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/
Gregory the Great was Pope from 590-604 and I remember from some reading I did in his stuff in 1977 that he was asked about celibacy for the clergy in England, I conclude that it was still up in the air, though he was emphatically in favor of it. So you think he'd been hanging with the Cybele worshippers?
Of course, in Kolokotronis's Church celibacy os not an issue for the priests, as it also is not an issue for many rites of the "Catholic" church. So the Isis/Cybele infection (if any) was limited in scope.
My understanding is that Protestantism really took off around the time tobacco was introduced to England and Europe from America? Mere Coincidence? [Cue ominous music.] I don't think so.
Well, that's a new one. Did Paul and James mean "saved" in two different terms?
And by the way, Paul (if you think he wrote Hebrews) also comments on Abraham being saved - at a DIFFERENT point that you list above...
Hebrews only talks about Abraham's faith and it was at the time when Paul mentions it in Romans.
What a sweet story. God even uses duct tape! Hallelujah.
Can you please site what year Catholicism was made the state religion of Rome btw?
I know you believe this.
The point is Enoch and Elijah are written about in Scripture being assumed into heaven without dying. Mary is not. Yet you have created a doctrine around her supposed assumption. Enoch and Elijah would be the best fulfillment of your "man's hope". They were taken home because they were pleasing to God.
It was right after they started allowing women to come to services without their heads covered.
that'd be sometime in the 1900s btw...
When Paul talks about women keeping silent, he's not talking about them shuting up; he's simply saying that they are not to have authority over the men. If, good Christian elders, deem that it's appropriate for women to teach children Bible class then that's fine. It has nothing to do with the men being subject to them. But I think it is inappropriate for women to preach, just as I'm sure you would agree that it's inappropriate for a woman to distribute the Eucharist.
And the Immaculate Conception?
Define "Core belief", please. It sure sounds to me from what Kolokotronis says that it's pretty close to quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.
Further your contemptuous disagreement with me was with my assertion that it was a doctrine held by many for some 1500 years before it was made de fide. In fact, your first statement was that it was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which was made de fide in the 1950's.
If I failed to show that you were mistaken on that I'd like to know how I failed.
Now you claim to have done a great deal of research into how doctrinal statements arise.
So we're looking at the wrong doctrine and a substantial disagreement over how long the doctrine has been held by many on the Church before it was made de fide. Okay, I'm right about the doctrine in question and right about how long it was held by many, but the group of which I am a part is misinformed.
Nice tap dance.
As you suggest, lots of us are misinformed. One of the things I'm misinformed about is whether or how the orthodox make something de fide.
Nice tap dance. I find the Orthodox to be very consistent in their views while the Catholics have slowly migrated to their view.
I think I've met my dance master. This started because you implied that you knew that we were about to make the title co-redemptrix a matter of dogma. I said it took about a millenium and half to get to the Assumption, and you told me to get real. Now you are saying we move slowly, and tell me that I tap dance.
Nice tap dance.
Back to history class, WF. The state religion of the Roman Empire was NEVER Roman Catholicism. As a matter of fact, the Empire tended towards accepting a "broad diversity" of beliefs which included heresies. It did this for pretty much the same reason which underlay the Elizabethan Compromise, to keep the peace. You should also know that The Church, in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome often found themselves in opposition to heretical Emperors, to the point of anthemizing those Emperors and/or loosing their patriarchates or even their heads over those oppositions. Whole Councils of The Church came out in opposition to various Emperors and won.
" And the Immaculate Conception?"
No. The IC and the Assumption are two very different dogmas.
Sorry but I'm not embarrassed by the scriptures. Eastern Christianity must simply just ignore these verses saying they were for another time, another place. Personally, I think God was smart enough to make the scriptures timeless. I would search for answers rather than dismissing the word of God.
Why would a bible class be going on during liturgy when folks should be worshipping?
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek plural) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion
Doctrine = Dogma
Kolo – post #11,757 Harley, personally I don't know a single Orthodox person or hierarch who does not believe in the bodily Assumption of the Theotokos into heaven after her death. We simply haven't made it a dogma while Rome has.
MD - Define "Core belief", please. It sure sounds to me from what Kolokotronis says that it's pretty close to quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.
And...no tap dance from me.
Her assumption is an early home run in the game we all play, as we, too, will obtain our glorified bodies in heaven.
Why, St. Joseph was instrumental in protecting the Holy Family and he was the stepfather of Jesus, to whom he was obedient. It would be good for Christian men to pray to St. Joseph. I am sure you do.
they all prayed with one accord.
And they still do!
But as evidence above, it WASN’T part of the doctrine (e.g. dogma) of the Church and was never accepted until well after the split.
Yes, I think saying "Get real," is contemptuous. If I had seaid, say,"Get real! That's the Assumption hyo're talking about not the Immaculate Conception, that would be okay with you?" It wouldn't with me.
I'll cop to using doctrine and dogma carelessly.
The fact remains that you said "Get real," in response to my saying that the Church moved slowly in making the Assumption Dogma, while it was widely, if unofficially held for 1500 years before the definition.
Again you were arguing that you KNEW that the Church would move speedily to make co-redemptrix official. Against that I was saying that the church moved SLOWLY on The Assumption.
Now if you are saying that the church moved quickly in that it wasn't dogma until it was dogma, I'll gladly stipulate the tautology.
But if you are or were arguing something meaningful, I say again the belief was widely but unofficially held for something like 1500 years before it was made dogma, and you have adduced nothing but your contemptuous "Get real," to show that that is not so.
What you are not getting is that a thing can be widely believed without being officially declared doctrine. And the only way your initial "get real" -- which you now seem to be tap dancing away from in a manner to dazzle Ginger Rogers -- can make any sense at all is ... no, wait, it doesn't make sense. A belief which was widely but unofficially held was formalized more than a millenium and a half after its general but not universal acceptance -- and you adduce it as evidence that the Church moves quickly on making Marian doctrine.
I also say again that you do not seem to understand, despite your lengthy researches how dogma or doctrine gets to be defined. The councils were called in response to questions and controversies. There wasn't a rulingon Icons until some yahoos started working against them. The Marian dogmas were defined in response to questions and appeals for their definition. So the absence of a definition is not a matter of slowness in deciphering but of the absence of a perceived need to make a determination.
You seem to think that it isn't believed until the people are told to believe it, while at the same time you think that the Vatican will precipitously give into popular pressure to declare Mary co-redemptrix. So they're slow to decipher but prone to act too quickly? The people who didn't reallybelieve anything about the Assumptionuntil they were told to are now forcing the Vatican to knuckle under on co-redemptrix? I must be missing your argument entirely.SLow and fast, weak and inert AND strong and uncontrollable. Get real?
BTW I think when RC's say "Dogma" they mean it's been defined.
Maybe we'd better start over. What is your worry about the whole co-redemptrix mess? (I mean outside of disagreeing with it?) On what basis did you say that we knew it would be made official soon? and what di the history of the Assumption (or the Immaculate conception) have to do with your knowledge?
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.