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've got to remember this one for the next time the RC's complain about all the mean treatment they receive. :-0
I choose to fixate on the Light. Darkness cannot stand in the Light.
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth [it]; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. – Matt 13:18-23
For me, the most insidious are the distractions of life. For instance, if my feelings get hurt, it takes extraordinary self-control to turn to God and asking for His healing and direction. The instinctive, unthinking way is to turn to the offender and either defend myself or “return fire.” Likewise, wealth and poverty are distractions. So are extremes of pain and pleasure and so on.
So for me, always, the answer is to fixate on the Light. Believe Him, trust Him, count on Him.
Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. – I Th 5:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. – I John 1:5
Yes, absolutely.
I've only been to a couple of Catholic Masses in my life and I didn't notice that
Oh, no, Catholicds do not ad-lib! :) In the RCC, everything is "prescribed." Orthodox churches have a more home-like atmosphere. That's because the church is our spiritual home, heaven on earth, we say. The church is where we, as the Cherubic Hymn says, "set aside all earthly cares." :)
In fact it may be bewildering to someone who walks in for the first time into an Orthodox church to see people milling around before the liturgy starts, or even during the parts of liturgy when the choir is singing.
You have to remember that most Orthodox churhes in the world do not have pews or even chairs (more of the 'home-like' setting then a theater or an auditorium) except for a row or two in the back for the sick and the old, and that we stand (symbolically resurrected) throughout the entire 2-hour service, so moving doesn't disturb people next to you.
Most of the movement during the liturgy is venerating icons to the side, or lighting candles for the living and the dead (usually separate candle stands).
All the crossing I remember observing was in unison
We do that in unison when the Holy Trinity is invoked, at the end of the Lord's Prayer (which is recited at every Divine Liturgy), etc. but throught the service you will see people crossing at different times. In some traditions (Serbian for example) when a priests blesses the people with "Peace to you" and he makes a sign of the cross, people "accept" the cross by crossing and bowing (remember that the priest is an icon of Christ, so we think of Christ' blessing us; we don't bow to the priest!)
When the priest or deacon insences people, we usually bow (Serbs also cross). Incesning the people is done after all the icons are insenced, because we are also the "saints" as you Protestants say, and in the image of God. So, our gratitude is expressed to God by reverence (bow) and invoking the name of the Holy Trinity in our minds (crossing).
There are other (but few) instances when everyone crosses in unison, but even then in Orthodox churches "unison" is poorly defined. Some people cross three times, others once! :)
well described kosta...
No, the Greek text says:
In context, there is no reason to have his body burned! But if he surrenders his body [to Christ], so that he can boast about being faithful, it is empty.
I find that a bit incredulous.
For me, the most insidious are the distractions of life. For instance, if my feelings get hurt, it takes extraordinary self-control to turn to God and asking for His healing and direction
My experience has taught me that truly humble people never get offended.
thank you
I disagree. If someone you loved closed the car door on your hand, you have just been "insulted" as the physicians call it. It is entirely a physical thing in that case.
A humble person would not snap at the person who did it or cry out in self pity - but most likely (IMHO) he would pull the hand to his torso, wrap it in something to stop the bleeding - maybe go see a doctor, etc. He might even wince or whimper.
As to personal insults, name calling and the like - indeed, a loving person barely notices - if at all.
Our failures to do so are our own, when we try to do anything apart from Him (Romans 8.) We have little or no power, but He does:
From Orthodoxinfo.com by Anastasia Theodoridis [emphases added]:
Jesus said we must drink His Blood and eat His Body to abide in Him and have eternal Life in us. [St. John 6:53-57]
These are hard words to understand. Catholics and others, to guard the doctrine of the Real Presence, declare that in Holy Communion, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ physically, materially. Most Protestants, to guard against magic, call transubstantiation hocus pocus and insist the bread and wine are symbolic only.
Orthodox Christians point out that both sides of this argument rest upon a common assumption; namely, that for anything to be real, it must be physical.
Conversely, if a thing is not physically real, it must be metaphorical or symbolic. This assumption, frankly, is unvarnished materialism.
But Christians are called to be spiritual people. By the eyes of faith, we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal. [II Cor. 4:18]
The presence of Christs glorified, resurrected Body and Blood in the Eucharist is spiritual (or mystical), meaning not carnal, not merely symbolic, and absolutely real.
When Jesus disciples had difficulty understanding His words on this subject, Jesus explained, It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. [St. John 6:62-63]
That His words are spirit does not mean they are symbolic, as it would in worldly thinking; it means having to do with the Holy Spirit, Who accomplishes the Mystery of the Real Presence.
In another place, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman the time is coming when true worshippers will worship God in spirit and in truth. [St. John 4:23-24] In spirit does not mean, having the right attitude, as it would among secular people; it means having the Holy Spirit.
That Christ's Presence in the Eucharist is spiritual by no means implies it cannot accomplish physical things or is devoid of physical consequences."
Hmmmmm
I construe it such that Christ is Present at—and in—in some SPIRITUAL sense in The Lord’s Supper.
But I don’t think Annalex would be eager to construe me a Roman. LOL.
Okay, offended then. You were speaking of really struggling when you have your feelings hurt. I was not referring to unintentional physical injury.
Truly humble have died to the world and the world has no power over them. Rare as such saints. They are not of this world any more, as they say. All one can discern in them is God's work.
We all are capable, dear beloved brother in Christ
Not just capable, but we do every day, every minute of the day.
But spiritual is REAL. The Protestants, it seems think tit's "symbolic" (I guess because it's not physical — unvarnished materialism).
But I don’t think Annalex would be eager to construe me a Roman
I don't know, why don't you ask him?
Kosta, that quote is one fabulous explanation of the Eucharist!
” Orthodox Christians point out that both sides of this argument rest upon a common assumption; namely, that for anything to be real, it must be physical.
Conversely, if a thing is not physically real, it must be metaphorical or symbolic. This assumption, frankly, is unvarnished materialism.”
This is the product of Aristolian logic having crept into Western theology in the Middle Ages.
As someone who has gone on record as stating that there are errors within the translations, criticized the writings of Paul, and believe the Old Testament is mostly made up fables; how do you know that the older version is accurate and not the newer one? Certainly someone must have noticed that before.
I’ve had similar ponderings.
Curious mental gymnastics, to me.
Seems like a big “DUH!” to me. I was tempted to argue that with all the Church history throughout the century, why no one would have noticed that before. But I was afraid I’d get nowhere. I’ll have to get my hands on the Greek Orthodox “official” version when it comes out. It should be interesting.
May God bless you to, dear A-G.
I would say so.
I've got to remember this one for the next time the RC's complain about all the mean treatment they receive. :-0
To call "sola scriptura" a "superstition" denies the power and intent of the Holy Spirit to speak as God to man through Scripture, denying the very inspiration of Scripture itself.
Either the Holy Spirit speaks through Scripture or He doesn't.
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.