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/
lol. Where in God's creation does this foolishness come from?
In this way, prayer to God, addressed via the holy God-pleasers, stands nearer, closer, to God, and it throws a bridge over the abyss that exists between God and sinners, it humbles the soul of the sinner himself and invokes upon him the good pleasure of God.
This is so unScriptural as to be blasphemous. "The holy God-pleasers"???
What is difficult to understand about the fact...
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- 1 Timothy 2:5
Considering the lack of detail about Mary in Scripture, one can not point to times when she sinned. However, I find some of her behavior interesting in Scripture. First, when Jesus was Left behind in Jerusalem and she sorta rebukes Jesus "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
Luke 2:33 speaks of Simeon's blessing and then adds "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
Jesus's comment in Luke 8:21
And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. (like Mary and his brothers weren't hearing and doing the word of God at the time - they weren't yet believers).
&
Jesus's (perhaps gentle) rebuke of Mary in John: 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
Sometimes it seems as if Mary wasn't fully aware of who Jesus was (certainly not His Godhood). She was aware her child was special. But, I don't think she "got" the full implications. I also don't think that she or his brothers were fully converted until after His resurrection. They travelled with him at Cana into Capernaum but later they don't seem to be with him and his disciples as they travelled. You do see them in the upper room later clearly as believers
Hebrews 4:
14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41 KJV)
In typical Baptist style these people were all baptized immediately after they went forward to accept Christ. Also note the correct Baptist ordus, Repent and THEN be baptized. The Roman Church fell into error on that one early on.
Given that the vast majority of scripture covers the time period preceding the resurrection of Christ, the founding of the Church and the subsequent martyrdom of saints, I'm hardly surprised.
"The reason to believe part of your statement is where I disagree completely. Believing in prayer to the dead involved believing that there is an avenue to God that is completely unmentioned in the bible, therefore the bible is incomplete."
I think you're putting too much effort into this misunderstanding. We believe that the prayers of the holy are most effective. It just so happens that the holiest people we know have reposed. The US Postal Service does not deliver across the veil and angels don't carry letters. That doesn't leave a lot of options.
As for the Bible being complete or not, I'd say your expectations differ from mine. I don't expect the Bible to tell me every little detail of what I need to know. Like, for example, how to perform a baptism. Or a liturgy. Or a funeral. Or, in this case, prayer. At some point, I have to take instruction from another source. That other source is the Church.
"I know that people that want to pray to saints and angels will continue, but lets just admit that it never once happens in the bible."
I can admit that. But then again, I wouldn't expect it to.
are suggesting one should not confess their sins reguraly?
No, one should "reguraly" confess one's sins to God.
"Jesus's (perhaps gentle) rebuke of Mary in John: 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."
That's the line +John Chrysostomos pointed to. Like I have said, your position is not unknown among the Fathers. But he also penned this:
"Through the prayers of the Theotokos, Savior, save us!"
and
"It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art ever blessed and all-blameless, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, and art truly Theotokos: we magnify thee."
among other prayers.
I used "saved" in the three tenses and senses the Scripture uses it. Indeed, "being saved" can be called theosis, even though Catholics commonly call it holiness.
We discussed that MaryisGod site before, did we not? I looked then, -- or, what point did I miss?
Very good.
It had to do with the KKK comment. That's as far as I will take you.
Correct, but understand that the Holy See typically and in that case pronounces on what it sees a universal belief already. There were churches named after Immaculate Conception, for example, way before the doctrine was formally accepted.
If I do not ask a specific saint to pray for me, is it a sin? I mean I can go to church and ask Peg to pray but not John. Why are Saints in heaven more important than Saints on earth?
I don't understand why protestants fail to read scripture, in favor of made up traditions like forsaking confession...
James 5:15 And their prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make them well. And anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.
James 5:16 Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.
I understand. "Glorify and bear God in your body".
There is a danger in cultivating your own temple though.
19 Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, 20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: 21 In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. 22 In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.(Eph 2)
"If I do not ask a specific saint to pray for me, is it a sin?"
I shouldn't think so, no.
"I mean I can go to church and ask Peg to pray but not John. Why are Saints in heaven more important than Saints on earth?"
I don't know that they are, Blogger.
I saw a Baptist tract once that unabashedly traced their "history" back to the Waldenses and, ultimately, to the Montanists. At first I thought it was a practical joke. But no.
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.