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/
In case you die? The initial question was what is not spelled out in the scripture. This isn't.
Oh, absolutely. Nothing St. Irenaeus taught was contrary to the scripture. He was Catholic, you know.
ANNALEX: In case you die?
Does God determine the day of our death?
Very true. Indeed, nothing the Catholic Church teaches is in contradiction of the Scripture. This is because, as you note, the totality of what the Holy Spirit Teaches the Church consists of the Holy Scripture, the Holy Tradition, and the living Magisterium. Hence, Chruch -> Truth -> Scripture and not the other way around. See 1 Timothy 3:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:14
"Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
So all men who are elected by God are called to the Gospel to obtain the glory that is of Jesus Christ.
I don't think anger is necessarily a bad thing at all. Biblically, it can be God's energy for the purpose of righting a wrong. From a short article "What does the Bible say about anger?" :
Examples of biblical uses of anger include Paul confronting Peter because of his wrong example in Galatians 2:11-14, David being upset over hearing Nathan the prophet sharing an injustice (2 Samuel 12), and Jesus getting angry over how some of the Jews had defiled the Gentiles’ place of worship at God’s temple in Jerusalem (John 2:13-18).
In each case anger was a good thing. ---- Concerning your stated point, you appear to be saying that if God scripted how everything was going to happen, then there would be no reason for the crucifixion. Is that right? If so, then the alternative was that the crucifixion was outside of God's control, or that it was not part of His plan but He allowed it when it was thrust upon Him. Taken from another POV, you might mean that if God scripted everything, then He wouldn't have chosen to let His Son die on the cross. I don't see it in either of these ways. Whatever did happen was what God wanted to happen. Whatever God wanted to happen was what needed to happen (crucifixion to satisfy God's justice). Jesus didn't go to the cross with other options available to accomplish exactly what God wanted. If that were not true, THEN, it really wouldn't make sense.
FK: "God could have created Adam and Eve to be immune to sin. He did not. Therefore, that sin would happen was part of God's plan."
Fine, but that doesn't explain the 'offense.'
I was thinking about it, and found that most of the times when I get angry it was because something surprised me and I didn't like it. Look at all the times any of us gets angry here on FR. It is almost always over comments or exact words we were not expecting. Of course, none of this applies to God. Jesus wasn't surprised when He found the moneychangers at the Temple. He used His anger in a positive sense.
I think it's the same when we are told of other Biblical examples of God's anger or offense. For example, one great good I see in God's anger is that it teaches us, His beloved children, the difference between right and wrong. If we knew nothing of what angered God, then we would not have nearly as strong a compass as we do. It is one thing to say to do this and don't do that, but to learn that we are actually angering or offending God really drives the point home. (It does for me anyway. :)
I said man was trapped to fall into the pit of sin...let's not paraphrase and change the meaning.
My spider-sense was tingling so I read between the lines. Sorry. :)
If man had no choice, but to act as God directed, then God created man destined to commit sin. The sin, then, is not the result of man's will, but his inevitable, predestined fate, of which God is the author.
I'm not sure I am following your reasoning. Yes, God created man destined to commit sin. God also created man with a will. That will had God-defined parameters. Even in Adam and Eve's cases, within their parameters lurked the potential for sin. God created them thus. Adam and Eve used their wills and sin happened. God knew it was coming and could have prevented it, but He didn't. Nevertheless, the exercise of their wills was what resulted in the sin, not the truth that it was part of God's plan. God set the conditions, but the actors did their acts. That is the basis of accountability.
FK: "God is offended, but He chose to "go through it" because He has greater good in mind."
Greater Good? What are you talking about? God is trying to get us restored to the original state. We are just trying to get back to the beginning.
I hope the above addresses the first part. I'm not sure what you mean by the second. In the original state as created, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil. That's out the window for us during life. If you are talking about in Heaven, then it still doesn't work because as created, Adam and Eve had the potential to sin. In Heaven that will also be out the window for us.
Yea, and the Gospels, as well, FK...
Is that who you are going to follow?
Regards
When God created everything, He made it perfect. Now you are telling me that in order for his perfect plan to play itself out perfectly, God needed to introduce imperfection?
Well sure, from a certain POV. As strange as it sounds, in this case "perfect" is really a relative term. At one time lucifer was "perfect" in that he was created without sin. However, he was not created without the potential to sin. So in a relative sense then, he was less than "perfect". However, again, we define perfection by whatever God does. Therefore God does not introduce "imperfection" in this sense. If a thing that God does is in furtherance of His plan, then it is by definition "perfect". Isn't that simple? :)
Better yet, professional religious rationalizers are telling me that God actually allowed it, get this — for the greater good!
Yes, it was for the greater good. :) The greater good is defined by whatever God wants. God always gets what He wants. So, God allowing lucifer to do his thing was what God wanted, and it was for the greater good. For anyone who believes that the stories in the Bible actually happened, the story of Job says it all. Did satan overpower God? Of course not. Did God allow what satan did for a reason other than the greater good? I don't see how.
Is the tragedy of Lucifer's pride necessary to make God's perfect creation a "greater good?" or is human disobedience, preordained by God, a mark of perfection?
Yes to both, since God ordained both. "Perfection" is a relative term in how we use it.
Is God dying on the Cross to free us from the bondage of death we brought on ourselves a necessity even [G]od has to submit to in order for us to return to the very pristine state of creation we were in to begin with?
God makes all the rules, so I wouldn't put it in terms of God "submitting" to anything. But yes, Christ on the cross was necessary for God to get what He wanted (salvation of some), given the way He decided to order the universe. God cannot cheat His own nature. Sin demands payment per God's own rules. Christ on the cross was the only payment available to comply with God's rules, so that God could get what He wanted.
So then God wanted a sinful man. He gave man a pristine home and then trapped him and threw him out?!
In a manner of speaking, yes. :) Whatever thing is harder than diamonds, that's what God's plan was written into from the beginning. God's plan included a "perfect" Garden, but one which upon He would allow trespassers. It included a "perfect" couple, but who were both capable of sinning, by design. It also included His justice, which demanded that they be tossed out because of their sin. God created them knowing exactly when they would sin and they did. Tossing them out was exactly according to plan.
As for grace and angelic creatures, there is no redemption for the fallen angels. Their sins are higher because they are not temptations of the flesh but of envy and pride. Yet the Bible tells us that God prepared hell for satan and his angels. So, if all this was predestined, God is not only the God of life but of death as well. That's not Christianity, FK.
I fully agree that for satan and his brood, there is no redemption. However, I am not sure how you jump from predestination (of everything) to God being the God of death. (I don't even know what "God of death" means.) What did omniscient God know when He built hell? He knew that evil men would wind up there, right? So, verses like Matt. 25:41 don't speak to all the uses of hell we are told about. The FIRST use was for satan and friends, not the ONLY use. The Bible also tells us that hell would later be used for evil men. Remember, after God got all the proper zoning permits, etc., hell went through a renovation project: :)
Isa 5:14 : 14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. KJV
That's fascinating, Kosta. Thanks very much for the info. I had no idea.
Here is the verse:
Rev 21:16 : 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. KJV
I always pictured the city itself as a cube, since the walls are mentioned separately. Do you all not see it that way? I ask because I am going to require considerable space for my mansion. :)
Good morning, I hope I was correct in assuming you were interested in the "spiritual significance of numbers", if not then the following will bore you to tears.
I discovered this a few years ago and couldn't believe it:
The # 9 means finality of judgment and is seen in all cases where judgment is the subject (or multiples of 3).
The # 11 denotes disorder, disorganization
A perfect description of the horrific event of 9/11.
Then go to Revelation 9:11. (Those same numbers again):
"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of
the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is
Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name
Apollyon."
God telling us who the leader of the 9/11 attacks were - Satan, and to cut through any confusion, giving his name in 2 languages.
Since becoming aware of this numbers game I find that God left many of His thumbprints on scripture like the above. It is so awesome to see His handiwork laid out long, long ago for us to discover today. Before 2001 the 9:11 verse really wouldn't have had that same meaning.
FWIW, I agree completely!
It seems that there is a sophomoric idea that if you discredit one area of belief in the reformers, or early Christian theologians for that matter, that everything is discredited. This line of thinking assumes that these fallible human beings must be perfect in all things. I can only think of one man who was perfect in all things and he was God incarnate.
Oh come on Kosta, just admit it you can't acknowledge that Grace is given by God alone and nothing we do warrants it. If you were to acknowledge that your house of cards falls down.
I will always use the phrase "free gift" because it clearly relays what's happening. I am saved by Grace alone thru Faith alone and nothing else. It is a gift with no strings attached. Thus a free gift.
Works is a very complex issue. However, I believe there is only one work of God, that you believe in Christ who God sent.
The third criteria for works is that it glorifies God:
All Christians bear fruit to varying degrees. What isn't obvious is to what extend Christ uses people to "bear much fruit" or what that means. If I help an old lady across the street, I sincerely doubt if people will praise God over it. However, that old lady might be grateful in such a way as God is glorified. It's difficult to tell since God is glorified in many ways.
A non-Christian can be used of God to bring glory to Him such as Judas or Balaam, satisfying point #2 and #3. However, they do not please God simply because they do not believe upon the Son, point #1, and so fail the criteria.
Acts 10:25
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
10:26
But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
10:45
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 10:46
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
Then answered Peter, 10:47
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
In theology there is always a reason for repetition. Certainly in the Hebrew language numerical value of the letters does sometimes apply to the full meaning. However the numbering of chapters and verses in our modern publications are probably arbitrary. It is easy to read into the theology one's own impressions and meanings, which is only human. However, one reason to compare scripture with scripture is to eliminate human error.
Huh? He wears pointy shoes???? Oh, my
They match his pointy head?
I strongly agree with you.
Was pondering more on thie Marionolotry business . . .
we have an excellent example, a proof, actually, right here on FR.
If I'm dismissive or satirical in any way that might be construed a slight on God or Jesus or Holy Spirit--all the RC's are plenty calm.
If I'm so toward Mary, they go ballistic in a flash.
If I'm so against the RC edifice, it's a mixed bag depending. Some can go ballistic depending on whether it slights the pope or some favored part of the edifice. Mostly, it's a mixed bag.
This leads me to the inescapable conclusion and conviction that . . . for many . . .
MARY IS ABOVE GOD IN EMOTIONAL BONDEDNESS AND ADORATION for many folks hereon.
Then comes the Roman edifice.
Then comes God, Son, Spirit.
Methinks somethings' very wrong with that priority list.
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.