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/
It is certainly never a bad thing when one with faith in Christ saturates themselves in the Written Word. It is like the neverending story. Each time you pick it up there is some new nugget!
First, it is colossal pride and vanity to presume that one sees from God's point of view.
Second, even if one were to admit 'double predestination' as a correct description of God's foreknowledge, the doctine is corrosive of good morals, ascetic discipline, prayer, and all other aspects of the Christian life. To call His foreknowledge, 'predestination' makes God a tyrant, the author of damnation which is, in fact, freely chosen by the damned. To tell people that they are already 'predestined' to salvation or damnation creates fatalism and spiritual sloth.
Well, they were the ones who collected, selected and protected the writings you read as the New Testament. They didn't write them, but without them we would have no clue which of the 200-plus scrolls represent the New Testament for sure.
The Apostles did not 'put together' the Christian canon; the Church did. The Apostles wrote it, and we believe that God inspired them to write the truth, as we believe that God guided the Fathers in selecting, recognizing, safeguarding and putting together that which the Apostles wrote into what you now consider God's Word of the New Testament.
As for the validity of the deuterocanonical books, one of the best reasons I can think of why the Church included them is the fact that the concept of the devil as the embodiment of all evil, and of a fallen angel who rebelled against God, comes from them and finds its place in the New Testament.
For sure, such is not the case with the Old Testament. The concept of a 'devil' does not exist in Judaism. The ha-satan of Judaism is a willing servant of God. The Jews deny that an angel – albeit a noëtic being – can have free will and rebel against God..
Thus, throughout Judaism, ha-satan is a loyal angel of God, who was created by God to tempt us. Jews often quote Job (probably one of the oldest books of the OT) where this ha-satan is portrayed as a member in good standing with God.
The concept that satan is the devil appears in the deuterocanonical books and from them in the New Testament, which means that the Apostles used them.
Discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal!
If you had been reading the medical literature you would know about HOST MOTHERS. There have even been court cases over the issue. A woman, usually older, wants children but something goes wrong in the cellular machinery. She spontaneously aborts the fetus, can't carry it to full term.
Thus there is IN VITRO(in the glass)FERTILIZATION : the doctors fertilize her egg with her husband's sperm in a vial and implant it in the womb of a healthy young girl. She thus carries the fetus to full term/birth, but the BABY genetically is from the parents, NOT the HOST MOTHER. Thus the lawsuits of the HOST MOTHER over keeping the baby, even though she was PAID to do it. This is one of these medical ethics issues...
Arthur Clarke's Third Law : A sufficiently advanced technology will seem like MAGIC to a less advanced technology. Are you so ARROGANT as to think the in vitro fertilization technology, recently discovered by HUMAN scientists, is the FIRST such discovery in the UNIVERSE?
Of course it isn't! This is 2000 years ago in a universe 13.7 billion years old, and the virgin Mary was the HOST MOTHER of the implanted egg that was to be called JESUS. He isn't genetically related to anyone as a family member. He was "made" in an alien lab as a PETA missionary to these chimpanzees called "men".
She was even TOLD by the angel Gabriel(ie, intelligent alien)that she had been impregnated in secret and what was to become of her son. Usually aliens don't even TELL the host mother that she's been secretly impregnated, like the NH woman who had TWENTY SEVEN placenta-scars on her womb, but never had a baby!
2+2=4 In alien abductions/the virgin birth, you have the SAME STORY : impregnated human females by alien lab workers. In Joseph's case the aliens had to ORDER him to MARRY MARY, and she had many more children as well, our lord JESUS being the oldest of the brood.
Then later they warn him again to flee to egypt as word of this KING being born in bethlehem got out, and Herod did the slaughter of the innocents number. I often wonder what he and pilate would have thought if they had known he wouldn't be KING for another 2000 years....the QM world to come....
And then of course you have the CAT SCAN(transfiguration on the mount)wherein a full body record is entered into the data banks(electronic clone of the human genome), a record to return his body to in the resurrection. The whole story is right there, written on the shroud of turin, IF you have the wits to PERCEIVE it.
No, the Carbon 14 test done on the shroud was a SCAM. They used a piece of the PATCH that was sewn on it by nuns after the church fire in the 1500s. Recently the devil tried to destroy it again with a fire in the church that stores it today in Turin Italy.
One of the microscopists on John Jackson's team told us that the scorch-picture is only on the surface, and equivalent to an intense gamma ray burst at one meter distance. Many other clues as well that this is indeed HIS shroud. That is HIS face thereon, as a negative photo image. THAT is the MAN with nail holes in his WRISTS that judges you out of the book of YOUR life. Believest thou this?
Well, there it is : the truth. Does your heart leap for JOY upon hearing it? Or turn away, cursing?
Sure. I share the Lord's Supper with Arminians all the time. Are you saying that you will not take Communion with those with whom you have less disagreement than this? What would Jesus say? :)
Correct. That's why we have so many Protestant denominations. So, which one is the 'true' one?
I wouldn't expect any one denomination to have everything exactly correct. Neither would I expect any one Apostolic faith to have everything correct. By definition, they cannot.
Protestant congregations consist of like-minded people, like political parties. They tolerate some degree of deviation from the 'official truth,' but the limits are set. Those who disagree go to a different assembly or start one of their own, just like a political party.
What is the significance of this? People leave your church to join other faiths, and the same happens in my church. So what? You all accept deviation from even the most popular view on all things that haven't been officially ruled upon. While we do have some, we just don't have official rulings to the degree that you do. Again, so what? Whether there are 3 or 30 legitimate Protestant denominations I wouldn't associate with, that says nothing about the legitimacy of mine in terms of truth.
This is precisely why no one must presume to be individually 'right' or demand others to follow his or her conclusions, but those of the 2,000-year old faith given to the Church beginning with the Apostles.
So you don't demand that I follow your conclusions, but you do demand that I follow the conclusions of other fallible men coming after the Apostles whom you trust? I see. :) I think I'm following the Apostles just fine. I trust what their words say. I trust less what others SAY their words say, especially when those two are as far apart as they are in Apostolic faiths. I still do not believe the Bible was written in secret code. Rather, it is a timeless document.
Protestants on the other hand assume the right to interpret the Scripture no matter what level of spiritual growth they happen to be. It is, as you say, a 'relationship with Christ' that makes up Protestant religion. It's a personal religion based on one's own interpretation of some version of the Bible.
True rights only come from God. The Bible is clear that the Spirit is a comforter to all Christians and will teach "all things". That can reasonably include interpretation. It doesn't surprise me at all that some Christians in power would say that the Spirit only is allowed to speak to them.
In case you forgot, there are some 30 thousand different Protestant denominations who share nothing in common but the basic elements: One God (all), Holy Bible (some), Holy Trinity (some), dual nature of Christ (some), Creed (some). And even in those areas where they do agree, they differ.
The latest one on this thread I heard was 40,000, so you are apparently behind the times. :) Why not just say there are an even 10 million different kinds? It would be equally as true, and help your point just as much.
FK: "Christianity is about a relationship with Christ, period."
Herein lies the rub, FK. By that simplistic definition, based on personal understandings and preferences, as one sees fit, anyone who calls on the name of Jesus is a Christian! The Mormons, the Trinity-denying Protestants, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the list goes on.
I clearly implied a true relationship with Christ, not just "any" made-up relationship. That this didn't occur to you leads me to believe that you do not understand the concept of a direct relationship with Christ in any way similar to the way I understand it. I would guess that the reason for this is that your real relationship in faith is really much closer to the men of the Church than it is with Christ directly. This would explain a multitude of differences between us.
What you are portraying is a father who consciously decides that, out of his five children, he will feed only one, and let the remaining four live in neglect until they starve to death, and you call him a 'good father.' Why, he is a monster!
We will never be able to reconcile our understanding of “all that there is” because we evidently have very different epistemologies – how we know what we know and how certain we are that we know it.
For me, reasoning is very much subordinate to the revelations of God.
So I will not pursue discussing your views except to offer an additional view of the CMB versus the verse you mentioned from Job 38 (emphasis mine) :
“The results were presented as plots of slight temperature variations in the CMB that graph sound waves in the dense early universe. These high-resolution ‘power spectra’ show not only a strong primary resonance but are consistent with two additional harmonics, or peaks.
“The peaks indicate harmonics in the sound waves that filled the early, dense universe. Until some 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was so hot that matter and radiation were entangled in a kind of soup in which sound waves (pressure waves) could vibrate. The CMB is a relic of the moment when the universe had cooled enough so that photons could ‘decouple’ from electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way.”
Berkeley Lab “The Universe May Be Flat But It Is Nevertheless Musical”
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. – Gen 1:3
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3
The entire revelation is self-consistent!
All other sources of knowledge are subordinate to those. If what I see does not comport with Scripture then the error is my own vision, not His Word. Likewise on reasoning, musings, counsel of other mortals, etc.
If my correspondent values reasoning, physical evidence, sensory perception and the ilk as more certain knowledge than the revelations of God, we have no basis to communicate and therefore debate the reconciliation of the spiritual and physical realms, prophesy, creation, etc.
Jesus talked about stones, yes? Men will stumble over this stone that was rejected and be broken. The "rejected stone" has no real meaning to YOU, but every jew alive THEN knew he was referring to the non-square stone that was to be the keystone of the arch in solomon's temple. This is a whole mini-story in masonry.
This non-square stone was thus thrown into the scrap pile, and later retrieved to become the most important stone of all. He was of course referring to his own crucifiction and being retrieved from the "scrap pile" of the grave(again covered over with a STONE).
And whosoever this STONE falls upon will be crushed. How many have FOUGHT with Jesus, and been CRUSHED? Kinda hard to defeat the TRUTH, yes?
A house built upon sand is usually washed away by the storm, but a house built upon a ROCK weathers all he storms.
Upon this ROCK(Peter)will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
He who offends one of these little ones who believes in me, it would be better for him that a millSTONE be cast around his neck and he be thrown into the sea.
See this great temple? Not one STONE shall stand upon another after that TIME. He was of course referring to the Roman conquest, the diaspora, and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Now all the jews have left is the western(wailing)wall.
And yet did you know that the cornerSTONE of the third temple was recently laid on the temple mount? And that there is an earthquake fault running directly under it? The righteous jews are praying MIGHTY HARD for that earthquake to occur(God bulldozing the islamic temple thereon).
As you may know, the plates meet to the east of jerusalem, thus the dead sea, far below sealevel, as they grind past each other. There is a "zipper" effect, earthquakes move along the fault line much like a zipper unzips.
For several years now, earthquakes have been moving west north westward thru turkey at a certain rate. The next ZIP is under the bay just south of Istanbul. That means that soon enough that GREAT CITY will be completely leveled.
This coming quake may also be under the temple mount, thus the destruction of the AlAqsa mosque, thus the third temple will be built quickly by the jews. I saw their plan in LA once at a jewish gathering, they've had it explicitly designed for YEARS.
Ah yes, the jews...Stiff necked to be sure. Once had the HONOR to sit next to Haddasa Ben Ito, acting justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. She was the only survivor of her large, extended polish family(they got her out before hitler invaded). Kindest, most loving eyes I've ever seen.
She was giving a lecture(typical spiel, fast english like moshe dayan)at a Denver University. In the middle of it here comes these 3 LEBANESE stomping in with fatigues on, yelling curses at her. UH OH, I thought, out comes the AK47s(get ready to DUCK, they're only 15 feet away).
But no AK 47s, just yelling back and forth between them and the jewish half on the other side of the auditorium, as she finished her speech. She forgot her pinned-up map on the stage so I retrieved it and gave it to her as she left. The rabbi said to her, as she left, just like old times haddasa, yes? Anyway, a true daughter of Israel, one of the most beautiful people I've ever met in my whole life.
Well, enough STONES for today....
Peter was not like John who was not like Paul who was not like Thomas. But Christ chose them each and every one. Likewise, Christ accepts seven different churches in Revelation 2/3. And the foundation gemstones of the New Jerusalem named after the apostles are each different gems, different colors, etc.
Altogether we a beautiful masterpiece God has cast onto a living canvas. If He had mixed all the colors of His palette into one, what could be said?
The differences between Christians never involves the core, Trinitarian, doctrine but rather comes down to that “wiggle room” of interpretation concerning the details.
It is like a diamond with seven facets. Each person facing a different facet may see something different, but it is still the same diamond and the same Light.
Likewise you believe the 7 days of Genesis should be counted as 1,000 years to God. I do not share your spiritual understanding but rather see the 7,000 year clock for Adamic men beginning when Adam was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.
But those are "details" - we are still looking at the same diamond, the same Light.
Yes, you see the convergence of our views. One one side we have the CBR at 2.73 deg K. Extrapolated back with blackbody radiation, that gives something like between 15B and 13B years. On the other side we have young galaxies forming at about 1 billion years. That leaves a gap, how do you get from a diffuse hot gas to galaxies in just a billion years?
Cosmologists have long pondered this conundrum. Too bad they don't READ the book of Job. The answer is RIGHT THERE : and the MORNING STARS SANG TOGETHER = a first generation of super massive stars that went supernova quickly, seeding the gas with heavier elements(future stars, planets)and the shockwaves thereof imprinted the "soap bubble" texture on galactic structure(galaxies occur mostly on the WALLS of the bubbles).
This is a wonderful convergence : religion hinting at what happened, and science finally(in its slow bumbling way)finding it out. Soon enough these "morning stars" will appear in the telescopes....
Analogy : Alfred North Whitehead(great mathematician)and Bertrand Russell(Philosopher)collaborated on a symbolic study 100 years ago. Using only the symbols of logic(*[%@& and so forth)they used 350 pages of these logic symbols to prove that 1+1=2. Ridiculous? Not to a computer. It only deals with symbols, software; it doesn't KNOW 1+1=2, that's only a LOGICal conclusion to it from its programming.
Science is sort of like that, cranking along to find out that 1+1=2 with advancing telescope power, when it was there in the book of JOB all along.
Sometimes I think of it as a matt of blind moss growing on a big rock by the sea. Here is a BUMP, there a crack, the occasional surf spray, as it spreads slowly across the rock. All inter-connected of course but here a theory(and a dead end wall)there a hypothesis that looks like a promising lead, then a cliff(big drop off). Then a center section that SEEMS solid(strong theory like the standard model), then along comes INCONVENIENT FACTS like CF/LENR and a whole section of the rock falls away : fall back, regroup.
And so it goes. Religion tells you what it IS, but the blind moss gropes its way across the rock anyway. Blind belief vs Maxwell's wanting to know the PARTICULAR GO of things. Which is the more reliable method?
Reliable religion? During the 100 year war of religion between catholics and protestants in europe, it was considered "sport" to cut fetuses out of pregnant women and hack both of them to pieces. Which has shed more blood, science or religion? How many souls have priests saved? How many lives have been saved by medical technology?
The same way every other man rejects faith, by your own volition. All faith comes from God. Faith which is used in the regeneration of the human spirit is from God; faith which assumes a position of humility in order to breath in the Word of God so that the Holy Spirit might perform His ministry in our mind again is from God; faith which is used by the Holy Spirit to make thoughts and understanding in the mind transformed into problem solving devices in the heart is from God; Faith which is Bible doctrine circulating in our soul is from God; and faith to exercise our volition in accordance with His will after studying His Word thereby wlaking in fellowship with Him is from God.
Whenever we drift away from His will, we interrupt that fellowship with God, thereby grieving the Holy Spirit in His making our faith efficacious for His good works. He builds in us faith upon faith for those of us who persevere in fellowship with Him. We all have an equal opportunity in the development of that spiritual IQ, but whenever we choose to reel or look away from Him, act independently of Him, or fail to follow Him, we reject the faith He provides. Such is the mechanism any man follows when he has less faith than any other man.
In order to worship Him, we abide by His will in spirit and in truth. This is where many a 'scientist' fails to walk with Him. Without the human spirit, such as the case of an unbeliever from a divine perspective, worship of Him doesn't exist, nor is He able to sanctify us without first regenerating our spirit. Accordingly, many a noble and good working scientist might pursue truth honestly, but without the spirit will fail to become more sanctified in faith.
Conversely, worshipping in spirit must also be accompanied by truth. We become cognizant of the truth in empiricism by our physical senses of our body, and in rationalism by our mental activities, reasoning and consistent understanding of our soul, and by the perception of faith given us in our human spirit.
These issues are not understood without a better uderstanding of faith and its meaning to the believer.
The righteousness we have is the same as that of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, namely by faith (Rom 3:22-26). There is no need to clean up the Word of God which He provides. On the contrary, it is that very Word which is used to cleanse the temple He occupies today, namely each and every believer. Any attempt to change our thinking outside of Bible doctrine results in us cluttering that temple.
Where we might think there are implausible events in Scripture, rather than appealing to empiricism or rationalism, our first line of thinking in fellowship with Him shall be through faith in Him. This doesn't cancel nor negate the perception available to us by empiricsm or rationalism, but it enhances us by us living according to how He has made us. When we choose to exercise empiricism or rationalism without faith, we separate ourselves from Him, if it were possible, except for the perfect sacifice already provided by our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. That sacrifice, however, does not change the immutable nature of God the Holy Spirit who is only free to perfomr His work on something righteous. Where we fail to exercise faith, and stray in our thinking away from Him, His sanctification of our thinking processes halts in advancement, while we scar our souls in sin. Such is the condition of the carnal Christian and the backslidden believer.
Don't take my word for it, take His Word for it. Try a little smidgeon of faith in the lab of life the next time nobody else is aware and don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing, but only in a very simple faith by belief in God through faith in Christ. We live in an age of grace and the opportuities are frequent.
The doctrine of double predesitination is not Scriptural, but based upon the theology of Calvin's successors who impied such a conclusion based upon rationalism rather than on faith through Christ.
God doesn't need to create anything that is good for nothingness. Instead, He created some creatures with volition. Creatures with volition have volitional responsibility. When we choose to rebel from Him, we are accountable for that rebellion.
In God's magnificent grace and love, He brilliantly chose to condemn all of mankind before we are saved. Now by believing in Him through faith in Christ, we have salvation from condemnation. This is discernibly distinct while exercising the mind of Christ, from supporting the doctrine of double predestination or thinking God has predestined particular human to the Lake of Fire.
The Lake of Fire was created with respect to the fallen angels and Satan, but is is also a place for things which are PONEROS(evil which is good for nothingness).
The early Church recognized the inspiration of the Old Testament as well as the New. The rejection of the Old Testament is, in part, a heretical view know as Marcionism.
Neither did the scholastics.
Which proves that the Eastern "lower clergy" knew Western theology how?
Regards
Please, Kolo. Are you seriously suggesting that the Eastern "lower clergy" even CARED what was happening in the West regarding theology in the 1200-1400's? Did they subscribe to "Western Theology" Quarterly? Did they read the writings of Aquinas, Bernard, Anselm, and Scotus in Latin???
You are merely diverting the conversation from the point you tried to make - that the "lower clergy" was theologically competent to know Western theology of the 1200-1400's, so that after Florence, the Eastern Bishops who went to Florence to discuss theology with their Western counterparts were clueless after months-long discussions about the West - while the Eastern "lower clergy" back home KNEW that their own bishops were being hoodwincked by those tricky Western schismatics...
I find that theory untenable. The "lower clergy" resisted ecumencism after Florence for political reasons and deeply seated bias vs anything West (judge the Hesychast controversy) and had NOTHING to do with the "lower clergy"'s knowledge of the West and what they taught.
Regards
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.