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/
"promoting gay clergy"
What about young boys and the RC church?
That we don't should give you the reason it's not "very Mormon."
So what happened to her parents? Why don't you worship them?
As you know we don't worship Mary.
But instead of why not Mary's grandparents, ask why Mary?
I have seen that answer.
Now please answer my question: Why not pray to her parents and ask them to intercede for us? After all, they are the parents of the mother of God. In the scheme of things that should carry some weight.
When it comes down to brass tacks, the Mormons do not "worship" other gods, they merely believe in them and I suspect, that since they believe that God has a Mother (literally), that they also venerate God's mother in much the same way that Catholics claim to "venerate" God's mother.
Carry on.
Then you know the answer to your question. Why Mary answers why not Mary's parents - in the context of your equivalence.
Why not pray to her parents and ask them to intercede for us?
We ask for the prayers of all Saints in Heaven.
After all, they are the parents of the mother of God. In the scheme of things that should carry some weight.
See the first answer above.
If I remember correctly Mormons also baptist ancestors - their own and others. I'm guessing this is what Gamecock is referring to.
So the comparison breaks down on several counts.
And since knowing Jesus IS eternal life, John 17:3, then we only have eternal life through Mary. Right?
"You mean one could inflect "theou" in genitive but not inflect "stylos", and still refer stylos to theos? (I am using stylos and not the other noun and adjective because I am fairly sure of how to inflect stylos)."
I think so, yes. If stylos were an adjective, it would be different. I just don't see it being said that way. More likely one would say a clause beginning with tou. But then again, my Greek cousins tell me I speak Greek like a Spanish cow (same thing my French friends say about my French)! :)
If I remember correctly Catholics do penance for their ancestors in order to get them released from purgatory and Mormons baptize their ancestors in order to get them released from purgatory, so the comparison appears to be quite apropos.
Sorry. According to my historical references the deuterocanonical books were not considered inspired scripture by the Hebrew fathers at the time of Christ. If you could point me to some sources that would say otherwise I'd be happy to review the material.
As I stated before, I'm really not interested in what the Sadducees believed because they were way off base as our Lord told them. He considered the Pharisees to be knowledgable in the scriptures but legalistic in practice.
At the time of Christ, everyone knew what our Lord Christ meant when He stated, "You search the scriptures...", "What does the scriptures say...", "The scriptures states...". People didn't run around saying, "Gosh, does He mean the Sadducees' version or the Pharisee's version?
What is left of Judaism today is a corrupt religion, from a true Christian perspective. They do not worship the one true God which means that their minds are darkened. Those Jews who where chosen of the Father and Son became the foundation of Christianity and everything that encompasses, including the theology of Satan. The things we believe about Christ, the resurrection, Satan and everything else has been handed down to us from our Jewish founders.
Gentiles are grafted into the belief structure established by our Jewish founders. You seem to be saying Judaism and Christianity were two seperate religious beliefs. This is not the case.
What an interesting, and accurate, comparison.
The Septuagint was a Jewish Bible used by the hellenized Jews for two hundred years before Chirst and at the time when the Apostles wrote the NT, and it contained the books that the Pharisaical bible did not.
It is important because the Apostles quote from the Septuagint and not from the "Hebrew" Bible in over 93% of the cases. You figure out the rest.
I couldn't care less what the Sadducees believed either. I used them to show you that there was no such tinng as one Judaism or that the "Hebrew" Bible was one and the same book you read today in your Old Testament.
Mormons believe that they can be god some day, don't they? They worship the god of this universe but are more polytheists. (Small g was deliberate, as the god of Mormonism and the God of Scripture are not synonymous. God was never a man that 'became' a god).
"What an interesting, and accurate, comparison."
Psalms 49:7, "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)"
There was no such thing as the Judaism. Christianity was only one version of it. However, all forms of Judaism have certain things in common.
But when +Paul broke with the Law and circumcision, Christianity ceased being a form of Judaism.
Sorry. Leaving the thread. I have a life.
Official policies.
Protestants make it official policy to odrain gay clergy.
Romans even with their faults state clearly that they should NOT be ordained.
It is PROTESTANTS doing evil IN GOD'S NAME.
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.