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/
Do you believe God required a sacrifice and that Christ was our substitution on the cross who paid our penalty?
I think my pontifications are much better known than was implied.
Of course Holy Spirit indwells all who authentically are Born again and seek earnestly after God and His ways--to walk in His Spirit and not after the flesh.
There's no guarantee that
ANY
SET OF RITUALS OR DOCTRINES OR HOOPS OR WHAT HAVE YOU
DONE IN THE FLESH AFTER THE ORDER AND INTERESTS OF THE FLESH
IN ANY
ORGANIZATION OR CONGREGATION
AVAILS
ANYTHING
for The Kingdom
or
for the individual concerned.
nor . . . really . . . for the congregation involved.
And my home and church is very Christ-filled ... which is as it should be. We love each other ... we comfort one another ... we encourage each other.
Highway or the mall, or the feeding frenzy at a Christmas dinner, or sport events, you name it. Sure, there are acts of kindness, as Christ comes through for a fleeting second, only long enough for someone to flip you off or cut you off.
My house is full of icons. I think of Him often during the day. But how much time do I spend with him on a daily basis as opposed to how much I should be? There is nothing more dangerous than spiritual contentment.
How many people devote but one our on a Sunday to God, and how many people actually go to church every Sunday? Individual acts of kindness could be done for many reasons, not necessarily in the name of God.
Do people in church whose children are disruptive think of their fellow men as their little angels pierce everyone's ears and parents just look at them...music to their ears. I see filth and sin everywhere. I see double standards and hypocrisy all around me and in me.
Maybe you are holier than others. Funny thing is, those who are truly holy wouldn't know it.
All congregations I've ever been in--even the best ones--teach hogwash to some degree sooner or later.
The best ones--it's very minor details around the fringes, most of the time.
For many, it's core doctrines of their structure and list of rules, customs.
And then when one considers
WHAT IS HOLY SPIRIT SAYING TO THIS CONGREGATION AT THIS MOMENT ON THIS DAY . . .
LOTS OF GROUPS are light years off the wall away from Holy Spirit's speaking whatever to them about what Holy Spirit has for them at that moment on that day. And that would be true of Pentecostal groups as well as non-Charismatic Roman groups.
Your quote generator strikes again. We don't pray to trees. We don't pray but to Jesus.
Hail Mary, full of grace
blessed art though among women
and blessed it the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray to us sinners now and in the hour of our death, amen.
= = =
The first line seems vividly contradicted by the next 5 lines. Puzzling.
What is it about "one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ" that Catholics don't get?
= = =
Now, Dr . . .
I think it's well known that Roman believers and adherents are as human as the rest of us . . . regardless of pontifications to the contrary now and then.
It is a HUMAN trait to like to heap up elevated leaders and layers of elevated leaders and layers of rules and layers of rituals etc.
Even in the Old Testament, God Himself would periodically have to come in and slice straight across all the customs, rituals and rules HE HIMSELF set up because the people had begun to make of such a kind of earned righteousness as well as idols.
I don't fault the Roman brothers and sisters for being as human as the rest of us. I do for not being more aware of it and more honest about it.
The dead never were dead in the sense that they cease to exist. Some die and go to eternal punishment some to eternal joy. Fact remains, both at some point died. It is appointed to man once to die and then the judgment. All but Jesus, Enoch, and Elijah; who have been in human bodies, have died. They are dead though they live. Jesus died, rose, and is in a glorified body.
Currently, Jesus is the only one with a glorified body. Scripture says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Revelation and I Corinthians speaks of a day when we will received immortal bodies. Christians who have died on earth do not have those bodies, but they live. Because of Christ their bodies will be raised incorruptible as well - while they themselves are currently in the presence of the Lord.
Nothing in Scripture says we are to try to contact them. The Old Testament forbids trying to make contact with the dead.
A prayer to a saint is a request for his intercession to the sole mediator Christ. 1 Timothy 2:1.
I am Catholic. I never ignore the Holy Scripture, and consider ignorance of it a great sin. Do not think that you post anything the Church, and I personally, never read or reflected upon.
= = = =
Doesn't wash.
ANY
individual going to Christ vs the individual with the need going directly to Christ as is his right and Scriptural instruction . . .
any such individual is an interloper
SUBTRACTING dialogue and petitions from Christ which are rightfully HIS and which He died to deliver to us directly.
I think it's pretty cheeky to take something He paid such an ultimate price for and say, essentially,
Sorry, Lord, but I don't want to approach you directly, I'd rather go through Fred from the 7th century. Just suits my tastes more. Besides the church says he's for all us street sweepers so it's like I have my own intercessor just for us dirty street sweepers.
Oh, I know, Lord, You died to be my specific special and all knowning intimate intercessor, I'm just not in the market for your brand, Lord, So, please hang up and put Fred, on, I'll talk to Fred. He can talk to you about my need. I realize it will involve a bit of a delay but I'm just a lot more comfortable talking to Fred, Lord.
You died that I might have comfort in dialogue with not only you but The Father? I realize that, Lord, I'm just not in the market. Please put Fred on.
I imagine Christ is more than a little miffed more than a little bit of the time over such a mentality and custom.
Going to the "one ('sole') mediator" via "another mediator/intercessor/middle man" contradicts and ultimately negates Scripture.
= = =
Thanks. Well put, Doc.
Maybe you are holier than others. Funny thing is, those who are truly holy wouldn't know it.
I don't claim to be holy.
But God has blessed me to see His work in myself ... and others.
Yes ... there are a lot of negatives which run through our lives ... but God is still working.
I meant that Mary was saved from Original Sin before birth. God did this for her. It wasn't anything she did for herself. Is that better?
= = = =
Not one microscopic shred of Scripture supports the least bit of that.
Yes and on.
Some do and some don't.
If it waddle, lays eggs, quacks, swims, flies like a duck .. . . .
Many Buddhists would attest the same thing about their 'use' of the statues of the Buddha.
But, I assure you from 15 years plus of living around them--there is worship there of the stone, ivory, gold as though the inanimate had power.
God had a purpose in the 10 commandments forbidding
ANY GRAVEN image being used in
ANY RELIGIOUS WAY--actually being even within the camp.
He knew the heart of man.
In my experience, folks who have no tendency to worship such objects don't bother with them. They focus mentally on God without any tangible "crutch." This is true whether they are Roman believers or not.
Those with some vulnerability to being sucked in by the human tendency to invest in objects something more than is there--those are the folks psychologically and spiritually who pay the most attention to statues of Mary, Buddha or whomever. . . . such as Hollyweed stars.
That is not the way I am using "wicked". You know that I claim to be saved, and to have imputed righteousness, and yet I still sin and am "wicked" in the sense that all men are. POTS says that I will turn back to God after sinning as a believer. It is infused righteousness that confuses me. Is it correct that here one is ACTUALLY righteous for a time, then he sins and is transformed into a wicked man, then he confesses, is absolved and then transformed back into a righteous man?
The Bible is chock full of people who are righteous, who DO turn to God, even after sinning.
Sure, I fully agree. But, if we leave Mary out of it, no one is born righteous, do you agree? "Righteous" becomes an accurate description of some during life. We say it is accorded to those who have faith, a la Abraham. So, using perspective/relativity, I could say that a given man can be "righteous" at the same time as being fundamentally "wicked". The application of those two terms, is of course, very different. This is the whole idea behind imputed righteousness. Paul tells us that he does not do what he wants to do, but he does only what he hates. Yet, Paul was a righteous man.
I read the quote you put up and I think that "inward sacrifice of obedience unto death" and "by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends," are more and other than the merely exemp;ary notion which I took you to say it advocated.
(The link goes to something about Perseverance, BTW. What's up with that?)
Try .
Okay I got to the end of it and right where you stop quoting it goes on to say:
and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".Plenty blood there.
And the article is very enthusiastic about Anselm.
I htink we MAY have a "term of art" problem. It's not just the Blood of Jesus, is it? I mean isn't the HIS intention in teh shedding of His Blood essential? A lamb goes to sacrificial slaughtger without will. The Lord chooses to shed His Blood. The choice is part of the deal, isn't it?
And as to the "esse" ("ousia" for the Orthodoc in the audience? [ feel free to mock and correct me]) of atonement, what I get from the article is it's WAY to big for even Catholics to say, "Here's what it is, conversation over." But Sacrifice and Satisfaction essentially invovling the death of the Lord and a kind of objective transation involving GOd, Jesus, and possible the devil, is done on our behalf.
If it's any help, I would say that without the "objective transaction" and its benefits all the "example" in the world would not be helpful in any way.
The example shows us the dreadfulness of sin and the peril of our situation. It shows the ultimate obedience to the first commandment, and what that means "on the ground". It shows what God is and what Love is, and how, as a guy I was talking too a while back said, "mercy is the perfection of justice," which I take to be almost a ystical statement.
So the example is wonderful, but by itself it wouldn't do me a stitch of good.
If they're not omniscient, then they drop things. A few prayers out there that they miss, eh?
But, HOW do they know someone's praying to them? What alerts them if they're not omniscient?
If a king came to Timothy and asked Timothy to pray for him, that then would be entirely biblical, because this would be exactly what the scripture tells Timothy to do.
If Timothy were to die, and go to heaven, Timothy could continue doing the same thing. That is because Timothy would then receive eternal life promised him in 1 Timothy 6. But now the king would be praying to St. Timothy, would he not?
= === = =
That's a very, very different thing, Biblically.
Two mortals praying for one another are
1. obeying specific Scriptural commands to do so. There is NO SUCH SCRIPTURAL COMMAND RE DEPARTED BELIEVERS.
2. Strengthening the koinonia in the mortal fellowship.
3. Strengthening their loving caring for one another.
4. Building up the local congregation by prayer and by the building up of Godly mortal relationships.
5. Most likely, Not infecting one another with adoration for post death supernatural powers or hotlines to The Father.
6. Not robbing Christ of dialogue, adoration and petitioning due Him which His Blood alone paid for.
"How do they know you're looking at their picture or praying to them? They aren't here, and you aren't there."
I don't know if they realize I'm looking at their picture or not. That has nothing to do with it. Who cares? It's just there as a reminder of who that person is. That's it! I don't have to have a statue of Mary in front of me to ask for her prayers. Sometimes, when I see a statue of her, I may choose to say a prayer right then. Not because I think it is actually her but because seeing it brought her to my mind. Just as seeing a picture of Jesus will bring him to the forefront of my mind.
Oh dear!
Practical, clear, accurate and Biblcal.
Congrats.
Is Mary omniscient? omnipresent?
I'll agree you can't "prove" it from scripture. But I'll say again that we Roaming Calflicks don't look at Scripture the way many Protestants do.
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.