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/
What about the pope's hat then, he's always got it on when he prays?
"Zontos" modifies "theou", by common sense, and yes, it is therefore ungrammatical no matter how you look at it. Unless we subvert all translations known to man, and translate, grammatically
"the God's Church, living, pillar and foundation of truth".
I think it is a colloquialism that is in too much of a hurry to separate subordinate clauses with prepositions.
"ekklesia theou [pas o] zontos [e de] stylos kai edraioma tes aletheias"
Or any combination.
The point remains, God is no architectual support element of anything, but the Church, metaphorically is.
a question better addressed to Catholics, however I'd note that the Orthodox take of head coverings during prayer during liturgy. (you'll note that in context St Paul is speaking about prayer when Christians come together for liturgy; not all prayer anywhere)
Makes no sense. Is Christ a tabernacle of Himself? Was the Old Testament Tabernacle the Word?
No you can't have it both ways, sorry. Besides the higher the hat, the closer to heaven
WRONG
Well get a letter off to the pope and get back to us. He has hundreds of hats.
St Paul said no men praying covered at liturgy; our men don't.
St Paul said no women praying uncovered at liturgy. Our women pray covered; yours don't.
It's clear that your parish simply doesn't care what Holy Scripture says they simply go with the popular traditions of the time.
Nice to read some Biblical sanity about the issues.
Our church does not have a pope. I see no reason to write to one as to what my church teaches.
Another authority of that opinion was St. Jerome, but that notwithstanding, the West followed the canon of Hippo and Carthage, and the East simply used the complete Canon, to this day. Opinions of individuals are interesting, but the Church as a whole disposes.
Now, now.
Gone ta meddlin'
LOL.
Quix says: wrong.
St Paul says:
1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cr 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head
1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches:
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Methinks I'll stick with St Paul.
I think I'll continue to be the gatekeeper on what is Biblical and sensible, to me.
Interesting in that the church of Satan preaches the exact same thing; beleive what you think benefits you; self above all else.
Does that work the same for what's her name . . .
on The Simpson's Cartoon show . . . the high hairdo ???
Or is it just more airheadedness pretending to be closer to Heaven?
3rd
because OF THE TRADITION OF THE TIME, Paul gave an exhortation FOR THEN.
Context CAN be very important in Pauls writings as he, himself notes on occasion.
Just like the wolves would be expected to say 'st paul only meant that then, its fine to ignore now; abandon Scripture and follow what WE say...'.
Think i'm gonna stick with St Paul here.
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.