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/
By denying that the LEM applies to claims about God, you admit that it could be true that the LEM does apply to claims about God. Your claim is therefore self-nullifying.
-A8
-A8
The apostles looked upon the time from Pentecost to now as the “last days”. Peter’s comments in Acts is consistent with James and Hebrews. This is the last covenant-the last days.
= = =
You trying to shock me into next week?
I didn’t realize there was that much agreement between us on the topic! LOL.
With all due respect to Lewis, he is wrong on this point, influenced by Platonism. That view is called 'angelism', and it treats the human person as equivalent to angels. In fact, we are essentially soul-body composites. My body is not something I have, like my car. My body is part of me. To touch my body is to touch me (not all of me, of course, but nevertheless me).
-A8
Some of us have more clogged spiritual ears on this or that issue or in general . . . than others.
In my experience,
it’s usually the more narrowly, parochially, blindly, rigidly biased and stubborn folks in every denomination who have the hardest time hearing accurately spiritually.
Certainly been true in my life when I’ve wallowed or walked in such junk.
The metaphor of eat my flesh, drink my blood is obvious.. it takes magisterium power to transform it into the literal.. and then make it "SILLY".. But not only silly it takes the metaphor and makes it "like" a rite from the religion worshiping Isis and Horus from the Egyptian Delta.. You know the religion with Isis(Queen of Heaven) and her perpetually infant son(Horus).. They(believers) consumed a missa(small bread) with wine also..
The Romans were always known for NOT Rejecting a foreigners God BUT including them, among their own Gods, or morphing them in with additions(except for the Jews God that is).. A practice used many times and in many ways after the Emperor Constantine made every Roman pagan a christian overnight or tried to..
That other authority that you do not recognize, but which declared the Nicene Creed as orthodoxy and condemned as heretical the Platonic errors of Origen: namely, the Magisterium of the Church.
-A8
-A8
No, that is precisely gnostic.
-A8
Jesus interpretation.. Just follow the metaphor.. as the conversation naturally leads.. The metaphor shows "whats important" and its NOT the bread or wine.. Making the bread OR wine important shows you missed the meaning of the metaphor. Which obviously was its objective.. A fact worth, at least, considering..
That's not what the Catholic Church teaches.
-A8
And who has Jesus's interpretation?
-A8
If so then a stopped clock is correct twice a day.. ;)..
Heck even the Roman Catholic church is correct every now and again..
Solo Scriptura does..
And who knows what "Solo Scriptura" says about Jesus's interpretation of "This is my body"?
-A8
Blue-duncan says the last days started with Adam. That could be, but none of the OT authors (Isaiah 2:2, Jeremiah 23:20 and 49:39, Eze 38:16, Hosea 3:5, Amos 4:2, Micah 4:1, and Joel 2:82-83) write about the last days as anytyhing but future, and not a "developing" event.
It is only in the New Testament that one begins to find references to "these last days" in the present (Heb 1:2 and James 5:3), which you cite. However, 2 Timothy and 2 Peter do not share that view but rather continue to speak of the last days as a future event:
"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." [2 Pet 3:3]
The Holy Spirit does(he was there) and is looking over your shoulder as you type.. ask him..
That's the answer the Mormons all gave me. They tried that same method and claimed that the Holy Spirit had led them to become Mormons.
But as I explained in #14636, The Holy Spirit is leading me to recognize the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. And the Magisterium of the Catholic Church says that "This is my body" means that upon consecration (by one ordained in succession from the Apostles), the bread actually becomes the Body of Christ, and is not a mere symbol.
-A8
The relativistic quantum theory Christians will tell you that this is so because of the "observer" phenomenon. :)
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.