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/
I'm not sure how annalex will answer for the Latins, but for the Orthodox, as the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary is most assuredly among those who are saved in Christ, and as salvation is understood by the Orthodox as theosis--participation in the Uncreated Energies and Life of the All-Holy Trinity--I see nothing absurd in understanding her to participate in God's omniscience and omnipresence.
For myself, I will not presume to suggest that participation is so full so that she herself might be termed omniscient and omnipresent, but I am certain she participates in those qualities in measure sufficient to interceed for all the faithful who have inherited Christ's words to St. John, "behold your mother," and call upon her prayers as we would the prayers of our natural mother.
The Hebrew canon is irrelevant. The Apostles used Septuagint as reference in over 90% of the cases.
Josephus ...
Josephus was not a Christian, but a Pharisee. As such he would not be using Christian sources.
Early church fathers such as Origen, Rufinus and Augustine made a distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the apocryphal books
Origen was not a Church Father. Eusebius was hardly a reliable source. +Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate.
The Eastern Church used the deuterocanonical books because that's what was passed on from the beginning.
The rabbis at Jamnia (100 AD) threw out not only the deuterocanonical books but the NT books as well.
Thank you TRD for your answer to the question. I obviously believe the doctrine of praying to Saints in heaven is not biblical, but the answer helps me to better understand those who do.
"The Hebrew canon is irrelevant. The Apostles used Septuagint as reference in over 90% of the cases."
Incredible. Jesus cites and authenticates the Hebrew Canon (the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms) exclusively and that is irrelevant. The apostles never cited the septuagint as authentic. The allusions are of no more weight than their citing pagan poets and philosophers.
Origen was the scholar who influenced Augustine's allagorical interpretation of scripture. But you did not mention Rufinus' or Augustine's distinguishing the Hebrew Canon from the apocryphal books, or the fact that in the early fourth century they were not part of the canon catalogues of the mentiond men and councils.
Truly I wouldn't venture a guess as to motives of the Reformers or the Councils which preceded them beyond this: any purpose they may have had that was other than the will of God will be (or has been) loss.
Ok, I HAVE to write a letter on aerodrag on semitrucks right now, and it's late and I've been FOOLING AROUND long enough as it is. BTW, if you have a question of GOD I can answer it for you. No, I'm a very normal person, HOMELY even, but I've long had the ability to pray, open the bible and my finger points to the answer.
At first I thought it was a fluke, but then it was RIGHT ON after RIGHT ON. I mean really, last time I'm sitting in the usual eastern star meeting(I'm an officer, whoopdedo), dull as tired dishwater. So I ask HIM : WHY AM I EVEN HERE LORD? Answer : the unfaithful servant. He who is unfaithful in small things will be unfaithful in BIG things. Ok LORD : SUFFER through it, but FAITHFULLY suffer through it...BIGGER things to come...Got it.
Almost 30 years ago I met a young gal who was having a rough divorce from a black guy(she's white)in seattle. She had a chance for a marine job, a life at sea; and she didn't know what to do. So, I looked in the bible for her, and there it is : a phrase about the sea in the old testament. She's a "sea person" now...
So, a SERIOUS question, not frivolous. You know better than to try to fool HIM.
Well, to WORK, truckers await THE IDEA...
Justification by Faith Alone?
Excerpts of the Reply of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Tubingen Theologians, Concerning the Augsburg Confession (16th cent.)
And from another reply to the Lutheran Theologians by Jermiah II:
For having researched diligently some of the passages of Holy Scripture, which you referred to in your first and second letters which you sent to us, we saw clearly that you had misinterpreted them, perhaps in following your new teachers. For this reason we again entreat you to understand the passages as the Ecumenical Teachers of the Church have interpreted them and which interpretations the seven ecumenical synods and the other regional ones have ratified.Sounds familiar - over 425 years ago.But since you are content with some of the sacraments, even though you have dangerously distorted and changed the written teachings of the Old and New [Testament] to your own purpose, you further say that some of them are not sacraments, but only traditions, not having been established in Holy [scriptural] Texts. But you oppose them in every way, just as chrismation, which was accepted even by Saint John Chrysostom. Some others you drag along as does a torrent. And then you call yourself theologians!...
You reckon the invocation of the saints, their icons, and their sacred relics as futile. You reject their veneration, taking as a pretext the Hebrew source. Moreover, you also reject confession to one another. In addition, you reject the angelic, monastic life. And about these matters we say that the Holy [Scripture] passages concerning them have not been interpreted by such theologians as you are, for neither Saint Chrysostom nor any other of the blessed and true theologians interpreted as if they were dragged along by a torrent. But, indeed, he [Chrysostom] and the holy man after him, being full of the Holy Spirit who performed supernatural miracles while they were living and after they died, interpreted [the Holy Scriptures] as they did; and they received such traditions, and they handed them down successively and gave them to us as indispensable and pious [sacraments].
Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople
Issued in the year 1581, June 6
... I feel like a vaudeville gag which is told so often that soon the laughter is not because it's funny but only because it's familiar.
The works are a gift. The merit is a gift. It is all gift.
If you want to characterize it this way, which is fine with me, all that means is that the "work" is transferred into your acceptance of the gift. That is an action which you must take of yourself, as I have been told. That is the "cooperation" necessary for a Catholic salvation. Of course, God is always there to help, but as I have been told the final decision is totally up to you. What I was saying is that Reformers have a very different view, that nothing is left up to the fallible decisions of God's elect in terms of whether they will be saved or not.
In the context of the rest of your answer, I don't know why you say the magic words are "already done".
The stock prayer at the end of the Rosary is in versicle/response form, thus: V: Pray for us, Oh Holy Mother of God, R: That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Would somebody please notice the mystery of this simple exchange? (I'm not asking that anyone agree, just that they notice.)
Well, solely on the point of this conversation, I would say the prayer "sounds" fine. However, my understanding of the Catholic view of "That we may be made worthy" really only means that God will prepare a person to a degree such that he is able to make an independent free will choice. IOW, no guarantees AT ALL even if the prayer is fully answered in the positive. In Catholicism, "to be made worthy" here says ZERO about whether a person is or ever will be actually saved or not. This is what I have been told on FR.
So we ask, not that the worthiness we have be acknowledged, but that we be made worthy -- that some change be wrought so that the worthiness of which we are incapable be made in us.
Yes, but... :) Since I learned what it was, I don't think of Catholics as being full Pelagians because you do say and are consistent that you cannot do it by yourselves. God must contribute for you to have a chance. However, AFTER God makes you "worthy" it still takes your own "worthiness" to take the final plunge into acceptance. This is where we honestly disagree.
Now the Reformers say we are proud. If a beggar girl, afflicted with an STD AND a lousy complexion, were taken out of the gutter, washed, cleaned, bathed, healed, vaccinated, given all the facials it took, exercised, toned, sculpted, and incomprehensibly rejuvenated, and then the One who did all that to her and for her said, "You are so beautiful; I love you; will you marry me, and live for ever with Me in bliss?" would you say she was proud to rejoice in the beauty and health He had given her and loved in her? Would you rather He left her lousy, sick, stinking, and rotting and loved her just the same?
"No" to both. But what has this to do with Reformers? God certainly does transform His elect. If YOU found such a beggar girl what would you think God would want you to do? Would you contact the proper authorities for her own good, or would you respect her free will decision to remain slowly dying in the street? Within the metaphor, this is another honest difference between Reformers and Catholics.
Yes, the once for all sacrifice of Christ is the well-spring of worthiness. And it is the grace of God that leads us there and holds our lips to the water, and teaches us to suck, and our thirst is quenched.
I say this, and then am said to think that my works lead me to deserve God's favor; I am told I think my works lead to the quenching of my thirst. Can any one wonder why I think this is madness?
I agree with the first paragraph so much I could have written it myself if I could have thought to put it that well. :) However, this isn't Catholicism as it has been described to me on FR. What I have been told is that your works WILL lead you to your ultimate salvation (the quenching of your thirst), and that God made it possible for you to make that choice.
In your first paragraph, you make an INCREDIBLY important jump, one that I fully agree with, but have been told that Catholics do not agree with. It was when you went from "teaches us to suck" straight to "our thirst is quenched". This is the Reformed view. What I have been told about the Catholic view is there is another step in between. That is, man must first make his own free will decision, based on all the goodness he was born with and has made for himself, to DECIDE to drink. Reformers say that God made the thirst so irresistible for His elect that the decision to drink was a forgone conclusion. Catholics have told me that God didn't do this at all. Rather, that God SO respects a man's idiocy that He will willingly let a man, whom God loves and wants him to drink, dehydrate to death one inch away from the water God just taught him how to drink. Reformers, to the contrary, say that if God teaches someone how to drink, that person will learn the lesson and drink. :)
Please remember that all of my criticisms are based on what I claim I have been told. I am sure that I will be called on the carpet, as appropriate. :)
Yes, I think so. We believe that works are a must in the life of a Christian that are "God-guaranteed". We would say that in every single case of a true (already saved) believer, that works are a fruit of that belief.
And further that nothing one does before salvation can affect his/her salvation; And, hypothetically, nothing one does afterward can affect his/her salvation.
This is trickier and a bit more technical. :) From God's POV, the elect are chosen by name before creation, and nothing within time can change that, before or after salvation (within time). From man's POV, the elect spend the first part of their lives being "lost" and on a road to hell. Then God touches the elect and they accept Christ and are "saved". So technically, the action of accepting Christ is something that is done and makes a difference. (From God's POV all this is a foregone conclusion.)
In addition, and hypothetically, if one claiming to be "saved" did no works after salvation, then he would not be fit for Heaven. So, hypothetically, the doing of works DOES affect salvation. We just don't emphasize this so much because we think that works are already (future) included with the "package" called salvation.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
I am certain she participates
= = =
Based on what?
Flesh driven human !!!TRADITION!!! ???
Talk about a flakey shakey foundation of sand!
Truly I wouldn't venture a guess as to motives of the Reformers or the Councils which preceded them beyond this: any purpose they may have had that was other than the will of God will be (or has been) loss.
= = =
INDEED!
Thx
Oh, I know. I'm such an ignorant savage.
Perhaps that's where the goof; when they translated "venerate" to worship of Mary. ;O)
Your quote from +Luke is incomplete, and suggests a different meaning. In post #9,099 you state:
"Jesus authenticated the Hebrew Canon when He said "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the 'Law of Moses, the Prophets (these included the historical books) and the psalms'concerning Himself" (Luke 24:44)
But that's not what the NT says. The actual text says:
"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
In the original Greek language the "about Me" stands out because it is at the very end of the sentence and cannot be overlooked.
In other words, Christ did not set or authenticate the Hebrew canon, but merely said that those parts of the Hebrew Scripture that are about Him must be fulfilled. Just those parts. And that does not "un-authenticate" the rest!
The apostles never cited the septuagint as authentic. The allusions are of no more weight than their citing pagan poets and philosophers
Now, that is incredible! In over 90% of the cases, the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, including allusions to events found only in the so-called deterocanonical books.
Origen was the scholar who influenced Augustine's allagorical interpretation of scripture
Origen influenced an awful lot of people before they recognized his heresy. +Gregory of Nissa was certainly one of them, sharing Origen's teaching that all the people (including those in hell) will eventually be saved.
That doesn't mean that the Church fell for his error. Individual fathers, for sure, at least for a time being, but the Church as a whole, never. Which is why we never trust one's individual interpretation of anything no matter how much they claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
But you did not mention Rufinus' or Augustine's distinguishing the Hebrew Canon from the apocryphal books, or the fact that in the early fourth century they were not part of the canon catalogues of the mentiond men and councils
I suppose you are referring to [Tyrannius] Rufinus the monk, a faithful follower of Origen, who was eventually summoned by the Pope to Rome and who weaseled his way out, after renouncing his theories based on Origen.
When exactly, at what stage of his religious growth) did +Augustine distinguish the difference? He certainly wrote a lot, confessed a lot, but he also retracted a lot. Most importantly, the good Saint always deferred to the Catholic Church, regardless of what he wrote.
And in what way did he distinguish the Hebrew canon from deuterocanonical books?
+Athanasius who had so much to do with the Christian canon personally considered only some deterocanonical books as inspired, not all.
The Eastern (Greek) side of the Church did not include the revelation of John into the Canon until after the 9th century, while the local Council of Rome, in the 5th century, did.
The fact is that deuterocanonical books are quoted, or the events found only in them are made known in the NT by the Apostles, that they were part of the primitive Church teachings, that they were included in various editions of the Christian Canon and have been used for doctrinal purposes in the life of the Church from the beginning until today.
Perhaps you are aware of the backlash of devotions to Mary immediately following Vatican 2? Some were teaching that the rosary was no longer allowed! Statues were removed from churches. Devotions to Mary were greatly decreased. How exactly is that a change to "worship"? Fortunately, brighter heads have prevailed and there has been a return to some degree of devotion to our Blessed Mother.
Regards
Deuterocanonical books are part of the Septuagint, not NT material of questionable validity.
How exactly does He do that? Because He cites a few sayings from what WE NOW recognize as Scriptures? Does He take aside the Sadducees and tell them that they are wrong to accept ONLY the Torah? Does Jesus lay out the entire Canon? Does Jesus quote from EVERY book of the Protocannonicals? You are being anachronistic to think that Judaism was some monolithic organization where everyone already agreed on what WAS Scripture. The Essenes had their own ideas - and the Pharisees did as well. Apparently, there wasn't a demand to lay out the Canon until after the Fall of Jerusalem.
The apostles never cited the septuagint as authentic.
It is telling that they considered it the authentic word of God when they cite FROM it, CALLING it the Word of God. My, how you change your standards in the same paragraph. Matthew cites from the Septuagint Isaiah, calling it Scriptures, and it is not Scriptures? WOW.
The allusions are of no more weight than their citing pagan poets and philosophers.
Allusions? How about word-for-word citations? When Matthew records the Septuagint version of Is 7:14, rather than the Hebrew version, calling it the Word of God, you totally disregard that? Please.
Regards
What paragon affrontery!
It starts with "we must know who Mary is to know who Jesus is". Then it becomes "We must know who Mary is to Glorify Jesus". Then "We must glorify Mary to Glorify Jesus". And the one you have found "We must know and/or glorify Mary to glorify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"
Yes this definitely should offend anyone who really knows The Only True God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. John 17:3
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.