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/
Actually, those views are from the Bible.
You ought to try reading it sometime.
Good points.
But my flaws are not of essence for the comparison. Even if I were wholly consistent, all-knowing and impartial, I still would not be obligated to give my child what I do not wish to give. I may offer a deal: get on the honor roll and you can have a dog, — but that is still my decision to offer the deal. Nor is it wrong for the parent to offer these deals on an indivudual basis, taking into account the condition of the heart of each child.
Likewise, while God judges us by our works, he does not judge us by any human measure of the work. This is very clear from the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Divine justice is mercy; we cannot comprehend it. In fact, one who does the work of charity thinking that he obligates God, rather than in the spirit of humility, is guilty of presumption, together with the self-righteous pharisees.
Very funny.
Finney was an out-and-out, unabashed Pelagian and said so, a position the church formally declared heresy. He felt man saved himself and the post-modern church you see today can be traced back to much of Finney's work. His was a social gospel-that's it. You may think Finney was great. Many do. Personally, I do not.
If a man's heart is reborn his life will be reborn. And if one man's life is reborn, that productive, God-glorifying life will positively effect the society in which he lives.
The very concept of Christianity asserts that physical and mental well-being come from a correct world view which is God-centered. When our perspective changes, our lives change and thus, society is impacted positively.
All as God wills.
Or else you've declared defeat before the game is over.
“You keep confusing the liberal “social gospel” (change society and you will change the man)”
No, there is no confusion. We were talking about how the systems change with the changes in circumstance, like dates, progress, “eccentrics” etc. What I was pointing out is that over time as circumstances changed even the post-mil optimism changed from a confident “Rise Up Oh Men of God” to a quiet movement like yeast. The liberal social gospel arose out of the preaching of post-mil scholars because of their confidence that this was the millennium and the church was ushering in the kingdom and man was getting better so the church should eradicate cultural deficiencies with its programs. Those darn wars came at such an inconvenient time.
Is that ever the truth. Christianity was being assailed from all sides, a heavy assault coming from a variety of weird occult influences and mindless spiritualism which included Margaret McDonald's fever visions, Westcott & Hort's Ghost Society, Darby's "two people of God," Charles Finney's Arminian revivalism, the Fox sisters' imaginings, Darwinian eugenics, Christian Science, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Madame Blavatsky's theosophy.
It was all being concocted and encouraged to achieve the same end -- dilute and thus destroy Christianity (and most especially reformed Christianity.)
Here's a good link to Finney...
Yes, there are wars. The world will always have disputes until Christ returns and history ends.
That does not change the rock-solid fact that a man who has been reborn by God will have a positive effect on his family, his community and his society.
It's only logical. Goodness begets goodness. And it's certainly Scriptural.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." -- Matthew 28:18-20"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
"And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:
To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." -- 1 Thessalonians 3:12-13
What I really don't understand about the dispensational mindset is why do you think national Israel as a whole will receive increased blessings and prosperity, but those who are led by Jesus Christ won't?
“What I really don’t understand about the dispensational mindset is why do you think national Israel as a whole”
I don’t think I have ever said I thought “national” Israel will receive any blessings other than the general providence of God that He bestows on all nations and peoples. I think that during this age He deals with all nations whether Jew or Gentile without discrimination. I believe He is protecting the race from extermination because He has a plan for them when the church is taken out, much like He did in the first and second exiles and the prophecies in Isaiah, but during this age there is no difference in providential blessing.
“In my reading the only people pointing to the two world wars as being evidence for the millenial disappointment of postmils are the premils.”
I believe one of the references to this is in Millard Erickson’s book on eschatology, but I will check out the refrences for you right after I plant the gardens tomorrow.
but during this age there is no difference in providential blessing.
= = =
I disagree.
IIRC, A very disproportionate percentage of Nobel winners are Jewish . . . as well as other awards of a similar nature.
In this era, God will still bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse them—as He promised Abraham.
That says it all in a nut shell. You don't have a clue about the Gospel, do you... You claim the Eastern Orthodox are spiritually dead, the Roman Catholics are a cult, and now the trifecta, you can be saved with a dead faith. Go read 1 Cor 13:2 again.
You are fit to be made fun of. Certainly not to be taken seriously. Don't waste my time anymore.
Adios.
Kosta: "God created man body+soul (in that order). Our "natural" state, therefore, is body & soul, not just the "naked" soul."
This is an old favorite of mine: "You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body." - C. S. Lewis
That's interesting, I didn't know that was part of the meaning. I like that very much. While both of my children were baptized first as infants, neither was in a Reformed church. Perhaps the ceremonies are very different because this idea wasn't conveyed as I remember.
But to baptize your children before the congregation in the sight of God is a lovely, generous act of God's grace to His family, declaring the lives of our children are in His hands from the moment they take their first breath, forever clothed with the blood of Jesus Christ. (emphasis added)
This is the part my thick head still can't get. :) Although we cannot "KNOW" if anyone is saved, except ourselves, I might bet my house that you are saved. However, if tomorrow you had an infant child, and then had him baptized, I would not make such a bet because I would have no idea whether he would come to faith or not. Are you saying that we should be able to make this type of prediction?
[From The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563:] Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
A. 74. Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents,[3] they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,[4] as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,[5] in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.[6] (emphasis added)
To me, "People of God" means believers, or the saved. The reference given is Gen. 17:7. But that refers to the spiritual descendants of Abraham only, not the physical, as Paul tells us. On the one hand it sounds like this is saying that the children of believers have an automatic "in". Yet, we know for sure that it doesn't work out like that. That's why I'm confused. :) I fully agree with you that the people of God are the people of God from before the beginning. But if part of Baptism is recognizing and celebrating that fact about any individual, I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith.
Perhaps if there was a such thing as a "hyper-Reformed Baptist" :) he might also want to see further proof of someone being among God's people, i.e. some evidence of a changed life, including works, etc., before baptism. Logically, I can see something in that argument, but of course the Bible doesn't teach that at all. Among the believers baptisms we know of in scripture, it is clear that the person should very soon be baptized after a profession of faith. So, from scripture, we are told, in effect, that a profession of faith is "good enough" to rejoice in another's baptism.
I do so hope you don't mind me continuing on this subject. :) Since I'm a Reformer, I just want to understand what most Reformers think about this. :)
BD: "I thought that was a pretty good line until I ran it by K. Her response was “as far as I’m concerned, what’s the difference?” I think she is beginning to have doubts about my playmates so if you can make the questions a little less controversial, I would appreciate it."
Nah, I'm sure K has a wonderful sense of humor and thinks all of your buddies here are great people. But if you want a little less controversial, try this. Tell K that we were all talking about Rush's show yesterday, and ask her about this: The topic was that recent divorce rates were falling. Rush said he wasn't sure if that was good or bad, and went a little into his own experiences of being married and divorced three times. A concerned caller thought he might have better luck if he made a list of the attributes of the perfect woman for him, and then he should go out and find her. Rush hesitated but then offered that the perfect woman for him would be 36-24-36, 5'7", have a flat spot on the head, deaf, and mute. Of course, the flat spot on the head is, you know, to hold your drink.
Now, I know that K will find this positively charming, as I did, and you can use it as an interesting conversation starter. No need to thank me now. Let's see what she says. :)
Excellent post, BD. Combined with Dr. E.'s other scripture proofs, this couldn't be more rock solid.
Good advice, no matter what the specifics are. :)
Maybe in English (why am i not surprised?). Greeks defined it differently: we are psuchesarkoi. I trust the source.
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.