personally, mad dawg.
It was Martin Luther King who put it together for me : Don't judge a man by the color of his skin, instead judge him by the content of his character.
What he means is that there are saints and sinners in any group of people you'll find anywhere in the world, even out there in the UNIVERSE; the great BELL curve of morality, ethics, wealth, intelligence, height, weight, etc, etc.
Look at the stats for criminals behind bars. All throughout history, in every culture, you see about 1%, 2%, maybe even 3% of all populations are hard core criminals. And the same %ages apply to the saintly ones as well. All the rest of us are shades of gray between the two extremes(tails of the Bell curve).
The BELL curve of course comes from the 3 quarks in the lenticular wave galaxy at the core of fermions, but that's another bed time story. Right now I have to go NAIL ping-pong on this noah flood nonsense. My humility quotient just went up : I just let my e-chess buddy win his one-in-ten games, salves my conscience and gives him his rare ego-boost(he's a masochist by nature)...
Yo duh trip, timer.
Always enjoy hearing from you . . . whether I know what to do with the new knowledge, or not.
LUB,
Self-delusions can be peaceful too.
Sometimes I agree with scripter that the "don't post to me" request should be honored.
1. If it is on one thread and doesn't involve thread-jumping.
2. If the person continues to ping you.
3. If others in the discussion continue to ping both of you.
4. IF the person comments on any arguments you've raised or directs comments at you, but then does not ping you.
5. If your name is used in a post and you are not pinged.
"No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." [2 Corinthians 11:14]
Watch out for feel-good self-delusions.
First of all, Matthew 25 is a continuation of Matthew 24 which is about the end times and the second coming of the Lord. It is a series of parables. And, it is a series of parables distinguishing those who have truly been saved as opposed to those who may make a claim to salvation but do not know the Lord.
The first one shows 10 virgins awaiting a bridegroom. They profess to be followers of the bridegroom. Yet, only 5 of the 10 have oil in their lamps and the other 5 do not. The Oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit whom true Christians get when they are saved. So, it is pretty much a parable showing without the Spirit in one's life, it doesn't matter if you hang around proclaiming things, you will not be taken to be with the bridegroom but will be left far from him. As the Bridegroom said "Verily I say unto you, I know you not."
The second parable is about the servants with the talents. God shines His sun upon the just and the unjust and all are given gifts. The key to understanding this parable is in the adjectives describing the servants. You have a good and faithful servant. And you have a wicked and slothful servant. True faith is a faith that will produce works. Salvation is not of works. But when someone is saved they will naturally want to please their Lord. The lost are not so but hoard God's gifts in greed not giving God the glory or honor which is His due. They will be cast into outer darkness and everything that they have ever done or gained will be given away when they die. They were given instructions, but as the lost do, they reject God's ways every time and will punished.
The last is the sheep and the goats. Again, this is a contrast between the saved and the lost.
Now note, these are parables. Jesus does not specifically identify the Prince and the King with Himself - though as an abstract principle that is what is understood. He speaks in the second person. He is trying to illustrate a point, but is not saying that this is literally the way it will be fulfilled. Those who are is WILL work, but they are not saved by works as SCRIPTURE IN ITS CONTEXT (and yes, Annalex cherry picking Matthew 25 outside of the context of the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE is still cherry picking)abundantly and clearly says.
Romans 2- Do you realize that there are two judgments? There is one for the saved and one for the lost. The saved are not judged according to their works but the works themselves are judged. Those works done for Christ's glory will be rewarded. Those works done for other reasons will be burned up .
The lost are judged according to what they did with the light that they had. The lost have ultimately rejected God but there are levels of punishment for them. A man like Ghandi who sought to eleviate suffering but ultimately rejected Christ is likely to be judged less harshly than a man like Hitler. But all will be separated from Christ forever.
James 2 is NOT IN CONTEXT. Works-salvation folks take James's words in isolation and then pretend that their interpretation of those words is in agreement with the rest of Scripture. James has been explained to the hardheaded proponents of works salvation time and time again. But for those who care to actually understand what is being said by James, here is one more try.
James 2:24 in context is both in the middle of the book of James but also is related to the rest of the New Testament.
Here we have two verses which appear to contradict to people unwilling to dig a little to understand...
# Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:1-3 (in Context) Romans 4 (Whole Chapter)
# James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Paul and James are speaking of justification from two points of view. One is the internal justification (in relationship to God), one is the external & internal justification (how we know that someone is saved from a human perspective.
Lots of people claim to have faith. Bill Clinton claims to be a Christian. The priests that have molested children claim to be Christians. Alexander VI, the Pope, claimed to be a Christian. But very often, works do not follow that faith. James is saying "You say you have faith, but hey the verbal proclamation that you are a Christian does not indicate that you are saved. Rather, true faith is a faith that will produce works. If your faith does not show works it is a dead faith. It is useless. It is meaningless. It is false. But if your faith shows works, then it bears evidence of being true Christian faith." As James says later. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."
Verse 19 precedes the verses that you quoted.
19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
In other words, lots of folks will say "hey, I believe in God." As if that is something to boast about, but their lives do nothing for His glory. The devils themselves also believe that God exists and tremble. The chief difference is that one person makes some sort of mental assent that he exists but He is not their Lord. True faith in Christ is a faith in which Christ is the Lord of their lives. As such, it will be a faith that works.
Abraham was justified salvifically by his faith; but if he had never done anything to illustrate that faith how would we know he was any different from the demons? Abraham's claim to faith was justified by the fact he was willing to place his faith in God regarding Isaac. Faith is a faith that works. But works are not the basis of our salvation. They are the affect of our salvation.
As you your other answers, you should REREAD and then REREAD AGAIN the texts. They do not say what you claim.
The Titus passage has a good companion in Ephesians 2:8-10
Paul to Titus and to the Ephesians could not be more clear that SALVATION IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT OF WORKS!!!!!!! Do not ignore this Annalex. Paul is about to pick up a scroll and smack you across the face with it. IT IS NOT OF WORKS. You are trying to make him say "it isn't of works except these works...." He would spit at that suggestion (actually he had sharper words to those who would try to hoist a work [circumcision] upon the Galatians and said they should go the whole way and cut their manhood off!) S A L V A T I O N I S N O T O F W O R K S. However, we were saved to do good works. You are confusing the cause and the effect of salvation. The cause of salvation is GRACE, not works. THe effect of salvation is works. Ephesians 2:10 says such and the Titus passage reiterates -salvation is not of works, but you who love God, WORK!
Romans 3 through around Romans 13 is all about SALVATION
Romans 9 SPECIFICALLY IS ABOUT ELECTION. Esau and Isaac are given as examples but that is not what the chapter is about. Rather, it is an opening to chapters 10-11 which are all about our salvation and the salvation of Israel.
On our salvation Chapter 9 says
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
In other words - ELECTION. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER. IT IS NOT AS ANNALEX SAID.
As to the rest of your points, it has occurred to me that there is a big problem with even discussing this with you. You are trying to make a distinction from the works of the law and some other kind of salvific works. Scripture makes no such distinction. As Scripture says: Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Your entire interpretation is based upon a distinction that one does not see in Scripture. Rather, the "Catholic kind of works" are pretty much found in the "Jewish kind of works, or law". You think repetitive rituals help get you saved? The Jews had them. You think that giving to the poor helps save you? Such was provided for in the law. You think that fasting on certain days will help save you? The Jews had fasts. You think that having a priest offer up prayers for your benefit clears you of sin? the Jews thought similarly.
The law was our schoolteacher. It was to teach us that works don't save and that we are unrighteous wretches apart from God. Roman Catholicism has missed that message and has added to the true Gospel a bunch of man-made superstition and ritual which they call the gospel.
Annalex, you are a frustrating person to talk to because you take rules outside of Scripture (i.e., there are two different kinds of works in the realm of salvation) and look at everything eisegetically from that construct. I can not argue with you from the text if you are not willing to see or acknowledge what the text actually says. If you threw out all of Galations you still have point blank statements that salvation is not of works. You try to distinguish those works. Paul didn't. If you won't believe him, you won't believe me. Our conversation is fruitless.
There's a difference.
Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist?
I'm tired and sick and starting to feel real irritated with the attitude thrown at me.
I don't think there's anything useful I can articulate to that perspective . . . one has to be there, experience such. No amount of words will be convincing.
Thankfully, I've been there many times over in my own life and the lives of many others.
No amount of argument or words or intellect or whatever such will ever trump the wealth of experience God has seen fit to train me through.
A fruitless religion forum conversation?
You must jest. /sar
It's the nature of the beast . . . thankfully, nevertheless, lurkers benefit.
Well, it's like saying "cash is as good as money" or "at 10 A.M. in the morning." Do we have to get more graphic?
When I answered, I took you to mean that "free" was a superfluous adjective
It is a superfluous adjective. That's what makes it redundant. But it's also self-negating because it implies the possibility of a non-free "gift."
As for the KJV, just plain old gift would have sufficied. It would have been closer to what the Greek original says than "free gift."
For a purest, the phrase "bitter-sweet" might do. My favorite example of a redundancy is "born-again Christian".
Bitter-sweet is not an oxymoron. Sweet and sour is not one either. Born-again Christian is because it implies that one was born [a Christian] and was born again — a Christian!
Sometimes, an 'oxymoron' such as Jumbo Shrimp is an eye-catching product line name, because it involves, in addition to opposites, a pun. In other cases, the necessity for a simple name (brevity) creates them, such as born-again Christian, a name that requires a whole paragraph to explain.
However, the meaning of Grace is of utmost importance to Christians. As I told you already, an undeserved mercy would reflect God's love and patience with us more than 'free gift,' imo, and, as I said previously, that came with a caveat, so it is not unconditional. You can't receive grace and follow satan.
What difference does that make?
Terrific post.
What attitude? I am simply responding to the 'holes' in your sweeping generalizations. If you speak of experience, then simply state so. One cannot argue with personal experience. I have no problem with you convincing yourself, as long as you realize that what seems convincing to you is not necessarily convincing.
This whole tread is about people not willing to accept what other people believe, the 'official truths' included.
Get some rest. Being tired is not good. When you find something "useful to articulate," as you say, please do. If you can't articulate it, why are you trying?
No amount of argument or words or intellect or whatever such will ever trump the wealth of experience God has seen fit to train me through.
That is lovely, but it's not for a discussion forum. Discussion forums are for discussions. Many of the people on these forums here say the equivalent of "I had a baby and you don't know what's it like, so be quiet." That's not conducive to discussions or learning.
Second, this thread has gone into all kinds of directions and many of them so personal and so pitiful – if it weren’t for the good sidebars that are still active on this thread, I’d lock it as “toxic.” And if things don’t improve, I may still do so.
I pulled one post of that type from this thread. But there were other posts dripping with contempt from other sides of the debate and if I were to pull them all, sections of this thread would look like swiss cheese.
It is possible to love a person from another confession and hate the confession. But many cannot receive it. The reasoning goes since if you hate the Son, you hate the Father therefore if you hate the mother, you hate the son and if you hate the church, you hate the member, etc.
If contempt bleeds through your post, such posters will take it personally no matter what you say and there will be a flame war – or worse, personal grudges that carry over from thread to thread.
And whereas I notorious can and do intercede to keep people from “making it personal” – I cannot keep anyone from “taking it personally.” On the other hand, I cannot permit an obvious flame war to ignite.
Therefore, when I believe members of the target confession will be infuriated by a post, I must pull it.
BTW, it is to the credit of some confessions that I do not feel the need to pull such posts addressed to their confession, religious leaders, etc. For instance, Calvinism and LDS both “take a licking and keep on ticking” very well.
Watch out for feel-good self-delusions.
= -= =
Is the lingo of my profession. Is it yours?
There is the possibility that I know something above average about delusions and self delusions.
It's also possible that my answer was a kind and thoughtful one worth some prayerful pondering.
I just hope the exhortation was not the forbidden condescension. Though generally, I don't really care that much about that issue.
Cheers.
Heading to bed as soon as I think I can sleep and the coughing is controlled.
I really try to follow the advice in my tagline. Unfortunately, there are many times it doesn't depend on me and last resorts such as "don't post to me" are issued.
Because of your post, am understanding the parameters better. Thanks. This was a helpful post to read. Hadn't quite thought through all those very valid and important points.
And, I really do Hate making your job unnecessarily difficult.
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.