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/
It can be very much argued the same way with your beliefs.
We do not have these conversations because of any insecurity on our part, but because we care enough to try to steer you away from serious error.
See above.
My beliefs matter not.
What Scripture says is what matters. Scripture says it is NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast. Over and over and over there are verse that speak only of faith in Christ - exclusive of works. Yes, there is James. But James is to be taken in the context of all Scripture. Amazing how those who complain of "prooftexting" will pull out verses from James to try to prove that their works in any way merit them heaven. Heresy!
-A8
Yes, that is true, but not exclusively, particularly when all the "Reformist" faith communities that hold that disagree with each other on a lot of things
. Yes, the Holy Spirit works through men. The question is which men. When Jews and Christians sat down to argue the Scriptures, Christians found in them testimony to Christ Jesus. The Jews did not. We say the Holy Spirit guided the Christians, but that is because we are Christians. When Christians sit down with Christians, we may be guided by the Spirit in that we each want to know the truth. But who decides between us when we disagree? One can say that all we can do is to discuss the matter in charity until ther end of time, and it may come to that. But there are different approaches. I try to be consistent with what I have been taught and not to depart from that if I can. I think that the difference between us is not what we believe because of an special inspiration but because we have been taught differently.
"Our Lady’s physical virginity, with all that it implies, remained integral and intact before, during and after the birth of Jesus. St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure and the Catechism of the Council of Trent all teach the painlessness of the birth as a logical consequence of its miraculous nature."
Perhaps because the above quote from the article is wrong and contrary to the scriptures Gen. 3:16, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." and Rev. 12:1-2, "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."
The movie was accurate concerning the pain and travail in labor that Mary suffered. To portray it any differently to appease Roman Catholics would not do justice to the scriptures just as having Jews violate the dietry laws would not do justice to the scriptures.
It doesn't matter how I look at things or how you look at things. It matters what Scripture says.
Romans 10
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
John 3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
1 Peter 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Romans 3
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 4
1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 5
1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Ephesians 2
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
We say the Holy Spirit guided Christians, not because we are Christians. We say it because Jesus promised it.
John 14
16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you...
26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15
26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16
13"But when He,the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
1 John 2
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world... 27As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
Gone to bed for tonight.
That's exactly how you look at things, through your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
-A8
Not my interpretation. The Holy Spirit's. He promised to teach me. He keeps His promises. My heart is captive to the word of God, here I stand for I can do none other; Indeed God does Help me.
Good evening.
I am behind on the thread, but I intend to continue. This is why: when Christ said "why persecutest thou me?", the actual persecution was against the Church.
Christ is Church.
There are no new heresies. All this reform stuff is a rehash of what greater heretics had thought. As long as the Church exists, she will have enemies. The Apocalypse tells us that Our Lady is forever the target. Without sounding pretentious, it is, really, a cosmic battle. Why is it a mistake? Why stay away? Don't go anywhere.
Hey, that's pretty good. :) My last group broke up a little while ago, but when the next one comes along, I'll do it. :)
I read it in the same scripture Xzins refers to when he quotes: "The Holy Spirit came upon her" and she was "Overshadowed by the power of the Most High." I think that if DNA testing was available at the time, and such a test was done, it would prove that Mary and Jesus were blood relatives. Do you think otherwise? --- Because no sex was involved, the fertilization of Mary's egg was supernatural.
The "instant" was supernatural, the Child was supernatural, the pregnancy therefore could only have been miraculous and supernatural, yet the birth, for some reason, "must" be nothing short of "natural."
What about the pregnancy do you find supernatural? Pregnancy is a nine-month process. How was it different from what we experienced? Just because the baby happened to be Jesus is not evidence that the pregnancy was anything out of the ordinary. When Jesus was scourged, he bled in an "ordinary" manner, wouldn't you say? Or, was His bleeding "supernatural" because it was Him?
So, I am asking you again: At which point did it become "natural" and where does it say so?
I have not seen you argue against my first answer yet. :) We are told that the Spirit came upon Mary and she conceived. This was supernatural because there was no sexual union involved. After the instantaneous event, the rest of it was "natural". I and Ignatius appear to agree that Mary carried Jesus for nine months in the usual and normal way, and then gave birth in the usual and normal way.
I still can't really put my arms around where you are coming from here. If you asked me if I thought that Jesus was subject to being the victim of a miscarriage I would say "no". If you think that would make the entire pregnancy "supernatural" then I could meet you there. However, neither you nor I nor anyone else ever born was subject to miscarriage either. All of us were born according to God's plan. I don't really consider that to be "supernatural" in the context of this discussion.
I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity.
I don't know what you both are talking about. Christ the Word was never born. Jesus the Christ was born to Mary. Both are true. How do you explain this without distinguishing the divine from the human?
Really??? When Jesus prayed, was He just talking to Himself? Or, when He asked for the cup to be taken away, was that an internal conflict God was having? I don't think so.
He is not a demigod, half-god and half human, nor is there divine "schizophrenia," or multiple personality.
I fully agree. I don't think I would be wise to attempt to explain the intricate mechanics of it, but I do agree.
At no point can anything about Christ be considered "normal" or "natural" from the human point of view.
But that's just labeling. For example, Jesus built things. He must have built a chair for someone. Was that a supernatural chair, or was it just a regular chair, although extremely well built? Unless you think that the chair carried with it supernatural qualities, then it was a normal or natural chair.
If you want to say that His tears were "supernatural" just because they were His, that is fine. But, if a scientist examined those tears and compared them with those of a normal person, would he see any difference? I don't think so, or else how could He have been fully human?
I think the key word there is "only."
My point is that you interpret such verses in terms of your tradition; I in terms of mine. In other words, your arguments are from authority, and an authority not necessarily inspired. In the words of Scvripture, God does indeed speak to us. But do we hear rightly?
D-fendr-"Yes."
Ahhhh...I don't think that was a "Yes-No" question.
I don't think angels understand "Maybe."
{^_^}
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.