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 am Catholic, and I just elaborated, for your benefit.
I'm not in the habit of taking grandiose doctrines of men as even hints of truth. The Scriptural standard is still my standard. I also don't consider traditions and doctrines of men to be very beneficial. Quite the opposite.
Don't think twice about it brother!
I was just enjoying your post with my coffee.
Luke 11:27-28 “....Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You! But he said, More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
1Cor. 10:14 “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.”
1Tim. 2:5 “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,”
Scripture is very clear, it is about JESUS and no one stands between us and JESUS.
= = = =
INDEED!
MORE THAN THAT . . . Guess they don’t have those words in their Bibles else there’d be statues all over creation to all the saints who’ve believed and done . . . and they’d be MORE VENERATING them! LOL.
Nope. Scientists you are not. That much is obvious. Tests can prove or disprove whether a scientific model is working or not.
Science creates working models not truthful models. A perfect example of one is the Ptolemaic navigational system. It was based on geocentric premises and it still works! But today we know its assumptions were wrong (as far as geocentricity is concerned).
Evidence shows that humans were not created exactly as the Genesis tells us. That doesn't mean that archeology and anthropology can tell us just how the humans were formed, or why for that matter.
The craters on the moon and the moon itself are undeniable facts. That doesn't mean we know how they were formed or why. We have theories, and some working models, but working models can be wrong. What we do know is that the moon is not a smooth, perfect sphere and that "up" is not where heave is.
We know that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, containes billions of stars, and today we also see billions of galaxies separated from our own. Based on their light and size and distance we can estimate that there are more visible stars in the Creation than grains of sand on all the beaches and in all the deserts on earth (27 hexatrillion is the estimated number), and this doesn't account for those too far for their light to have reached us yet!
So, God's Creation from the tiniest atom to the galactic expanse is beyond our comprehension. We must not stuff God into our little box even if our minds and languages can do no better than that. We must always remember that the Bible is a "working model" as well, at best, defined by our own finite reality.
I agree annalex (surprise!) BD should write a book. Especially describing his dad's life. I've passed his story on a few times.
No it is you who offers blind faith as the only "evidence."
Turning insults into compliments is such wonderous work!
Congrats.
Most certainly so. You are correct that fate (predestination) was/is a profoundly pagan idea and that by rejecting it Christianity offered a universal hope.
Of course, but not as a complete OT canon.
I was wondering when that would come up. I just started trying to study Revelation (lots of symbolism!) and noticed a couple of things in chapter 12.
Rev. 12:2 "Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth."
If we were to believe you church's teachings this can't be Mary because you believe she did not suffer any pain during childbirth, as stated so many times on this thread!
Rev. 12:5-6 "She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and his Throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days."
In this passage the woman flees to a sanctuary After the ascension of the child and hides there for a term that is equal to the second half of the tribulation. Looking at this I think the more obvious understanding of the passage is the woman represents Israel.
You need to wake up, this is 2007 AD. Scientific search has progressed.
But this shows (to paraphrase you) that "your history is as flawed as your religion."
Call me when you wake up in the 21st century.
The more I've learned over the years the more I've hoped the "venerating" is just that, but it seems it is not.
Thank you. Once in a while the Holy Spirit gets me on track. :-)
If that is true, then you must always end the prayer, in Christ's name. Even then technically, you are still committing idolatry.
Interesting find, wmfights. Any comments from the Orthodox/Catholic side?
FYI, the Orthodox Church never quotes from the revelation of John as it is the only book that is never read in the Divine Liturgy.
It is a historical fact that the Greek side of the Church had the most difficulty accepting John's Revelation as canonical. It did not accept the Apocalypse of John for almost 900 years after Christ. In the 9th century, it was still listed along with the "disputed" books in Constantinople.
Man has always sought to
—Bring God down to his level. Christ did—his initiative—His way—His standards—His requirements therefrom. Doesn’t work when we glom onto Christianity our human compulsions to bring God down to our level—whether it’s our “MOMMY LEVEL” or any other sort.
—Make God over in our image.
—Idolize the familiar. What could be more familiar than MOMMY?
—Deal with God askew from what He asks, demands. GOD ALONE IS WORTHY; GOD ALONE PAID THE PRICES; GOD ALONE IS ABLE; GOD ALONE IS DUE ADORATION, VENERATION, WORSHIP.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I beleive that there are earnest RC’s who don’t get into worshipping Mary. I blieve there are many who have gotten caught up in it because of all the institutional hoopla. Those responsible will likely bear a stiff cost.
I believe that there are som who brazenly worship Mary and fiercely believe it to be right because they’ve gotten that drift from the Insitution. God have mercy on them.
I know you've mentioned this before. I'm finding it a very slow process to try and understand it, because the words are so symbolic and there is so much numerology in it.
LOL, Romans might be easier to understand!
i think something as symbol ladden and confusing as the book of revelation should be considered only in the context of the scruitiny of the church and not doven into by one’s self...
“You should seriously consider writing a novel or something.”
Rudolph Otto already did back in 1928, “The Kingdom of God”.
We are aware that some folks don’t believe in breathing without moment by moment exhortations and updates from their particular magicsterical.
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.