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/
Nice try, I can't interpret icons and corruption, to me, is not the same as death, so just a simple answer, "Did His human nature die in His flesh?"
Have you read #3080 yet?
Yes, but I value your opinion more than someone who passed on 1,600 years ago. Then I can ask questions and get lawyerly clarifications if I don't understand the answer.
I don't even understand the question. If you asked, "Did Christ die?" or "Did Christ, through His human nature, die?" I would understand the question.
Also, what exactly do you think death is?
-A8
How do you get the cyrillic to pop up?
One puts on a costume. One takes on a role. Take on and Put On and Take upon oneself doesn't indicate that He BECAME flesh.
"Yes, but I value your opinion more than someone who passed on 1,600 years ago. Then I can ask questions and get lawyerly clarifications if I don't understand the answer."
LOL! Were I you, I'd value +John Chrysostomos' opinion far, far more than mine! I'm off to the doctor to get my face sliced open (happy day!). When I get home later if I'm in any shape to do it, I'll give you my opinion. :)
I had mine done the Thursday before Chrstmas so I would not be tempted to over eat. He just took out the sutures. Hope all turns out alright.
Christ did not destroy Hades when he descended into it. It will be destroyed at a future date, however (Revelation 20).
Maybe this will help. Creeds aside, the word in inspired Scripture is Ginomai (egeneto).
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
Perhaps I do. But, unlike some who think they understand English better, I use dictionaries just to be sure.
If you carefully review my wording I believe I said "took on" human nature. I believe that would qualify as "assume" human nature, just as "taking flesh" is synonymous with taking on (assuming) human nature.
It seems to me that perhaps you have difficulties with finer points of the English language.
I believe that the phrase Assumption of Mary is the same as taking Mary into heaven.
Perhaps you need to re-examine your Christology, for if you believe that He existed in flesh as man EN APXH your belief is not what Christianity taught from the beginning (no pun intended).
Athanasian Creed says
No, this is what you said:
God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity.
Your explanations which followed did nothing more than dig a deeper hole.
BTW The Word BECAME FLESH.
He didn't put on a human costume. He didn't clothe himself in a human form. He did not "assume" a human form. He BECAME FLESH.
Hence your statement is just plain wrong.
Have you ever once admitted that you were wrong about anything on this forum?
I think in the theophanies, he put on flesh. He truly was appearing as a human being, but it wasn't a difference in nature. It was, for lack of a better word, a costume. Yet, He wrestled with Jacob and ate with Abraham. He was a human in these appearances, though His person did not change in that He was ultimately God. The Hebrew indicates that He was a man during these times, though the effect was that it was a mere temporary manifestation.
In the incarnation, He BECAME God-Man. He had a transformation of nature as the 2nd person of the trinity. When He died on the cross, that which could die died. The heart stopped beating. The lungs stopped breathing. The blood stopped flowing. The body died. The spirit didn't die (defining die as ceasing to function). It continued in Paradise. When He arose, the flesh arose. The brain started working and caused the body to function. The heart beat. The legs moved. The mouth spoke. He ate. He could be touched. His wounds could be felt. Yet, He was glorified in the flesh as well since He walked through walls. He is our example of what the glorified human body will be like. We don't know what we will be like, other than that we will be like Him. We won't be God. He never ceased being God. Yet, at the incarnation, He physically became 100% man (while retaining His status as 100% God). It wasn't a costume. It was a transformation.
That is correct, P-Marlowe. I am sorry if you don't believe that, because that's the very basic Christain belief.
Word the God existed from the beginning Who, until His hypostatic union with Mary's flesh, was not material.
Flesh and human nature is used interchangably in the Scripture. Why don't you explain what it means that husband and wife become one flesh.
Have you ever once admitted that you were wrong about anything on this forum?
I have. Have you?
Does "God The Word" have a name?
He is and has always been our Lord, God, the Christ. His divine name is the Only-begotten of the Father, the Word (Logos), true God of true God, Light of Light. After His Birth by the Virgin, He was given the name Jesus.
I have also posted the statement of the Council of Ephesus which you ignored. The statement says:
Do you just simply disagree and dismiss the Church teachings (beng a Protestant, that is a reasonable assumption), or do you not understand what the Church teaches? You called my statement a heresy (that which is not taught by the Church). Are you kidding me?
Kosta, you appear to be denying that Jesus was 100% human. You appear to be saying that he just put on flesh like one puts on a costume. Is this what you are saying? Or was there a fundamental transformation of who/what He was?
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.