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/
Well, I don't hear that much, especially coming from a Catholic. :O)
BTW-I would disagree on that. I think there is much to say in the New Testament on God's wrath. Whether you wish to take Revelation as literal or an allegory, God's judgment will be severe. And, don't forget Ananias and Sapphira and what happened to them simply for lying to the Holy Spirit.
Absolutely. Only God advances His kingdom.
People use the first two chapters of Romans and forget chapter 3 follows. No one follows God's commandments. The Gentiles know what is right by nature. The Jews know what is right by the Law. Neither follows them. All turn aside. The only thing their conscience is going to do is confirm that they turned aside.
I wasn't referring to their sum or condition or salvation, just whether only non-saved Christians could choose to do good.
As Dr. E stated, people can do good, humanistic things. That means nothing in the sight of God. By Christian standards, Gandi is in hell as nice of a person as he was.
So was Stephen. But people covered their ears and stone him.
"BTW-I would disagree on that. I think there is much to say in the New Testament on God's wrath. Whether you wish to take Revelation as literal or an allegory, God's judgment will be severe. And, don't forget Ananias and Sapphira and what happened to them simply for lying to the Holy Spirit."
The Final Judgment will indeed be severe, but it appears we were speaking of God killing people here on earth now and in the past. I personally think that in some cases that might well be true, but for reasons rather different than you might ascribe to. I am curious, and I may have asked this before, what do you believe the effect of sin is in and, for that matter, on the world?
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 -- from 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.
This point of view is exactly why I must constantly remind myself that when a RC speaks of "The Church" I should only think of the hierarchy. It seems to me that you are describing SOLELY a top-down structure. I do not counter that morality comes from bottom to top, but rather that morality comes from God to all believers. In our structure, and I believe to a great degree also with the Orthodox, the top is fully accountable to the down, AND vice-versa. There IS a God-given role for leaders, and there is also a God-given role for the laity. In our system, they are not nearly as far apart as I perceive in the Latin system.
On your last point, I appreciate very much what you're saying and return the sentiments in kind. During the election last year, I was very blessed to work arm-in-arm with many Catholics in trying to defeat the stem-cell (cloning) Amendment here in MO. I know that the RCC will always be a reliable partner on all of these types of issues. It is good to know. :)
I read the scripture and I see my Church in every chapter.
Well of course. The Church tells you what to see. :)
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. ...
IOW, the veneration of saints is based on no scripture at all. :) You told me yourself that there is nothing necessarily eternal about "eternal life". That is Tradition. I have no idea what you are talking about concerning "the departed", who ARE asleep in Christ, taking interest in events on earth. So that's Tradition. Physically alive Christians praying for one another is fully Biblical. Saints interceding is not. So that's also Tradition. Lots of Tradition, no scripture. Here, the Bible gives me one, clear and distinct message:
Mark 12:30 : 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
I don't understand how we are loving the Lord in this way by praying to saints instead of Him.
FK: "I have room for compromise here."
See? And previously you admitted that irresistible 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.
HA! Man, do you make it tough to find any common ground at all! :) What I said was that I have room to compromise on whether an unbiased, first-and-only-time-reader of the Bible would conclude that infant baptism was OK. My other comments were based on the same premise, a one-time reading. If we were to otherwise suppose multiple readings and reasonable study, then the issue of salvation WOULD conclusively tilt WAY in favor of the Reformed view, IMO. I don't think it would even be close. Even with 100 years of scriptural study, there is simply no way possible to arrive at a great many Catholic conclusions about salvation based on scripture.
FK: "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 being a spirit and not man.
Well, regardless of how many sects (whatever) got it completely wrong, that doesn't change that a fair reading of scripture DOES reveal the Trinity, IMO. For example:
Matt 28:19 : Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ... [remember Paul's follow-up stressing the importance of whose name someone should be baptized in].
2 Cor 13:14 : 14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
1 Peter 1:1-2 : 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
I mean, come on. :) In my view, the clear foundation is unmistakable. There are plenty of other examples. See Rom. 14:17-18; 15:16; 1 Cor. 2:2-5; 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Col. 1:6-8; 1 Thes. 1:3-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; and Titus 3:4-6. I'd say all these together make a pretty reasonable case. :)
FK: "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.
Well, scripture is either timeless or it is not. I believe the general audience of the scriptures is believers of all time. That's what I was saying. I don't buy for a minute that a contemporary is correct just for being a contemporary. I'm sure you would agree that there were plenty of contemporaries right from the start who got things wrong, even from your point of view. There were also some who got some things right. It just isn't automatic.
Kosta: here is our most fundamental difference. We believe that God's grace is given us freely and not from anything we can, or could, do. If I understand your sect correctly your belief is much more along the lines of Judaism, in that you believe you are found righteous before God based on the lifetime of your works. Thus I look at your sect and see a works based belief in salvation.
I'm not sure whether you believe the Holy Spirit indwells believers, or not. We do and we further believe that it is because of the indwelling Holy Spirit convicting us in our sin and guiding us that we mature and are sanctified.
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.
So you, as a Catholic, are a proponent of just going with the straight text? Very unexpected, but interesting. :) I'll have to remember that. In any event, what Peter says is correct regardless. His "if-then" presentation is true because without works the claimed faith is false. Works will always accompany faith, so without works there is no faith. Looking at it this way does appear to rob the passage of much of its significance (because it appears to state the obvious) but it nonetheless passes the test.
But man would not be able to "elect himself" were it not for the divine grace. Where is the mockery?
The mockery can be in different places depending on what you mean by divine grace. If you mean that God graces all equally and only the smart ones come to Him on their own, then predestination and election have no meaning whatsoever. If, however, you believe that God gives saving grace only to His elect, but bases His decision solely on His looking through His crystal ball to see who "would" have accepted Him, then it is also a mockery because God is reduced to a stenographer. God is not sovereign, meaning He does not care which of His creation become His children. Man saves himself. God is a co-pilot rather than "THE" pilot, etc. To me, that is a mockery.
FK: "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.
Wow! That didn't take long at all! :) To paraphrase an earlier quote in this very post:
"Your reading of John 10:27-29 does not agree with the text. If John wanted to say what you impute into it, he would have said it. But he did not ..."
You are imputing that if every single loophole under the sun is not specifically closed in the text (by name), then it means that every single loophole is automatically open. This is a frequent tactic I have seen from Catholics, but I have never understood how anyone could possible expect to be persuasive using it. Here, the plain text says:
John 10:28-29 : 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
You are saying to me that this does not say that the believer himself cannot leave. The text says "no one", so you are apparently asking me to consider that the believer is not a person. This is why you surprised me so much with your opening statement about following the plain text. That avenue is simply not available to the RCC in the vast majority of cases where there could be honest disagreement. To get the RCC view, Tradition must come in and change the meaning of the plain text.
Now lets be fair. It's not their Tradition. ;-0
Both of these posts are nonsense.
I don't post very often, as I guess one could say I belong to the unwashed masses who lurk but don't often post because I am not a learned person.
But to say that Catholics don't read the Bible (which I'm happy to report is not true), or to say "it's not their Tradition", isn't true, either.
The problem obviously is not whether we Catholics--today, in this moment in time, in this present culture--read the Bible and hear it proclaimed to us in our churches, but that we don't always interpret it exactly as other Christians do.
So is that new? That's what all these never-ending, voluminous posts are really all about--it's all about interpretation.
But is isn't correct to say Catholics "don't read the Bible", because it "isn't their tradition to do so."
Whether individual Catholics read the Bible as often and as well they should is another topic altogether. And I presume that can be said generally about many Christian believers.
These open forums always give us something to be offended by. I understand that prior to the printing press Bibles were very expensive, but after the cost came down with mass production what was the historic practice of your sect?
BTW, how do you interpret this ;-0.
I would say that Melanchthon was just as much the "heirarchy" as Luther, and it was he who enabled you to retain more of the Scriptures than you would have had otherwise had "pope" Luther got his way.
Regards
"you are found righteous before God based on the lifetime of your works" in faith
First among the "works" of righteousness is a life of repentance and prayer, in humility; in loving your God and loving your enemies.
Life-long 'works' of faith are an expression of, and not the cause of our righteousness. Life in faith leads us to spiritual maturity and not triumphalism. The 'works' of faith involve incessant gratitude and deep conviction that no matter what we 'get' at the end will be merciful and just (regardless what we may think of it).
It's not the Spirit but God's energies that work in us. His blessings are like any asset — you can squander them or you can turn them into more blessings in God's name. The Spirit guides us and ever-so-gently returns us to proper ways after we stray, patiently and lovingly.
You are made righteous at Baptism, as your sins are wiped clean. You are made righteous after Confession and Communion until we fall again in sin. You are made righteous in repentance and prayer. The more you 'do' these works the less you will sin.
The more you fit the Beatitudes, mercy, purity in heart, etc. the more you will be just in God's eyes, even if you consider yourself the worst sinner of all.
Yes, we believe that God made it possible for us to be saved. We do not believe that God pays all the bills. That's just too convenient and easy and leads to nothing but triumphalistic self-righteousness and arrogance.
We are all prodigal sons. For us to be made righteous, God expects us to 'do' more than just believe.
"John 10:28-29 : 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
You are saying to me that this does not say that the believer himself cannot leave. The text says "no one", so you are apparently asking me to consider that the believer is not a person."
Here is what +John Chrysostomos says about this passage:
"Ver. 26. “But,” He saith, “I told you, and ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep.”
“For I on My part have fulfilled all that it behooved a Shepherd to do, and if ye follow Me not, it is not because I am not a Shepherd, but because ye are not My sheep.”
Ver. 27–30. “For My sheep hear My voice, and follow Me; and I give unto them eternal life ; neither can any man pluck them out of My hand. The Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”
Observe how in renouncing He exciteth them to follow Him. “Ye hear Me not,” He saith, “for neither are ye sheep, but they who follow, these are of the flock.” This He said, that they might strive to become sheep. Then by mentioning what they should obtain, He maketh these men jealous, so as to
rouse them, and cause them to desire such things.
“What then? Is it through the power of the Father that no man plucketh them away, and hast thou no strength, but art too weak to guard them?” By no means. And in order that thou mayest learn that the expression, “The Father which gave them to Me,” is used on their account, that they might not again call Him an enemy of God, therefore, after asserting that, “No man plucketh them out of My hand,” He proceedeth to show, that His hand and the Father’s is One. Since had not this been so, it would have been natural for Him to say, “The Father which gave them to Me is greater than all, and no man can pluck them out of My hand.” But He said not so, but, “out of My Father’s hand.” Then that thou mayest not suppose that He indeed is weak, but that the sheep are in safety through the power of the Father, He addeth, “I and the Father are One.” As though He had said “I did not assert that on account of the Father no man plucketh them away, as though I were too weak to keep the sheep. For I and the Father are One.” Speaking here with reference to Power, for concerning this was all His discourse; and if the power be the same, it is clear that the Essence is also. And when the Jews used ten thousand means, plotting and casting men out of their synagogues, He telleth them that all their contrivances are useless and vain; “For the sheep are in My Father’s hand”; as the Prophet saith, “Upon My hand I have pictured thy walls.” (Isa. xlix. 16.) Then to show that the hand is One, He sometimes saith that it is His own, sometimes the Father’s. But when thou hearest the word “hand,” do not understand anything material, but the power, the authority. Again, if it was on this account that no one could pluck away the sheep, because the Father gave Him power, it would have been superfluous to say what follows, “I and the Father are One.” Since were He inferior to Him, this would have been a very daring saying, for it declares nothing else than an equality of power; of which the Jews were conscious, and took up stones to cast at Him. (Ver. 31.) Yet not evenso did He remove this opinion and suspicion; though if their suspicion were erroneous, He ought to have set them right, and to have said, “Wherefore do ye these things? I spake not thus to testify that my power and the Father’s are equal”; but now He doth quite the contrary, and confirmeth their suspicion, and clencheth it, and that too when they were exasperated. For He maketh no excuse for what had been said, as though it had been said ill, but rebuketh them for not entertaining a right opinion concerning Him."
And this from his Homily VI on Phillipians:
"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost, then are we exposed, ready to be snatched away, as a “bowing wall, and a tottering fence” (Ps. lxii. 3.); when the wall is weak, it will be easy for all to surmount...What should have been done to My vineyard, that I have not done to it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth thorns? Now therefore I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be for a prey, and I will break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. And I will leave My vineyard, and it shall not be pruned or digged, but thorns shall come up upon it, as upon a desert land. I will also command the clouds, that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant. I looked that it should do judgment, but it did iniquity, and a cry instead of righteousness.” (Isa. v. 1–7, LXX.) This is spoken also of every soul. For when God who loveth man hath done all that is needful and man then bringeth forth thorns instead of grapes, He will take away the fence, and break down the wall, and we shall be for a prey. For hear what another prophet speaks in his lamentations: “Why hast thou broken down her fences, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, and the wild beasts of the field feed on it.” (Ps. lxxx. 12, Ps. lxxx. 13.)"
Doesn't look like election or predestination or some eternal secuity to me. Indeed, from +John Chrysostomos' understanding, it is quite the opposite. Thus it seems clear that if one is encouraged to respond to God, that that response is born of God's grace and our free will, just as jumping out of God's hand into destruction likewise would be the result of free will.
I won't say very much about this if my profession of faith is going to be referred to as a "sect".
And of course, the Bible was expensive before the printing press--if expensive is the right word.
It was actually dear and precious, because it was hand-scripted. What's more it would have taken a cart to lug it to Sunday services. Imagine trying to hold that hand-scripted Bible on your lap in church.
And even after the printing press came, I'd venture to say it was still expensive and not easily attainable for quite some time.
Somehow we always seem to view the past with present eyes.
First you say:
"you are found righteous before God based on the lifetime of your works" in faith
Then you say:
Life-long 'works' of faith are an expression of, and not the cause of our righteousness.
Also,you say:
It's not the Spirit but God's energies that work in us.
I noted you did reference the Holy Spirit guiding us, but is it your belief that the Holy Spirit does not indwell the elect, rather God the Father's uncreated energies?
people can do good, humanistic things. That means nothing in the sight of God.
Gandi is in hell
Let me repeat, I'm not talking about salvation, just possibly a single decision to do good.
What about: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."? Could someone who has this greater love, therefore have some knowledge of God who is love? Or does acting out of selfless love always make one necessarily a humanist?
Hey we did have tradition! Plus we had to memorize it. Our other tradition was to sit there and pay attention, lol
I wouldn't put too much effort into replying to this. I read those posts, when I don't skip over them, as nothing more than a 'Rah-rah, high-five." There's little chance of affecting personal sideline celebrations.
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.