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/
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
You can understand my confusion.
ah..
Speed of Dark = 1/Speed of Light.
:)
thanks..
The symmetry is right there: "behold your mother" -- "behold your son".
As to the rest, you make your extrapolations and my Church makes hers. Good luck with your councel.
You did, t'was my point.
When you put me on the couch in your psychoanalytical post that I replied to.. you described a fantasy life that wasn't mine. That's how we started down this rabbit trail.
Have your own.
Thanks! You too, friend..
That's not the only possibility.
Let me guess: it's a riddle?
The OT never equated Satan with the devil; it's a "deuterocanonical" concept that was incorporated into the New Testament by the Apostles because they used the Septruagint.
The Jews didn't associate evil with Satan. The Christians do. The roots of that are in the 'deuterocanonical' books. Judaism considers Satan a loyal and obedient servaht of God. Ihe is portrayed that way in the OT.
"Kolokotronis, is my grammar right here? Would not stylos be inflected "stylou" together with "Theou" if it were epithet of God?"
Blogger and I went over this posts and posts ago. I think the answer is no. Either reading is grammatically correct, but I do think that if you want it to read the way Blogger does its strained and probably would require a couple of more words. The phrase "the living pillar and foundation (or base) of the truth" doesn't modify God or church in the way a simple adjective would. For example, "God is the pillar and foundation...." or "The pillar and foundation... is God" The case of the noun to which the phrase relates really doesn't matter here. Of course, the lack of any original punctuation certainly doesn't help matters any.
Maybe blogger saved my undoubtedly erudite response?
To say that the Apostles got their information from the deuterocanonical is meaningless. Assuming the Apostles did get some of their information out of these books, that doesn't validate that EVERYTHING written in the deuterocanonical is inspired. It means only that this portion is inspired written exactly as it is written by the Apostles-not in the deuterocanonical. Had John inserted the entire book of Tobias into Revelation, Tobias would have been inspired.
However, as I have posted several times now, the Jewish fathers HAD the Old Testament, declared it inspired and used it. And what they used did not include the deuterocanonicals. Three hundred years later the Greek Church fathers decided to add some more and that started the problems.
It's just like you Greeks. Always wanting to read more. :O)
Hmmm...well what was good enough for Peter, Paul and John is good enough for me. :O)
Annalex, when I have said it is not of works, using Scripture, you have tried to make a distinction between "salvific" works and the works of the law. That is what I was referring to in this post, but I think you know that. 1 Corinthians 3 doesn't make a distinction of works either. It makes a distinction in MOTIVE for the works. The works done are still works. It is the motive that determines whether they are burnt or not. And note, it is not a salvific judgment for 3:15 clearly states:
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Wha la! You just stumbled on the judgment of the dead in Christ. We will not be judged for our sins. Our sins were already dealt with on the cross. We WILL be judged by our works - but not salvifically. It is a matter of reward or lack thereof. The Bible indicates that there will be some who will be in heaven who didn't do anything with a pure motive for their Lord. Kinda like the Pharisees who prayed in public in order to be seen of men. They will not be rewarded in heaven no matter how pious they appeared on earth. They will get to heaven. They are saved. They have just suffered great loss in terms of reward.
Salvation is not of works, but it works. Again, I contend that you confuse the cause with the effect of salvation. Your love does not get you saved. Yet, if you are saved, you will love.
I have already checked the church is the pillar of truth verse out with a couple of Greek Scholars. Again, nothing forbids God from being the pillar.
And finally, the church does not determine the Canon. The Canon existed before the church took a vote. GOD determines the Canon.
I thought I noted that you had a fine mind . . . grand enough to conceive of two things being true . . . . that some might not be able to see as true.
I think I stopped well short of telling you what you knew.
I don't know about the word games . . . things get very complex, convoluted and tricky hereon on a number of fronts.
Check out ANGELS ON ASSIGNMENT by Roland Buck. I'd a free ebook available on the net. He spent a significant time with THE FATHER.
Doesn't change a thing about the classical doctrine of The Trinity. I find that an odd statement and no basis for it.
I know of no Biblical basis requiring this: "I would say that every "apparition", like that to Moses, is "through the Son" and "in the Spirit"."
Given that THE SON SUBMITTED HIMSELF WHOLLY TO THE FATHER . . . AT THE CROSS . . . God The Father could have well done whatever HE wanted with Moses. Fathers are normally over Sons in some sense. Christ's submission to Him indicated something of that order of things, too.
Yes, The Father in honor of Christ's obedience to The Cross placed all things under Him. That's a different issue, imho.
Actually, I think I just deleted it Kolo. I had a ping list buried in my freep mail to get to and I've received so much mail in regards to this thread that I deleted what I thought was a closed topic.
I believe that your main objection was that God can not be a part of something that He is. Since Christ is the way the truth and the life, your argument was that he couldn't be both the Truth and the Pillar of the truth. He couldn't be part of something he was in full. I argued that he could be because we see him both as The Life and the Lord of Life.
In the end, you indicated that stylistically it would be more natural to see it as the church being the pillar and ground of truth, but that the Greek didn't forbid the other interpretation. Actually, I found my original email to you concerning this issue and this was my question - kinda on the same track as Annalex. "I was wondering if the sentence structure here allows God to be the pillar and ground of the truth or is it the church. My Greek, being rusty, says no since if it were attached to Theos the ending would be masculine like alletheon. Am I correct here or could it be taken either way?" You surprised me by saying stylistically it was smoother to say it was the church, but that the Greek wouldnt' forbid it.
I think I got lost in the rabbit trail. Maybe I'll try and find the beginning of it and reinterpret what you seemed to be trying to get across to me.
"So would you kneel to me, seeing as how I am a believer?"
Depends on what I just said and what's in your hand.
That is right; and so does Christ and St. Paul. This is exactly the distinction the Church sees: works that are good in themselves, when done for a social recognition ("boast") are not salvific, and when done in charity are salvific.
It is also true that 1 Corinthinas 3 described the judgement of the saved only, -- we call that thing Purgatory. Matthew 25 described the judgement that separates the saved form the lost, and it is works based.
To be absent from the Body is to be Present with the Lord.
Here's what I said to you:
"I think one could interpret the passage in exactly the way you suggest. In many ways, it is the punctuation we see in English which leads us to interpret it in the way we do. That Greek of the NT, of course, wasn't punctuated so even the printed structure of what we read in the NT in English is necessarily someone's interpretation. I don't know why even we Greeks interpret it as meaning that The Church is the pillar and foundation of The Truth. I suspect it may go back to the idea that God is "O OWN" (can't use the Greek fonts here unfortunately)which is to say that God is the creator of everything, even the Truth, and thus as Creator wouldn't be part of The Truth. There is also the notion in Orthodoxy that The Church is only interested in bringing The Truth to mankind and thus would be its pillar and foundation. But that aside, I think you are correct to say that from a pure read of the sentence, one might well conclude that it is God rather than The Church which is the foundation and pillar. My earlier mention of the word "tou", for "Who" is just a stylistic observation based on other passages."
The saved are the only ones who can do works based upon their love for Christ. Why is it such a difficulty for you to see that salvation is by grace through faith and that true salvation produces good works? Further, why do people do works in your religion? Truthfully. Is it out of love for Christ or is it out of some feeling that they have to pay some debt or achieve salvation?
Protestants do not do works to achieve their salvation. We believe Christ already took care of that for us. Our works done for Christ are out of the pure motive of our love for Him and desire to please Him. He has done so much for us, how can we help but not want to serve Him?
The following statement is not an implication concerning the people on this thread. It is an anectdotal statement about what I've seen in Catholics in my own family's lives. They go to church because they think it is the thing they should do. My aunt began taking her children to church because she believed that they should be raised Catholic. They don't know a lick of Scripture. They go to confession, occasionally, because it is what they are supposed to do. They do like Mary a lot. And, they have a certain distant understanding and relationship with Jesus. When My aunt's mother died they had little prayer cards with Mary's picture on them. I think they even have a Mary statue in the yard somewhere. The kids went to Catholic school but had never heard John 3:16. I am surrounded by Catholics at work. Only one of them seems to be particularly devoted, maybe two. The rest go to church (when they go) because they think it is what they are supposed to do. They figure, well, if I don't get it exactly right, I'll spend a little purgatory time and then I 'hope' go to heaven.
To me this is sad. It is indicative of centuries of folks who missed the essence of Christianity. Christianity isn't about a God who admires our works but about a God who loves us even while we were yet sinners. It isnt' about a God who demands double jeopardy payment for our sins but one who marked our sin debt "paid in full." It is about a God who we serve not out of necessity mixed with love but out of love and thankfulness.
Incidentally, I think most Protestants are also in the same boat as my relatives. They go because its the thing to do. Maybe not to get saved, but because it is what we do. They miss out as well on the true essence of the Christian life.
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.