'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.---"Against Heresies", 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.

Irenaeus says the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar of our faith." Protestants, so named by Roman Catholicism as a pejorative term during the Reformation agrees.

It is quite obvious you haven't read "Against Heresies"...

The overriding theme is that the Gnostics, who read the exact same Scriptures as the Catholics, were wrong in their interpretation. You take Irenaeus out of context by trying to make him say something he never said - that one can know the truths of revelation from Scripture ALONE. It is obvious to ANYONE who has read a cursory amount of the book that he says the EXACT OPPOSITE! THROUGHOUT, Irenaeus tells us we can KNOW how to interpret the Scriptures when we follow the Rule of Faith, given by the Apostolic Succession.

Two chapters after your quote, Irenaeus says the following, which I quote in entirety:

CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

As to the rest of the slandous and false distorting of the other Fathers, I notice that you merely re-gurgitate the same baloney that William Webster and David King titled in their book "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith". I will merely give you the link for the destruction metted out by Phil Porvaznik in his devasting rebuttal of that book that is an outright deception, just as your post on Irenaeus.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num49.htm

I am familiar with Irenaeus. This link addresses the rest quite well and I will waste no more time. Sola Scriptura didn't exist then, and it is nonsense still. Not only is it not biblical, it is not found in the Church Fathers' writings. I don't blame you for your cut and paste of Webster's nonsense. Very few Protestants are truly aware of what the Fathers write, except when they read Webster's garbage. But I would suggest you read the writings yourself, rather than read a clip taken out of context. Read Book III, at least thumb through it, and you tell me if Irenaeus thinks that we can know God's revelation by the Bible alone without the Rule of Faith from the Church. See for yourself.

I leave you to discover the truth of the matter.

Regards

FK, I am going to break down my answers into several posts, as the post is getting rather long, and i want to cocnentrate on each of several issues you mention.

...I figure there must be some Orthodox doctrine about the Bible itself, and if so, then if you MUST also believe in doctrine (contrary to my supposition above), then I am confused based on the history of this conversation

The best way I can describe to you what the Orthodox Church teaches about the Bible is from the way it is worded in one of the articles on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOARCH):

Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit

To put it another way: the Bible reveals God's perfect truth even tough it is expressed imperfectly

I think you will recognize my consistent approach towards the Scriptures in that statement.

The Orthodox Church does not have a specific 'dogma' about the Bible. The Old Testament was considered Scripture when the Apostles wrote their books, particularly the Septuagint (LXX) OT, form which they quote overwhelmingly.

The Church accepted all apostolic writings as Scripture from the beginning without any specific dogma (the real problem was discerning whihc writings that circulated in those days, were apostolic in authorship).

The "acceptance" was realized simply by reading apostolic books during the Divine Liturgy. If it was read in the church, by the decision of its bishop, it was assumed to be apostolic. Thus, the Bible is simply a product, a central one at that, of the life of the Church otherwise known as the Holy (or Sacred) Tradition.

Acceptance of the Bible by the original Church was not 'regulated' by dogma. It was simply accepted on tradition.

One bottom line question is at what level (dogma, doctrine, discipline) does heresy come into play?

Heresy, by definition is any teaching that denies the essential elements of the Christian faith, as contained in the Symbol of Faith (i.e. the Creed) finalized in 381 AD

Dogma does not evolve and does not change. Dogma is a statement of truth known to the Church, expressed by a general or local council, in response to heresies. Note: the Catholic Church departed from this after the Schism and proclaimed dogma without clear and present heresies.

Doctrine can evolve but not change. One can disagree with individual fathers' speculations (theoogical hypotheses or theologoumenna) but not with consensus patrum because that represents the collective knowledge and unanimous doctrinal agreement of the whole Church.

Individual fathers are fallible. The Church as a whole isn't.

I respectfully disagree and say that not only does MY local church not know the truth fully, but that God's Church does not know the truth fully (unless it is unknowable to the individual)

Perhaps I didn't find a need to be super specific, but I will rephrase, then, that the Apostolic Church was given the fullness of God's revealed truth (obviously, that which is not revealed cannot be known). Thus, within the Church is the fullness of our faith in true God.

If you do not believe that your church knows the fullness of God's revealed truth you cannot be sure that your God is a true God or that your faith is a true faith. If you doubt the truth of your church, you doubt the truth of your faith and you doubt the truth of your God.

Otherwise, there is no more growth and sanctification ceases.

Not at all! That's why +James tells you to get on with works. Faith is life; we live our faith. Our appreciation for God never ceases!

Presumably, if the Orthodox Church knew the truth fully, it would have said so and published so in order to witness to the rest of us

It does, repeatedly, that the fullness of our faith is in the Church. Our Creed reminds us every Sunday that Christ is True God of true God. Yet, you just told me that in Orthodoxy there are only three dogmas, all of which any Christian could readily agree to

That's what makes them Christian, but not Orthodox Christian.

Do those three dogmas constitute the "truth fully"?

Absolutely, God's revealed truth, that is.

If so, then I would think that you, the Catholics, and us would all be in communion together

We agree with the Catholics on all three dogmas. We disagree on the procession of the Holy Spirit. We will never be in communion until such time when our dogmatic differences are properly understood as one and the same faith. You and us (Orthodox/Catholic) disagree with Protestants and Baptists on a variety of theological issues, not necessarily on essential dogmas, which is why all mainline Protestants and Baptists are Christians.

In order for communion to take place we must share all aspects of our faith and praxis (Communion, after all, is praxis!) as a symbol of one and the same faith, and not as a means of achieving one.

Brass tacks: If you believe that the Orthodox Church is in possession of the truth fully, and if your last council was over a thousand years ago, and if you have three dogmas, and if every holding of the consensus patrum is searchable and learnable by any Orthodoxer today, then, have you stopped growing spiritually?

Spiritual growth is an individual's journey to God. The Church is certainly not "growing" spiritually or "learning." The Church was given the fullness of God's revelation contained in the Holy Tradition (in orthodoxy, the Bible is the central part of that 'deposit of faith'; in Roman catholicism, it is parallel with it). If the Church does not know the fullness of God's revealed truth, how can the Church know what is heresy and what orthodoxy? How could the Church agree on what is inspired and what is not or have you forgotten that it was the Church that put together the Bible you believe in by discerning, based on orthodox faith, which writings were inspired and which profane?

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.