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/
God doesn't prohibit anyone from believing. He doesn't say "No, you can't believe" But those who are saved are saved because God showed them mercy in quickening, drawing, authroing and completing the work of salvation. Of all that the Father gives Christ, He will lose nothing.
"Oh trust me - if there's one thing I would never accuse Orthodoxy of, that would be of their accepting Holy Scripture as the highest, supremely infallible voice of authority within their churches."
Then you would be wrong, AM. That's exactly what we believe. What we don;t believe is that any individual, lay person, preacher, hierarch, even a pope, can infallibly declare what scripture means. That infallibilty is God's gift to The Church. You Protestants learned your lessons on individual infallibility very well from the Popes you revolted against.
I don't know how else to say it: Doesn't this worldview seem like robots to you? Free will only an illusion? Do you feel no choices before you now?
It's not based upon my feelings. And this response comes after much reflection on how I was saved. There was a point where the Holy Spirit began working on my heart. Though my heart was inclined towards sin, He touched it and gave me the "want to" to come to Christ. I came to Christ when He drew me. I believed the truth He told me, but even that faith to believe was a gift of God's. It is all of Him, and not of me.
"Because I don't believe that there is anything that I can do to earn my salvation,..."
Agreed
"... nor lose my salvation."
There we disagree, I think, but then again, I never know what salvation means from one Protestant to the next. How do you define the word, Blogger?
And the others he didn't. It's saying the same thing.
No it isn't.
I start by acknowledging there is one truth and one truth only, and that everything comes from God, including my ability to make that statement.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
From there I look to Scripture...
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:14-17"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
If people disagree with that, they are disagreeing with God's word. It's their loss. My job is to preach the truth of Christ risen to all nations and races and then to trust that all with ears to hear and eyes to see and a new heart given by God alone, according to His mercy, will hear and see and understand and believe.
Not one of God's sheep will be lost. The rest are heading for the cliffs at lightening speed. Nothing I can say will stop them.
Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:-20"He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
I'm not agreeing you cannot be saved without Grace, but you seem to have taken this to such an extreme that there can only be an illusion of free will.
And along the way made God capricious and.. well, cruel.
I can see how you get there, but only by making some wrong turns, because God is not cruel.
I'm not disagreeing you cannot be saved without Grace..
Why do you say it makes God cruel?
It's not scripture they disagree with of course. It's what you make of it. You do see this difference, don't you?
What if they tell you that you're disagreeing with God's word in your beliefs from scripture?
Isn't it cruel to create someone such that they have no choice, no mercy, nothing but eternal damnation? And at the same time create others such that they have no choice but eternal happiness?
It's, I dunno how else to describe it but capricious and cruel, a world without meaning.
"I was shown where I was anathematized and pretty much without hope in the Orthodox church if I don't accept their icons. To me, this is works based salvation. If I can believe in Christ Jesus as God, his death on Calvary, that He rose again, believe in His sacrifice for my sins, love Him - and yet, be anathematized without hope outside of venerating an icon - that is works."
Funny thing about those anathemas. They were, in many respects, a response to earlier anathemas by the Iconoclasts against the venerators of icons. At base they were against the veneration of icons only because they were against icons themselves. They were no more against the veneration of things, the Cross is a good example, than today's Protestants are aganst, say, showing respect to the American Flag, or, I suppose, The Cross (one can never quite tell just what it is you folks believe). At any rate, when the Iconoclasts anathemized the veneration of icons, they also anathemized anyone who didn't pray to saints or to the Most Holy Theotokos and a number of other defaults found throughout modern Protestantism. So actually, Blogger, you're better off under our anathemas than those of the heretics we condemned.
First, the apostles chose to cast lots for the replacing of Judas apart from selecting the person themselves as a hierarchy would demand. Second, James was in control of the Jerusalem Council, not Peter, poo-pooing the idea that Peter was in control as some kind of Pope. (Also a number of people got up to express their opinion suggesting a democratic process.) Third, both Paul and Apollos went out preaching the word apart from any authorization from some hierarchy. It was three years after being commissioned by God before Paul even appeared before the Jerusalem Council. And finally, fourth, when the Council was in error Paul didn't hesitate to call Peter, James and others out on the carpet to show them their heresy; this isn't the norm under a strict hierarchy as you suggest. I should also say that Paul's, not Peter's, writings make up the bulk of the infalible New Testament doctrine but I don't wish to belabor this point.
Sorry, but the scriptures don't talk about any hierarchy except a loose one. If there was such a one then there would be no need for the writings to the seven churches now would there? After all, wouldn't their churches be following the commands laid down by the Church in general?
I see no evidence in your suggestion. Of course if you wish to insist, we can always talk about Pope Horatio, the declared heretic that served for 16 years. Unfortunately, the Church burned all of his infalible writings.
"If people disagree with that, they are disagreeing with God's word. It's their loss. My job is to preach the truth of Christ risen to all nations and races and then to trust that all with ears to hear and eyes to see and a new heart given by God alone, according to His mercy, will hear and see and understand and believe."
My heavens, DrE, are you the Pope?
Who says they have no choice? They always choose evil.
Pardon the crudity of this illustration. Jesus is not Kobe Beef. But, say If I'm having a party where I'm serving, lets say, Kobe Beef. Everyone in the room is a completely starving person and yet, every last person, refuses to participate in my feast. I really want to show them what a blessing is before them. I want to fill their emptiness and embrace them with love, but they still refuse. Now, I'm given some special ability. I am able to take a special ability and change the mind of whomever I want to. I reach out, touch some of the refusees but leave others to their own desires. I never prohibit the and in fact testify all over the place, whosoever will make come and dine - but they won't. The reason that I don't go ahead and use my special ability is because I want those whom I have touched to learn from whence they have come, and how great my mercy was in touching them. They deserved to starve, but I had mercy on them. For the others, I allowed them their own desires which was to have nothing to do with my feast. Who is at fault that they starve?
Oh gee, Kolo. Thanks. From what you showed me though, I still burn.
"And finally, fourth, when the Council was in error Paul didn't hesitate to call Peter, James and others out on the carpet to show them their heresy; this isn't the norm under a strict hierarchy as you suggest."
Sounds remarkably Orthodox to me, HD! :)
By the way, as a favor, would explain to the various Calvinists and assorted other Protestants here, in terms they understand (because its evident I can't) what the basic differences are between Orthodox and reformed theology and why an Orthodox would say that Orthodoxy needs to be experienced not explained. Thanks; I have confidence in you! You're the one Protestant I know who has studied Orthodoxy thoroughly and rejected it! :)
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.