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/
Thanks.
Certainly agree.
We are talking scripture not theology.
How can you tell?
Read the Old Testament! I am sure you don't believe that has changed too. Find in it one instance where Satan (ha-satan) is linked to, associated with, or called "the devil."
Satan is mentioned only a few times in the OT. In none of those instances is he portrayed as anything but God's loyal servant, and not a rebellious, fallen angel.
The word "devil" who is synonymous with Satan appears for the first time in Deuterocanonical books and from there in the New Testament. The fall of Satan is mentioned by +Luke, +Paul and +John. Whine this cannot be found in the mainstream Jewish canon, it is in deterocanonical books. My point was and is: the so-called "apocryphal" books were included in the Christian canon because the Apostles used them extensively, while the Protestants reject them. That makes the disconnect glaringly obvious!
What you're asking me to do is to make suppositions based upon a few verses. Since Satan is rarely mentioned in the Old Testament, therefore the ancient Jews believed "X" about Satan. That's rather difficult to do. I can only go by what's recorded and I don't have access to records.
I will caveat all this in saying that, assuming you were correct and our Jewish forefathers believed this about Satan, what would it matter? It doesn't affect the inspired writings which are record through men by God. Christians can get a more complete picture of Satan through the New Testament which unbelieving Jews reject. The picture we have is based upon what believing Jews recorded.
Doctrine evolves as our understanding does. As an Orthodox you most certainly should understand this. Jewish doctrine is totally wrong as far as a Christian believes. Anything our Jewish friends believe about Satan not based upon the completed text is, to a Christian, incomplete at best.
What a wonderful analogy - I love your idea of His children being a beautiful masterpiece on His living canvas.
Thank you.
Conceit is to say that you interpret the scripture guided by the Holy Spirit and 2,000 years of Church fathers did not.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
The Chruch distinguishes between pulbic revelation of the Holy Tradition, the Holy Scripture and the Magisterial teaching, and private revelations such as Marian apparitions, or any other revelation received directly from God and His angels, that does not come from the three dogmatic sources. The general, or public revelation is to be believed; that is, the faithful needs to work on his faith and struggle to understand it and condition his reason to believe it; he is under no circumstances allowed to reject it. A private revelation can be approved or unapproved. An approved priivate revelation is such that does not contradict the doctrines of faith in any way and is miraculous in origin. Such is the status of the Fatima revelation. An approved private revelation does not have to be believed but it may be believed, if the faithful is driven to believe it. If it is unapproved, the faithful is warned that it is not to be believed. Some are not investigated, and their status is unknown; the faithful need to exercise caution in regards of those.
We can honestly disagree on which is correct, but you can't say we are not allowed to have confidence because we don't have a pope
The difference is that when I read the scripture, I read it with the fathers of the Church. I never read it alone. I may have a private interpretation, of course (*), but then I would offer it, no matter how personally confident I feel, as private interpretation. On the other hand, when I dispute the fundamentals of the faith, for example, with you, I refer to the historical understanding of the fathers, -- my person in this is but a transmission belt.
If your Church was fully sanctified at Pentecost then why would you give one pope the power to overrule her?
If it ever happens that the Pope invokes his infallibility outside of the consensus of the Magisterium, then we believe that the Pope will be still speaking for the entire Church and the dissenting bishops will be in error and only speak for themselves. It never happened this way, and hopefully will never happen; howeve,r there was a point in time when the majority of the Christian bishops were Arian and pope Athanasius stood virtually alone "contra mundum".
this beginning would be like my saying that Catholics and Muslims disagree ideologically, therefore, both are wrong since they both claim to believe in God. I do not claim any allegiance to all Protestants. It is a non-starter to say that Sola Scriptura is wrong because some groups calling themselves Protestants claim wacko views based on Sola Scriptura
The difference is the content of the underlying common belief. What we have in common with the Muslim does not exclude disagreement over the nature of God or over where to look for guidance in understanding Him. But what all protestants have in common is the belief in the perspicuous self-explanatory Scripture (truncated to fashion). That belief logically demands that your faiths be identical, since they are driven by the same scripture in a self-evident fashion.
Orthodox understand the scripture and Tradition identically?
Correct. Our traditions and church organizations may differ, but we agree on the fundamental theology: Scripture as part of Tradition interpreted through the Church, salvation as a result of a lifelong struggle for sanctification, apostolic succession, obedience to bishops, etc.
The point is that for every example you can come up with, we can come up with A LOT more. Don't forget, we say the Bible speaks for itself. You say the Bible is indecipherable without the Church's interpretation.
In all these examples we look at the verse in context and it says what we say it says. You take it our of context and force it into a preconceived theological framework. We agree with the verse as intended. For example, "all have sinned" in one place speaks of the man before the sanctifying grace of Christ and in the other "all" is interspersed with "many" and speaks of the sin of Adam anyway, and not of personal sin, -- in both places the the text allows for an exception, such as Christ Himslef, or children, or Mary, or some other exceptionally righteous people. "Believe and you will be saved" does not say what the belief should entail in terms of works.
Also, we do not say that the Bible is indecipherable alone. We say it can lead to error is read alone. But, as you know, my contention is that one who reads the Bible through the patristic lense and not through the lense of modernity becomes Catholic or Orthodox. He will easily overcome the Protestant prooftexts. I once had a dispute over the supposed prooftexts for "faith alone" in Romans. All I had to do was to ask my opponent to read the Letter to the Romans from the beginning to end. The "faith alone" notion dissipated, -- I had nothing to debate. Every time a Protestant prooftext is offered, it is either over a minor point (don't call anyone "father") or does not say what it purports to say ("saved by faith" does not say "by faith alone"), or the context gives a different meaning ("not of works" refers to ritualistic circumcision or gainful work).
You're blaming Luther and the Reformers for the cultural crisis we see in America today?
Not directly. What I am saying is that the idea that morality comes from bottom to top -- from the individual to law of the land in some democratic fashion -- is the same idea that said that Christianity comes from bottom to top -- form laity reading and interpreting the scripture autonomously and possibly in contradiction to the faith handed down through the Church. I am, of course, fully aware that fundamentalist Protestant Christianity is a bulwark of traditional morality and we are happy to have you as ally in this fight.
Where are you getting this idea that Reformed theology somehow especially caters to a 21c mentality? It obviously catered pretty well to a 16c mentality since it spread so far and so quickly
But 16c is modernity. The Reformers catered to the emerging bourgeois, and the bourgeois mentality is still with us. For the rest, see above.
Irresistibility of grace might be a wash, objectively. The role of good works might also be a wash, but for different reasons. All say a saved Christian does and must do good works. I think the reader would probably stop there. And on the role of the Church, the last thing in the universe the reader would ever come up with is the current, or even historical, RCC
The Protestant concepts of irresistible grace and faith alone do violence to 2 Peter 1 and James 2, -- passages that specifically refer to these issues (there are other prooftexts as well). The two letters to the Corinthians explain that St. Paul speaks in the name of Christ and has authority to correct errors. The letters to Timothy and Titus set up the hierarchy of the Church as lead by bishops in apostolic succession. I read the scripture and I see my Church in every chapter.
You would put that up AGAINST what Christ Himself taught, and the thousands of other examples of prayer given to God alone?
The veneration of saints is based on the concept of eternal life; on the visions of angels and those asleep in Christ who are like angels taking interest in the events on Earth; on the concept of Christians acting as an interdependent community praying and interceding for one another. No doubt you are familiar with these ideas, you just don't apply them to the Communion of Saints due to the Protestant mental conditioning. Of course, Christ being the sole mediator to God is in no contradiction to these practices.
I have room for compromise here.
See? And previously you admitted that irressitibel grace and the role of works are a wash. So these fundamental issues -- where salvation hangs in the balance -- cannot be resolved conclusively from scripture alone.
Depending on what you mean by "solid", I would disagree. I think the principles of the trinity are laid out very well in scripture.
I plead history here. The Arians, the Marcionites and the gnostics read the same scripture and came back with (I grossly oversimplify) Christ being a smart inspired man, Christ being a second God fighting the first one; Christ beign a spirit and not man.
Who cares about 21c.? Why is that such a big deal?
It is a big deal because the Scripture was written by 1c men (or by ancient Hebrews) and addressed their contemporaries. If you see that a 21c man understands the scripture differently than the contemporaries of the inspired writer, then the 21c man is wrong in his interpretation every time it happens.
what about him do you think would lead him into one camp [Catholic] or the other [Orthodox]?
Personal cultural predisposition. The Latin culture is more analytical and legalistic; the Eastern is more spiritual and mysterious. Catholicism has a greater emphasis on the Christ crucified and the Orthodox on the risen Christ. Things like that. And then, it would depend if he is welcoming to the papal authority.
How about the nature of grace? You also disagree on original sin
The nature of grace is a matter of theological hypothesis. These are high levels of theology that do not really separate the two churches. The original sin to us is the condition or predisposition to sin and death inherited from Adam, to the Orthodox. We speak somewhat different languages here, but the actual differences are again fine points of theology. None of these differences are in interpreting the concrete scripture, as either uncreated grace or original sin have clear prooftexts. Well, I'd say Romans 5 is pretty good for Original sin... but then that's why I am Catholic.
How could the whole Church hierarchy (save the Pope) go apostate if the Church was sanctified (completely) at Pentecost?
No one says it will happen. I commented about this above, too.
Conceit is to say that you interpret the scripture guided by the Holy Spirit and 2,000 years of Church fathers did not.
= = = =
2,000 years? Really? Guess I didn't get that memo. Doesn't seem close to real, to me.
Perhaps the author forgot to subtract out years for
. . . the pope with the orgies
. . . the Inquisition
. . . the unChristian political gamesmanships
. . . the UnChristian egotistical wars
. . . and . . .
. . . and . . .
Your lips to God's ear, God willing (the great anxiety-reliever of the Predestinarian.) 8~)
Noting that we Orthodox have none of those yet still go back to the church fathers, not angry west europeons of questionable intellect, for our interpretations.
not angry west europeons of questionable intellect, for our interpretations.
= = =
Such a lovely impersonal allegation.
the reformers were
west europeons (hardly contestable)
angry (hardly contestable)
and their intellect is hardly established. Especially considering as new 'reformed Christians' often harp that it was impossible to learn to read in this 'era'.
Your reading of 2 Peter 1:5-10 does not agree with the text. If Peter wanted to say what you impute into it, he would have said it. But he did not: he lists a program of sanctification that, he says, will make the election secure.
You are saying that man elects himself, and then God just writes down the names outside of time ... a mockery of any rational concept of predestination and relegates God to the role of stenographer
But man would not be able to "elect himself" were it not for the divine grace. Where is the mockery?
By Catholic interpretation, there is no lasting promise here [John 10:27-29] at all, despite what the plain text says
Yes, we take it literally. There is a lasting promise, but it does not say that the believer himself cannot leave. "Make your election secure", the scripture urges. We take that literally too.
Clarifications are helpful.
Thanks.
There was always some material in the vernacular present; however, the Church in the West operated amindst a variety of tongues and principalities and so faced challenges that Byzantium and later the Russian Empire did not have. In that, the liturgical Latin served a salutary role as a guarantee of proper doctrine being taught, and not some ethnic variations of it.
OK, so you're saying a big reason why you do it is that it works. Fair enough. Let me ask you this, do you think the results would have been different if each of those prayers had been directed solely at God instead of through St. Anthony?
So I get, after the flesh, the idea of saying to some sergeant, "Listen, You gotta do something. You have to tell the sheriff we just can't keep doing it this way." And after having done that a few times and had it "work", I can see saying, "Sarge, go do your stuff, PLEASE! Give us a break here!" So in the context of a series of interactions involving lots of intercessions and one remarkably effective intercessor, I think the phrasing [St. Mary save us!] is not as repellent "upon further review" as it is on its face.
I think most people have been through what you describe in their working lives. What you're saying is perfectly reasonable and I have handled it similarly too. Now, imagine that the sheriff was the most dedicated Christian man of God you had ever met in your life. Would you have just gone directly to Him with your honest disagreement? I think I would have. And think how much greater is God Himself than any among us, even the most faithful.
Okay, Mary and Martha and the good portion: This was totally ignored earlier, but for me, in my personal experience, I do not think I am NOT talking to God, just because I'm talking to you. A fortiori, I do not think that talking to Mary means I stopped talking to God. I don't say this as an argument, but as a report of experience.
But I don't "think" you talk to me in any way similar to the way you talk to Mary. Whenever we go to prayer we comport ourselves in a certain way, we try to clear our minds, we might bow our heads and close our eyes, etc. We enter a prayerful state. None of this happens when we speak with each other.
Now, I think the Bible teaches that our goal is to be in this prayer state all the time. I can only report that I am not there yet. :) This makes my prayer time a scarce resource, intermixed with my other Christian duties in daily life. (We'll just leave out my sin time for convenience. :) Anyway, since I suppose that time with Mary is also spent in a prayerful state, I see it as a lost opportunity with God.
... That's what it's like! I get in the pew and on my knees, let go of the rope [waterskier's rope in your metaphor], and sink into the love and mystery. Then the whole thing is "the good portion". And I think this may account for the sense of outrage when people make contemptuous and disparaging remarks about our devotional behavior.
That's a good word: "devotion". How would you use the word "devotion" in your interactions with Mary and the saints? Every faith-based reference to "devotion" I could find in my Bible only spoke of devotion to God alone. I think a big problem many Protestants have is that we really think you all have a devotion to Mary that is separate from your devotion to God. In fact, it was no work at all for me to find several Catholic prayers, from Catholic sites, advertised as being in devotion TO Mary.
So when some smart alec talks about our "droning" our way through rosaries and so on and contemptuously compares what we do to Tibetan prayer wheels, my gut reaction is not far from the one I would have if somebody made fun of what my wife and I went through.
I am thankful to God for the blessing on you and your wife. That is wonderful to hear. I would have contempt on anyone who would make fun of what you went through. I would just say that I don't think comments about the method of prayer would be intended to be nearly as personal, since those would apply to a billion people equally. But I certainly DO understand not liking it. Viva FR! :)
No, I disagree. What is very hard is to convince an individual: to achieve conversion. This is because there is a great investment made in a particular theology. It is especially true because a typical Protestant feels like he was standing on firm ground with his "assured salvation" and now I am asking him to swim in the waves. I participated in a Baptist Bible study once, where I was dutifully giving my Catholic perspective, and one emotion that came across often was, essentially, "this is a hard teaching, who can take it?".
But the proof of the scripture is there. When St. James spends an entire chapter talking of the salvific character of works, it is proof. When the proof is ignored, that is just human nature.
We trot out our texts, and if they come close to looking like a coherent and persuasive argument, suddenly we learn we have to study the Bible in its entirety to see the coherence of how it says what they say it says. And since they've been studying it much longer than we, why we might as well take their word.
You have an inferiority complex. We have been studying the scripture for 2,000 years. They did not. The New Testament is a Catholic book. There is nothing in it that in un-Catholic. Both the silly prooftexts, when the next verse subverts the putative meaning, and the superstitious appeals to the unspecified "entirety of the scripture" are desperate chest beating, and the Protestant apologists in their hearts know it.
Here is a good apologist to learn from: Bible Christian society
I think you not be appreciating one other - perhaps the foundation - of the Communion of Saints.
Independent of our prayer life, they are with it, in communion with us, alive in Christ. We are one.
The knowledge and truth of this has value beyond the simple area of communication focused on in your current discussion.
"In that, the liturgical Latin served a salutary role as a guarantee of proper doctrine being taught, and not some ethnic variations of it."
I agree 100%. What I was responding to was the assertion that the Church engineered a general unavailability of the scriptures really in any language, not complaining against Latin which certainly did, to an extent, avoid the very translation problems we've all seen here on this thread.
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.