'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

"comes from the so-called 'apocrypha,' the books that were apparently credible to the Apostles who wrote the NT, and to the Church Fathers who put together the Chirstian canon (including the 'apocryphal' books)"

None of the apochrypal books are included in the Hebrew Canon. Jesus authenticated the Hebrew Canon when He said "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the 'Law of Moses, the Prophets (these included the historical books) and the psalms'concerning Himself " (Luke 24:44). The Hebrew Canon was already fixed without the apocrypha during the time of Christ. Josephus who wrote shortly after the time of Christ said that the last of the sacred books was written during the time of Artaxerxes, King of Persia. These would be Ezra and Nehemiah.

Josephus said "Although so great a time interval has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or remove or to alter a syllable, and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, to cheerfully lay down his life in their behalf." His enumeration and description of these books show that they were the same as those of the Old Testament as we now have it.

The apocryphal books were added to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, but they were never accepted as part of the Hebrew Canon and although there are allusions to it in some of the New Testament writings they are never quoted as authentic as are the references to the Old Testament. Those able to read Hebrew rejected the Septuagint and it became a source of intense conflict between the Hebrew speaking religious and the Aramaic/Greek speaking Jews. Early church fathers such as Origen, Rufinus and Augustine made a distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the apocryphal books. In the early church the Septuagint became the source for excluding the Jewishness of the early church.

During the time of the apostles, most of the books of the New Testament were quoted by the early church writers. Clement of Rome referred to 1 Corinthians as "Paul's epistle". Papias assigned to Matthew and Mark the Gospels that bear their name. Tertullian and Irenaeus regarded the four Gospels and most of the books of the New Testament as genuine. Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 315 A.D.) declared in his "Ecclestical History" that it was universally admitted that the following are genuine: the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen Epistles of Paul, including Hebrews, The First Epistles of John and Peter, and the Revelation of John. The canon catalogue of Origen (circa 225 A.D.) is precisely the same as Eusebius.

In the fourth century there were 10 catalogues of the canon; six in which all the books of the present New Testament were regarded as canonical (Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus, the Council of Carthage, Epiphanius, Athanasius); three which omitted only the book of Revelation (Gregory Nazianzen, the Council of Laodicea, Cyril of Jerusalem); one catalogue of Philaster omitted the Epistle to the Hebrews and Revelation.

The apocryphal books were included as part of the Old Testament Canon by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Hmmmm...then would you agree with Vatican II in doing away with the Latin Mass?

Anyone who read the "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" will tell you that Vatican 2 did NOT do away with the Latin Mass. It CONTINUES to hold precedence. The Council allowed Mass to be said in the vernacular, keeping Latin as a revered language of the Church.

Here is the pertinent quote:

36.

1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

Regards

The Holy Trinity is YOUR secretary! No. He's my Boss.

The Holy Trinity is your nurse, and secretary. He who came to serve, served long before He came.
Mad Dawg, it sounds good, but it just isn't scriptural. Philippians 2:7 says "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" He gave out of love. He sustains out of His good pleasure. He was not a servant before His incarnation and He is not my Secretary now. The Holy Spirit hears me speak and if you want to say anything about it you could say He is my translator to God the Father at times when I can not speak myself. But not my secretary for a secretary is obligated by payment to perform certain functions. God is not obligated by anything in regards to us. Rather, He who owns the Cattle on the thousand hills is willfully benevolent towards us according to His good pleasure.

Back to Mary. I still do not understand how you all believe Mary is hearing and answering all of those prayers? Say you have a Marian Festival of some sort. Thousands upon thousands all pray the Rosary and speak her name all at one time making their petitions known. Is she omniscient that she can hear all of these? Is someone sorting them all out for her? If someone is praying in your hometown and another group is praying in Fatima, is she omnipresent so that she can hear all of those requests?

You guys want to talk or just

yell

?
If it's just yell, call me when you're ready to talk again.

There are three problems I see here.

(1) What we see as God's choice, you see as Something we think God HAS to do. If God were to have made Mary some kind of mediatrix, co-mediatrix, deputy under-secretary for mediation, it wouldn't be out of necessity but out of Grace. [And a lemma here seems to be that we think that the "we shall be like Him" of Saint John is more spectacular and mind-boggling in its realization that you seem to think it will be.]

(2)We have a VERY different view of time and Eternity. While we might say God "foresees" something, All times, we think and say when were speaking carefully, are "now" to God. He doesn't look ahead or backwards, we think. [And here the lemma is that the Saints in Heaven will be or are already (It doesn't matter that much what tense you use - as you will see if you think about it) at least to some degree free of the bounds of time.]

(3) We see a continuum, while your vision seems to be more binary. So, you seem to think that if Mary and Anthony can intercede for all the different things that get asked of them, they must be omnipotent. But we envision gradations and degrees. They're not ALL powerful, just MORE powerful, a LOT more powerful.

But even then, it's ALL, every little piece of it, from God. Who knows why he would choose an Italian -- a Paduan -- for crying out loud. But then again, why did He choose Sinai? It's the pagans who would think it would have something to do with Sinai. We think it is grace -- a kind of jeu d'Esprit.

And so, I really must harp on this a little, Of COURSE, not only Jesus but the Holy Trinity is serving us at all times.

The great prayer of Consecration in the Apostolic Constitutions presents everything as done for US! God made light so we could see! Dry land so we would have somewhere to stand! Vegetables and animals so we would have something to eat, and to help us and to delight us!

Jesus says He who would be great among you must be as one who serves. Why do you suppose that is? Because since Creation God has devoted Himself to our service, our salvation,

yes we don't deserve it. Of course we don't. But He is SO eager to shed grace, raining on the just and on the unjust, that he makes it possible for us to hear one another, to speak to one another.

You think it's an outrageous miracle that, as we think, Mary can hear the prayers of the faithful and can intercede. I think you have grown blase' about miracles. I htink it's a miracle that I can strike buttons with my fingers, and electrical signals go through a maze of swithces and finally end up somewhere as signs which, clumped together, give you some notion of what is going on in my alleged mind! That's a frequent occurrence, but no less preposterous than the Mother of My Lord hearing my requests. Frequency ought not to rob you of appreciation of its strange and merciful mystery.

You all say we somehow derogate God. I suggest that maybe you have forgotten how every breath you take, much less every thought you utter, is a wonderful gift, in a universe and lifetime of gifts. You are the bored sophisticates saying,"Yes, yes" He gives us language and itsw effects, so what?" But we are saying, like children,"HE can do ANYTHING! He can make Speech and hearing, HE can glorify the Mother of our Lord! There is no amazing and wonderful thing He cannot do -- and all as a profligate and extravagant display of His Love and generosity! So let us rejoice, with parades and processions, with parties and worship and festivals in the streets."

MD,

Not all YELLING on this thread is in CAPS and colors.

To some of us . . . there are a LOT of extremely outrageous things that beg for SCREAMING AND RENDING clothes.

Sorry. That's just the reality of the widely divergeant perspectives, constructions on reality.

Besides, it's only text. It IS ONLY text. Symbols on a screen.

One can ascribe whatever volume or none--one's self--regarding what's on one's own screen. And one can ascribe whatever response to same--that one wishes--they are only--in and of themselves, rather neutral symbols on a screen.

One can decide that large colorful letters are the poster's thrill of large colorful letters. One can decide that large colorful letters are the poster's addiction to large colorful letters. One can decide that large colorful letters are the poster's experiment with large colorful letters. One can decide that large colorful letters are yelling and be thankful they don't shatter glass from the computer's speakers.

There are all kinds of options possible in construing the reality of large colorful letters and in responding to them.

I understand that you have selected the option you have. You have much company.

Personally, I see no reason to take offense when none is intended.

If I'm yelling, it's at ideas, structures, traditions, etc. not individuals and individuals' hearts and spirits.

I wasn't yelling, though at time on this thread I have yelled as have you. So, we all know how to use our typographical lungs. Back to the subject at hand.

You know from prior conversations that our objection to Marian dogma is not that God did this or that with her but that Catholics have labeled her with the attributes that Scripture gives to God and many are eager to label her with more. We object to prayers to the saints in Heaven because Scripture forbids trying to contact the dead. (And yes, in the earthly sense, they are dead else the Old Testament command was nonsense).

Having studied the apparitions of Mary, I am also very disturbed with Marian adoration and the extent that MILLIONS of souls go through in their "venerating" activities.

Though my examples were deliberately pushing the line a bit, I was trying to get at how you all believe Mary hears ALL of those prayers if she indeed isn't omnipresent and omniscient. So far, I have received "She's with Jesus and he's those things..." and basically a "She can do it all by a miracle and you're blase about miracles if you doubt she can."

No, Mad Dawg. I am not blase about miracles. I believe true miracles happen every day. Life itself is a miracle. Healings are miracles. Miracles happen.

What I am doing is testing the spirits here. And what I see does not compute with Scripture.

The Bible says :1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Why would I want or need another mediator in prayer?

Easton's Bible Dictionary has this to say about Mediator:
one who intervenes between two persons who are at variance, with a view to reconcile them. This word is not found in the Old Testament; but the idea it expresses is found in Job 9:33, in the word "daysman" (q.v.), marg., "umpire." This word is used in the New Testament to denote simply an internuncius, an ambassador, one who acts as a medium of communication between two contracting parties. In this sense Moses is called a mediator in Gal. 3:19. Christ is the one and only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). He makes reconciliation between God and man by his all-perfect atoning sacrifice. Such a mediator must be at once divine and human, divine, that his obedience and his sufferings might possess infinite worth, and that he might possess infinite wisdom and knowlege and power to direct all things in the kingdoms of providence and grace which are committed to his hands (Matt. 28:18; John 5:22, 25, 26, 27); and human, that in his work he might represent man, and be capable of rendering obedience to the law and satisfying the claims of justice (Heb. 2:17, 18; 4:15, 16), and that in his glorified humanity he might be the head of a glorified Church (Rom. 8:29). This office involves the three functions of prophet, priest, and king, all of which are discharged by Christ both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation. These functions are so inherent in the one office that the quality appertaining to each gives character to every mediatorial act. They are never separated in the exercise of the office of mediator.
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Mary does not fit the role nor is she given the title in Scripture.

So, does she intercede for us? Well, Scripture speaks of intercession:

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:27
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Hebrews 7:19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

So most of the instances of Intercession speak of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

I could only find one instance where it refers to us in the NT (there could be more, but this is the one I found):
1 Timothy 2:1
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men

And once is enough. We should intercede on behalf of our fellow saints on earth. That is pleasing to God.

But, he never tells us to pray to the dead - ever. Rather, we have a direct line to God's throneroom and Christ Jesus Himself and the Sweet Holy Spirit intercede and mediate for us.

Futhermore, Christ is our advocate. He alone can point to the scars in his hands and say "penalty paid."

Mary was a wonderful woman. She bore our Savior. We love her. She was blessed among women. But that's it.

God indeed CAN do anything He wishes. I'm a Calvinist, remember. I believe He would have been well within His rights to send us all to Hell. He can do whatever He wants that is consistent with His nature (he can not lie). So, if He had chosen to use a human being in the capacity you speak of, as long as it was consistent with his nature He could have done it.

The testimony of Scripture is, however, that we have a direct connection to the Lord. We can approach him directly without fear. He is our Daddy. Our Abba Father. Rom 8:15 ;Gal 4:6 We do not need to pray to saints to pray to Jesus for us to get God's attention. We already have it. And HE is our intercessor, mediator, advocate, guide, Lord, God, friend. Hbr 4:15 For 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.
Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

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.