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/
May try to get back to this one. Other priorities at the moment.
Darby is by all accounts the father of the modern system known as dispensationalism.
= = =
“by all accounts”
Goodness. What an untrue statement!
No wonder Scripture gets mangled so much.
I am happy just singing praise to God on Sundays, and be perfectly at peace by saying “Thy will be done.”
= = =
There’s plenty good to be said for that!
LUB
Well the Jesuit Alcasar was the founder of the school of preterism. That is a well known fact of history. And if you’re going to hang around the school of preterism, you will be associating with its founder and his followers.
Rather than feeling guilty about it, maybe you should just proudly embrace your heritage and acknowledge the debt you owe to your founding father.
= = =
LOL.
Plenty true. Probably via the satanic influences so clearly impacting the Jesuits from too early on.
AG, I haven't followed this conversation but I happened to noticed this comment. The first recorded efforts of people getting together of the early church was for the purposes of prayer (Peter was in jail, they assemble to pray for him.). There is no evidence that they celebrated the Eucharist at this time.
I don't wish to minimize the Eucharist since there is clear historical and scriptural evidence that it soon became a part of the worship. But the meaning of the Eucharist was confusing, so much so that Paul had to issue clarification for the Corithians. By the early first century most of these disagreements calmed down and the Eucharist was a focus of getting together.
I know a number of our Catholic friends would disagree with me but there is also historical evidence (albeit not much) that there was a disagreement in the Church as to the meaning of the Eucharist; whether the Eucharist was symbolic or imparted grace. (Please don't anyone ask me to cite sources. Don't I have an honest face? But for one citation see; Radbertus & Ratramnus: A Ninth Century Debate over the Lord's Supper
What strikes me most about the Eucharist and the Mass, rest on other history and the establishment of the formal practice of the Eucharist in the Church by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Before the 1215 Council, the Holy Wars had been going on for over two hundred years. The Church, who was asking good Catholics to fight for them, was starting to lose members who did not wish to fight and die in some far off land (much like Vietnam). The Fourth Lateran Council declared the only way to receive God's grace was through the Eucharist and the only way to receive the Eucharist was by having it administered by a priest through the Church and by attending Church. In my mind this was a very clever way to keep membership among a number of Middle Ages peasants.
The policy for the Eucharist was never about sound doctrine nor can it be traced to sound doctrine. It is clear that the early church held the Eucharist in high esteem, but for the Lateran Council to make it necessary to attend Church so that it could be administer to by a priest was not in keeping with scripture. Instead it smacks of a political decision made by Church leaders to keep membership.
The fact is the distinctives of the system known as dispensationalism were invented by JN Darby, when, as he claims, he had a “revelation” about the true nature of the relationship between Israel and the Church. Even knowledgeable dispensationalists do not dispute that fact. His unique views were unknown in the Church before 1830.
This sparked a major controversy in the Evangelical Theological Society. Gundry contended his work did not question the inerrancy of Matthew. Rather he argued that the Bible was never meant to be a work of history and that the religious content contains no errors. Gundry's view was supported by a significant portion of the ETS. The Society's executive looked into the matter and at first cleared Gundry. However a campaign against Gundry was launched, spearheaded by Norman Geisler. This campaign succeeded and in December 1983 Gundry was expelled from the ETS.Sounds like politics gone bad to me.
Yes, exactly what you do with James 2...
Note, however, that I don't belittle you with the label "Cult". This tells everyone out there WHO has some love in their heart and who is intent on dissolving the Body of Christ. As my tagline states, I am not obliged to continue listening to your debasing attacks - yet I have without responding in kind. THAT'S a sign of humility. Your arrogant attacks that fail to see the hypocrisy of them are not.
Until you figure out that you personally do not hold the key to the Scriptures, whatever attack you make against Catholics for improper interpretation can be laid at your feet in spades. Look to the Scriptures. They tell us to defend the reason for our hope IN MEEKNESS - IN HUMILITY. Until you learn humility, your interpretations of Scriptures have no authority.
Regards
Ahhhhh, his unique views . . .
Same is true of every individual and their unique views.
The essentials of dispensationalism were WELL KNOWN before Darby.
Sheesh.
They were Scripture WELL BEFORE Darby, after all! LOL.
That sounds like the one. I’m getting old and thought my memory was going bad. There is another biblical scholar with the last name Gundry and I thought it might be him.
I don't wish to minimize the Eucharist since there is clear historical and scriptural evidence that it soon became a part of the worship. But the meaning of the Eucharist was confusing, so much so that Paul had to issue clarification for the Corithians. By the early first century most of these disagreements calmed down and the Eucharist was a focus of getting together.
All I'm really after is establishing the fact that we not minimize it.
I know a number of our Catholic friends would disagree with me but there is also historical evidence (albeit not much) that there was a disagreement in the Church as to the meaning of the Eucharist; whether the Eucharist was symbolic or imparted grace. (Please don't anyone ask me to cite sources. Don't I have an honest face? But for one citation see; Radbertus & Ratramnus: A Ninth Century Debate over the Lord's Supper)
I don't think the church held a monolitic view of the meaning of the Eucharist either, Harley. Hermann Sasse addresses this very well in one of his writings.
I do think politics came into play here to, hence the Eucharist as weapon.
All this said, I pray and hope for a rediscovery of the Eucharist as an important part of worship.
I've been attending a Reformed Presbyterian church for the last few weeks and witnessed for the first time how Protestants celebrate the Eucharist, and I was moved to tears. There was a reverence there that surpassed what I'd known in my Catholic church where the Eucharist is held dear but approached in an almost rote fashion.
Anyway, good to hear from you Harley, and blessings.
ML
It's great to see you around as well AG. I've noticed your posts but I've been swamp and haven't had the time to read through everything like the ever faithful FK. I admire him for his tenacity. We'll be on post 14,387 and he'll refer us all to post #12,792. :O) I learn so much from both your's writing.
Sadly what I think is lacking in the Baptist churches (and many Protestant churches) is a focus on the Lord's Supper. Generally it's relegated to a once-a-month type affair at the end of some service. To be sure different groups treat it differently. I believe John Piper has it every Sunday but he's the rare exception rather than the norm.
Trying to catch up and boy did this catch my eye! Wonderful point and perspective.
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." -- Psalm 139:21-22
FWIW;
Isiah 55:8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My Ways, says the Lord.
Free will is a comforting thought. We get to have control and by it we reason that it makes for a more perfect union with our Saviour, but this is human reasoning.
John 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice....My Father who has given them to Me,..
Anyway, it's been a very good experience. The readings of the Law and Gospel help me a lot. His sermons, as near as I can tell, follow these. Scripture matters to me, but I don't trust myself to figure many things out because I know I don't know what I need to know to interpret many things properly, so it's good to have someone I have confidence in help me in that way. A couple of weeks ago the Gospel reading was from Peter, concerning elders and their responsibilities and "youngers" and their responsibilities. There is of course tension, as usual, but he addressed the issues clearly.
A good shepherd to me is like the Scripture that speaks of a good woman being more valuable than rubies. I've known quite a few priests in my life, but not one that had the combination of qualities that I so needed. Either they were orthodox and all authority, or they were liberal, and you had to ask if you were in a Catholic church, and what were those women doing on the altar with white robes looking like Robert Schuller in drag?
And yes, FK is dogged, but then what would you expect from a good lawyer?
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." -- John 17:9-10"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Curious.
And no, God is not bound by any of the Aristotlean Laws of Logic - including the Law of the Excluded Middle. Nor is the Creator bound by space or time or physical causality or mass or energy or fields or forms or universals or mathematics or any other property or element of the creation.
LOL.
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.