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/
I googled Leithart's fascinating sermon from January and caught the cached version. But when I went back to finish reading it, it was gone. Phooey. It looked really dense. I figured I'd need more than one reading. I liked what he was saying about comedy and tragedy, and how all time and reality and history are centered on the cross. Too bad it can't be accessed for some reason.
Here's some of his sermon notes which reference "The Cross of Reality" --
http://www.leithart.com/archives/002836.php
Likewise, certainly, there are many ways to gain fuller understanding of any issue with research etc., including the Bible.
However, my point relates to an average "Jo" (not, not jo kus!) who picks up a Bible and starts reading it in English. unless he goes out of his way to discern the text to a greater depth, he will get a false impression.
The fallacy is not really glaringly obvious, but may even seem trivial. However, the concepts derived from such fine differences actually may lead him astray.
Consider watching a historical movie. Unless you are a history buff, or just happen to come from the are where the movie narrative takes place, you are likely to walk out of the movie theater with a skewed or confused idea what took place.
What I am talking about are subtle nuances that are not obvious. Thus, Jesus says "be therefore perfect..." but He is really saying become (future tense) therefore perfect..." Or, in the Lord's Prayer we read "forgive us as we forgive ..." instead of "forgive as we have forgiven ..." The Greek version is in perfect harmony with the verses that follow, namely that "you must forgive in order for the Father to forgive you..." The order of what must take place first is crucial in formulating the faith.
Thus, I had a Protestant on one of these threads tell me that that was a lot of hot air because we have already been forgiven!
Take for instance even the English language. vengeance used to mean a slightly different thing than it does today. reading KJV English is not conducive to clear comprehension because it is an outdated language. Concepts change, and so do words.
Thus, in order to be able to read the NT and fully understand it without going to lexicons and following someone else's interpretation, it is imperative to read it and comprehend it in Greek.
As a native Serbian speaker, I know that no translation ever lives up to the original. Unfortunately, people who speak only one language can never appreciate that because they have no reference to relate to. Just as men will never know what its like to give birth.
A lot of wisdom in your words.
However,
EITHER THE ESSENTIAL TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL
ARE TRANSCENDENT
or they aren't.
If they aren't, nothing else matters.
If they are, language is a relatively minor issue when Holy Spirit is heard and reasonably reliable translations are available.
GOD IS ABLE TO INSURE HIS TRANSCENDENT WORD REACHES THROUGH.
That is the essence of the whole issue. For the Protestants who are "their own popes," a thorough understanding of the Scripture in context and culture and language in which they were written would be a requirement. Plus, one would have to come up with all the arguments and counterarguments accumulated over the past 2,000 years — all on one's own and all in one's limited lifetime!
It's like trying to be your own master electrician, carpenter, architect, builder and computor programmer, speak three languages and hold six doctoral degrees all in one!
Liturgical Churches have retained the collective knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures which one single person can only approach at best with extraordinary effort.
We know that Catholics/Orthodox do not read the scripture as much as the Protestants. But their participation in the liturgical life is scriptural, without being formally theological, and without creating a 'personal religion' our of a personal relationship with God. We can always go back and check how the Church handled a particular issue, in context and in the cultural milieu of the times.
Protestants, on the other hand, search and pick here and there, trying to piece together the puzzle, often confusing, as jo kus aptly pointed out recently, personal opinions with the Holy Spirit. In fact, so many of them seem to equate, personal opinion with the word of God.
Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Your graciousness, your hospitality, these are also qualities of thine in Christ I seek to emulate. Amen!
Every one of us ought to be at work for Christ, but the great mass of us cannot do great things. Don't despise, then, the day of little things. You can only give a penny. Now then, he that sat over by the treasury did not despise the widow's two mites that made a farthing. Your little thank-offering, if given from your heart, is as acceptable as if it had been a hundred times as much. Don't, therefore, neglect to do the little. Don't despise the day of small things. You can only give away a tract in the street. Don't say, "I won't do that." Souls have been saved by the distribution of tracts and sermons. Scatter them, scatter them--they will be good seed. You know not where they may fall. You can only write a letter to a friend sometimes about Christ. Don't neglect to do it: write one tomorrow. Remember a playmate of yours; you may take liberties with him about his soul from your intimacy with him. Write to him about his state before God, and urge him to seek the Saviour. Who knows?--a sermon may miss him, but a letter from the well-known school companion will reach his heart.Thank you so much, Dr. E. for that excerpt and link. Good stuff.Despise not these little opportunities. Put a word in edgeways for Christ--you that go about in trains, you that go into workshops and factories. If Christians were men who were all true to their colours, I think we should soon see a great change come over our great establishments. Speak up for Jesus--be not ashamed of him, and because you can say but little, don't refuse, therefore, to say that, but rather say it over twenty times, and so make the little into much. Again, and again, and again, repeat the feeble stroke, and there shall come to be as much result from it as from one tremendous blow. God accepts your little works if they are done in faith in his dear Son. God will give success to your little works: God will educate you by your little works to do greater works; and your little works may call out others who shall do greater works by far than ever you shall be able to accomplish. Evangelists, go on preaching at the street corner--you that visit the low lodging-houses, go on. Get into the room and talk of Jesus Christ there as you have done. You that go into the country towns on the Sabbath and speak on the village-greens of Christ, go on with it. I am glad to see you, but I am glad to miss you when I know you are about the Master's work. We don't want to keep the salt in the box: let it be rubbed into the putrid mass to stay the putrification. We don't want the seed forever in the corn-bin: let it be scattered and it will give us more. Oh! brethren and sisters, wake up if any of you are asleep. Don't let an ounce of strength in this church be wasted--not a single grain of ability, either in the way of doing, or praying, or giving, or holy living. Spend and be spent, for who hath despised the day of small things? The Lord encourage weak believers, and the Lord accept the efforts of feeble workers, and send to both his richest benediction for Christ's sake. Amen.
Thank you for this one, too!
On the magnificent woman in God's sight, and the 'quietness' He desires:
...let it be the hidden person of the heart,Thank you for bringing this to mind with your post.
with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit,
which is precious in the sight of God.
~1 Peter 3:4
Next thing you know, you're going to say criticism of the RCC is the same as criticizing GOD.
What exactly do you mean?
I've heard that argument before.
Why?
You are obviously well read and intelligent. I can see the value of discussion and fellowship when trying to understand Scripture, but why give your God given ability of discernment to someone else?
I didn't expect you to get it.
The discussion was about the assumption of Mary your church professes. My point was straightforward. We have only 2 examples in Scripture of human beings that did not suffer death, Enoch and Elijah. The theory of Mary's assumption is not in Scripture. If you wish to build a doctrine around assumption and it's significance you should look to those that actually were assumed into heaven.
That is well said brother!
It may seem one sided because you don't see Protestants and Baptists declaring they are being bashed very much.
Then that led to well if she did all that, she must be greater than God. After all she gave birth to her own Creator. So she must be the Queen of Heaven. Although Isis had that role and God through Jeremiah said not to worship such a one, the Catholics want to bake cakes to her and eat them too.
Jer 44:17
But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
Besides it's a tradition.
I appreciate your direct answers.
I think that the views and opinions of the early theologians (I'm not sure church fathers is appropriate) are very valuable and often helpful. However, I don't think they are any more valuable than many of the fine theologians throughout history and should never be thought of as having the same weight as Scripture.
"I think that the views and opinions of the early theologians (I'm not sure church fathers is appropriate) are very valuable and often helpful. However, I don't think they are any more valuable than many of the fine theologians throughout history and should never be thought of as having the same weight as Scripture."
Well, individually, their opinions are certainly less weighty than Scripture. The consensus of their early opinions, however, formed a substantial part of the basis for the determination of the canon of the NT and were of particular importance to the concilliar decisions on the great Christological and Trinitarian questions of the early Church. Scripture, the consensus patrum, the forms and substance of liturgical prayer and concilliar decisions are all interdependent in fulfilling the purpose of The Church which is to assist mankind in theosis and to be valid clearly require the action of the Holy Spirit moving through very large numbers of inspired people. In Orthodoxy we speak of being sanctified/advancing in theosis within a liturgical/Eucharistic community; its not generally an individual pursuit. Indeed, in Orthodoxy individuality in religious belief or practice is believed to be very dangerous except for the most adavnced in theosis because of the ability of the Evil One to appear to the individual as a being of light. In this way it is fundamentally different from Protestantism which is at base individualistic. I think when we all discuss the differences between Orthodoxy (or the Latin Church, some Anglicans, some Lutherans and/or the Oriental Orthodox) and Protestantism it is important to remember this fundamental difference in religious mindset.
You make me want to go to Church with you, .30.
No I'm just tired of it. You guys think (a)that we worship Mary and (b) that if we don't then it's our fault that some dunderheads who go to our churches do.
Yes and no. We don't live in a vacuum. And there is a LOT of aiding and abetting nonsense that goes on in most conregations. And in ancient ones, there's usually more such. Sometimes one aids and abets by being silent. Sometimes by applauding. Sometimes by joining in. Sometimes by merely showing up and not protesting. How much you may do so is between you and God. I could imagine little to none though I'd think there must be some because of your statements hereon. These issues are not always minor issues.
Most of us Protties are SICK AND TIRED of the Protty bashing and baiting that is the SOP with some. But we are not about to roll over and play dead about the important issues being thrown at us.
And, you may have noticed, matching intensity for intensity is more my brief. I'm rarely very shrill with you, any more. I have a better understanding of your heart for God.
I see a lot of what amounts psychologically to shrine and ancestor worship in Virginia. I used to call it "Virginia Shinto" when I was in the pulpit. I don't blame it on the various denominations. I think "homecomings" are a fine thing to do. But they do nurture Virginia Shinto or provide a friendly environment for it. But when (IF) our people blue from hyper dulia to latria, it'sour fault, But if one of your people go the other way, it's not your fault? I note that Tertullian ended up a Montanist, but I don't conclude that the "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" gang are all crypto-heretics waiting for some stimulus to burst into frank fulminating heresy
Need to close IE7 so will try and get back to this. LUB,
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.