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/
Big topic. As you probably know, the Vatican II never did that, but we can talk of the aftereffects of the Vatican II. No, I personally do not agree with them, and I think most of the abuse of the decrees of the Vatican II will be reversed soon. The Tridentine Latin Mass, the Mass of the Ages, is going to be back. Praying ad orientem is going to become the norm again. However, there is simplicity and beauty in the Novus Ordo. I came to the Church through it, in large part thanks to its plain accessibility. I am certain that Novus Ordo in English will remain most popular for these reasons.
Of course, my perception is skewed because English is filling the same role Latin played in the Western culture. The need for the precision and grace of Latin is probalby greater in other, less sophisticated vernacular languages. I also look to the day when the horrid ICEL translations are corrected and NAS translation shelved.
So you have no scripture to support your assertion that the Jewish people "venerated" (not worshipped) the oxen depicted in the temple? Why am I not surprised?
Please post scripture to back up your assertions, thanks
If you wish to follow the Hebrew canon, that is your choice. I happen to be Christian and read the Christian Canon.
I've already posted the scripture to you, you're refusal to recognize the word of God is all your own.
Please point me to that post, thanks
You continue to confuse proof with persuasion. Also, I did not say that everything the Chruch teaches can be proven from scripture. Sola Fide is scripturally wrong, -- this is why all Protestant arguments to the contrary sidestep and obfuscate. Mariology, on the other hand, is mostly from Tradition and reason, but there are few prooftexts.
Calm down, dear.
The Gentile Christians as can be expected used the septuagint since it was in their language and Rome, in moving to solidify its political and religious power, used it to remove the "jewishness" of the church
Goodness! Alexandrian and Asia Minor Jews were hellenized and spoke only Greek. The Septuagint was originally translated, some two hundred years before Christ, by Jewish scholars, for the Alexandrian Jews who spoke only Greek and could not understand Hebrew Scriptures.
Removing "jewishness" was against 'judaizing' and it had nothing to do with Septuagint.
Like I said, I happen to be Christian and I am only interested in the Christian Canon, as established East and West by the Church. I also have little respect for those who edit the Word of God to suit their theological fantasies.
As a shrink, are you familiar with the phenomenon of loving your spouse friends and relatives as an expression of your love to the spouse?
Of course, and I showed Blogger the relevant scripture a few posts above.
If "Communion Of Saints" does not include this, then what is the Protestant definition of "Communion"?
Could a Reformed state what this definition is?
I thought the Apostle's Creed was part of most Protestant denominations; do you reject this part of the creed; define it differently?
Nothing in Hebrew 7 indicates that Blessed Virgin Mary is not Christ's mother or that we do not know Christ through her only. He did not have two mothers.
If you are curious why Leo XIII said that, perhaps you should read what he said because I am sure he articulated it better than I can. In fact, I will appreciate a link or a full quote with context if you have it as well.
Thank you for your thoughts.
I agree that "churches" are people, not buildings. I just feel that the admonition from Christ is much more specific than not loving God or others. That is His message throughout His ministry.
As Revelation is about revealing and after reading 1:18, I think the "wiggle room" is taken away. Jesus declared:
"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."
To me, what He says after that statement must be taken to heart and not wiggled with.
His message points out the good these churches and or people do but tells them more will be required. At least, that's how I understand it.
Here is what God says that Mary said about her role. When did God ever say differently?
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid( bond servant, slave) of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
I do not recall stating or implying or thinking that you said everything the Church teaches can be proven from scripture.I think the point about confusing persuading and proving is well taken. I guess I have been thinking about "proof" in a forensic, and possibly even an evangelical sense, not in the sense of getting to a point where me an my homes all growl, "Word," when I'm done talking, proof not to MY satisfaction, but to someone else's.
And it may be that I don't have an inferiority complex so much as that I am just plain inferior, at least in innerleckshual gifts. I know a lot of seemingly good and pious people who can read the Pauline corpus and James and, seemingly in good faith, construe it differently from the way I do.
Also, I'm a great believer in giving people enough rope. It would be delightful to have one of the Prots here say, "Well Dang! I'm converting tomorrow!" But I'm not staking money on that's happening. But as a result of this thread I have begun to develop what I'm thinking of as a Protestant gestalt, and looking for connections between, say, the idea of the "invisible church" and aversion to the idea of intercession of the saints. I'm beginning to see a suggestion that the IMHO admirable Calvinist emphasis on the Sovereignty of God is in some sense similar to the little I know about Islamic theology, and to wonder about that. Interesting that both strands are VERY anti-"image". I get this consistent perception of a binary kosmos with God over THERE and everything else over HERE and a great gulf fixed between. While I on the other hand think of God as dwelling with us and of "taking of the Manhood into God, as Athanasius saith, and of a great celestial dance of yielding and accepting, of giving and receiving, of thanking and praising forever, and of that dance frequently if not always leaking from eternity into the present, from God's "now" into ours.
Besides, what started this flurry between us was my saying:
I am now coming to question the possibility of proving anything from Scriptureto which you responded, "No, I disagree."
You mean I'm not questioning it? I made no assertion about proving this or that from Scripture. I declared that I was questioning.
Being told I have an inferiority complex and am confused about the difference between proof and persuasion will not stop me from questioning. And in my comment about their studying Scripture longer than we, I was being polite and taking them at their word, since they say so frequently and eagerly that we are ignorant of Scripture.
I don't know how to say this in a way that won't be misunderstood: Back off. Take it easy. Try a little circumspection. (I should take my own advice.) I think you misunderstood both what I was saying and why I was saying it, and were a tad abrupt in taking me to task for it.
We know Christ only through her? How does that work?
The "wiggle room" I'm referring to concerns my musings beyond the revelations of God the Father in (1) the Person of Jesus Christ, (2) the Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit, (3) Scriptures and (4) Creation.
But that is my personal epistemology - how I know what I know and how certain I am that I actually know it. Truth for me is only contained within the revelations - everything else, including sensory perception and reasoning are uncertain, e.g. "musings."
Certainty and Spiritual knowledge can vary widely among Christians - according to God's will and our efforts to "work out our own salvation." But we shouldn't be anxious about it. After all, doubting Thomas was an apostle too.
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.