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/
christ came to fullfill the Law not to transgress it.
I believe in that alarm. It was the same alarm Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wycliffe and Hus and Zanchius and Tyndale all heard, with ears given by God for His glory.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." -- Acts 20:30-32"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:23-24
Family life isn't "scriptural" either. That doesn't mean the Church disparages it.
The "stage props" to which you refer are designed to put a person in mind of the mysteries of God, to prepare a person emotionally for contemplation of our Lord. As such they are adjuncts to, not replacements for, the Holy Scriptures. They conduce to a more vivid sense of the Holy.
Although a man can know Scriptures of his own efforts, the only way to know the power of God is to know God.
Of a truth, some people are able to lay aside all the cares of this world and focus on God alone when they enter a majestic cathedral.
Others can achieve that worshipful frame of mind by focusing on a work of art or music, a choir or the accoutrements of worship. Thank God all of these things exist for them!
Some are able to acheive that worshipful state in the presence of a rolling surf, a mountain, a newborn child, a field of wildflowers and so on. Thank God all of these things exist for them!
Still others may need silence and privacy. Thank God for providing those moments for them!
Blessed are those among us who can resist distractions (or be in several modes simultaneously) and thus retain their state of worship no matter where they are or what they are doing.
In every case, the bottom line is "to God be the glory!"
Amen! And Amen!!!
Thank you for your beautiful essay/post, my dearest sister in Christ!
That could be.. I never needed that but others may..
Appears to be playing church to me.. Since I'm not RC, EO or Protestant I have noticed some of the Props in all the denominations I know of.. Maybe they or some of them need symbols to transduce the metaphors.. that is possible..
Some people when told "its raining cats and dogs" run to the window(symbolically) to see the pets falling.. Seeing the metaphor as literal and not as an illustration.. The symbols could make the biblical metaphors clearer..
It seems more to me each day that the sheep pens of John Chap 10 are needed.. and the sheep within them and without are both needed..
What you consider Catholic superstitions I can defend rationally. But I do not see a rational defense of Sola Scriptura.
Nor was Mary's faith blind, as she asked questions. Her faith was perfect for the revelation given her, and at the time it was quite limited. Note however that she is never shown as vain or infirm in her faith, and the apostles are shown in that way.
Remember, during Jesus' ministry the gentile centurion had greater faith than Mary
It is not shown as greater than Mary's faith. When she is not sure what child Jesus meant by His father's house, all she knows is a child to whom a great promise is attached. The centurion on the other hand sees a man working miracles. To compare the two, you need to look at Cana, where Mary is asking for a miracle even thpugh Jesus had not worked any at that time.
was the only possible way to solve it by miracle? I don't think so.
Maybe not, but it was certainly not a trivial problem. People made wine for themselves; they also depended on it in arid climate, as stored water goes bad. To ask a neighbor would mean that he would have to do without for a year, and it certainly would be an embarassment. However, I agree that the miracle seems to serve no important end, compared with healings, etc. Let us not forget that there were other miracles that were likewise not designed to solve a life and death problem. Why did Jesus walk on water? Why did He hide himself at Emmaus and only revealed himself in the breaking of the bread? Why did He feed five thousand when the apostles offered an everyday solution, to dismiss the crowd in time for them to get food by ordinary means? All these "unnecessary" miracles served a pedagogical purpose. Miracle at Cana signaled the beginning of His ministry, and shows us the connection of Mary with His Church.
if you say that Mary was asking for a miracle, so did tons of people throughout His ministry. Do they get this credit also?
Mary's unique connection was that the ministry of Christ started with her meek request: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him." (Jn 2:11), and it lead to the disciples believing. If you recall that she was also left adopting Christ's beloved disciple at the foot of the Cross, you see how His ministry on earth begins and ends with two themes: Mary and the Church.
This sounds like you believe that correct mariology is a part of central and core Christianity
I don't know how you define "core". I do think that the desire to minimize the role of Mary leaves the Protestants with an incomplete picture of Christ. For several reasons:
BD made an excellent point, and I didn't see your response. Paul says flat out that he had finished his course, that his work was done. Since Paul was so dedicated to praying for others, why would he say something like this if he had any thought of continuing prayer for others in Heaven? Paul gave words of encouragement to others all the time. It would seem automatic, to me, that he would comfort his disciples, especially in writing, with the knowledge that he would always be praying for them, even after he is gone. Yet, Paul appears to snub them all. That is, IF he believed as you do.
Another thing, in order for a saint to know how to intercede for us, he must have some knowledge of what's going on down here. Are all of them watching us all the time? Is their business about earthly matters? Or, do they go about their business in Heaven until a prayer request lands in their in-boxes? That might work for a while, but what happens when every single person the deceased ever knew has died? There will always be a point when no one is asking for your intercession anymore because no one even knows your name. Too much time has passed. Are they lonely? :) And, with over 5,500 canonized Saints, I'll bet that even some of THEIR in-boxes are pretty bare.
This is private interpretation, warned against in 1 Peter. However, I am happy to see you agreeing that the revelation through the scripture is not the entire revelation.
When he wanted to say "flesh", he said "flesh". Why all of a sudden "water" refer to "flesh"? This is absurd, especially for someone who professes that he gets his understanding form the scripture alone.
He explains Baptism is a figure and the water doesn't save anything, it only represents what already has been saved.
He says, again, "baptism being of the like [water] form, now saveth you also", in direct contradiction to your fantasies.
The Church gave you the scripture. Some enemy. I may have failings, but reading "water" and seeing "flesh" is not one of them.
Its in 2nd Peter 1 but read the whole chapter and include it or you lose the context of what Peter is teaching.
1Simeon* Peter, a servant* and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:*
2 May grace and peace be yours in abundance in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
3 His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by* his own glory and goodness. 4Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants in the divine nature. 5For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, 6and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, 7and godliness with mutual* affection, and mutual* affection with love. 8For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9For anyone who lacks these things is short-sighted and blind, and is forgetful of the cleansing of past sins. 10Therefore, brothers and sisters,* be all the more eager to confirm your call and election, for if you do this, you will never stumble. 11For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.
12 Therefore I intend to keep on reminding you of these things, though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you. 13I think it right, as long as I am in this body,* to refresh your memory, 14since I know that my death* will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honour and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved,* with whom I am well pleased.’ 18We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.*
Ping to post #13,155
Very much so. They express the same reality of conquering sin and gaining eternal life for the individual.
How does your infused righteousness fit into this, and when specifically? I don't understand how a baptized infant can be fully justified in the eyes of God, when there is no belief. I further do not understand how God can rule that "Fred" is justified in His eyes, only to have that ruling overturned by the, presumably, higher power of Fred, through later actions.
The infant has no personal sin. Baptism through the infusion of grace removes the sin of Adam from him. At this point his consciousness does not play at all. Once Fred grows up, being a free agent, he may sin, and should he be fortunate enought to ask, the Church will give him grace to overcome it, till, as he is sanctified, he does not sin any longer. This process is best described in the opening verses of 2 Peter 1, often quoted lately.
[St Paul] absolutely taught Sola Fide
No. We both saw your proof texts. He taught that works for temporal gain do not save, and then in every letter he urged us to do works out of love. Hence, some works do not save, and some works do, under grace. "With fear and trembling work out your salvation for it is God working in you".
nowhere in the KJV or NIV is the word "king" mentioned in Romans 13
Correct; in other words, the explanation there is generic and applies to all rulers, monarchic or otherwise, and all authority that defies the Commandments is likewise condemned.
I disagree that Christ sent anyone "as Himself".
Your disagreement is with scripture then: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). Plain text.
it means that they are only free to absorb the Traditions of the Church
Yes, precisely. Of course, the freedom is considerable. For example, Catholics are free to make up their own mind about whether to believe theistic evolution or direct creation of the world as literally described; free to make up their own mind regarding the present status of the covenant with Israel, or regarding the eschatological prophecies, and a lot of other things.
This is actually a fascinating twist on our "understanding vs. faith" discussion concerning Mary. :) I suppose the resolution is that in this post, when we talk about perspicuity, I mean it on a rational level, i.e. "the text appears to be saying 'X'". No faith is necessary. But in the Mary discussion, "understanding", as I have used it, is only on the spiritual level.
I certainly agree that some parts of Catholicism, especially Mariology is not the only reading of the same scripture, and the Catholic reading is heavily spiritualized, if that is the right word.
And stayed with him throughout, participating in His passion, just as the encyclicals, perhaps using too florid a language, explain. The Catechism teaches that Mary has a mystical connection with the Church, and the church certianly has a redemptive role a she brings you the saving grace in the sacraments.
So in this case when Jesus speaks to "the disciple", he means all humanity, but when He gives the Great Commission, He is only speaking to those specific disciples.
In both cases Jesus speaks to the Church which is the communion of the disciples. Not to the individual disciples, and not to the entire human race.
it is improper veneration to think that Mary's womb was blessed?
It is not improper, and this is why Jesus does not stop the disciple from venerating her. He does, however, point out the right reason, and that is the custody of the incarnate Word. So correction of the object of veneration it is, disapproval it is not.
What if satan knew very well that Christ is God, and that is precisely the reason he "went after" Him in the first place, the primary motivating factor?
But, the demons belive and shudder [James 2:19]. Satan would not tempt God because God cannot be tempted by evil [James 1:13] So, if satan thought he could tempt Christ, he did not believe He is God.
At any rate, that would be my expectation. Satan's entire mission in everlasting death is to "trash God." He already knows he "can't win." So he is determined to take down into eternal perdition with him as many of God's beloved creatures as possible, just for sheer ungrateful, ungodly, and unregenerate spite.
That's precely why he tempted Jesus. he thought Christ was one of God's beloved creatures.
And if satan finds that God lives in the soul of any particular man by His Spirit and Grace, then that particular person would present an interesting target from his point of view.
Actually, at that point the satan leaves, just as he left Jesus (Mat 4, Luk 4) when he would not fall for satan's cheap tricks. People may be surprized to find out that we have the willingly reject evil and choose God.
And so you raised the issue of: How do we know, when in our devotions, that the Presence we experience isn't satan himself, deceiving us?
The devil offers pleasure but no love.
Otherwise, there would be no need to mention that the HS descended on Christ at baptism.
there really any believers who would dare say that the Bible is insufficient for missions and evangelism
Yes. Of course it is not sufficient, especially if one reads "water" and thinks "womb", or reads "body" and thinks "symbol". Nor does the scripture itself say it is sufficient.
St. Paul's method was personal instruction, when unavaliable in person, he sent someone else or wrote a letter, to which indispensable to every pastor notes about articles of clothes Paul left behind and jokes about failing eyesight were attached. The New Testament was not written yet; at any even he is not mentioning it, and the Old Testament he directly contradicts,. That is supposed to be Sola Scriptura? This "white paper" is laughable.
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.