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/
That is wisely stated, but Latter-Day-Saints and Jehova's Witnesses and Arians, and Bogomils and Gnostcis call on Christ and Apostoles' words, Gospels and "gospels."
His intent was to show that one could trace the faith backward through history no matter what name those believers went by
But it's not the same faith. Heresies existed alongside the Church.
I've already said that his historical search was faulty.
His thought, though, that one could trace Christianity by tracing legitimate Christian teaching, has merit.
No one before 1820 believed this was post-tribulation. The Scriptures speaks only of the pre-tribulation event and the word translated into English as "rapture" is associated, in its roots in Greek, with the 'resurrection of the dead."
We agree Chaplain, on both accounts. :)
It does?
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." [Mat 6:5-6]
Yeah. That's what I mean by discontinuity - which I'm using not as an evaluative term but as an attempt at a descriptive term. I have to think about this. I just don't see the great gulf fixed between those who haven't yet died and those who have.
And as to the discussion thing, I would say that the Bible gives us permission to have these conversations. The impulse is already there, for a lot of us.
I said "it seems," always cognisent of "Byzantine depth perception."
The Communion of Saints got lost along the way of the "Reformation".
We who are alive and remain shall be CAUGHT UP is the resurrection of the dead????? Context says not.
His intent was to show that one could trace the faith backward through history no matter what name those believers went by.
FWIW, the names of these various Christian sects were mostly picked by those who were in opposition to them. So the same sect could end up with several different names through the course of history. Also, the derision that they are treated with is largely due to them not submitting to the state religion of the time. Also, what you find is one of the common denominators of these groups is a belief in the primacy of Scripture.
If your defining heresy as "wrong belief" than looking at the marian doctrines it is clear it is your church and the RCC that are heretical, not various Christian churches that placed Scripture first.
Very simple: Holy Tradition records something Christ did, which is not recorded in the Gospels, to wit, miraculously creating an image of his face by pressing a cloth to his face, and sending it to King Abgar of Edessa, who had faith that merely seeing the Savior would cure his leporsy.
Now 'sola scriptura' types will insist this never took place because it is not in the Bible, in plain contradiction to St. John's conclusion, which say Christ did many things not recorded there in (and so many that you can't claim he is referring only to what is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, but omitted in John's, since that would not amount to enough books the world could not contain them.)
Either there are not enough deeds of Christ not recorded in the Scriptures so that (on the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John's estimate) the world could not contain the books recording them, and we have a false passage in Scripture, or the Scriptures are not complete, as is necessary for the 'sola scriptura' position.
You have pre and post reversed. The misapplication of St. Paul's description of the events living believers will experience at the time of the General Resurrection to an event before the horror of the end-times sketch prophetically in St. John's Apocalypse to promulgate a notion of 'pre-tribulation' rapture, dates to the 1820's.
I guess it's always good to have a restatement of the matter in debate. It doesn't advance the argument but it helps us remember what the argument concerns.
5000+ posts. You do know what this means.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gJU6ctOdMQ
LOL!!
So when assessing what things "Jesus did" you are including things that He didn't do directly?
As Coroner, I must aver,
I thoroughly examined her,
And she's not only MERELY dead,
She's really most SINCERELY dead."
*Most people don't even know that.
P.S. While only the quote can be said to be sola movie sciptura , the rest is settled Cinematic Tradition...
Except for the first sentence or so...
That is oral tradition I just made-up
I guess that Church was not only invisible, it was silent, until the appearance of the very voluble John Smyth in the early 17th Century
BTW, we Catholics can cite Early Church Fathers discussing The Catholic Church.
Please ping me to any, oh, I dunno, evidence, of a Baptist Church, say, prior to, oh I dunno, the 16th Century
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.