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/
Kosta. You're irritating me. "THAT'S NOT CALVINISM" "HOW DARE YOU QUOTE CALVIN OR CALVINISTS"
You seem to have in your head what "Calvinism" is. If a quote from Calvin directly contradicts that, you reject Calvin in favor of that conception in your head. If I quote a Calvinist like Sproul who is explicitly explaining a doctrine, you reject it as well. You aren't really interested in what Calvinists TRULY believe. You're just interested in constructing your straw men with which to try to burn us. As long as this is your attitude, I don't know the conversation persists since you have your mind closed to what our true beliefs are.
Here's the epiklesis from the Divine Liturgy of St. James:
"Have mercy on us, Lord God, the Father, the Almighty. Have mercy on us, God our Saviour. Have mercy on us, O God, in accordance with your great mercy, and send forth upon these holy gifts, here set forth, your all-holy Spirit, (bowing) the Lord and giver of life, enthroned with you, God and Father, and your only-begotten Son, co-reigning, consubstantial and co-eternal, who spoke by the Law and the Prophets and by your New Covenant, who came down in the form of a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and rested upon him, who came down upon your holy Apostles in the form of fiery tongues in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion on the day of Pentecost. (Standing up) Your same all-holy Spirit, Lord, send down on us and on these gifts here set forth,
(aloud): that having come by his holy, good and glorious presence, he may sanctify this bread and make it the holy body of Christ,
People: Amen.
Priest: and this Cup the precious blood of Christ,
People: Amen.
Darn it, I'm on your side as a rule. But I should say that when I was at Virginia Theological Seminary it was going through a Karl Barth neo (Protestant) Orthodox phase and that's what we were told about totl depravity -- not that man is completgely one hundred per cent messed up (if he were, how would he know it?) but that no faculty or aspect or activity or whatever is not tainted, hampered, crippled, like that, with or by evil.
Incidentally, I only refer to myself as Calvinist because I do agree with some of his teachings (though not all) and have stated so earlier on the thread (where I don't know, but you are correct in that I do not follow a man but Scripture). But to not be able to quote Calvin in a conversation about what Calvinism teaches is just silly. There is a set of doctrinal principles which several of us on this thread believe are biblically correct. They were articulated by Calvin but have their root in Scripture. Because the debate between Calvin and Arminius was such a big deal, these doctrines have come to be referred to as Calvinism. On the 5 points of "Calvinism" I am in agreement with John Calvin. Happy?
kosta-WHO says so?
The evidence is overwhelming.
Hmmmm..."co-reigning" with who? That implies two.
So long to the equality of believers, some are obviously more equal than others.
The problem I see is that, according to scripture, non-believers do not seek after God. Faith comes to us through hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And as Christians the only way we can receive greater faith (IMHO) is to understand and seek out God through His word. We're not nearly as diligent about this as we should be (including myself).
My apologies. Here I am talking about the word of God and yet fail to post references. I would post the scriptural references but I'm having a bit of a problem with the Internet at the moment.
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 3
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known:
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
The merger with the state fundamentally changed your sect. As power was consolidated, any sect which disagreed with your interpretation of Scripture, practices, or was unwilling to subjugate themselves to your domination was branded traitors and heretics. The Donatists are a good example.
The Donatists objected to the ease with which those that denied Jesus, helped destroy Scripture, and aided in the persecutions were allowed not only back into the church, but assumed positions of authority. The were also opposed to the union of church and state. I believe they only practiced adult baptism, by immersion and had a congregational form of church government.
If you look at that list I think all of these different sects had these features to a lesser or greater degree. IOW, you can find throughout history, prior to the Reformation, sects of Christianity that refused to submit to the domination of the state religion and sought Scripture as the primary guide. Thus, the idea that the Reformation was the first time that the primacy of Scripture, Sola Scriptura developed is wrong. I think you will find the same is true for all the other Sola's.
Thanks Blogger. My Internet connection is running around 12 bits per minute. :O)
I press the button and wait and wait and wait. I feel like I'm in the stone age of the mid-90s with dial-up connection. :O)
She's not the mother of God.
The problem is in tracing these various groups because they were decentralized in their church government and the names they were known by were picked by the dominant state religion of the time. However, be that as it may, they existed.
Another problem is the Catholics burnt some of them and all of their writings with them. Much of history is lost.
Calvin? Luther?
Correct. I was just thinking prior to the reformation. Donatism and Anabaptism has some kinship. So do some of the other groups. You can't say you have an exact corrolary because Anabaptists themselves were not uniform in belief. You just had baptistic beliefs present throughout history.
They followed the example and were quilty of persecutions as well. IOW, no one's hands are perfectly clean.
When the Roman sect of Christianity merged with the state I understand why it was so advantageous. If for no other reason than ending their periodic persecution. However, this merger also led to a great many changes and the persecuted became persecutors.
I agree.
I think you can find sects of Christianity from the second century to the reformation that believed in specific things; the primacy of Scripture, baptism of believers only, separation of church and state, church discipline, and a decentralized form of church government.
As always I get to involved, have to get back to work.
And the Church of England, and...
"No one's hands are perfectly clean" but of course the Catholics always end up dirtier.
:)
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.