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/
Yes he did, but he also said,
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (istumen, to hold up or uphold) the law. (Rom. 3:31)So then, for Sha'ul the Torah was spiritual, not carnal, was holy and just and good, and it defined what is sin and what is not. Yochanan says the same thing when he writes, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness" (1 Jn. 3:4), which we would be more consistent to translate "Torah-lessness."What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (6:1-2)
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! (v. 15)
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." (7:7)
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. . . For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (vv. 12, 14)
Torah comes from the verb yarah, "to hit the mark," and has the connotation of "teachings" rather than "law." Sin, conversely, is chattah, "to miss the mark." Therefore, to sin is to miss the mark of Torah--which is why Yochanan defines sin as Torah-lessness and Sha'ul credits the Torah with teaching him what is sin and what is not.
So then, though we are not under the law--which is to say, we are not under the curse, the penalty, that the Torah pronounces against those who violate it (Deu. 27:15-26) because Yeshua took that curse on our behalf (Gal. 3:13)--but under grace, does that mean that we should sin, should violate the Torah so that grace may abound? As Sha'ul says, "God forbid!"
The issue is not one of keeping Torah vs. not keeping Torah, but of keeping Torah in order to be saved vs. keeping Torah because one already is saved. For my part, I do not keep Torah in order to be saved; I keep it (or do my best to) because I am already saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way. Even down to not eating what He wouldn't eat.
Apparently they did not all have the same 'visions' (yet), so it took some gentle persuasion to resolve their inspired differences.
That wasn't the question; when were they in disagreement? I'm not seeing it anywhere. I see Kefa slipping up and Sha'ul calling him on it, and I see that some message from Ya'akov instigated it, but without knowing the content of the message, we cannot say that Ya'akov was expressing disapproval--in fact, that seems unlikely given the general approval in Acts 10:18. It's far more likely that Ya'akov was warning Kefa about the Zealots assassinating Jews who they considered "too close" to the Gentiles, which we know they were doing from other sources. This would explain why Kefa acted out of fear of the Jews (Gal. 2:12)--simple disapproval or concern from Ya'akov would not.
Sorry, but there's no evidence of a split among the Apostolic leadership of the Ekklesia. You have to read your own prejudices into the text to find one.
Because there is no verse in the OT that says so?
I just quoted you one, Gen. 15:6, the foundational text for Sha'ul thesis that salvation is by faith rather than works (see Rom. 4:3, Gal 3:6). We could also quote Psalm 32:1-2, as Sha'ul does in Rom. 4:7, or Psalm 143:2, which he quotes in Rom. 3:20 and Gal. 2:17.
Even the sacrificial system teaches that salvation is by grace rather than "the works of the law." How so? Glad you asked. Tell me, exactly where is the "law" in allowing a guilty party to transfer his guilt to an innocent party so that he might not be punished? And did not all of these sacrifices point forward to the coming of the Innocent One, who took on our guilt in a show of ultimate Grace?
You, sir, do not know your Tanakh, nor your Judaism. Sha'ul did not get his ideas of Grace from some special vision, but from the Tanakh itself!
If anything, Judaism was a sectarian religion, with widely divergent sects teaching and preaching very different stories.
You are partially correct; in fact, many scholars have taken to referring to the 1st Century "Judaisms" because of the divergent practices. However, these were simply competing traditions, on par with denominational differences in Christianity. The core--the Torah--remained the same for all, in confession if not always in practice.
You treat Pharisaical Judaism as the only true Judaism. I do not agree with that.
Actually, I like the Karaites a lot. However, the fact is that Yeshua spent most of His time with and debating the Pharisees. In Ancient Near Eastern culture, that was a sign of kinship--you argued loudest with your own family, and more softly with those outside the group. The fact that Yeshua spent so much time trying to correct the Pharisees meant that they were closest to the truth in His mind (the only one that counts); the fact that the Pharisees spent so much time with Him and invited Him to eat with them is evidence that they too saw Him as one of their own, or close enough for table-fellowship.
That's not saying that they had it right--clearly they had it wrong on any number of issues--just that the founders of rabbinic Judaism were a lot closer in viewpoint to the Messiah than you give them credit for. That's why its even more to be lamented that they (as a group; many individual Pharisees did put their faith in Yeshua) came so close and yet still missed the mark.
Tell me, would the Apostle Sha'ul have remained a Pharisee if they were really so far off the mark as to be completely incompatible with belief in the Messiah? He's never struck me as the wishy-washy type.
Did God make the Law so that man can dispose of it?
Nope (Deu. 12:32-13:5).
Whatever you say, fact remains that Christians by the end of the 1st century did not consider themselves Jews and, in fact, while the Apostles were still walking the earth did everything to distance themslevs from the 'hypocrites' (as the 1st century Didache refers to the Jews).
The Didache and your view is wrong on this point. Tell me, what was the first thing Rabbi Sha'ul did when he arrived at Rome?
The eyewitness Gospels were not even written by that time.
No, but the eyewitnesses to the Gospel were around telling the story of the Messiah personally. Anyway, Matthew's Gospel account was probably written in its original Hebrew form in the 50s AD, Luke's account and Acts by 62 AD (since he cuts off the narrative there, in the middle of the story so to speak).
By the time +Peter arrived in Rome the Christians were not identified as the Jews but as an altogether different religion.
No, actually they weren't. The Christians were recognized as a Jewish sect by the Jews in Rome (Acts 28:22), and weren't officially considered their own religion until the reign of Emperor Nerva.
Sha'ul, thanks to his dual background (Jew and Roman citizen) and his training at the hands of Rabbi Gameliel (who encouraged his students to study Greek culture to facilitate dealing with the Greeks and Romans as the future leaders of Judea) was uniquely qualified to explain the Jewish Scriptures and Messiah to a Greek and Roman audience in terms and analogies that they could understand, but he was not the crusader of a new, anti-Torah religion. If he was, he was by the Torah's definition a false prophet rather than an Apostle.
Oh, and since the subject of the LXX keeps coming up, let me share a bit of eyewitness from Jerome:
MATTHEW,(4) also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew(5) for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library. at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes(1) of Beroea,(2) a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."Hmm, what a shock that the Apostles used the Hebrew Scriptures with a Hebrew-speaking audience.--Illustrious Men, ch. III
Moses wrote a deeper one, and Yeshua dictated one (recorded in four witnesses) deeper still. That's not to put down Sha'ul, but he himself would never consider his letters on par with the Torah or the Master's words.
Interesting that you should say so, because Peter does:
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
~2 Peter 3:15-16
I know it's not the same thing exactly, but I was responding to what I thought Kosta was saying, namely, that a dogmatic church structure is the only thing that can even possibly make any sense. I disagree with that. IMO, because I do not agree with Calvin on every single point says NOTHING about whether my faith is legitimate. I don't follow Calvin first. I follow God first. I don't agree with the "rule" you seem to have instituted. I think I would be in much bigger trouble if I did decide to follow a group of men first. :)
Kosta's comments point out precisely why The Church does not understand Protestant assemblies to be true churches.
Does this mean that if we DID have a few men to tell us what our beliefs are then you would accept us as churches, even though you equally disagreed? Is this the distinction of a "church"?
Some things must be believed because all Orthodox everywhere and always have believed them, others because the Ecumenical Councils have proclaimed them, still others because they are in the consensus patrum. Disciplinary canons can and do change with the times and locations and in any event, since the canons are made for men, not vice versa, bishops have the power to exercise economia on strict application of those canons. Now, why do 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians believe the exact same things in these areas?
Because as you said, if you want to be a member of an Orthodox Church, you have to agree with all these things. I do not understand what is at all remarkable about this. :) It also says nothing toward whether these beliefs are correct one way or the other. All it says is that many people have agreed to believe in them.
Without The Church, one might well be a Christian, but one can never be sure that what is being revealed is of the Holy Spirit or of the Zeitgeist. Look at the Episcopalians. They sincerely believe that the HS is doing a "new thing" regarding women's ordination, gay lifestyles and whether or not Christ is the ONLY way to the Father.
I think your very good example may well countermand your first statement. :) You have the guidance of the Church. You look at the Episcopalians and know that the Church teaches that they have rocks in their heads. Now, I do not have/use the guidance of the Apostolic Church. I look at the Episcopalians, then consult my Bible, and make the exact same conclusion that you do, even for the same reasons. There you go. I am just as sure that they are wrong as you are. Of course, this formula will not always work out this way. LOL! But the point is that it CAN work without the men of the Apostolic Church pronouncing it so.
Is there any broad commonality of belief among Southern Baptists or snake handling fundies in Appalachia on the one hand and gay Episcopal bishops with "life partners", lesbian priestesses and some UCC preacher presiding over a gay marriage ceremony attired in a rainbow sash?
You have heard me use the term "Bible-believing" before. Among this group of non-Apostolic Christians I do believe strongly that there is a broad commonality of beliefs. It's not 100%, but it is very significant. This stretches across many denominations also. The current national leadership of the Episcopalians, for example, would not be in this group. BTW, thanks for throwing me in with the snake handlers! LOL!
What I am pointing to, as was Kosta, is the "Oneness" and "Catholicity" of The Church, something which lacking in virtually all of "Protestantism".
But you are a direct witness to the "Oneness" of at least the Reformers with whom you normally interact on these threads. If I plucked out a detailed post from one of us and only gave you a (true) summary of the points, I'll bet you would have no idea whom among us wrote it. I'll further bet that this is true at least to the extent that it would be for the Orthodox and Catholic posters, if the situation was reversed.
I understand that when one decides to become Orthodox, that he must be "all in", but that isn't by accident is it? Of course not. I know you are not centralized like the RCs are, but in order to be 100%, it has to come from a central authority, "the Church" (as you understand it). I didn't think you were "allowed" to disagree with any of the 100%. Isn't that right? If you do you could be thrown out, right? That's what I'm talking about. In Protestant churches, there is simply more leeway, but of course there is a line which may not be crossed. If I went around my church proclaiming Mormonism, for example, I could be thrown out.
Being a Calvinist is different. You can pick and choose those parts of John Calvin's theology with which you agree in principle and if they dominate your personal convictions you can say that you are a Calvinist (a little bit, a lot, mostly, etc.).
Well, anyone can call himself anything he wants, but that doesn't make it true. In comparison, you have what amounts to a contract. "I promise to believe in this, this, and this, and you will agree to let me be a member of an Orthodox church". That is fine with me. If you want to be a member of my church, you have to be baptized as a believer.
Anyway, my point is that you seem to be comparing what Calvinists CALL themselves with what is required for membership in your church. There simply is no "Calvinist Church of God" (that I'm aware of) where one must hold 100% to everything Calvin believed. Why does this matter? Calvin didn't teach that his views were the authority, he taught that the Bible was the authority. I don't remember what the Orthodox view on excommunication is, but Calvin never taught "believe everything I say or I will take your salvation away from you". :)
Herein lies the rub, FK. God is not relative and his Church is not a man-made institution that is subject to relativity. One cannot say I believe in God a little bit, or I agree with Him on some things. The Church is not-man made. One cannot agree with the Church a "little bit." (emphasis added)
Oh, come on! :) I agree that God is not relative and that God's Church is not man-made. However, bazillions of people believe in God "a little bit" and agree with Him on "some" things. They are called lost people. :) That is why one is not either a man of faith or a murdering zombie. The lost do plenty of things we would normally call "good".
I'm afraid I do not understand what your "rub" is.
You are of this world. The Orthodox/Catholics are not.
Sometimes, in a very certain sense, I couldn't agree with you more! :)
Actually, I like the Karaites a lot. However, the fact is that Yeshua spent most of His time with and debating the Pharisees. In Ancient Near Eastern culture, that was a sign of kinship--you argued loudest with your own family, and more softly with those outside the group. The fact that Yeshua spent so much time trying to correct the Pharisees meant that they were closest to the truth in His mind (the only one that counts); the fact that the Pharisees spent so much time with Him and invited Him to eat with them is evidence that they too saw Him as one of their own, or close enough for table-fellowship.
= = =
Perhaps. But I wouldn't want to over state it.
Christ might have also spent that time in order to highlight the errors of the pharisees. I think that more plausible given His assertions about their blindness and things being deliberately hidden from them.
Protestants agree with other (and with other christians) on far more than you think.
Bits and pieces.
Well ... you should know.
Rather than just make these general, rather judgemental statements ... why not offer some evidence of your positions.
As for 'other Christians' (like Catholic and Orthodox), we agree with mainline Protestants on the Holy trinity and Dual Nature of Christ. This is where out agreement ends. Including the Bible versions.
I think that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree on all of the elements of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
That's a bit more than you give us credit for.
Christ's mission was never to reform the world, ... but rather, ... to save souls out of the world.
That's why His parting words were "Baptize all nations ..." from paganism into true faith. I would call that reforming the world. Since then, many have been saved by the Church, and many have been destroyed in the name of Christ.
In the vast majority, those who are drawn to the gospel (of all nations) have been given the opportunity to accept God's saving grace.
I think that you have to offer more evidence that Christ's mission was to reform the world.John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
_________________________________________________________
Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
"I think that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree on all of the elements of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds."
Really? To mention the insertion of the filioque clause in the West is, I suppose, too obvious, but how about the part concerning believing in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church"? The Nicene Fathers who wrote that meant the Pre-Schism Church complete with its Divine Liturgies, Eucharistic theology and hierarchy from the Patriarchs on down. You don't believe in that at all.
Just the other night I came across several stories in the Spiritual Meadow by +John Moschos in which he speaks about other sorts of Christian monks and hierarchs (generally Monophysites or types of Nestorians. In each instance he tells of how these men came out of heresy and into the "catholic" church. Now this was written in the 7th century so it is somewhat later than the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, but the idea that the "catholic" church meant the Pre-Schism Church which we see today in Orthodoxy and arguably the Latin Church goes back to before even the Council of Nicea.
As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, Protestants believe in an "invisible" church which is quite different from what the drafters of The Creed were talking about.
I guess you missed the doctrinal content of the Western schism, and thought it was all about the purported authority of the Popes of Rome. Do you say the filioque when you say the Nicene Creed? Careless Western habit, or do you actually believe that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son?
I guess you've also missed a fair bit of this thread. There's been a fair bit of denial coming from protestant posters of the common understanding of Orthodox and Latin Christians of the "communion of the saints". We've been accused of 'necromancy' for asking the prayers of those alive in Christ who have departed this earthly life.
We've also been treated to classical Nestorianism professed by protestants, and now I see the thread has been joined by protestants in the grip of some Judaizing heresy.
I've personally known protestants who hold a Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity (they're very easy to find in liberal protestant denominations, and fairly easy to find in 'Bible-believing' protestant groups) and protestants with the Arian habit of identifying 'God' with the Father only.
And I guess you've not encountered any of the "No Creed but Jesus" type of protestant who explicitly refuse to accept the Nicene Creed.
You're right on one thing, though, monophysitism is not a common problem among protestants, though I'll bet you can find some who will take the attitude of the Emperor Zeno's Henoticon and refuse to discuss the Natures of Christ (on the basis that no Bible verse uses the word 'Nature' to describe Christ's humanity or divinity, the same way they won't apply the word 'Trinity' to God on a similar basis.)
Protestnants don't put their faith and trust in Christ or the Holy Spirit, they put it in the transcripting and translating ability of other men.
No, I also would not agree. As you know, "Sola Scriptura" means only "Scripture alone". Using the plain meaning of the words, and in a vacuum, it is meaningless. It doesn't say anything. A meaning must be ascribed to it. I contrast this to another doctrine, that of "once saved always saved". Here, using the plain meaning, and in a vacuum, there IS meaning. Here, the clear implication is that once a person is saved, he can go out and do whatever he wants with the rest of his life and still be saved. Scripture clearly teaches against that, so Sola Scriptura says that it is bad doctrine, in this context.
The point is that there is no "literal sense" of Sola Scriptura the way there is with OSAS. Therefore, to criticize it you should at least take the meaning of it that is used by those who follow it. The way we users define it says that teaching is fine, including oral teaching.
I have seen criticisms of the doctrine saying that Sola Scriptura means everything from "Sola Scriptura does not allow teaching" to "if it's not in the Bible it isn't true" to "every word in the Bible must be taken only in its most literal sense", etc. All of these are false, and all of them sprung from two simple words that, when they sit there by themselves, don't mean anything. I hope you would agree that it isn't fair for non-followers to take the two words, define them as they wish, and then heap criticism upon their own made-up definitions, all the while accusing us of believing in it. We adherents to Sola Scriptura know what it means, and it is none of those things. :)
Last I heard those "transcripts" were considered "God breathed" and infallible by the Church. It seems the Church puts a lot of faith into them as well.
It is clear that the Jews who 'preserved' Hebrew scripture had been doing a lackluster job by the time of Christ.
The scrolls at Qumran find 3 different versions dated to the period of Christ.
Do you trust Jewish hands at copying or the Apostles and Christ?
Actually some do; most do not..
Like many, but not all, Roman Catholics worship Mary.. and other RCC "things"..
Some protestants worship the bible.. they deny it but they do..
Lots and lots of idolotry.. in both camps..
And many there is that deny it in both camps too..
Had to happen, as (the seven churchs in asia) in the book of revelation prophecys..
Mankind does seem to have this penchant for idolotry..
And inventing yarns about their idols..
Take the theory of Evolution for example..
Which in that case is a virtual assault on the Holy Spirit and man's spirit..
Making "science" the icon(idol)..
I'm not about defend Catholics since I'm not a Catholic, though I suspect some would refute your allegation that most worship Mary.
Those "Jewish hands" were our Christian forefathers. Of course I trust them.
And, just to be clear, the Apostles and Christ were all Jews.
Says a lot about the Ephesians and the church there..
That Paul(and the Holy Spirit) would lift the conversation to such a degree as they did..
There are concepts and spiritual language operators in that epistle found nowhere else in scripture hidden and imbedded in the/that "message" that still is not completely understood/grasped..
I did not say "most", I said "many"...
God is only under obligation IF He wanted to save some. God's justice, or nature, or essence (you get the idea :) demanded that a price be paid for man's sin in order for any to enter Heaven. Heaven is definitionally unfit for sinners, per se. Man checked his pockets and came up FAR short of the cost. Now the only choices are that God let all perish in hell (perfectly just), OR that God pay the price Himself out of His love for His elect (also perfectly just). God obviously freely chose the latter to get what He wanted, while at the same time being true to His own nature. God MUST be true to Himself, AND He had a desire. The only way to satisfy both was by our Lord Jesus becoming a sacrifice.
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.