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/
"But, like you said, I don't understand."
That's OK; you don't have to unless and until there is a proposed reunion. Then, well, it will become very, very important. In the meantime, not understanding won't affect your theosis in the least, my friend! :)
Perhaps sometimes its best to leave Mysteries as Mysteries.
It is not that much of a mystery. Abraham was promised that through his seed (DNA) all the Nations would be blessed. Therefore Jesus had to be a blood descendant of Abraham.
2+2=4
If Jesus were not a blood descendant of Abraham, then he was not the Messiah.
What good are prophecies if they are not fulfilled?
Your entire post is laughable and false, particularly since you are referring to Luther and others as liars. Anyone who has read Luther will understand what he said and why he said it, and your cherry-picked, out of context quote is not Luther's full teachings on the subject.
Luther was prone to overstating things to make a point. An example of this is his "sin boldly" sermon. Anyone who understands Luther (which you in your nasty anti-Protestant HATRED do not) understands that he was making a point of the full extent of Grace. He wasn't being a libertine. He was saying the shackles of Rome which caused so many in the middle ages to fear damnation if they made one small misstep (a fear Luther himself had as long as he was in the demonic institution that was 16th century Rome) you need not fear. The Grace of the Lord has taken care of all of your sins. Past, present, future. Whom the Son has set free is free indeed.
When the leader is anti-Christ, one need not follow him.
B: Thanks for your well sourced comments.
I have always thought that Mary really didn't understand the enormity of what was going on. If she truly knew Jesus was God incarnate, how could she raise him as a normal child? How could she rebuke him at the temple and not understand what he meant when he said he was at his father's house? How could she come with his brothers to take him home when he had started his ministry?
Your lack of knowledge about Scripture and its contents would astound me if you weren't a Catholic. This is not necessarily a slam against Catholics by the way, for my own denomination suffers the same issue amongst the laity. But, it has been my experience with the Catholics I know that they can quote the Catechism or some Marian doctrine but not Scripture. To familiarize yourself with it, first, the church is not called the "pillar and ground of the truth" in Scripture. Scripture gives itself you the answer - but you are too bound by tradition and the shackles of your mind to search it out for yourself. I have posted numerous verses on this thread detailing the role of Scripture in the life of the believer. You can not post a single verse showing that the Church is the ultimate authority in all things.
So, we are at an impasse that involves circular reasoning on both of our parts. I believe that Scripture is the final authority (as it is understood through the Holy Spirit's leading) on all matters of faith and practice because Scripture says it is. You believe that the Roman Catholic is the final authority because the Roman Catholic says it is. We will NEVER agree on this matter. Period.
I think Mary did understand, at least in part. The Bible says she pondered these things in her heart. Also, she didn't rebuke him after his comment about His Father's business, but before. She knew that He could do something about the wine situation at Cana. But, she wasn't a perfect person. So I think while she understood that her son was the Son of God, she sometimes didn't know how to handle that information properly.
You need to take a reading comprehension class. Re-read my post and then see if I think Jesus erred.
There are all sorts of early "CHristian" documents. I don't remember the Father, he is referenced in this thread someplace, but he was dubious of the recent appearance of the protoevangelium. It wasn't a first century document and only appeared AFTER some of the extra-biblical doctrines about Mary began to be developed. As such, it is a non-issue. It is not Scripture. It is a story that someone who is pro-Mary wrote. Nothing more.
Mary's perpetual virginity is not only not elaborated on in Scripture - it isn't there.
The trinity is.
Don't confuse them with facts. They are on a roll. Particularly since it fosters an anti-Semitic view that a few of them apparently hold.
It is a forgery that appeared on the scene well after the fact.
It is, however, an early Christian document that reflects the culture of at the latest the 2c, and it describes the marriage of St. Joseph and the reasons for it.
It conveniently appears about 30-50 years after the elevation of Thekla's accomplishments in another forgery "Acts of Paul and Thekla". The appearance of these FORGERIES are three to four generations AFTER the end of the APOSTOLIC ERA any "Sacred Tradition" or doctrine that would be built on forgeries is suspect at best.
Again, its forged status doesn't keep them from quoting from it.
If the Donation of Constantine weren't so blatantly obvious in its forgery, we'd no doubt be hearing about it today as well.
well, yeah...if you understand that Rock Jedsu built His church upon, and the Bishops, in union with him, are the authorities and any authority by your local priests etc is derivative from their authority and is exercised legitimately in union with the local Bishop who is in union with the Pope.
Origen (182-251AD) "like that of a Gospel of Peter was of dubious recent appearance". Origen also noted that he shared with the notion that the brethren of the LORD were sons of Joseph by a former wife. In the same train of thought, he admits, while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore them for Joseph) was true and acceptable.
A great example of why the Bereans were respected. Sola Scriptura!
Merry Christmas to you and yours and thank you for your informative posts. :-)
That was the one I was remembering. Thank you! And Merry Christmas, wmfights!
Luther, in addition to being an insane violent drunk and execrable antisemitic, was riven with scrupulosity - that psychological disorder was the spark which touched off the protestant revolution.
I am not a protestant hater. In fact, I married a proddy. (she got better)
I repeatedly make clear I do not hate protestants who have been born into their proddy families. The proddies I know follow Jesus to the absolute best of their abilities.
I do experience sadness their worship, deracinated, dessicated and devoid of Sacrifice, is not what God Himself Commanded we do, but, I understand the oral tradition of the protestant revolutionaries has, effectively, grown scales over the eyes of the sola scripturists and they are blind to the Gospel.
Only the Holy Spirit, and a humble heart, can overcome the devilish destructiveness set loose by the 16th Century Satan Mini-me's.
The proddy converts in here are estimable men and women and they have nothing but good to say about their former families and communities.
it does not work in the reverse direction , however. In fact, those who leave the Church, are but faint-hearted imitators of the hateful Herisiarch, the Lustful Lying Lunatic Luther
To familiarize yourself with it, first, the church is not called the "pillar and ground of the truth" in Scripture.
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
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.