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/
Frankly, what Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, Lindsey, or anyone else alledgedly teaches(I say alledgedly because there are MANY who hate dispensationalism, and yes, dispensationalists, so much that the real truth of the teaching is immaterial as opposed to the straw men they would set up) is I R R E L E V A N T ! ! ! What the Bible teaches is what is relevant. When they can’t beat us with Scripture they trot out a distortion of Darby, Scofield, or Lindsey. Frankly, I could care less what any man has taught and what the church has taught for the last 1700 or so years. For much of that time the “church” taught a foreign way of salvation (one based upon works and other types of payment in order to merit Heaven). Most of the church was illiterate and didn’t have Bibles in their own language. MANY priests were as well. Futher, the Bible clearly states that certain things will be unsealed at the time of the end, so why expect the church for the past 2000 years to understand all of the mysteries of God laid out in Scripture?
What I care about is what SCRIPTURE teaches. I have taken the time to do exhaustive study of the subject from various perspectives and find the Pre-tribulational, dispensational, perspective to be the most Scripturally faithful. I refuse to get dragged into the irrelevant argument about what Hal Lindsey, Grant Jeffrey, or any other human being has said. I readily admit there have been abuses. Shame on the abusers. THIS DOES NOT NEGATE THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the Pre-Trib view. THIS DOES NOT NEGATE God’s future plans for Israel. They can blather on all they want, but I believe what I believe due to what SCRIPTURE teaches. PERIOD. I have certain ideas of how the things in Scripture may be accomplished, but those are my ideas. I’m happy to share, but I do so with that understanding. Nevertheless, I can not get past what the Old Testament and New Testament have prophecied and find any view that dismisses the old for a formulation of what is said in the New to be lacking solid biblical exegesis.
“Are you saying the Darby is the eccentric aunt of dispensationalism?”
No, Tim LaHaye.
Now, now. In fairness there seems to be much listed here that can be verified. There are certainly names and dates.
What's interesting is that the 1800s were a kooky time in Christianity with all sorts of people saying all sorts of things (JW, Mormons, Finney). There must have been something in the water or food source. Fortunately we have indoor plumbing and refrigeration now.
I haven't followed this conversation and I hate to butt in, but this caught my attention. Actually Peter states that there are some things in Paul's writings that are hard to understand that the unstable and unlearned twist to their own devices. Only those who are unstable or unlearned can't understand what Paul has written. I don't consider FTD either of those, do you?
Here are some of your eccentric aunts and the folly they wrought.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831993/posts
WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE! Thanks much.
No, but it sure looks that way, doesn't it!? perfect doesn't fail. We do. As far as I know, God didn't write the Bible. We did. Given all the versions and conversions, and revisions, and additions and substractions...that is obvious.
Jesus' sacrifice applied retroactively. God isn't subject to time, right?
That's correct, except the Divine Economy of our salvation is God's work in our time. God intercedes in time.
But Jesus says it as plainly as it can be said. What is your interpretation of: John 3:3...
Figure of speech.
It never occurred to me before that you don't believe there is a very real change of a person at the point of belief.
There is a very real change, of course, but it's the same person, different direction. At one point we realize that we are mortal, we are humbled. Our pride and arrogance, which obscure God's likeness we were created with, begins to shine through.
The more humble we become, the more it shines, like sun through thinning clouds. Humility sheds our caked sin that obscures God's light. As this happens, we see a totally "new" self in us that we didn't recognize was there all along. It's like a beautiful frescoes on the fall covered with bad wallpaper. As we peel off the layers, we discover the God-painted beauty underneath them.
We are born with mud on our hearts because of our ancestral sin. When that mud get's washed off, with the Holy Spirit, we begin to regain our likeness to God (process of theosis). There kis no new heart. There is the same heart, except cleansed, "shining like new!" :)
You all believe the Spirit temporarily indwells at infant baptism, and the rest is up to us, so there wouldn't be any need for a change in nature of the person from a slave to sin, to one of righteousness, etc.
No, we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. Whatever sins you have they are forgiven at baptism. We are given a new chance ("life" figuratively speaking) to walk in the steps of Christ.
Baptism is adoption not salvation. We are given a new home, the House of God (Church) in which we can safely grow in the merciful love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and walk in His steps.
so there wouldn't be any need for a change in nature of the person from a slave to sin, to one of righteousness, etc.
There is no change in our nature (essence), we are still psuchesarkoi (bodysoul); what has changed is our choice.
If the Bible includes human desires in ADDITION to God's truths, then they must oppose each other since if they were the same they would be included as under God's truths. Therefore, you cannot believe the Bible is inerrant
I didn't say the Bible is inerrant. I said I don't believe it is a literal word of God. I also maintain that it contains God's truth (message), but not necessarily as literal accounts of events.
I also maintain that Exodus is a Jewish myth, biblically and historically. It never happened.
if human desires are added, then God should prove the Bible to be a document with lies: Prov 30:5-6 : 5 "Every word of God is flawless..."
I agree that every word of God is flawless. I do not agree that every word in the Bible is God's word.
I for one do not believe the Bible is a document with lies
Me neither, just myths and popular beliefs.
If Paul did appoint himself, then he could not have been sent. That means he was not one of God's chosen Apostles, and you should discredit absolutely everything he ever said that was not officially sanctioned by the consensus patrum
You don't have to be sent in order for the Spirit to reveal things to you. +Paul was "sent" in a sense as rain is sent to a drought-stricken region: it took the person he was to embrace Christ with his zeal and save the Church from certain destruction. That doesn't mean everything he said was God's own word. Many times he says it's his commandment, not the Lord's.
The original Apostles were not sent; they were picked, chosen on the spot. We could say that the prophets were "sent" but not the 12 Apostles. Perhaps the word is a misnomer. Disciples (students) is a better word.
But one of the 12 was the devil, as the Bible tells us. If they were all 'sent," then surely Judas was 'sent" too! Are we then to assume that the evil are also "sent" (by whom? by God?), which means Judas was simply doing Christ a divine "favor" and Caiaphas and Pilate were doing God's work!? Was Cain? Was the Pharaoh?
So, they were all "apostles" then? And everything they said and did was God's work!? I don't think so.
You consider a person who condemns an entire Christian community as spiritually dead or calling them a cult to be stable and learned? And continues to defend that position?
You are right, you haven't been following the conversation.
Regards
Opinions are cheap. If your opinion is that water refers to womb, stick to it.
No, Tim LaHaye.
I think the list would be much shorter if you stuck to the non-eccentric ones. :-)
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox orders are valid.
Thanks.
I know I'm coming in late in this conversation, but if Jesus said you have to be born AGAIN.. and you've already been born NATURALLY once .. so the AGAIN would be spiritually; WHAT ELSE COULD THAT MEAN?
You're born once, naturally, and 'again' spiritually.
It can't be baptism,can it? Jesus and John the Baptist both preached belief, repentence, THEN baptism. Therefore you would have been "born again" (spiritually) before you are baptised,right?
Oops, forgot to ping ya’ll to post 493 above.
Ignoring scripture is the same as believing it is wrong, only if your belief in the interpretation disagrees with your own belief about its correctness. On the issues you mention, like covering, there is more than one colorable interpretation. So, one would be contradictory for not covering only if the Holy Spirit revealed to that person that covering was intended for all (women) Christians of all time.
In addition, I DO give you full credit for being open and honest about your beliefs and disagreements. I hope you didn't think I was trying to be mocking. :)
No one around here hates dispensationalists, so get over it. It’s dispensationalism that is hard to digest for many of us. We’ve been there, we’re tasted the product, we’ve searched the Scriptures, we’ve seen the result, and we found better pastures. We’re just trying to save others the pain we endured for a time by comparing Scripture with Scripture.
And, as I’ve said before, the “real truth of the teaching” of dispensationalism is rather elusive since a) there is no universal dispensational creed, and b) some of you folks (like the progressives) keep changing the terms of the agreement.
“I think the list would be much shorter if you stuck to the non-eccentric ones. :-)”
Well, following your suggestion, I called for a meeting of the non-eccentrics, and much to my surprize most wanted to be eccentrics so the meeting will be held in a phone booth
on the corner of Albany Avenue and Blue Hills Avenue in Hartford.
I think the list would be much shorter if you stuck to the non-eccentric ones. :-)
= = =
I think a good sampling of us would easily own similar feelings re the REPLACEMENTARIANS.
“And, as I’ve said before, the “real truth of the teaching” of dispensationalism is rather elusive since a) there is no universal dispensational creed, and b) some of you folks (like the progressives) keep changing the terms of the agreement”
And after the social gospel, two world wars, the atomic bomb, communist purges and Pol Pot, post-mils decided that maybe the world wasn’t getting better as fast as they thought so now it’s back to the secret yeast thing.
And the amils still haven’t come up with a good reason for the sudden inbreaking of the triumphal Christ if Satan has been locked up and everything is just coasting along. What’s the point?
We will know when He dicides to tell us.
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.