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/
That gospel to the Jews??? Yea, I've read it...
You ever read Paul's gospel to the Gentile Christian church??? You need to read it...
"You really ought to write a gospel of your own"
No, you really need to read the gospel in its entirety in context.
(Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19)These verses you cite say that the bread that Jesus used and the wine that Jesus used was the same they had been eating and drinking all evening as part of the meal. During the meal He holds up a piece of the bread that they had been eating and says "this is my body" and then He holds up the bowl of wine they had been drinking and says "this is my blood" and then He eats the bread and drinks the wine with them and He says "do this in remembrance of me".
Jesus says it was just a memorial act for if it was His flesh it would not be a memorial but actual. Jesus ate it with them and He wasn't eating His own flesh or drinking His own blood. Jesus was not yet dead so His physical body was intact. Jesus gave Judas Iscariot the bread and wine even though Jesus knew he would betray Him so it certainly did not have any sanctifying power or grace attached to it. Jesus said He would once again participate in the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine in the kingdom which is evidence that they are symbols looking back to what Jesus accomplished and forward to the coming feast, not the continual reiteration of a sacrifice once and for all given for the sins of the world.
By the way, where did this come from "Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you (1 Cor 11:24)"? I know of no competent translation of that passage that gives that sense.
But I wonder who many of you would go out of your way to spend time with a man who shot you so that you needed a colostomy and then tell the world that he had not only your pardon but your trust?
Have you read, say, Veritatis Splendor? In not then you really have no idea how this man thought. There have been some jerky Popes. J2P2 was not perfect, but he was no jerk.
Mary, that is precisely (from my POV) what I mean. I read the diversities of gifts passage along with Christ's promise to the Church to mean exactly that sometimes I should ask other people in the Church who have Spiritual gifts I don't have. I understand God to have promised gifts to the Apostles and to their successors.
Your opinion seems to be that you don't need to look for somebody who has a gift you don't have but can ask God to give you the theological discernment you want without any of that pesky obedience stuff.
I'm ont saying right or wrong, (it's clear which side I'm on, though, I'm not pretending it isn't) I just don't see how what you say squares with Paul.
(psst: for overall evaluation -- if you want to evaluate overalls, that is -- I think you need to consider whether or not it was a passover meal and then look at the possibility of different breads at different times - cups too. I don't remember all the details, but it's good stuff.)
Yes, just tonite on cable tv I see something referencing "Our Lady of the Angels". What the heck is that? Our lady of the Immaculate Heart. Our lady of Guatemala, our lady of the Atonement (what is that?), our lady Queen of Peace, our lady of Lourdes, our lady of fatima, our lady of the immaculate conception, our lady of the Assumption, our lady of perpetual virginity,
Maybe they're setting the stage for a new Marion doctrine:
Wellll, dear Bro, Scripture seems to disagree with you: "THE HEART IS DECEITFULLY WICKED. WHO CAN KNOW IT?"
Out of the abundance of the heart . . . the mouth speaks and the body acts [Qx elaboration, of course].
And, if I have to bet my life on evidence, I'll go with the ACTIONS vs the words, VIRTUALLY EVERY TIME.
If it walks like a Genuflect; lays eggs like a Genuflect; Quacks like a Genuflect; flies like a Genuflect; provides pillow stuffing like a Genuflect; waddles like a Genuflect; swims like a Genuflect; is about the same size as a Genuflect; . . . then just perhaps, it really is a DUCK!
And, the Chinese really do have a point--that the onlookers see the game best.
[at the college but playing hooking from pottery because I don't feel like getting all mucked up. Did patch one of my odd pregnant pots, though.]
You make it sound, Dawg, like you've never met anyone in a situation where you knew their heart better than they did.
You make it sound like none of the RC'S, ORTHIES HAVE BLIND SPOTS! LOL! ROTFLOL! GTTM!
Sigh.
Amen.
I loved John Paul. I was just really shocked that he would pray thanks to Mary and that it was made public. I'm sure he thanked God but to publicly thank Mary just gives fuel to those who believe Catholics worship her more than they do Jesus. I don't hate catholics, Mad Dawg, but I do have a real problem with some of the teachings, just as you do with ours.
I take that Scripture extremely seriously, Dawg.
I don't consider myself RETURNING evil at all. But RETURNING is certainly a key word in the exchanges. Thread after thread after thread is posted with a startling to shocking to outrageous PROTTY BAITING OR EVEN BASHING title. And, some of the RC/Orthy sorts are extremely all encompassing in their blackwashing and outrageously shrill in their wording and tone and assaults.
In my experience, such folks don't even REGISTER love and kindness in their consciousness in such exchanges. ONLY fierce replies even show up on their horizon.
Regardless, their shrill hostilities need some level of similar intensity in the exchange of ideas. It's not fitting for the truth to come off wimpy by comparison.
I'm not saying that at all, MD. If you ask a person with the gift of discernment or healing or whatever gift they have, I don't consider that 'the church,' which I figured you meant as the church hierarchy. Sorry if I misunderstood.
When in doubt, ask the Church, the Holy Scripture teaches:
if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Mt 18:17)
Mary, there is no merit in refusing to understand what those who disagree with you think. Do you REALLY think that J2P2 did not think that God was ultimately responsible for his surviving the assassination attempt? Do you really think that he did not thank God? This is not play here. Many of you guys not only obviously hate us but revel in your hatred and so insist on misunderstanding.
= = =
Word choices matter, MD.
You are away in the Navy. For 2 years on super secret sub assignments.
You come home. Wife, kids, dog come running out to greet you. You stoop down and pet the dog and talk to the dog about how wonderful, warm, furry and friendly he is and how you've missed him.
You stand up and ask the wife what's for dinner. She protests.
You assert she should have known you missed her!
Why ever choose Mary over God?
The comment about the future anthropologists/archeologists would be true.
"if you want to evaluate overalls"
Oh, I did, I did. Same bread and same wine and Jesus and Judas Iscariot ate and drank them together. Notice the meal had no spiritual effect on any of the disciples. Judas betrayed, Peter was just as impulsive, brash and yellow, three couldn't keep from sleeping, and when the going got rough the disciples just cowardly slinked off into the night like Sir. Robin.
I've reached out in caring service and thick forgiveness to enemies who've been ruthlessly viscious and horrid to me.
Sometimes even on FR.
if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Mt 18:17)
You are completely out of context...And, the verse you cite has nothing to do with the topic being discussed...
Besides, the 'church' referred to is the body of born again believers...Not the 'rulers' at your church...Completely different church altogether...
The short answer to your silly reply is NO, the Protestants are actually the proud inheritors of the Pharisees, sans liturgy.
The rest of your comment shows, it appears, ignorance of Judaism since you must be the only person in the world who denies that Judaism is a liturgical religion. All elements of the Jewish liturgy are contained in Eucharistic services, including the benediction and sacrifice/offering, and standing when the Torah/Gospel is read.
Jewish sacrifices and offerings to God can be made only in the Temple, so until that time when the Temple is rebuilt, Judaism will not practice animal slaughter at the altar, but will most certainly resume such practice when the Temple is rebuilt.
Sermon on the Mount (I had to laugh that you would even mention such an event and try to connect it to the liturgy) was not a synagogue or a Temple service. Public religious services are structured and include readings, prayers, benediction and sacrifice/offering in a structured manner. Eucharistic services are carryovers from Judaism (not Pharisaical Judaism only, for the Sadducees were the priests of the Temple leading the service, and the Essenes made offerings of the cup and had a communal meal), which the early Christians practiced as Jewish services.
Evidence of that can be found in Didache (c. 70 AD).
I'm wondering if it is a feminized mythology or something else. They made the blessed Virgin into an ideal: human sexuality inferior, and as such, non-existent and able to give birth without disturbing the hymen at all.
The protoevangel of James notes that she was tempted to have sex, and I guess the details are pretty lurid, and that's one of the main reasons it was shunned. I've not read the proto. I gained this information from The Life of Christ, by Giuseppi Ricciotti, a Roman Catholic priest. The book is a great source of information, and to many people considered an insuperable book of its kind.
Hermann Sasse notes that Mary's assumption constitutes man's attempt to be on even footing with Jesus. Look for his piece online, it's a fascinating read with some historical info that is good to know. I think the placement of her as sinless alone among humans makes Jesus no longer unique. She is the neck of his body, and to get to the head you must pass through the neck. For The Head to get to you, He has to come down through the neck. And they've not finished yet until such time as they've attached belief in all this to the bare-bones requirement of the possibility of one's salvation.
Can you imagine St. Paul preaching this view of salvation to his Galatians? Or St. Peter to his congregation? Either one affording neither baptism or the Holy Bread (1 Samuel 21) to anyone who doesn't believe this? I can't.
Why is it that the development of doctrine always seems to be at the expense of the unique character of Christ as found in Scripture? Why does the development of doctrine always result in moving Christ further away from His Sheep, not closer. It is something I've never understood. Instead of King he becomes the CEO who delegates to the saints, and really is none too happy to have you approach him outside the parameters designed by the developers of doctrine?
And, all of this perfection of woman in the ideal that eminates from these doctrines -all under the cloak of some sort of higher-end theology- is not truly Hebraic either, as far as I can tell. It bespeaks an impostion of the Hellenistic upon the Hebraic, and which to me rings false.
I don't know if you've visited Pastor Leithart's site in the last few days, but he had the following piece there, which I don't really think is connected directly to our discussion here, but represents yet another piece of the puzzle falling into place for me.
True Humanity In the second edition of his book on ritual in the early modern period (Cambridge 2005), Edward Muir describes the 14th and 15th century obsession with "Christ's carnality": "As Leo Steinberg has shown, in fifteenth-century Italy thoroughly Christian artists made visual allusions to Christ's phallus, showing that the god-man had all the attributes of other men. In many paintings the Virgin Mary pointed to the penis of the infant Jesus, and some scenes of the deposition from the cross obviously showed the outlines of Christ's adult member beneath the obligatory cloth that hid his sex from view. Allied to this concentration on the parts of Christ's body was the cult of the holy foreskin. Other than the consecrated host and perhaps some drops of blood shed on the cross, the fleshy residue from the infant Jesus's circumcision would have been the only bodly remnant of Christ on earth since the rest of the his body was resurrected and ascended to heaven. The researches of Caroline Walker Bynum have shown that the cult of the holy foreskin seems to have had a certain charm for female mystics. When Catherine of Siena experienced her mystic marriage to the infant Jesus, she received from him a ring made not of gold but of his foreskin."
Here's a link to his site.
I never know how far off the trail I might acutally be as I'm thinking about all of this, which I do quite often.
This is true. Likewise, a priest can consecrate ordinary wheat bread and fermented grape wine and they boceom the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is exactly what the Church teaches.
Jesus ate it with them and He wasn't eating His own flesh or drinking His own blood.
This is your opinion. I read the scripture -- which is silent on the particular issue whether the elements transsubstantiated for Jesus as well.
"Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you (1 Cor 11:24)"?
I ordinarily quote from Douay-Rheims. This is the Young's Literal for the entire verse:
and having given thanks, he brake, and said, `Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me.'
The Greek verb that D-R has "delivered" is "klomenon" (with an Omega). I cannot find it in Liddell-Scott in the time I currently have, and don't know it from memory. Jerome has it translated "tradetur", delivered or betrayed.
the 'church' referred to is the body of born again believers
This is the Protestant spin; it clearly is not in the context of Matthew 18 because the body of believers is referenced separately in the preceding verse.
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.