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/
AND THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TO THE CONTRARY--
THAT CHRIST LOATHED THE PONTIFICAL PHARISAICAL LITURGICAL FORM OF RELIGION DENYING THE POWER THEREOF.
My job around here would be a lot easier if people would "turn the other cheek" or "forgive and forget."
Are you trying to take all the fun out of the spitting contests?
I really do think that the liturgy thing is directly related to Christ's hostility to the arrogance and other practices of the pharisees. They wanted to pin Him down vis a vis a list of legalistic liturgical sorts of priorities in their eyes. He would have none of it.
That's an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT, I think, Tom. Thx.
The power of God, the wisdom of God is Jesus Christ Himself. All we need to do is declare Him, the Living Word of God - no power in heaven or earth - much less any poster on the forum - can prevail against Him.
Just declare a "winner" and be done with it.
Good points.
Pondering prayerfully.
Dear Alamo-Girl, even though I don't post very often lately, I always read your pings to me and generally take the time to read the context of the threads. Today I am blessed with time to find all your comments in the forum: Yes, I still think of you as a mentor, and love you dearly. The words above are one of many reasons why this is so. Thank you.
My greatest desire, given of my Gracious Redeemer, is to see souls won to Christ. This will not happen without the grace of Wisdom. I've been reading Spurgeon's treatment of the subject of soul winning over and over again, and this morning he sent me back to Proverbs 8-11, and also to the reminder of James, that we do lack Wisdom, but we may ask of our Giving Father and receive Wisdom without reproach but with His Great Liberality!
An excerpt from the teacher Spurgeon:
...he crowns with laurel only those who win souls. He does not declare that he who preaches is necessarily wise; and alas! there are multitudes who preach, and gain much applause and eminence, who win no souls, and who shall find it go hard with them at the last, because in all probability they have run and the Master has never sent them. Solomon does not say that he who talks about winning souls is wise, since to lay down rules for others is a very simple thing, but to carry them out one's self is far more difficult. He who actually, really, and truly turns men from the error of their ways to God, and so is made the means of saving them from going down to hell, is a wise man; and that is true of him whatever his style of soul-winning may be. He may be a Paul, deeply logical, profound in doctrine, able to command all candid judgments; and if he thus wins souls, he is wise. He may be an Apollos, grandly rhetorical, whose lofty genius soars into the very heaven of eloquence; and if he wins souls in that way, he is wise, but not otherwise. Or he may be a Cephas, rough and rugged, using uncouth metaphor and stern declamation; but, if he wins souls, he is no less wise than his polished brother or his argumentative friend, but not else. The great wisdom of soul-winners, according to the text, is proven only by their actual success in really winning souls. To their own Master they are accountable for the ways in which they go to work, not to us. Do not let us be comparing and contrasting this minister and that. Who art thou that judgest another man's servants? Wisdom is justified in all her children. Only children wrangle about incidental methods: men look at sublime results. Do these workers of many sorts and divers manners win souls? Then they are wise; and you who criticise them, being yourselves unfruitful, cannot be wise, even though you affect to be their judges. God proclaims soul-winners to be wise, dispute it who dare. This degree from the College of Heaven may surely stand them in good stead, let their fellow-mortals say what they will of them."He that winneth souls is wise," and this can be seen very clearly. He must be a wise man in even ordinary respects who can by grace achieve so divine a marvel. Great soul-winners never have been fools.
And as a post script I offer C.S. Lewis' Apologist’s Evening Prayer
Hello dear Quix!
Give me one example showing Christ's "aversion" to litugry.
You mean, like your arguments? As a Jews, an observant Jew, He would have been in a synagogue every Friday for liturgical worship.
Care to provide examples of this "huge amount of evidence" to that effect?
Clearly you are making things up.
I don't believe I'm making anything up. The verses I quoted explain that it is shame to have a shaven head, 1 Corithians (11:6) and that she should have power over her head (which is her covering,) becaue of the angels, in (11:10). For that same reason a man should not have long hair (11:14) - because of the angels (fallen).
Hair is shown as "tresses" in Strong's. It is showing a difference in "hair of the head" and "locks, tresses or ornamental". Many men wore their hair long but they were not "girly men" as Arnold would say. Those are the ones Paul is speaking to here. 11:14 "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." Would Paul be telling us that the long hair Christ wore was a shame?
Also, "covered", as used in 11:6 means - To cover wholly, veil, hide. Our veil is Christ and 11:10 tells us that He is that power.
In those times women did cover their head, as the Islamic women do today. However, the deeper meaning is to keep Christ over us.
Negative. She is covered 'because of the angels' (go figure, but that's what+Paul is saying). Besides, the the head of a woman is man not Christ, according to the Apostle (1 Cor 11:3). You are making things up.
No, I'm not making things up. I do agree that there is a pecking order, as shown in 11:3 but that does not mean women cannot teach (prophesy), as you said. When we marry we become one and it would be foolish to not listen to the strongest of that whole on their best subjects. Meaning - if the wife was a better organizer would you allow the man to tell you how to do what you do in a better way? If the man was a better provider would you make him leave his job and allow the woman to work at a lesser paying one? When you are one you utilize the best parts of the whole.
All of us should have Christ over us no matter what duty we perform for God and that would certainly include teaching His Word.
Thats all very well. To assault somebody's veracity on a medium which is only about discourse is a very basic assault. To do so repeatedly is serious stuff. I could be wrong, I am a lot, but I don't see how it can be overlooked.
What you write here is perfectly agreeable. I don't think many Protestants would have any problems with this at all. In all honesty, I think the disagreement is that many Protestants would "suspect" that in the above, the word "to" is what is operative instead of the word "for". We would see only one source where "to" would be applicable. I personally come to this concern partially through the standardized prayers I have seen to Mary and other saints. I know part of the response is that we are misunderstanding the intent behind those prayers and I am perfectly willing to put that within the realm of possibility. (Aren't I a nice guy? :) But, in the end, you know what you know, and don't have to worry about what anyone else thinks.
If, in gratitude, I dedicated myself to "serving" the pipe, by keeping it in good repair, it seems to me the Protestants would say I was insulting the well and acting like I thought the water was generated by the pipe.
If the well and the pipe were two different entities, then yes, I think we would have a pretty big disagreement. :) We would say that only One was worthy of dedication and service, etc. This makes me think that our respective frustrations are of the same type, but over different objects.
After a while, I just don't know how to deal with this persistent claim of knowing my intentions better than I know them.
Well, whenever I have done that, please accept my apologies. None of us should judge intentions, at least not without being able to back it up.
And We are supposedly to blame for everyone who misunderstands what we say.
I think the issue there is over the words used for doctrine, prayer, and the like. To outsiders, it certainly does "sound" a certain way. :) Right or wrong, I think it is correct to say that, regardless of any fault on anyone. So, the fair thing to conclude might be that they are only intended for internal consumption. But of course, even that opens up a new can of worms. :)
My neighbor saw the hypocrisy at a local Baptist church and resolved never to go again. I've tried to talk him out of it ...
Thank you my friend, I appreciate that. I just pray that it wasn't one of the Baptist churches that IS truly off the mark (i.e., the Clinton-Carter wing). Unfortunately, there are many of them. In any event, I hope is was the Lord who led your neighbor to do what he did. In the same situation, I wouldn't counsel my Catholic friend to stop going to Catholic worship because of some issue he was having at that particular church.
(Not you personally FK - You're in the group of Prots I would like to have too many beers with)
And the same with you, my friend. :)
... The way my feet are healing, the mind of Lister and whoever thought up antiseptic medicine. ...
I'm praying for a swift and sure recovery. Praise the Lord for His love.
Thank you Kosta - I went to the commentary and found it interesting. However, it was interpreted in a certain way and the interpretation I have is not the same.
We both believe we have the correct one and I truly don't think it is worth an argument. If you believe that a woman should have her head covered I don't see any problem with it. Neither belief harms our love of Christ.
As far as women not teaching in public I can't agree with. I think it goes against God's Word when He said His sons and daughters would prophesy.
The "fallen" angels are from Gen.6:2, 2Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Why would a woman need "power on her head" because of good angels?
Already answered on previous post
Now you will claim that I use a "random generator machine" to produce Scripture backing up the argument and that is your privilege. For serious students of the bible, the following verses will show, by God's word, that one man (Adam)sinned, and sin entered into the world, causing death. Before Adam sinned, there was sin, but the material creation was not subject to it.
Only ONE MAN (Jesus) by his obedience to God, changed this. Mary did not change it and Mary did not atone for us.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 5
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
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.