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/
Thank you, thank you, thank you! (deep bows) :)
But back in the late 80s, I was the Grammar Terrorist...terrorizing people who posted on forums about their bad grammar! LOL!
I have repented of such evil ways, though.
Well, this is the ultimate in mysticism. Saying that what I do or think or conclude is the work of the Spirit is, in effect, a claim to divine revelation, and I don't buy it.
Where in Scripture are we given examples of JESUS physically being in more than one place simultaneously?
= = =
Eph 1:20
Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places,
= = =
There’s nothing at all in that verse that necessarily or otherwise even indicates that Christ was in two places at once.
Christ told the ladies not to touch Him as He had not ascended to The Father, yet. Perhaps when He did before Stephen was invited to touch His hands and side—He had been formally installed “Far above all principality, and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come;” v 21.
It’s a huge leap, grope, assumption, inference, extrapolation to pretend that verse 20 has anything to do with being in two places at once.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with Christ appearing to folks around the world at the same time these days. I don’t KNOW that He does. But it wouldn’t mangle my theology if He did. I’d have trouble believing that He did so in His Heavenly bodily form vs some sort of holographic projection or some such but what do I know.
I do BELIEVE that the whole whoopla about The Blood and The Broken Body represented by the bread and juice/wine being literally His Body . . . is exceedingly overblown and idolizing substances vs worshipping Christ.
I tend toward very literalist interpretations of Scripture. But there’s nothing in the Scriptures which might apply which REQUIRE a literalist interpretation on that score. It is conceivably allowable but not REQUIRED.
Given that the language of the text does not REQUIRE IT, I think it’s a huge stretch to build an IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP doctrine that excludes other Believers based thereon. Doesn’t sound like the Jesus I know.
I have been involved in multiple ‘spiritual house cleansings’ . . . which I heartily recommend where folks become believers or have been believers a long time but have never had one. All clear idols—buddhas etc. go. All unedifying music, books, art goes. If the person has trouble wearing only depressing clothes—they go. If there’s a piece of furniture from Aunt Mildred or Departed Mummy which have never really been enjoyed but is merely an obligation—it goes. If there’s an object in the home which is a constant source of contention—it likely goes. etc. etc.
And, then, in the TRADITION I was a part of—The Lord’s Supper is shared and the juice/wine is dabbed on representative windows and on the door posts and lentils.
I do not believe in those cases that the juice/wine turns into Christ’s literal Blood. I believe that the FAITH IN CHRIST’S REAL BLOOD AND IN HIS NAME are what operates as added protection for the home—not the ritual—but FAITH in what is behind the ritual.
Throughout Scripture it is THE FAITH of the believer operating in authentic faith IN CHRIST vs faith in faith; vs faith in ritual; vs faith in symbols; vs faith in !!!!TRADITION!!!!; vs faith in MAGICSTERICALS; vs faith in a particular Christian group/sect; vs faith in leaders; vs faith in Christ’s mother; . . . ALL very idolatrous traps.
GOD ALONE is worthy THE GLORY—ALL THE GLORY—IN EVERY SHAPE, DEGREE AND FORM. No symbol, no representation, no substitute, no alternative, no stand-in . . . . no one and nothing else will do. GOD ALONE.
It SEEMS clear to me that in the New Testament aborning context, There was a particular SOMETHING (including mystery) which God insisted on confronting the Jews of that era with. And, it was the very horrific notion of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His Blood in any sense, context, representational mode.
It was AT LEAST, imho, challenging them; forcing them; requiring them to forsake all the standards and prohibitions of Judaism and accept CHRIST ALONE as access to GOD THE FATHER—and to do so in a way which wholesale jangled their LAW BORN BLOOD-IS-FORBIDDEN sensibilities.
I think God has a penchant for doing that. He leads along a certain track and then requires that we wholesale abandon that track and FOLLOW HIM along an entirely different and often, at first, horribly jangly track. And if you haven’t experienced or observed that, then I’d be inclined to think you haven’t followed God very long or haven’t been paying attention.
I think the object is, yet again, GOD ALONE. He will not tolerate ritual for ritual’s sake—NOR ANY OTHER THING OR ANY OTHER ACTION OR ANY OTHER CREATURE to substitute for INTIMATE ONE ON ONE RELATIONSHP WITH HIMSELF. PERIOD.
Perhaps it is like a wise father. He knows that in 10 years, when the son is 16, they will be moving to a foreign country. And that the forces and persons in that foreign country will be full of temptations and hazards for the teen boy. He also knows that the utmost loyalty to DADDY, himself, will be essential to the boy’s and the family’s survival and prospering in the new land.
So, for 10 years, the father leads the son along a certain track. Then, after comfort has really set in and the boy is really depending on that track, the father changes it and requires the son to utterly abandon that track and ABSOLUTELY BLIND FAITHFULLY follow the dad along an even contradictory track.
Because the wise father knows that it is not the particular track that’s the issue—but utter faithfulness to following DADDY that is crucial to life and health and prosperity.
I don’t think the analogy is far off.
Throughout the Old Testament, God was frequently throwing monkey wrenches in the middle of things HE HIMSELF had established but which the Israelites had gotten too complacent in and trusting of—in and of the rituals themselves vs TRUSTING GOD HIMSELF. ONLY THE LATTER IS TOLERABLE TO GOD ALMIGHTY. GOD ALONE.
Well, this is the ultimate in mysticism. Saying that what I do or think or conclude is the work of the Spirit is, in effect, a claim to divine revelation, and I don’t buy it.
= = =
No, it’s merely New Testament life of believers as taught in the New Testament I Cor 12-14.
Not buying into Scriptural Christian life is missing out on what God has provided. I’m skeptical that He’s pleased with leaving HIS GIFTS by the road side or in the trash willfully.
Says who?
The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology
Yeah, but believing that Jonah lived in the belly of a fish for three days and survived has no inherent limitations?
To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access...
The Jews should have guarded their holy books and relics better I suppose. You'd think something wirtten by the hand of God would be guarded with greater care.
Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published
Too bad, so sad. That is not a sufficient reason to accept biblical myths as facts.
As the 21st century unfolds I believe that we will see much greater confirmations of the Bible from the archaeological remains
I guess we will just have to wait and see if that belief (hope, wish) is correct. Until then it should be recognized that it is someone's belief and not a fact.
Nevertheless, the lines of evidence, which we have already presented, demonstrate the historical reliability of the Bible and defend its legitimacy as the Word of God for yet another generation of believers
Nonsense. If anything archeology has been dismantling biblical myths at an alarming rate.
You believe that Jonah lived in the belly of a fish or that Chirst rose from the dead but you don't believe that Christ can be in more than one place at the same time...whatever. People pick and choose what they want to believe.
Yeah, but believing that Jonah lived in the belly of a fish for three days and survived has no inherent limitations?
= = =
So, your notions of ALMIGHTY GOD includes a host of limitations on ALMIGHTY GOD?
Curious.
And if someone showed up in your church and said "I am the Son of God, my Father sent me to tell you that you should abadon all that you have been taught and I am here to challenge you to do what which you consider most forbidden..." would you believe him?
Claiming that something I say or do is HS working through me is narcissistic and misleading. We have no way of knowing what is an illusion and what is real when it comes to that. We have no way of convincing others with anything but “miracles” and last time I checked no one has raised any dead lately.
Thankfully, I know JESUS THE CHRIST and that there is only ONE JESUS THE CHRIST. So, I won’t have to deal with that scenario.
Were I there then, I guess I’d have had to rely on His Resurrection and other confirming evidence as well as eventually, Holy Spirit’s witness within me.
I don’t find your question quite fitting to the points and discussion, however.
Not clear Scriptural things. There are some things I don’t understand. So, I put them on a shelf and await God’s explanation, confirmation, whatever. But whatever’s in Scripoture, I accept as truth. Not a big problem, to me. Have read it through many times. And, I’m probably listening to the NT through every few weeks at night, now.
Saved by faith and not works.
Paul was correct, the end of times may come at any moment
Christ, who was an apocalyptic Jew, told His disciples that some of them will not even die (and that within this generation) the end will come.
+Paul was an apocalyptic Jews and belieevd the "end" was at hand. That's why faith was much more important than works, as there was no time for works (of faith0 but faith itself was a priority.
Of course, the generation passed and all who heard or thought they heard Christ predict the end (that part is neatly attenuated later on when He says that only the Father knows...oooh more Trinitarian discord) actually did die. The Chuch then had some 'splanin' to do. But they were always good at it. :)
Why then, does Paul not scream from the mountain tops "Baptize your infants to save their souls while there's still time!!!"?
In that case, if Paul thought it was imminent, then why does he say NOTHING of specifically baptizing infants before it's too late?
In 1 Cor 1:16 he says that he "baptized the household of Stephanas." That doesn't preclude baptizing infants. Besides, he didn't think his mission was to baptize.
Claiming that something I say or do is HS working through me is narcissistic and misleading. We have no way of knowing what is an illusion and what is real when it comes to that. We have no way of convincing others with anything but “miracles” and last time I checked no one has raised any dead lately.
= = =
NOT AT ALL.
1. CHRIST SAID HIS SHEEP KNEW HIS VOICE. That sort of asserts, that if one doesn’t know/hear HIS VOICE, one may not be his sheep. In any case—it is considered normative by Christ that His Kids will hear and know HIS VOICE. THE “STILL SMALL VOICE” OF HIS SPIRIT. Walking in that awareness, insight and live dynamic between God and man is merely being obedient to God and Scripture.
2. There’s a pastor in charge of a lot of rural churches in Northern/Central Mexico. I don’t recall his name. He periodically has young bucks apply to be pastors under him. HE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER THEM FOR CANDIDACY UNTIL THEY HAVE HAD AT LEAST SEVERAL BONA FIDE, PROVEN RESURRECTIONS CREDITED TO THEIR MINISTRY.
3. There have also been a number of verified resurrections in China and some in the Philippines and I think in Brazil. I don’t know about other areas. No, I don’t have any links for the data. Should be available on the net.
NO.
WITHIN THE GENERATION SEEING ISRAEL BECOME A NATION AGAIN IN A DAY; and other beginnings of Prophecied END TIMES EVENTS . . . THAT generation would see the conclusion of said END TIMES EVENTS.
It’s not really that difficult unles sone’s biases prevent such an understanding.
Nothing else fits the Scriptures and nothing else fits the historical facts.
Kosta50: Well, this is the ultimate in mysticism. Saying that what I do or think or conclude is the work of the Spirit is, in effect, a claim to divine revelation, and I don't buy it.
Quix: No, it’s merely New Testament life of believers as taught in the New Testament I Cor 12-14. Not buying into Scriptural Christian life is missing out on what God has provided.
And thank you, dear brother Quix – I know that you also experience the Holy Spirit, and diligently try to follow His leading (Romans 8). I know that you know we can do nothing apart from Jesus (John 15) and that we must always walk in the Light (I John 1:5-10.).
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. – Proverbs 3:5-6
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? – Isaiah 53:1
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]. – Matt 11:25-27
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:5-6
God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Col 3:3
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Okay, I can convince myself that I am being led by the HS, that these are not my opinions, but that He is whispering in my ear, and that when I say something outrageous I am testing you with that which is forbidden because I have a revelation. C'mon, Quix, let's be real.
You'd believe me as much as I believe you.
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.