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 don't think Chrust would teach +Paul anything different than other Apostles.
I agree. We are working on his newsletter, si i will ask him to include proper etiquette.
Notr sure what happened (getting late I guess) but I said that I cross and kiss the icons of saints but do not prostrate for them
i think interpreting paul out of context of the other apostles just makes for very poor interpretations... almost as different as interpreting Catholics through what protestants do...
I know the Church took pains to figure these out, but I generally kiss the lower right corner of a "portrait" icon. group icons I kiss without kissing any one in particular. Christ icon I kiss His hand or His feet. But it really doesn't matter, does it?
I would NOT call this a full prostration. Even with the hand
It is considered prostration, and is listed as prostration in Orthodoxwiki. Again, as is the case with the bow, a 'small' bow is a sign or reverence, but a deep bow (as in when the Holy trinity is invoked) is a sign of worship.
At no time should Mary or any Saints (like at the prayer of the Dismissal) receive higher reverence than God, whether it is a bow, or prostration.
That is true of just about the entire Bible. However, the Church was initially deeply divided over +Paul's teaching.
The smoothing over described in the Acts (written at about 80 AD) was an attempt to show that the Church reconciled the whole issue of not following the law and circumcision as explained by +Paul (and +Paul's reasoning was not simply dismissive).
1 Clement was written c. 95 AD as an attmept to smooth over the deep rift that developed between the backers of +Peter/+James and +Paul. The same is true of 2 Peter (which was not written by +Peter; in fact, +Peter probably never wotre anything).
This rift lingered well into the 2nd century (i.e. Marcion, Gnostics, Ebionites).
In fact most of the latter-day Pauline Epistles are most likely not his because they lack many of the 'Gnostic' flavor Paul's earlier work is said to contain.
Clearly, we both and a lot of other folks think a lot about God, theology, history, The Church etc.
Our thinking thoughts does not at all insure that they are Biblical, accurate, Godly, kosher, . . .
I’m convinced that from time to time, a given thought MAY be as purely from God as whatever He delivered to Moses on Mt Sinai.
But I usually try to avoid having a quick conviction of that sort unless God makes it abundantly clear that I must. I prefer to not only compare such thoughts with Scripture but to also check them out with a consensus of the local Spirit-filled congregation—at least the wiser more discerning amongst them.
AND
TO WAIT FOR THE TEST OF SIGNIFICANT TIME and the fruit of such thoughts before settling on any emphatic convictions about same.
But as a rule of thumb, I try hard to avoid putting God in any of my personally constructed tidy little boxes.
well depending what you’d call a deep bow (as well as what the average bow is in our parish) i don’t think we disagree much if at all.
as i recall its the feeet if they’re shown if not hands, if not hands hair. i forget if there’s multiple saints pictures, and usually aim for hands and feet of each. assuming that folks wearing lipstick haven’t smeared it all over the icon, at which point i generally go close to each.
That is the core of our checks and balances, Q. In the end we must defer to the collective wisdom over individual intellect.
The hands (right hands) are always okay because that's the hand that holds the Eucharist, but any hand will do.
Women should not be wearing lipstick to church; St. John Chrysostom explained that 1600 years ago. It's vain and it smears the holy images.
Small bow is from the neck. Big bow is from the waist.
the lipstick thing just annoys me. if they feel wearing lipstick is ok, they should at least be THEM not physicially touching th icon not the folks who’d prefer to and don’t coat their lips with wax first.
Protestants are Christians too !
this sorta goes back to my question; is kissing the icon with hand extended a deep bow?
in the course of liturgy (aside from icon kissing) i’ve never seen a bow of any magnitude for anyone but God...
What "specific" words are you referring to? Do you mean faithful (chaciyd) or holy (qadowsh)? I would suggest going to the following Blue Letter Bible.
they keep right on beleiving that anyway...
No, that is mentania (modified prostration, in place of a full prostration). In Japan, many approach the icon of Christ and do a full prostration, knees, hands, face to the ground, but nto during liturgy.
A deep bow, is from the waist up, perhaps 30 degrees or deeper. A small bow (for the priest, Saints, etc.) is from the neck up (basically closer to a nod).
Trouble is people prostrate for all icons (not just Christ's) and sometimes make a deep bow as well.
in the course of liturgy (aside from icon kissing) i’ve never seen a bow of any magnitude for anyone but God
Until someone decides to re-invent the wheel, as is the case with these pious people in my church.
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.
