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/
You are correct.
I am not accepted as a pure calvinist by the pure calvinists.
(I think I'm "Brand X." :>)
We're rapidly approaching the "We all deserve to fry, thank you for frying my brother and not me" point.
How do we avoid that?
A just one. A non-arbitrary one. God.
He set the rules out to be obeyed and the penalty for breaking those rules.
He gave free will to choose.
We all broke the rules.
We turned our backs on God.
God justly judges us all.
But, by the same respect a merciful one. A loving one. A purposeful one. God.
He set the rules to be obeyed and provided a penalty for breaking the rules.
We broke the rules.
We turned our backs on God.
He changed the minds of those would would be saved and took their punishment for them.
Your qualm is that God isn't a universalist. You would rather him send all to Hell or take all to Heaven. Such is not justice. Such is not mercy. And such renders sin meaningless.
Bottom line for me is that purely arbitrary punishment/reward is, by definition, not justice.
And, as I read the Tulip leaves, it's arbitrary.
We do not rejoice in those who "fry." We rejoice that we were plucked from the fire. And we trust God is just AND merciful.
But some pay for it, some are rewarded. How do you get 'just' from this? It's purely arbitrary.
Election.
Ok, we all deserve to fry, thank you for not frying me.
I don't see any difference in the system.
And what's the difference in who is elected and who is not?
The punishment is not arbitrary. Rules were broken. The penalty was set out. The penalty was paid. Question is, who pays? The one who actually broke the rules or the one who stepped in the place of the one who broke the rules. The penalty still gets paid. Mercy dictates who pays and who does not.
Reward is not arbitrary either. Rules are set forth. Once enlightened to God's will - we are made free indeed. We are no longer the SLAVE of sin, but can choose to do good on our own. God's grace gives us that ability and we do choose to love him and serve him freely. In the end, when judgment comes, we will receive crowns for that which we have done for Him. If our motivation is to please the one who bought us, there will be a reward. We will then lay those crowns at the feet of Christ, for we would never have done it without Him.
Then what determines which gets which?
There's a big difference.
One assumes that we are deserving NOT to fry. You are good for pulling me from the fire but BAD for not pulling out my brother.
You can not assume that man deserves anything but eternal punishment. He knew the gameplan. He broke the rules. There was a penalty.
The truth is none are deserving and only MERCY saves us. God's mercy is not like his justice in which he is obligated to dispense it. God IS Just. God is Righteous. Those are parts of His character. Mercy is a part of His will. And whom He wills to give mercy to, He does. Whom He wills to harden, He will. He is God and there is no unrighteousness in Him.
He is not fair. Doesn't have to be and you don't want him to be. He is just and He is merciful.
How is this 'who' determined?
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I'm pretty sure calvinists believe it has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all about the person, but that it has to do with the the secret counsels of God.
How you hold these both in your mind is the mystery to me.
No doubt. And so long as no one is different or can be different, yet one is damned and the other heaven-bound all based on something kept secret from them..
Well, I've already posted my view of the history of this diety.
The will of God.
From Augustine:
Chapter 36.--God Chose the Righteous; Not Those Whom He Foresaw as Being of Themselves, But Those Whom He Predestinated for the Purpose of Making So.
....Let us, then, look into the words of the apostle and see whether He chose us before the foundation of the world because we were going to be holy and immaculate, or in order that we might be so. “Blessed,” says he, “be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; even as He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted.” [Eph. i. 3] Not, then, because we were to be so, but that we might be so. Assuredly it is certain,--assuredly it is manifest. Certainly we were to be such for the reason that He has chosen us, predestinating us to be such by His grace. Therefore “He blessed us with spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ Jesus, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight, in order that we might not in so great a benefit of grace glory concerning the good pleasure of our will. “In which,” says he, “He hath shown us favour in His beloved Son,”--in which, certainly, His own will, He hath shown us favour. Thus, it is said, He hath shown us grace by grace, even as it is said, He has made us righteous by righteousness. “In whom,” he says, “we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, which has abounded to us in all wisdom and prudence; that he might show to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure.” In this mystery of His will, He placed the riches of His grace, according to His good pleasure, not according to ours, which could not possibly be good unless He Himself, according to His own good pleasure, should aid it to become so. But when he had said, “According to His good pleasure,” he added, “which He purposed in Him,” that is, in His beloved Son, “in the dispensation of the fulness of times to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven, and which are in earth, in Him: in whom also we too have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will; that we should be to the praise of His glory.”
Is the cross fair?
Yes!
It is determined by God according to his own purposes and regardless of our merits (which are none in the economy of His holiness so we can be thankful that He didn't choose us based upon the good we would do because we would all be lost). It was His will to do so.
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.