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/
All Calvin has is froth at the mouth. When I see anything of substance and of scripture, I'll respond.
Regarding the Last Supper, I go by what Christ said, not you or Calvin.
Spiritual sacrifice is a hard saying for many to understand
Thanks for (a)sourcing your quote and (b) reminding me how corrosive and mind-destroying hatred can be.
I didn't say we were perfect. Shall we now line up anecdotes rumored or substantiated of things we have done badly? I wonder what church General Custer went to when he was in town.
Just like the Bereans?
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Does Jesus intend to drink His own blood at His Second Coming? Or does He change it back into wine before He drinks it?
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
- Matthew 26:27-29
So you do believe that criticism of Beethoven is blasphemy.
Interesting.
General Custer attended The Blessed virgin Holy Scalp-ular
Yes, this accounts for much of the anxiety found within that church. Apparently God does not choose His children, the church does, according to their philosophy.
And that church might decide to give the child back to the orphanage if it doesn't obey all the rules.
So He does have hinges on the side of His body!
Are you talking about St. Paul again?
Regards
Don't you know that an affront against Mary is virtually identical with an affront against Christ Himself! I mean, he CAME FROM HER [blessed be her exalted motherishness].
And, that means, of course, that ALL her little head doilies are exalted as well. So, no coffee stains or it's to heel with you.
And don't forget her sashes . . . to tie . . . well, various things UP. So don't get your grubby hands close to her sashes.
Then there's her lovely little slippers. Remember, how beautiful are the feet of those who spread Good News. But in her case, her feet have to be exalted so we say they were beyond beautiful. Simply divine. DIVINELY BEAUTIFUL. Or is it BEAUTIFULLY DIVINE. I should look up that magicsterical encyclical. Have to get these things LITURGICALLY CORRECT, you know!
That means of course that all her toe nail clippings have to be kept in golden jars in a place of honor and prominence.
And therefore, before sitting down to eat, all must file past the golden jars of toenail clippings and clip a few in her honor. Or is it kiss a few in her honor. I forget.
And, then, of course the dust that touched her toes has become adorable, honorable, venerable thereby and must also be exalted. But we don't put that in golden jars. We have quartz crystal jars for that so the faithful can gaze upon the dust from the toenail clippings of the toes of the feet of the body of the
And so ends the sacrament of the toenail clippings.
May all the faithful now clip in unison.
Pay attention to the language...
He didn't say "This gate is me".
I am the true vine
He didn't say "This vine is me".
He DID say "THIS {bread} is my body..."
Regards
There is NO Scriptural support for any of those beliefs.
They are the fiction of a neutered church which incorporated heathen, feminized mythology into its liturgy and which continues to misconstrue matter and sexuality and salvation.
Yep. As we've seen demonstrated throughout this thread.
He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:15-20 "Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
Yes, the Church operates on the example of the Bereans.
Oh, I get it, When you run out of arguments you start being offensive.
It would seem that what you expect is for me to find some Protestant who was outrageous and weird, while littering my conversation with mockery of, say the version of the Bible issued with a denim cover so it would look cool. Then we get to line up our weirdoes and correct for the comparative size of the pool of members from which the weirdos arose. and see who has the highest PPM bizarro. We ought to be able to spend months on this without either of us learning a thing. As I say, hatred is mind destroying, but I don't have to join in.
No thanks. There were bad Catholics. Evidently there has never been a cruel or fruitcakey Protestant.
I have never heard anyone make the connection of Enoch or Elijah as a representative of the entire people of God. They were individuals - they do not indicate to us that WE TOO will follow. At best, they tell us that ONLY A VERY SELECT FEW WILL BE SAVED! Not much hope for you and I! But with Mary, Revelation 12 clearly makes the connection, among other places, that Mary is a type of the Church, the People of God. Being part of Mother Church, we see our own future in the Woman of Revelation 12 - and we see Mary herself, the Ark of the New Covenant.
I think this is clearly in the Bible and the first Christians found it when looking at how God worked during the time of Christ. Thus, we see the first Christians speaking of Mary in such a way that we don't see explicitly in Scriptures.
I think where you are having difficulties is the artificial concept that only things in the Scriptures are valid to believe. Christianity never would have gotten off the ground with that idea floating around. We'd still be circumcising, because the Scriptures do not give the Apostles the mandate to do away with circumcision. Yet, the Church, given the power to bind and loosen, DESPITE the Old Testament commands, loosened the requirement for men to be circumcised before entering into the Church.
Once you see how God expresses Himself through the Word and the Living Church, it will become more clear to you.
Regards
Mankind from the time of Cain, has desired to worship God in his own way, not in God's way. Even though God has laid out a text for them with the correct way to worship, many men find it more satisfying to do it their way. Doesn't matter if you cite Cain, doesn't matter if you cite the rogue Levites, doesn't matter if you cite Saul, doesn't matter if you cite the Golden Calf. Going to do it their way, because it's much more satisfying.
He said
You guys (RCs) crack me up. When it's convenient you are as literal as the fundamentalists you so often ridicule. Then you insist on a liberal reading.
I wish you would make up your collective minds.
LOL.
For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." -- Luke 6:43-45"For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
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.