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/
What a Wonderful God we have; He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2Cor.1:3)
The scriptures that Timothy knew in childhood were the Septuagint: inclusive of the books Luther banned, exclusive of the Gospels. Yes, scripture makes us wise, and yes, wisdom is necessary for a man of cloth, to lead himself and others to salvation.
The Scripture is not anything separate from the Tradition; it is simply a part of it:
13 ... he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.Whether by word or epistle, unto glory of Christ.
Hell is the only place you can end up without free will. God made Man in His image; nothing else can enter into heaven, but a man whose will is of God.
Ordinarily, the Holy Ghost is received from the Church. I agree that extraordinary things happen. I believe for example in the miracle of Fatima, where Mary appeared directly to the children. These are works of the Holy Spirit.
The Church however does make a distinction between private revelation such as this on one hand, and the general revelation of the Church, and the holy sacraments, on the other. In the latter we have the safety of absolute faith. The former may be believed so long as no contradiction to the general revelation is introduced, but it does not have to be believed. For example, the fact that Christ will come to judge the living and the dead is general revelation all Catholics are supposed to believe. The fact that Our Lady wishes Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Conception is something we may believe or not.
I second Kitty Mittens blessing.. Much to consider..
Thank you very much. I add my humble amen.
the Holy Ghost is received from the Church.
= = =
VERY UN-Scriptural.
The Bible declares through Christ that THE FATHER WOULD SEND THE COMFORTER
AND
That Holy Spirit distributes GIFTS AS !!!!HE!!!! WILL.
The magicsterical bureaucracy and ecclesiastical hierarchy are essentially out of the loop.
Certainly they come around and lay hands on . . . and IF there is some anointing in the one laying hands on another, then Holy Spirit will operate accordingly AS HE WILL.
But most of the time, in ALL denominations and congregations I’ve observed, the human laying on of hands is—particularly in ceremonial instances—affirming something GOD HAS !ALREADY! DONE.
and in the liftetime of one generation and individuals who were present whe He was speaking.
= = =
Not so according to the Greek Scholar missionary I knew who’s daily reading was in the Greek.
THIS GENERATION logically as well as contextually can only mean the generation which saw the beginnings of the sequence of prophecied events would live to see the conclusion of the sequence.
And thus from such error God ordained the Reformation.
The church is not the wrangler of the Holy Spirit. The church exists to faithfully proclaim the Scriptures. Scripture is always preeminent over the church because the church resides in the shadow of the Holy Spirit who guides our understanding of Scripture with a new heart given by God.
Not vice versa.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" -- Acts 10:44-45;47"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
FWIW, it was quickly pointed out that because that is not official doctrine, or dogma (I can never keep track of the difference) this obvious inconsistency doesn't matter. I'm sure all you lawyers understand these fine points of distinction. I'm just part of that "old school" that expects consistency.
LOL. IIRC, part of the RC's consternation with the movie that began this thread was that it portrayed Mary experiencing pain during childbirth. From the original article above...
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."
Yep, it is difficult to keep track of all the inconsistencies. Today's dogma is tomorrow's discarded movie review.
Good point.. I am an engineer, a husband. a father, grand father, and great grand father.. all at the same time.. Actually I'm more things than that..
So is Jesus.. much more.. The Earthy observer can be limited by his observations.. and the spiritual observer by his spiritual observations.. Mixing those limitations can get dicey..
The pain of an earthy life can facet you.. some more than others.. You know, A-G it takes a gemologist to be a christian observer.. don't you think.?
Remarkably beyond our ability to fully understand.
True..
The word 'satan' appears in exactly 3 books of the OT, as your linked article correctly observes: Job (13 times in), 1 chronicles (once) and Zechariah (once).
Your reference to Eze 28 is not one of them. In post 13250), I said regarding this (emphasis added): "This is not about Satan (although it deceptively sounds like it is!). Christians have twisted the meaning to fit their paradigm. This is directed a Phoenician entity. There is no Satan to be found by name or otherwise in those verses."
To which you responded (13625) "The leaning I have in the spirit concerning Eze 28:15-19 is that it is indeed speaking of Satan. Whether it also has some meaning concerning a Phoenician entity makes no difference – many such things have more than one meaning, even the Hebrew word satan itself has two meanings."
There is no other meaning. The chapter is about Ithobal, the Phoenician prince of Tyre (modern day Lebanon) for his arrogance and pride. Tyre was the seat of Hercules and of Phoenician religion. Its king considered himself "a god." Eze 28 has nothing whatsoever to do with Satan as the Accuser is presented in the OT.
The "other" meaning was added through the lens of Christianity, the way Isaiah 14 :13-14 is distorted in the same way:
"You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
It's not about Satan (as seen through a Christian lens) but about the king of Babylon.
That is a conjecture, Quix. No doubt, people have and will continune to read into it.
It is good for a chuckle isn't it.
Careful though, it seems that lately our RC posters have been getting a bit edgy. :-0
Without trying to point fingers, sufficie it to say that Alamo-Girl suggested that in the post I was responding to.
Your second clause sets up an unfortunate (to my mind) complementarity of the relationship between God and the satan. The statement seems to have Zoroastrian and Manichaean resonances
No, in pre-Babylonian Judaism, Satan (actually the satan, the accuser) is presented as God's loyal celestial son (angle) with no power of his own, but empowered by God. In old Judaism, punishments were meted out by God Himself or by angels acting on His behalf. In pre-Babylonian Judaism, God is the author of all that befalls people, whether good or evil.
This, of course, clashes with our Christian mindset, but that's why we must read the OT through a Christian lens and dismiss those events that are clearly evil but attributed to God in the OT.
God and satan cannot meet as "equals" on the same "ontological playing field."
I hope you are not suggesting I implied this! Angels are creatures. Created and uncreated natures are immiscible.
[why did Jesus need to be led by the Spirit into the wilderness?] Maybe He was then just getting His "sea-legs" (so to speak), and needed guidance and support
My point was that His divine nature never separated form His human nature and that His human nature seamlessly obeyed and was in harmony with His divine nature.
The Bible implies that Jesus did not have the Spirit until baptism and then it says that Jesus had to have Spirit guide Him. As God, he was never without the Father and without the Spirit, for they are One. The Bible doesn't treat them as such.
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.