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 1 chronicles 29:20-21, I have no idea what translation that could be as you haven't referenced it, but the Hebrew is clearly speaking of the festive occasion of the annointing of Solomon as king, and no one is worshipping him or David.
If there is no Mary worship, then why all the temples in her name? About 90 per cent of Catholic churches are "our Lady" this or that
Excellent question. Awhile ago I read a great quote by John Colet, the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in London from 1510...
"We are such as our conversation is; and practice most oft that which we most oft hear."
If it looks like Mary-worship, and sounds like Mary-worship, and reads like Mary-worship, and we spend all our time in this activity, then this is what we will know and believe and become.
If RCs would stop praying to Mary and stop asking Mary for her intercession, and stop naming churches after Mary, and stop falling to their knees before the stock of a tree painted to look like Mary, then perhaps they would be more successful in getting away from looking and sounding and acting exactly like worshipers of Mary.
Categorically untrue, especially for the Orthodox. :) For example:
Gal 3:27-29 : 27 ... for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
---------------
Not only did Paul not know Jesus in person, but by the time he died, I seriously doubt he even met Mary or if he did meet her he probably did not take extra time to honor the Mother of the Man he claimed was his God.
It is not Biblically sound to imply that the relationship between Christ and Paul was "less than" that with the other Apostles. Their "in person" relationship was very close. Unless one wants to call Paul a liar, he is very specific that his teachings came not from any man, but directly from Christ. Since he is by far the most prolific writer of the NT, I would call that a pretty special and close relationship.
On what would you base your assumptions about Paul if he met Mary? It's kind of funny because I actually agree with you that he would not have treated Mary with the veneration and devotion given by the Apostolic Church today. I'll bet we would have different reasons for that. :)
Works are definitely not sufficient, but the independent mind will read that "not by faith alone are ye saved" and conclude just that. It will also see that the works that are not salvific refer to circumcision or "boast" in the scripture.
This statement ["Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him"] speaks for itself and highlights a great difference in mindset
This statement is plain fact and plain scripture. You don't recognize it?
I believe the scriptures are meant to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary.
"Catholic" is the word you are looking for. Still, again I stated a plain fact: the New Testament for the most part is written to specific churches and individuals and avoid prophetic or theological-academic tone.
are we to conclude that "some" of God's commandments are perspicuous, yet others are completely indecipherable, except to the men who claim they are the only ones who know the "real" truth?
Why, yes, -- perhaps not completely undecipherable, but allowing for multiple interpretations. It is in fact, said so in the scripture: "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11); "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).
2 Cor 1:13-14 [...] Your view also contradicts 2 Tim. 3, since it would not be the scripture which was profitable, but only the on-high interpretation of it by the hierarchy. The scripture by itself would be virtually useless.
In that passage from 2 Corinthians St. Paul merely says that his previous letter to the same church was clear. It cannot be extended to everything St. Paul wrote because, again, the scripture contains a warning about his lack of perspiciuty:
"15 ... our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3).
Regarding the profitability of the scripture versus the interpretation, is it your contention that the scripture remains profitable if it is incorrectly interpreted?
As for naming Churches as a proof that the, uh, name-ee is being worshipped, then around here they worship Broadus Wood and Broadus Wood first Baptized On Saturday up to his neck while drinking poison and handling snakes Church. Actually I don't know if Broadus Wood is a person or a forest, but if it's a forest, why then that is the grove worship specifically denounced here and there in the OT.
Like I say: Q.E.D. God is gone MASH you!
We are not sure indeed. This is why 2 Peter speaks of making sure one's calling and election.
That [John 6:52] is salvation by ritual sacrament
Salvation by sacrament, yes. This is what the verse says.
uncounted millions of Catholics are doomed because they either do not participate, or they do so while unworthy
They still can rely, with the uncounted Protestants and the unbaptized, on the boundless mercy of Christ, but yes, indeed, deliberate withdrawal from the sacraments of the Church is a grave sin.
not that [...] we take care of our own salvations by choosing to participate in ritual sacraments.
The scripture says the exact opposite: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day" (John 6).
But you turn it around to mean that the elect carry on the work, God peers through His crystal ball to see who performed, and then elects them. Phil. 1:6 says the opposite, God will carry on the work to completion
"12 ... with fear and trembling work out your salvation. 13 For it is God who worketh in you" (Phil 2). The distinction between the elect working and God working is artificial; however, there is no scripture that says that God violates the free will of the elect as He leads them.
the fresh-eye reading [of 2 Peter 1:4] does not lead to one thinking he has been given a divine nature
No, it plainly says that one has been given to partake in the Divine Nature.
your take is going to be that only past sins were forgiven because Christ only did a partial on the cross
No, simply that the passage says "past sins", and I read what is written, because I am Catholic. The fact that St. Peter refers to the past sins in that verse indicates that the passage is not an extravagant reminder of already secured election, but an exortation to good works, and hardly the only one in the scripture at that.
NO!
I rely on the witness of Holy Spirit with my spirit.
God's training course insures that with those WHO TRULY SEEK HIM FIRST AND FOREMOST AND ALWAYS
. . . such inner witness will be perceived increasingly accurately.
Which . . . is clearly God's goal.
NOT
that an edifice, organization and/or leaders be placed between Christ's Bride and Christ on honeymoon night.
This is not rocket science, folks.
Christ was persistently simple and clear when the pharisees assaulted Him
WITH . . . drum roll . . .
all kinds of . . .
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
and customs and laws and logic etc. etc. etc. etc. and etc.
When Jesus takes me home . . .
And then, I've only just BEGUN! PTL!
When we've been there 10,000 years, we've no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun. . . .
Of course; I know you well enough to say that you are not anti-Catholic. I simply meant that the predisposition to sovereign individual judgement trumping authority, especially church authority, and certainly anything early-medieval and undemocratic is a uniquely modern idea. That -- I don't blame you for it -- is your lens.
Not especially specific. 1 John refers to the Father being "an advocate" (not "the" advocate), and Christ spoke of the Holy Ghost being Paraclete, that is, advocate.
The notion that no one can advocate or mediate before Christ because Christ is mediator to the Father is illogical. It is also refuted by the very passage where that mediatorship is proclaimed: "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men" (1 Timothy 2:1).
OH GAG ME WITH A SPOON!
I'm reminded of David going out to slay Goliath. Saul put all his armor on him etc. David, being the discerning, anointed, Spirit-filled lad that he was, flushed all that JUNK. Took his few stones and went and slew the giant.
GOD IS WELL ABLE AND HAS REPEATEDLY raised up quality, vibrant, balanced, effective tribal churches with simply the spoken New Testament in their language as a guide.
THEY DIDN'T NEED:
1. the magicsterical
2. the pontifical power mongers
3. the fossilized edifice
4. the !!!!!TRADITIONS!!!!!
5. the customs
6. the rituals
7. the politics
8. the pontifical ecclesiastical armies, bureaucrats, hangers on
9. the images and idols
10. the crawling on knees on broken glass
11. the rosary
12. Mary
. . .
nor . . . drum roll . . .
. . .
13. the ligurgical language! LOL
THE LIVING SPOKEN WORD AND HOLY SPIRIT WERE SUFFICIENT!
Must have something to do with God being our ALL SUFFICIENCY! Fancy That! Just like He said!
There you go again! All that pesky
ACTIONS SCREAMING LOUDER THAN WORDS
but with the incrimminating words, too!
Good point. In other words, whether by scripture or by dogma, it is the Church speaking in either case.
"We are such as our conversation is; and practice most oft that which we most oft hear."
= = =
INDEED. Said better by you than I have in umpteen posts.
Not only did Paul not know Jesus in person,
= = =
LOL.
So it was an imposter who met him on the Damascus road and taught him in the wilderness???
LOL.
Can you take your posters to some highway, please? You are among adults here. You've been asked many times.
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.