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/
Please show me then that he is not the Great High Priest, that his mother is! That her, by being His Mother, overshadows His work on the cross!
Asked and answered.
From the London Baptist Confession:
CHAP. XXVII.
Of the Communion of Saints.
1. All Saints that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and Faith; although they are not made thereby one person with him, have (a) fellowship in his Graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory; and being united to one another in love, they (b) have communion in each others gifts, and graces; and are obliged to the performance of such duties, publick and private, in an orderly way, (c) as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
a 1 Joh. 1.3. Joh. 1.16. Phil. 3 10 Rom. 6.5 6.
b Eph. 4.15.16. 1 Cor. 12.7. 1 Cor. 3 21,22,23.
c 1 Thes. 5.11.14. Rom. 1.12. 1 Joh. 3.17.18. Gal 6.10.
2. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services, (d) as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in (e) outward things according to their several abilities, and necessities; which communion according to the rule of the Gospel, though especially to be exercised by them, in the relations wherein they stand, whether in (f) families, or (g) Churches; yet as God offereth opportunity is to be extended to all the houshold of faith, even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus; nevertheless their communion one with another as Saints, doth not take away or (h) infringe, the title or propriety, which each man hath in his goods and possessions.
d Heb. 10 24,25. with ch. 3.12,13.
e Act. 12.29.30. [Note]
f Eph. 6.4.
g 1 Cor. 12.14.-27.
h Act. 5.4 Eph. 4.28
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way , the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Where in scripture does Jesus say "No man cometh unto me but by my mother"?
John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Where is the mention of his mother?
Where?
Where?
Thanks BD.
I don't see it here, but is there a difference in Communion of Saints made of Saints in Heaven? Is the section posted understood to include them in its definition?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. . . . there it is . . .
Mary is purported to be the gatekeeper to Christ.
I don't think either one of them got that memo.
Good meat in your msg dear bro. Going to have to get back to you.
BTW, I think you have more than sufficient access to my heart and mind to get most anything conveyed to me that you wish. I may not agree but I can at least understand and that probably above average.
You see, we don't believe either of those things. I'd guess you think that they are a logical implication of what we do believe. But we differ from you on that.
So if you can't find such a text, would you instead explain to me what you hope to accomplish by accusing us of believing things we don't believe.
Again, this seems to be an obsession among some Protestants. They INSIST that we believe something or do something so very dreadful that it justifies all sorts of rhetorical excesses and bandwidth expenditures. I, personally, try not to make such claims in an argumentative way about Protestants, and I don't see what the good of such things is.
Of course, it leads me to consider that such things are sad to make us angry, to cause pain. But I consider that only tentatively. I don't see why, but I don't see why people would engage in this stuff. It's bad enough to go to a fat person and call him "Fatty." It's incomprehensible to go to a skinny person and call him "Fatty." All that will be conveyed is contempt. No content, nothing discussable will come across. I don't get it.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold , but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Joh 10:2
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:7
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you , I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Joh 18:16: But FIRST, go get the key from my MAMA!
People are posting that the way to Christ is through Mary. I'm just looking for some biblical proof to support what they themselves are averring.
Look, this stuff is not done in a corner. You may recall that this thread started as a conversation about a movie's depiction of our Lady and of the Lord's nativity.
By post 9 we were being told Mary is a goddess to us! For 9,000 posts we have gone round the houses on this. I have all I can do to find eirenic ways to articulate my side of the argument. When one of us says something about Mary's role in giving the world access to her Son, the least you guys could do is notice it BEFORE you disagree with it. I'm not going to use my dial-up connection to find it.
I think "Communion of Saints" refers to the living saints, those who have trusted Christ for their salvation, not to those who have died.
you think she is above God.
= = = =
Am beginning to think there's a . . . what . . . twilight zone/shadow lands/alternate reality feature to all this . . .
Kind of like the sort of thing that one can see only out of the corner of one's eye . . . but when one looks directly, it disappears . . . but like the Chinese say--the bystander sees the game best.
There's some terribly slippery stuff going on in all this. Very fascinating for a sociologist/shrink.
I wonder if it's somewhat like the guy in his back yard holding the hose with a big spurt of water arching from his hand . . . as he watches the beautiful neighbor in her pool. His wife comes out and asks him what he's doing. Just watering the grass, of course. And he is. Obviously. He thinks so. The neighbor lady thinks so. His wife believes it. And yet . . . romping twixt--maybe in between the neurons . . . is this other script . . .
But how might that apply . . . Why of course, I'm just honoring Mary. And she is worthy honor--after all--she Birthed THE CHRIST. That's inadequate, let's bump it up a bit--she BIRTHED GOD! That's it--She originated God--in a sense--of course, only a sense--we must keep that in mind, of course, except when it slips aside and falls to the gutter . . . we'll keep that in mind, except when we are so caught up enraptured with this graven image of Mary that we no longer bother about keeping it in mind . . .
But of course, we are ONLY honoring Mary. I know that. The priest knows that--ask him. All my fellow RC's know that . . . at least the intellectual ones will say so . . . but twixt the neurons . . . runs this other script that feeds my flesh so well; comforts me so well; is so much more ACCESSIBLE, that's it--I can relate to Mary so much better and so much easier--MOTHER--THE SUPREME EARTH-MOTHER; MOTHER OF HEAVEN; MOTHER OF GOD--what a comfort.
Not so lofty and out of touch as God--except she is rather God like--what a blend--what a comforting blend. Mary, what a comfort. What a welcome ACCESSIBLE FOCUS. Let's let Moses bother with God at the tent of meeting--that's too hard to handle. Let's deal only with Mary. So comforting. So accessible. So reachable. So our sizeable. Except then we need to elevate her to be able to do all our magical requests. That's, it. We'll keep her as our focus but elevate her so she can do us more good. What a plan.
Nobody WORSHIPS her.
= = = =
If one is looking only at
1. behaviors
2. attitudes from a) countenance b) body language c) self reports
3. focus
4. self descriptions . . .
the above assertion is greatly flawed if not out right untrue on the part of many thousands of people.
Of course, God sees the heart . . . but out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. And on that basis, the above assertion is simply not true when it says "nobody."
since we're quoting scripture anyway...
1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
You do know that we Catholics have a different view of the role of the Bible in establishing Doctrine from the view held by most Protestants, right? So we might not be the best crowd to ask for such a proof. AND it might not trouble us that we could not come up with such a proof.
Maybe it would help to reach some agreement, that is to get a Catholic to agree with you that we are saying X, before you ask us to justify X (and that we mean by 'X' what you mean by it) from proof-texts. I have all I can do to explain what I DO think. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on (a)explaining what I DON'T think; or (b)trying to explain to a hostile (in the forensic sense) audience that I don't think what they accuse me of thinking.
Do you get that I'd rather not fight unless a fight is shoved down my throat?
Thanks, that would be a key difference in the understanding of the creed and the term then.
Would this, including Saints in Heaven in Communion, then for Protestants be also in the category of errors in the early Church?
Calm down dear:
2 questions:
1. Is what I wrote historically untrue?
2. Is what I wrote about less than outrageous?
Sometimes, calmness is not fitting.
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.