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/
The Reformers "threw out the past?" That's ludicrous.
It was Luther who returned the church to justification by faith in Christ alone and Calvin who returned the church to wedding the Holy Spirit intrinsically to Scripture.
In Christ the Holy Spirit is always conjoined to the Word, for "there is a permanent relation between faith and the Word." -- John Calvin 3.2.6.
These were steps back to the faith of Christ and the Apostles. Nothing new. And they were a lot more than simple disgust at indulgences and ornate cathedrals.
"...The Reformation was the greatest religious movement for Christ since the early church. It was a revival of Biblical and New Testament theology...."
"Gen. 3:15.
LOL.
I do n't see anything about Jesus there."
Nor do I. At least not in the Septuagint.
That is such a brilliant analysis of Saint Joseph's status!!!
Now to figure out some system of notes to myself so I'll know where to look next time....
That's what the Hebrew says as well. "He [masculine] will bruise you on the head . . . "
-A8
"And as for using the masculine áäåëöïò for brothers and sisters, well, we all say Ôïí äé'çìáò ôïõò áíèñùðïõò (Who for us men) in the Creed but we mean all humans."
That's the point. In the passage the word is used twice, once for brothers and once for sisters. If it meant cousin it would only have been used once for both sexes.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, you shall watch* [thrhsei, from threw, to watch, guard]] against your head, and you shalt watch against his heel."
The KJV reads:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."
*This "discrepancy" "watch-bruise" in words is very common when LXX is directly compared to other OT versions, as the Hebrew bible contains the word "shoof," to bruise, crush, etc.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, you shall watch* [thrhsei, from threw, to watch, guard]] against your head, and you shalt watch against his heel."
The KJV reads:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."
*This "discrepancy" "watch-bruise" in words is very common when LXX is directly compared to other OT versions, as the Hebrew bible contains the word "shoof," to bruise, crush, etc.
"That's what the Hebrew says as well. "He [masculine] will bruise you on the head . . . "
Then who does "he" as in "he will bruise..." refer to?
The LXX says "you" not "he."
If the Child Jesus were born in the "normal" way, why would Isaiah think that qualified as a miracle possible only to God? (See Isaiah 7:14)
LOL!!!
Thank you for participating in the thread. :-)
Did the movie also misrepresent the Catholic Church's teachings on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
Snicker
Well, the Incarnation was certainly not the "usual" way of conception. Why would the Birth be?
I was referring to St. John of Damascus who says (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith) that Christ "passed through" the Virgin Mary, "keeping her womb closed," coming through this "Gate" without injuring "her seal."
In other words, He passed though the unopened canal the way He entered the room without opening the door. The movie subject of this thread shows Mary in labor pains.
Maybe you missed the preceding discussions. Some of them hinted as a carnal (natural) conception with the divine "seed," as much as the movie suggests natural birth. Christ was neither "conceived" nor born the "natural way." Both are miracles and paradoxes.
-A8
I stand by Kolokotronis' 681. You go by vernacular meaning and studiously avoid the original usage.
The listing of the name is the broad context that you miss. Mark gives a part of that list as children of Mary Cleopas.
The fact that "adelphos" was used to indicate spiritual kinship in absence of blood relation is alone a good reason not not replace it with the specific designation like xanadelphos or syggenos when applied to disciples who are also blood relatives.
And, where is your literalism when it comes to James 2?
I think your point is best made with Matt 1:25, and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. It makes no sense that Mary became infertile.
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.