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/
Taking all the probable--inferences--not even including the possible ones--just the probable ones--it's definitely there.
I guess I'm going to need you to come up with a significant portion of RC's who think that. Why? Because I read that, and I just don't see what you're saying in it. I don't think you'd find a RC on this list who would say that the only way we are to glorify the Trinity is through Mary and that we must glorify the Trinity through her.
So it's like I am not part of this sample of deluded people, and I don't know anyone who is, and yet I am to stop thinking what I think because somebody else, somewhere, whom no one has ever introduced to me, might think something different which is bad for them to think.
On that basis we should at least consider burning all the Bibles because of what "THOSE people" thought upon reading them, despite the fact that others have profited greatly from reading them. (Speaking of which, there is a JW thread against the Holy Trinity somewhere. I pinged Blogger to it.)
You can show me no ducks. I wasn't being artificial when I said that's not a duck. In fact it took me a minute to see what the fuss was about.
Long Boring Parable:
A teacher from London is sent to a missionary school up in the border country. First day of class, a group of "gormless" country boys comes into class sits down and looks at her stupidly and passively. To start the conversation she draws a sheep on the board -- and this is sheep country. She's proud of her drawing. it's detailed, from horns to rump, from saddle to hooves - a beautiful sheep!
She then asks the class, "Can anybody say what this is?" Sullen shifty looks at one another, silence.
"Nobody?" (She thinks, they just CAN'T be that stupid.") YOU then, James: What is that a picture of?
"Well, I don't rightly know, ma'am. Y'see, the body looks like Leicester or maybe a Cheviot, but the head is more like a Scottish Blackface, the hooves look like Romney hooves but the fleece is definitely Lincoln wool. So I can't say WHAT it is!
It may look like a duck to you ...
but my spirit within and Holy Spirit within will not be silent on this enormously horrid distraction at best and idolatry wholesale detracting wholesale from God Almighty and His pure and simple Gospel.
That sho' 'nuff will keep you from learning what we think, whether or not you agree with it..
Thank you for your thoughts on this but let me take it a little farther.
All of God's blessings come with a condition. There is a big "If" attached to them. Isn't the condition here that the churches repent and do what the 2 churches Jesus found favor with do, which is teach about those "which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Is that not what the "Spirit sayeth unto the churches"?
My question is, would they not have to do this in order to be "accepted" by Christ. Individual believers, as you say, might be blessed but wouldn't they also have to understand or "hath an ear" to this same teaching in order to find complete favor with Jesus? His last admonition in chapter 3 was to hear what the Spirit said to the churches.
True, of course. She is His mother.
The leaning I have in the Spirit is that the blessings such as for those who overcome wrt Ephesus, i.e. that they will eat from the Tree of Life - and the admonishment to hear what the Spirit says to the churches - applies to each and every Christian. All of the words are food for us.
Also, the leaning I have in the Spirit is that the churches themselves should be seen as assemblies, congregations, groups of Christians - sharing in a common circumstance, fault, ability or challenge. Those who are among the church of Ephesus are those who match that description regardless of when or where they might live or which label they wear or where they worship. Each of us today would relate to one or more of those churches.
As an example, the church of Ephesus was doctrinally pure - careful to be correct in every detail and to put prophets to the strictest of tests. They contended for the faith vigorously and defended His Name. They held up to persecution. But they had a fatal flaw in that they didn't love God (and as a distant second, love their neighbor) as they should. Christ is threatening them collectively and individually - if they don't repent and try to love again, He will remove their candlestick, i.e. quit blessing them as a group. But even if the group fails, a member of that group can nevertheless overcome by repenting and returning to his first love.
Now consider the history of Christianity all the way to this very day - how many groups became obsessively "correct" in their doctrine but failed in their love - and consider how greatly they were blessed and grew and were effective in their work when they loved and how their numbers dwindled and how toothless they became when they did not.
And that phenomenon is true of individuals as well – those who are doctrinally pure but unloving should pay particular heed to what the Spirit says to the church of Ephesus.
That is the Spiritual discernment I have concerning Ephesus – but yours may be quite different, and that’s ok too.
Yet this is the secret revelation that you believe and want us all to believe. This is why you worship Mary, not that she is Christ's mother-- you think she is above God.
But this man, because he continueth ever , hath an unchangeable priesthood.
7:25 Wherefore 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.
7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
7:27 Who 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.
7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
What does that mean? It's in the Gospels. Are you saying the Gospels were not written in Greek?
The word in the text is "sheep". You took the liberty of interpreting that as the word "people". You then took your preferred Greek from your chosen word, even though the actual Greek for the actual text is still "sheep". You didn't choose the word "person", or "men" or "children" or "loved ones", etc. You chose a word that matched what you wanted in translation.
What Christ taught, and what the Apostles thought He taught was Judaism. There was no reason to preach Judaism to non-believers.
Then Christ and the Apostles were obviously wrong because of course they all preached to non-believers.
He did. He sent them to preach to the 12 tribes/clans/phule of Israel (descendants of Jacob).
If that was true, then God couldn't possibly love all men, as Orthodoxy holds. Your verses would also make Paul a false Apostle. That might be fine with you, but it does go against Orthodoxy. I'm sure there are many other implications here that would effectively wipe out Christianity and/or the Bible, but I will leave it there. :)
The point is that the Church failed in Israel. ...... The next (and only) logical step was to turn to the Gentiles. I am willing to believe that it was God's way of showing us what Christ really taught but no one understood, not even the Apostles. But the Bible does not seem to provide evidence to support that belief.
Was this God's failure, or the failure of the hierarchy of the Church? I mean, wouldn't you have to say that God's first act in leading His Church was to purposely lead them down the garden path to failure? Also, since all this happened after Pentecost, and you are saying that the Apostles still didn't get it, at what point do you think they DID get it, if ever?
I showed you where it is supported. The judgement is by works, -- I showed you the scripture. Some works condemn, some burn, some remain in heaven -- 1 Cor 3. Christ condemned the Pharisees for works of ostentation. Works are all different, scripture says.
Paul does not say that love is salvific
Modernity thinks that love is an attitude, and that is not salvific. But love is work. That is salvific, St. James says so, and St. Paul agrees:
4 When Christ shall appear, who is your life, then you also shall appear with him in glory. 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols. 6 For which things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of unbelief, 7 In which you also walked some time, when you lived in them. 8 But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another: stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds, 10 And putting on the new, him who is renewed unto knowledge, according to the image of him that created him. 11 Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all. 12 Put ye on therefore, as the elect of God, holy, and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience: 13 Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another: even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also. 14 But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection: 15 And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body: and be ye thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you abundantly, in all wisdom: teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing in grace in your hearts to God. 17 All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.(Col 3)
Mortify flesh, grow in love, and you will appear with Christ in glory.
You gave your interpretation.
I gave the interpretation that is correct. It is wrong to say that the Catholic interpretation is one, and the Protestant is another, as the protestant interpretationis provenly wrong on Sola Fide: it ignores half the scripture, and misunderstands the other.
there is nothing in the Greek that prohibits that verse [1 Timothy 3:15] from saying that God is the ground and pillar of the truth
"ekklesia (nominative) Theou (genitive) zontos stylos (nominative) kai edraioma (nominative) tes aletheias". Kolokotronis, is my grammar right here? Would not stylos be inflected "stylou" together with "Theou" if it were epithet of God?
The larger point is that Christ explains that the truth is what he sends His Church in these John's passages cited. In Matthew 18:17 we likewise read that the Church, -- not the Scripture under lay interpretation -- is the final arbiter of disputes.
does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures
The Church, not St. Jerome, and certainly not the Jews, defines the Canon.
The Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches ALL venerate Mary. Nobody WORSHIPS her. It is only angry; mostly illiterate; west europeons who deny Mary the respect the church has showed toward her since 33 AD.
We notice too that the letters are written to all churches and in all ages. The number 7 of course is a symbol for a perfect church, no matter how many congregations existed or exist. Each will have strengths and weaknesses but they make up a perfect church with Christ as the head. If there was ever only one big church, the letters would have been written to "the church".
Kind of like those oxen the Jews venerated
Christ is the power that makes the Communion of saints possible. It pleases Him to grant His saints abilities exceeding that of angels, that certainly exceed the ability of the flesh:
9 ... we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known.(1 Cor. 13)
The Orthodox already have a perfect church with Christ at its head; 20,000+ protestant schismatic sects many of which have established Christian 'firsts' by allowing abortion, promoting gay clergy, and blessing gay marriage, have neither a perfect church, nor is Christ at their head.
At God's command no less.
Please post scripture to back up your claim, thanks
I wouldn't know about that as my congregation endorses none of these, however you might wish to address some of these to your friends here, thanks
been there done that and bought the tshirt.
the endorse the same anti-Christian schismaticism.
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.