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/
Yeah, truly?
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds." [Rev 20:12-13]
Keep convincing yourself that such a religion is unimaginable..
He was or is obligated to Himself? Based on what – higher power?
It was His justice that could not be left unsatisfied
What injustice was there to God? How can anyone cause injustice to God? Is God subject to injustice?
Does man's rejection of God "insult" Him? Does it hurt His "pride?"
Did not God design the world just as He wanted it, or was He surprized? If mankind acted the way He knew (and predestined, as you'd say) they would, where is the injustice in doing as God willed it? Or did we supercede His will?
None of this of course insults God, as God is not subject to passions. Man's disobedience only hurt man. And God, out of pure goodness and love, came down to salvage our miserable souls. Not because He needed to bring justice to Him (God is just with or without us, inspite and not because of us), but because He took pitty on ur miserable lot.
Bah, pure rationalizations! I am come and I came is the same thing, Blogger. Nice try. It's the past tense, not the future tense.
It is part of the “observer problem.”
In the absence of Spiritual revelation or leading or seeking – or if he chooses to ignore it - man is left to rely on his own reasoning and sensory perception to understand “things.” To such a one, God is one of those “things.”
But the natural or mortal man is only capable of thinking in terms of four dimensions and his senses are limited to sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste. In such a state, he is spiritually blind. As a result, he very often anthropomorphizes God.
A typical example is his demand that God’s reasoning be understandable by him – and worse, acceptable to him. It sounds silly even to say it, but nevertheless that often happens.
Another is his insistence that God’s actions most comply with the laws of His own creation – physical causation (cause/effect) and the ilk. Again it sounds silly that the Creator is of necessity subject to His own Creation… and yet that also happens.
Yet another is the insistence that God must be “fair” – but what man really means is that God must be even handed with all of His creatures to be “god-like.” But Scriptures are quite clear – and we see in Creation itself - that God does not create men with a cookie cutter – some are made for trash, some for glory – but the clay must never complain to the potter.
And since man is loathe to accept what he (in his very reduced mental abilities) perceives as contradictions – he may anthropomorphize God by rationalizing as doctrine or traditions all kinds of things that the mortal mind cannot discern.
BTW, my two favorite examples of Scriptures which can only be Spiritually discerned are John 3 that we must be born again – and John 6 that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood.
And, if he goes overboard in anthropomorphizing God, he ends up rejecting the God Who is and fabricating for himself a “god” of his making, a small “god” he can obtain, understand and manipulate. Oh, he might do it with all kinds of piety – but the bottom line is that he has anthropomorphized God.
God tolerated all kinds of anthropomorphizing in the book of Job all the way up to chapter 38 when He put His foot down (so to speak.)
In another example Jesus rails at the Pharisees whose lack of Spiritual discernment caused them to miss the point altogether :
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
[Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. – Matt 15:1-9
IMHO, people anthropomorphize the Holy Spirit by declaring He answers to or is otherwise under the control of man. Those who experience His indwelling, His Person, would experience Spiritual revelations and thus would not tend to anthropomorphize God anyway.
And, IMHO, some do anthropomorphize Jesus in believing that He came into existence when He was conceived (i.e. that He is not God from the beginning, everything that was made was made by Him and for Him, etc.) – or in the alternative, that He was a mortal man who achieved “godhood” and thus so can they. Jeepers…
Any hoot, that's my "two cents" for the discussion.
Kosta. You just don't get it. Your attempt to take a stab at what I was saying isn't even close to the mark.
On the first one, there is no higher power than God so stop being ridiculous. I said he was obligated to Himself. He's where it stops. God is a just God. He is holy. These are attributes of God which are basic.
God also has a will. With His will he exercises mercy where He wishes and doesn't where he doesn't want to. Yet, he can not violate His nature in doing so. That's the obligation to Himself. He can not violate who he is in accomplishing what He wants to accomplish. There is no higher power for him to answer to. He IS the authority - but He will be true to His nature.
God desired for a reconciliation between Himself and man. Yet, he could not allow man's sin to go unpunished without violating His justice. In order to meet the requirements of His justice, He made a way that the price for sin could be paid. That way was His very own Son. Christ took the penalty for our sin. God's justice was satisfied with the substituted offering, and His mercy poured upon us fulfilling His desire.
Such a picture of Christ's substitutionary death is shown throughout Scripture. From the blood of the lamb on the doorposts of the Israelis to the temple sacrifices, to the Ram in the thicket - God Himself provides the substitute offering to satisfy His justice. The wages of sin is death. Those wages must be paid if we are to have life. God paid them.
It is stupid to speculate about God being subject to injustice. Things don't happen "to" God. Things are permitted by God but all within His will. Nothing in this scenario makes God a passive participant in our salvation - so the idea of "injustice happening to God" even as a result of Himself is not even relevant. God would NEVER have violated his nature and so there is no discussion about God being unjust. God could have chosen to send us to Hell. His justice would have been intact. He wouldn't have poured out mercy, but mercy is a volitional aspect of God's will rather than a basic part of His nature.
God MUST BE just. He will not and can not violate His own just character. It is not possible for God to lie. It is not possible for God to be unjust. Mercy isn't in the same category. God exercises mercy where he will and whom He wishes to, He pardons. He's God. He can do that without violating His justice.
Yeah, well, 1 Thess 1:10 and Rom 8:11 actually speak of "he" who sent the Son and the Spirit, i.e. "God." +Paul is decidedly speaking of God as someone other than Christ.
That goes for John as well, as you quote, "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."
But it also tells us that God did not "give" them faith; He showed them a miracle and only then they believed! +John tells us that the Apostles really did not believe Christ" until he "was" resurrected! +Thomas is a living proof of that.
One more thing, in Matthew 17, +John and +Peter see a transfigured Christ on Mt. Tabor; they now know that He is divine. Yet +Peter betrays Him not once but thrice! Don't you find that strange? I do.
And I thought that the OT righteous were bond slaves of death and were in the Hades until Christ came to rescue them after the crucifixion. Yet both of them appear on Mt. Tabor! Don't you find that strange? I do.
Oh, Bah yourself.
I am come verses I did not come
Present verses past tense
At the incarnation, his purpose for coming into the world was for salvation, not as judge.
Currently, because men reject him, they are heaping judgment on themselves.
Elsewhere (future) we see him coming as Judge.
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. – 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
With His will he exercises mercy where He wishes and doesn't where he doesn't want to
No he doesn't. God only gives blessings. He doesn't change. He lets His light shine on the just and the unjust. He is not consistent ebcause He is "obligated" to be consistent, but because He is consistent by nature; that how He is.
God desired for a reconciliation between Himself and man. Yet, he could not allow man's sin to go unpunished without violating His justice
Don't be silly, Blogger. Man's sin is man's punishment. It hurts us, not God. Man has already been punished. In fact, man is al;ready born punished (sentenced to death).
We are unjust to God every day, every hour, every second. That does not make God suffer. It makes us destined to hell unless we repent and change our ways. It is our continuous ingratitude to God's unchanging and generous love that puts us on the path of perdition, not God.
These passages are not problems for those who embrace the Bible as God's message to man.
It is clear who Paul is referring to in this passage- and he is NOT denying the deity of Christ in so doing.
John's noting what the disciples saw doesn't negate sola fide either. The disciples had faith that Christ was who He said he was and who Scripture testified He was. They were eyewitnesses, for sure. They were blessed. But it doesn't mean that they didn't have true faith. Remember, they had just buried their friend. You can hardly fault them for losing focus on who Christ was - particularly since they didn't seem to realize all of the full import of what He said until after it was all over. Yet, they did believe. Not just that he was alive. They could see that. But that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. God in the flesh. Their Savior.
Kosta,you know that God is everpresent and watching everything you do. Do you ever betray him? Ever sin against him? Well, you know who He is. You know He's watching. Don't you find it strange that you sin against Him knowing you are in full view of Him? I don't. Peter had a "human" moment. If Scripture were a man-made man-inspired set of documents, Peter probably would have had a cape and rescued Jesus from the Cross. Instead, we see him as quite fallible and quite forgetful. I mean good grief - he fed 5000 and the next scene they are fearing for their lives in his midst. People forget very quickly. Peter was no exception.
As to the bond-slaves of death comment that is an interpretation. The Old Testament Saints were saved the same way we are - by faith. They had a different spot in history. They looked forward to the promised Messiah, and we look back at him. Still, it is said that Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness (and yes, James says his works justified him - but again, with a protestant understanding of James this is no problem).
Not in those verses.
Which is why the whole of Sola Scriptura is important. You don't cherry pick. You take the whole.
God does not just "pour out blessings" God is also a God of anger and wrath. He is a judge.
And again - you are the one who doesn't get it. You missed a word I said several times. "IF" If God wanted to reconcile man to himself THEN he would have to do so in a way that did not violate His nature.
Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is grieved by our sin. Christ Himself took our punishment by suffocating on a cross with spikes driven through his body. And God isn't hurt by our sin?
Our unjustness isn't the matter. It is God's justice. God will always be true to His nature. He can not violate who He is.
Oh, that last part - if one is saved one is not bound. The OT Saints were living at Paradise or Abraham's bosom. The Bible is not explicit about what that was. Yet it was evidentally not a place of torment at all and was a place where it was at least possible for human beings who had died to return from that "dimension" or place (as we see with Moses, Elijah, and Samuel - though Elijah never died. He was translated).
Moreover, He has promised "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" (Luke 6:37)
- so it is the "not judging" and "not condemning" and "forgiving" that I'll be concentrating on.
Human moment? Or disbelief? Could it be that +Peter's faith failed, as ours does? But, unlike us, +Peter has seen Him, ate with Him, and witnessed all His miracles. I think that's a bit different than our experience.
Human moment. Peter's faith didnt' fail because it wasn't His own. It was revealed to Him (Matthew 16:17). After the resurrection, the Angel says go tell the disciples and Peter... as a way of saying to Peter, even though you failed, You are still mine. Nothing has changed in that regard. Now get up and lets go forward. That's grace. The world would have said "Peter, you blew it." God said "Peter, yes you failed, but I overcame your failure and You belong to me."
I trust Him to be merciful and just. That doesn't say anything about our fate.
You must believe you don't need to be judged (correct me if I am wrong). Your book then must be clean.
Only you and God know. I am not judging. But I have never met a saint, have you?
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.