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/
"This part of your sentence doesn't work. Can you restate it?"
How's this:
"Not at all. I assert that saying, without more, that the statement "The Son is the Father (or vice versa), is simply not true" displays an alarming lack of understanding of Trinitarian theology and which statement can otherwise be explained by holding a belief in tritheism. Given the Creed, is there another way to explain your denial?
Therefore, the Son is not, never has been, and never will be, the Father.
Any belief to the contrary is some form of monarchianism, whether Sabellian or modalist. This should also answer 7741.
I do deny that the Son is the Father. I do not retreat from that.
However, I will shortly retreat from this discussion. It's Saturday, and my calendar calls.
"who has an IQ of 95 or above, who upon hearing the phrase "mother of God" concluded that Mary ante-dated God or was in any way"
I don't know whether I qualify with the IQ requirement but as a child I heard my grandfather yell "mother of God" while holding his thumb up when he clipped the end of his thumb, chopping wood. I thought for a while that was odd that he called his thumb that.
I can accept that. At least it is a direct answer to the question.
But if the Father and the Son are the same person, then the Father would also be incarnate, as would be the Spirit.
Was the Father Crucified?
Is the Father speaking in the following verse:
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:18 KJV)
Rotflol!
Excellent verse. The Father is not the Son.
To assert otherwise is to teach a heretical doctrine.
But the question is did you think your father's thumb was older than God? When I was very young that might have been a real question for me.
I'll be out for most of the rest of the day myself.
I just heard my wife say "Fine."
And which of the three definitions are you using in your assault on us?
Loud Sigh
"I don't know whether I qualify with the IQ requirement but as a child I heard my grandfather yell "mother of God" while holding his thumb up when he clipped the end of his thumb, chopping wood. I thought for a while that was odd that he called his thumb that."
That's good, bd! :)
" Excellent verse. The Father is not the Son.
To assert otherwise is to teach a heretical doctrine."
Is the Creed heresy here?:
"...one in essence with the Father...."
Have the Methodists scrapped the Creed, Padre?
"But the question is did you think your father's thumb was older than God?"
I have always thought my grandfather was older than God. Now, I am reaping the whirlwind as my granddaughters think I am in that class and when I try to get up in the morning my joints affirm their belief.
Nope. We have interpreted it correctly.
The Father is not the Son.
"Essence" speaks of the Godhead. In the unity of the Godhead there are 3 persons (hypostases, if you will.) These three persons are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The one divine essence refers to the Godhead.
The path is full of thorns.
Your approach is not helping your testimony.
DO we have a deal?
Somebodyh! Call the papers!
See my previous post. The Godhead is the expression of the one essence.
It is wrong either to divide the essence or confuse the Persons.
To meld (confuse) the Father with the Son is to engage in some form of Monarchianism.
""Essence" speaks of the Godhead. In the unity of the Godhead there are 3 persons (hypostases, if you will.) These three persons are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Part of the problem is in using the word "person" for hypostasis; that's not what it means and its always a mistake to attribute human characteristics to God.
Try looking at "Against the Arians" by +Athanasius the Great. It is a marvelous work on the Son in relation to the Father and the Trinity. It is thoroughly "orthodox" and in sync with the Creed. Its very long, but there is a pretty good paper on it presented at a Baptist seminary which you both might find interesting (pdf format):
http://www.templebaptistseminary.edu/alumni/jones.pdf.
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.