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/
On Wikipedia it pops up with Methodist. Scroll up to see "Reformed". I would agree with Sproul that righteousness is a forensic declaration.
Oh, ok. I might check it out but Wiki is tricky and quite frequently sicky
OK, just did a speed read. That was posted by a protestant and it is written as though their brand spanking new idea was orthodox. So, they contrast the Catholic response to it etc
Free will must necessarily turn to God's knowledge. God's omniscience is no way out of the dilemma. You will only affirm that God knew everything before He acted, or you will deny that God is omniscient.
The way out is to trust God.
Study to show yourself approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
Work out your own salvation with fear and tremblings.
Any idea out of whose mouth came those lines?
Thank you. That is testimony that we have common ground.
If it is a mere word, perhaps not, as Christ looks into your heart rather than reads the transcript. But in a broader sense, yes, each mortal sin condemns to hell.
Half the time I have to spend trying to figure out if what I'm being told is correct Catholic doctrine
Very good. Too many Catholics do not know their own doctrine. However, your statement I objected to referred to a very basic doctrine.
Does God give the seed of faith to everyone?
The capacity to love and know God is given everyone as part of natural law "written in the hearts" of all men. To have a better formed faith requires a church life, generally speaking.
Repeatig it does not make it true. Scripture please. Last time you tried, you failed.
Repeatig it does not make it true. Scripture please. Last time you tried, you failed.
Very good advice, and thank you for picking up on the Eucharist as works nonsense.
Ignorant, maybe, but not "simply ignorant". Thanks to iconoclast Protestantism our culture is severely impoverished. A healthy culture would have crucifixions and marian shrines at every bus stop. We don't -- but Christian heart still longs for them and find them in the strangest of places.
Of course, and in this spirit understand that the incessant attack on the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura that I and others wage in no way is meant to take away form what the Holy Scripture really is: the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God, eminently suited to resolve arguments, and a primary necessity for faith formation.
A myth based on sub-incompetent etymology.
The word caelebs is Latin, and not Phrygian nor Greek.
The goddess called "Cybele" by the Greeks was known by the name "Agdystis" and sometimes identified with their goddess Rhea. The name "Cybele" did not come into common usage until about 200 BC.
The worship of Cybele was unknown to the Romans until the late Republican period, centuries after the Latin language was standardized.
And caelebs means "one who is not married", not "one is is ritually castrated."
You have no way of knowing whether these texts should have been included or not. The ONLY way you know they ought to have been included is because the Catholic Church - not you, not scripture itself - made the authoritative decision. The only way you know the texts not included ought not have been included is solely because of the Catholic Church
"The problem I see with this argument is with the fundamental disagreements that arise in the Church. For example, take the fillique of the Nicene Creed. Orthodox and Catholics both have different interpretations. If the Church had the capability to recognize Truth, wouldn't one side or the other recognize their error?"
One side did recognize the error...to an extent it contributed to the Great Schism. The other side relatively recently, in their own particular style, seems to have recognized it too! :)
"That being said, if the scriptures lay forth the criteria of a bishop, and the Church recognizes the scriptures as Truth, then doesn't it follow that the criteria of a bishop as set forth in Paul's writing is what God wants?"
Not necessarily at all. I think what it does say is that there likely isn't any "theological" problem with bishops being the husband of one wife. The Church determined that for the good order of The Church, bishops should be monastics. That isn't something that is against God's Law, its just different from Paul's idea of discipline. There really isn't much more to it than that.
"What was accepted and lived out by The Church 600 years ago, in some cases, isn't what is accepted and lived out by The Church today. The Orthodox would simply shrug their shoulders and say, "It wasn't inspired"."
I wouldn't go that far. Disciplinary canons are a good example. Among the canons of several ancient local councils there were disciplines forbidding having a Jewish doctor or traveling in public conveyances with Jews. When they were enacted they were followed. The Church, under the inspiration of the HS determined that these rules were for the good order of The Church. Times changed and the reasons for those canons changed with the times. They became unnecessary. Its not that they weren't inspired; they were but they applied only to a certain time. Dogmas are an entirely different thing. Certain Robber Councils or False Councils proclaimed certain things as dogma. Very, very quickly it became apparent that the people of God, bishops and clergy wouldn't accept them as dogma and thus they were abrogated. They were not inspired of God. The anathemas against icons are an example as are the anathemas against those who say Mary was not ever sinless. The people know what is Orthodox and what is not.
You just HAD to bold it, didn't you. :) Well, I remember that was one of my first COE classes, and unlike most of the rest of the students in class, I didn't just open up a newspaper! LOL! So, at least I've learned SOMETHING. :) Thanks again for the link. I really did find much to agree with.
"+Athanasius:] ... He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God.
You just HAD to bold it, didn't you. :)"
Well, of course; its the whole point of the treatise; indeed it is the whole point of the Incarnation because that, my brother, is what we were originally created for, in the imgae and LIKENESS of God! :)
"My original autographed Scofield KJV with original notes in Aramaic updated through the various councils and thoroughly re-annointed at the last Council of Aaaragh says he was "full of faith and power"."
Big deal! I have MY original copy of the NT in the original Greek signed by +John Chrysostomos (actually, it says "Johnny Christopoulos", but its in Greek and you guys can't read Greek so...oops!). :)
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.