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/
Maranatha, Jesus!
Maybe Jeremiah was wrong too? The Bible is chock-full of such discrepancies everyone denies or rationalizes.
No big deal all of the Apostles were wrong at some point...
Christ never said He was sent [sic] for any other reason but for the "lost sheep of the House of israel" and He expressly forbade his disciples to go to the Gentiles or Samarians. The Gentiles are an afterthought.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the Church needed to find a new home as the Jesus followers were being thrown out of the synagogues in Israel (just as Christ predicts), and wrose (actually hunted down and killed), so Paul's work was exactly what the Church needed, but for reasons completely different than waht Paul claims.
The Church was in serious schism right from the start, with Peter and James on one side and Paul on the other. The book of Acts was supposed to smooth this over, as was the case with 1 Clement, but 2nd century records show that this was not resolved as we are led to believe from reading our 4th century copies of the Bible.
Well, please tell us how you really feel. I doubt if you can charge Calvin as a "propagandist" and certainly not incapable "of coherent thought". Some of us are quite capable of understanding what he was saying.
The “gentiles” are not an afterthought. That would make the Plan of Salvation something the Lord makes up as He goes, and we know from the bible that the Plan was in effect before Creation. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is not an after thought. God knows everything that ever was and ever will be. There are no after thoughts, not even the least living soul anywhere. The whole idea of it is an absurdity in theology.
Who says?.. The Apostles were mostly uneducated teenagers.. Saul/Paul spoke several languages, schooled in Torah, Semantics, Talmud, Politics, Jewish and other Historys, other disciplines, and was a Roman citizen.. God's choice, Mattias was not..
Pauls "Vision" was in more depth and broader in scope.. than the other workers.. How could it not have been?.. God SLAPPED Saul off his donkey(hard) and got his mind right..
The letter to the Ephesians was and is still the deepest thing ever penned by any human at any time about any thing.. Says a lot about the Ephesians..
I know. "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake", (Matthew 5:11)
So what's the message here, A-G? The one who didn't make a profit shall be damned? Is this the same Jesus who turned money-changers' tables? Is profit-making the way to come to God? Did not Jesus tell the rich man to sell everything? Did Paul not say he doesn't want to profit from preaching? And someone mentioned forgiveness?
For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified
This is one of those characteristic Pauline "say what?" Doers of the law shall be justified, yet Paul says no one can fulfill the law perfectly, so we are saved by God's mercy alone, fopr having faith in Him and not for anything we can do.
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. - Romans 2:12-16
His gospel?
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven -- Mat 7:21-23
Funny, and I read "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13) and "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered." (Joel 2:32)
[Hint: Paul was not around whe matthew was written...] but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. - Matt 5:21-22
Really? Various authors of the Bible call many a person 'fool.' Are they in danger of hell fire? To wit:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Ps 14:1, 53:1); "Ye fools and blind" (Matthew 23:17, 19); "You fools" (Luk 11:40); "O fools, and slow of heart to believe" (Luk 24:25); "Their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21); Thou fool" (1 Cor 15:36); O foolish Galatians (Gal 3:1), and 47 more references of Paul calling others fools or foolish. Just for the record!
Just my "musings," A-G.
Of course; however, the same baptism that gives you the fellowship of the Holy Ghost also defines the boundary of the Catholic Church. "We beleive in one baptism..."
The Insititutes is a pile of angry nonsense empty of logic or interest in the scripture.
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.(1Pet.1:7)
Job was Surely Tried through his Awful Trials, with the result that Satan was made to Learn that our Lord's Salvation, when Given to a man, is Secure, and cannot be Shaken. And Job was also Made Stronger Spiritually by his Tribulations, as he 'Repented in Dust and Ashes' before our Lord and King. (Job42:6) I don't believe Trials come to us to show our Lord if our Faith is Sound or not, because He Knows All Things already, but to show us, so we will be Strengthened in our Continuing Endurance through Grace, and Know we are Truly Predestined to Life.
Then show me where Jesus preaches to the Gentiles. If anything He says the opposite. The so-called "Great Commission" (Math 28) is most likely an addition. We have no originals, so we have to take the 4th century bibles we have with a grain of salt and parse what is uncharacteristic of the rest of the writing, and the Great Commission just doesn't fit the bill.
Or, conversely, since Matthew's Gospel is written in the late 70's of the 1st c. AD, it was a latter-day revelation for Matthew that this is what God wanted them to (Great Commission), so he added it.
You must understand that in those days when someone quoted a figure it was what the author thought the figure would have said and not necessarily what the figure actually did say.
Additions to Gospels were made, that much is known. Someone added a dozen or so verses to Mark's last chapter. Comma Johannenum {1 John 5:7-8) is an addition, as well. So is the so-called Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), etc.
Reading the Bible is not knowing the Bible.
you: Of course; however, the same baptism that gives you the fellowship of the Holy Ghost also defines the boundary of the Catholic Church. "We beleive in one baptism..."
Half of my family is Catholic - the entire family is Christian - and we will all be together in heaven.
But truly, if the Catholic Church is claiming that it has the authority to dispense the Holy Spirit to whom it chooses, or conversely to refuse the Holy Spirit to whom it chooses --- then the Church (not the members of it) is in deep, Spiritual, darkness on that point.
The Holy Spirit is God. The Church is not God. Jesus Christ who also is God, baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And the Father Himself, gives the Holy Spirit according to His own will:
So which is it?
Thank you. It's nice that some people don't think of God as someone who would tempt us. I know that in my heart, but that's not what the Bible says.
The Lord's Prayer, of all things, says "And do not lead us into temptation..."
1 Pet 1:&
The Apostle here is talking about suffering, not temptation. The early Christians believed that unless they suffered and died (as the Lord did), unless they were martyred, they did not go to heaven. I think we have evolved somewhat since then.
What is Spiritual profit?.. or what profits spiritually?..
The economy of God is an economy of service.. giving.. which is love..
Love IS giving/service.. Service is profit.. Giving is an investment..
The honor to be in the position to serve can be profit..
Giving what you have can be an investment.. as a wise steward..
What else does anybody have but themselves, their spirit..
This thread is a kind of giving.. and a profit..
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head, dear sister in Christ.
SO THEN.. we all agree?.. ;)
Agreed.
For the record, I assert that there is no conflict at all. What appears as a conflict is the result of applying Aristotle's Law of Identity (logic) to God.
That could very well be part of the reason.
Further, I maintain that we should not superimpose logic on our understanding belief of in God lest we inadvertently anthropomorphize Him in our minds. Which is to say, a thing is true because God says it
Agree with noted objections.
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.