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/
Not at all. The baby Jesus is the beginning of His life. The empty cross is the completion.
I wasn't saying one thing or another about Luther. I was talking about the understanding of his "Sin boldly."
As I'm reading this, the statement is that we will be Gods. Is this EO doctrine?
I didn't post this, but yes, the EO does teach this. Our perfection is demanded by Christ and it can be achieved by repenatnce and God's grace (without repentance we cannot ask for forgiveness). Perfection is a divine property. However, we can never achive perfection in essence. We are made perfect by grace.
Really, so, Jesus really had no life before the Incarnation and is, effectively, unemployed now
Me too...
The fact he was also a violent drunk, an antisemite, a vow-breaking priest etc etc really wasn't too helpful either :)
Perhaps he shared company with Alexander ?
Not sure where you're drawing such bizarre conclusions. Usually your method of debate is a little weighter than this.
I have a meeting, so if you'd like to continue this, it will be awhile before I can respond.
To answer your somewhat peculiar question, Jesus has always existed as part of the eternal Godhead, and Jesus continues to dwell in those who are His, who have been acquitted by His taking on their sins and paying for every one of them, yesterday's sins, today's sins and tomorrow's sins.
And the empty cross proves it's all true.
. At one time he, literally, wanted to kill anyone who would not submit to the Pope (not that there is anything wrong with that) while later he said the Pope was the AntiChrist...not exactly stable...
Less than a year before his revolt, he was publicly preaching in favor of indulgences...
he went from teaching the Church's exegesis on Scripture had to be followed, to declaring only HIS exegesis was to be followed.. to then teaching that when Scripture stated good works ought be done his students had to read it so Scripture read good works were forbidden
I mean, come on...
The poor man was savagely beaten by his parents and he never was stable for long periods of time after that
However, he did not start a new denomination or a revolt or Teach Heresy
Well then Paul made a huge error preaching Christ Crucified
If there's no discernable reason for it - and that's key to your theology - we can only say it's arbitrary. Saying we can never understand it, it's way above us, etc. does not change this fact.
To take one chapter of Paul and make him a TULIP is proof-texting in the extreme. No doubt others have shown you scripture contradicting TULIP, so I won't.
I will say my view of man is more exalted than yours, but I think we would agree, there can be no less exalted view than yours. In your eyes God has created his most incredibly vile and horrible creature in man.
I also believe I have a more exalted view of God than yours.
What you describe God doing is still cruel and capricious. I can't see it otherwise; you disagree. You, I believe, say this view derrives from scripture; I disagree.
I've read all of Romans many times. I would ask you to read the whole of the Gospel prayerfully asking if the God there is the God you know.
But, I don't think either of our views are going to change soon. So, it may be that we're near the end of our discussion on this topic. If so, I do thank you for being courteous and for clearly communicating your very very wrong theology.
Just kidding.
thanks, Blogger, and may God bless you..
That is simple and plain lunacy. It is contrary to Scripture. It is contrary to Common Sense. And it can not be defended or explained away as hyperbole.
He actually believed that, said that, taught that
You raise some interesting points in your post.
I'm going to still disagree with the precise use of predetermined still.
But it's the following parts that have started me thinking.
Isn't what you're describing the deist viewpoint?
It might as well be. And saying it's not doesn't serve as proof otherwise. For the subjects of the example, it is arbitrary, and you've given no reason to suggest otherwise. It is foundational to you that there is no criteria or difference between who is elect or non-elect.
I do not consider being a "Calvinist" an essential to being a Christian.
And I consider it a big step back from Christianity with large potential of harm to the Church and the individual. I'm glad if it helps in your growth; I oppose it being taught as what Jesus taught.
I think what has occurred is a common development of taking a piece of truth and expanding it into a large untruth. The truth in this case in 'not by works' and the large untruth is the C&C god of pre-determinism. You have to look at where it takes you and clearly - to me and others - it takes you to a very different view of God.
thanks again..
Martin Luther March 13, 1519) he writes this..."I am at a loss to know whether the pope be antichrist or his apostle"
**Tell me that those two letters, written so close together (TEN DAYS), do not reveal an absolute lunatic who can't decide whether it is day or night -
The only other alternative is he is an abject liar.
Oy-Vey. Not even going to answer that any more. Go in peace.
Hey, don't knock righteous indignation. Two of my favorite verses:
Nehemiah 13:25 And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take oath in the name of God,
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.