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/
Augustine and the 2nd Council of Orange thoroughly condemned the semi-pelagian false gospel Rome came to embrace in the middle ages.
Let us see. A celibate man wearing a hairshirt, living in the desert in perpetual fast, -- is he doing something or is he having himself a mind change?
John the Baptist was a sinner just like all born of Adam, including Mary.
The repentance John the Baptist came preaching was repentance of the false religion of the Pharisees and 1st century Judaism which, like Roman Catholicism was of works righteousness, empty rituals, legalism and "sacraments", and to come to true faith in Christ, the Messiah, a message that Rome needs to hear as well.
In the new testament the word church is not a building or organization.. In the new testament sense "wherever two or three meet together in my name", "there am I in their midst".. that is a/the church.. You know, a denomination.. Even if there is nobody that considers themselves clergy.. The Holy Spirit is the ONLY requirement ...
[.. They are several churches in communion with Rome, several Orthodox churches, and perhaps, a few pre-Chalcedon churches such as Ethiopian Armenian and Coptic. ..]
Clubs with bylaws are a secular invention.. pagans, nominal christians, and Judaizers need that.. Galatians is pretty clear about that.. Judaizers do not like Paul or his teachings viscerally.. The book of Galatians was written so that Judaizers didn't hijack that church.. pity that they eventually did.. same with Greeks and Romans..
Yes I quoted you so that my response was salient.. as I did above..
Sacraments are ceremony's and tradition and hijack the Holy Spirits work/job/ministry/help/speaking.. and are probably sacrilegious.. and heretical.. not to speak of Pagan.. And dishonor the Messiah's work.. at least some of them.. And MOCK his work like transubstantiation.. by making his metaphor literal..
I'm sorry to have to get all pedantic on you twice in one day but you left out the rest, to wit:
That's all that I amSomebody's got to stay on top of this stuff.
I'm Popeye the sailor man.
10-4
Does not look that way, unless by "genuine" you mean "Catholic" or "Orthodox" in the modern sense:
Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned.
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
True faith includes obeying the Gospel, no? For relevant scripture see my 15,139.
Show me where Douay deviates from the original.
Point remains, he was doing something to give example of repentance.
See the relevant scripture I cited in 15,139. Baptism, confession, and Holy Communion are all requirements.
Just going by your own posts.
What a curious style of responding.
BTW, I rebuke the whole idea that I’ve born false witness re anyone, in Jesus’ Name—PARTICULARY re you.
What utter unmitigated balderdash.
To point out a heresy in a fellow Christian is charity. To defend the Church form attack is also charity.
= = =
For the above to be true—simply true; generally true . . .
particularly from God’s perspective would depend on a LOT of factors . . .
And biased, hide-bound, tradition bound, tidy-little box bound ... perspectives . . . have, in my experience and observations been chronically prone to wholesale error—i.e. virtually always very seriously wrong and wrong on more than a couple of scores, factors, issues.
GOODNESS.
i must be out in left field.
I thought it was:
“I YAM WHAT I YAM!”
LoL..
Job security..
No their not.. Baptism is symbolic burial of the "old man".. which is metaphorical.. confession and communion to and with the Holy Spirit is fellowship(prayer) with him.. and sets up fellowship with others..
The word IS actually penance, and just another example of someone changing the Bible.
penance: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin paenitentia, penitence, from paenitēns, paenitent-, penitent; see penitent.
Repent:Middle English repenten, from Old French repentir : re-, re- + pentir, to be sorry (from Vulgar Latin *paenitīre, from Latin paenitēre).
Notice the change is very small but it still strays from the inspired Word of God as Canonized by the Catholic Church. Why, I don't know but maybe to support a belief that someone else decided to change???
Now, I know you don't like the Catholic religion but explain to me again how you accept any part of the New Testament as the inspired Word of God? Who was the authority that gave YOU the Bible?
LOLOL!
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.