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/
Because he repented.
That's the same as saying by faith alone (as compared to the Law) because one cannot repent without faith.
Ah. I think I see..
It's a free will choice, but a no brainer.
Can I ask on what basis this choice is made? Also, what is it precisely that makes one off/on, saved?
Maybe this sturcture: One minute one is not saved, the next minute, or two let's say, he is saved.
What happened internally and externally in that time?
thanks for your reply.
I was only pointing out that martyrs are far from common folk, particularly the early martyrs of the church. They were most extraordinary folk.
As far as being 'like you and me' I don't think we would know unless given that opportunity, which I hope we never are.
thanks for your reply.
You aren't saying the Bible is God are you?
That could very well be so. You see, if the Holy Spirit leads everyone who claims it, then we would have some concordance instead of thousands of denominations. We would not be having these discussions because, for sure, the Holy Spirit would not teach us different things, would He?
Scripture has to be the final arbitor in all things Many people read the same Scripture and read different things in it. The Jews do not see in Isaiah what the Christians claim. The Protestants do not see the same as the Catholic or Orthodox. Surely, we all can't be lead by the Holy Spirit into reading things radically different or having faiths that are just about unrecognizable.
And what is Scripture? Is it not that which one believes constitutes Scripture? So, if I believe in unicorns, does that mean unicorns exist? For sure, the Jews have rejected what Christians call the NT as Scripture. And Christians only recognize Ten Commandments when God actually issued 600.
And among Christians, the Scripture is no less elusive. Protestants use the NT and the Hebrew OT. Catholics use the NT and the Hebrew-Septuagint Old Testament with deuterocanonical books. The Orthodox use the Septuagint with deuterocanonical books along with the NT. The Septuagint and the Hebrew (Pharisaical) OT are not exactly the same. At times they are quite different. Same word of God?
The Church says it always defers to the Scripture. But again the Scripture is an elusive term. Everyone, not just the Christians, alludes to 'scripture.' The Latter-Day-Saints have, in addition to the Protestant version of the Christian Bible the Book of Mormon as 'scripture'; the Jews have the Talmud; the Muslims have the Koran...the oldest written 'scripture' is the Hindu religion, exalting one God.
I don't mean any disrespect to any particular group of people or beliefs. But anyone who is making absolute statements with elusive and unprovable 'experiential' arguments is only convincing himself, and those who happen to be like-minded. That is no proof of anything, which is what my point was all along regarding self-tests.
And the Holy Spirit
No, I am saying that the Word is God.
Word=Scripture?
Yes, it refers to the concept of people. I was saying that many words could be used to mean people other than "people". You chose that one, and then translated it to your liking. I didn't think it was proper to translate a concept into specific word(s), and then translate those word(s), even if they don't actually appear in the Bible.
Let's leave Orthodoxy alone for now and concentrate on what took place:
"These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Matthew 10:5-6]
Not only does Christ say to ALL the Apostles not to go to the Gentiles, but he calls the 12 tribes the lost SHEEP.
This was obviously not Christ's ultimate command to the Apostles. This was His first command on this. This was one mission. Why would Christ Himself preach to Samaritans, but not want the Apostles to ultimately do so? That would make no sense and be a waste of His time. Further, why did Christ not use the same type of command in Matt. 28? There, He was clearly expanding the mission field. Again, if you really believe that Christ did not want them to preach to Gentiles, then the only way you are saved is because Paul DISOBEYED Christ. If that was true, then you should venerate Paul twice as much as you venerate Mary! :) Yet, among Apostolics, Paul takes the worst beating.
Of course there were lost sheep among the Jews. There always have been. There were also lost sheep among the gentiles.
So, not only did Christ EVER command His Apostles to preach to the Gentiles, not even Semitic, Torah-worshipping Samaritans, but one must seriously question WHY would He send ALL of His disciples on a mission He knew would fail?
I made your correction to "EVER", but I actually think the original "NEVER" fits more in line with what I think you are saying. With "EVER" you are saying that Christ DID command the Apostles to preach to the Gentiles.
Who says that the mission was a failure? Was it a failure by your standards? Do we know what Christ expected? Perhaps the results of the mission were exactly as Christ intended, thus LEADING to opening up Christianity to all nations of the earth. That makes more sense to me.
The Torah in Judaism is the written law, but besides that, it is so much more, being seen as a creative force that was with god before the creation of the world. Jesus as the logos is an explanation of this torah concept to the Greeks.
Logos=Scripture?
Is the Torah scripture?
That's a bit odd coming from an Orthodox who believe the Church has a right to redefine church discipline. If memory serves me correctly Othodox don't allow bishops to marry.
I believe its better to give someone a good translation and have the word of God speak to men's souls then to have have someone say, "Listen to me. I'll tell you the scripture means." To be perfectly honest, I'm not really impress with Orthodox or Catholic theology. It's made up as it goes along, by bias men and voted on in bias councils.
Yes, absolutely. Works are by no means somehow the "second half" of salvation. I have compared works to running around the bases after hitting a home run. Running is a result of what is truly the "home run", when the ball clears the fence.
Yes, Torah=Scripture.
Scripture=God?
Jesus=Scripture?
Maybe that's true in YOUR parish, but it has been freely admitted to me by other Orthodox here that not all their women go through their services covered and silent. You are not speaking for all Orthodox churches.
Torah equals Logos
Torah is the written law, but Torah is much more, having been with God before the Creation and having been active with God in the Creation.
Jesus as He said, came to fulfill the law, not to end it. Jesus is the Torah, but Jesus is much more, just as the Torah is much more than the written law.. John 1:1. Jesus was the Word (Torah)
Hebrews 1 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Find me one where He says GO therefore to the Gentiles.
Again, Matthew 28 is matter of interpretation. Ethnos can mean a avariety of things. Just as American Indians speak of "nations" coming together (meaning Native American), this is a common anthropological phenomenon among tribal peoples.
The reason I am saying this the fact that Jesus was a Jew and as a Jew He could not associate closely with the Gentiles. Activities such as eating together and fraternizing in a general way was strictly fobidden, never mind praying together!
Christ never advocated anything but Judaism. And Judaism He could preach only to the lost tribes of Israel (Jews do not proselitize). Christ never even hinted that His 'mission' was to convert the Gentiles.
He merely restated what the Jews believed, namely that through the messiah (meshiyah), who will establish peace and rule as a king on earth, the world will get to know (know about) the God of Abraham, not necessarily that the world will believe.
He certainly never advocated dropping the Law for anyone converting to Judais, and early Christians until +Paul considered themnsleves observant Jews. He never even hinted that such a person will appear and create a new religion, or that there was a general plan to do so.
The Gospels were written when Christianity had only a one way ticket out of Israel. +Matthew wrote his between 70 and 100 AD. By then +Paul was already dead, and so was +James, along with the Church in Jerusalem (which was shut down in 69 AD). In view of that, +Matthew's Gospel's ending makes sense, a lot of sense!
if you really believe that Christ did not want them to preach to Gentiles, then the only way you are saved is because Paul DISOBEYED Christ
I don't think he disobeyed Christ. I don't think he ever saw Christ. I think +Paul was a very zealous convert. He saw Christians dying with joy and without fear. Many were impressed by that. He could have learned a great deal about Christianity in his line of work.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe +Paul was a dishonest person; God forbid! I believe he was truly converted and spent many days and nights learning and asking questions and meditating. He also realized that Christianity had no future in Israel, that the Jewish hearts will not warm up to Christ and, being shrewed, smart and zealous, he took the banner of the Church and lead the Church out of Israel the way Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt.
We have a lot to be thankful to +Paul. And he is a Saint if there ever was one. He put his faith to work, he opened churches and wrote epistles before any of the Apostles wrote anything. And he died a martyr for the faith. Unconventional, brave, resolute, practical, steadfast, but never disobedient.
If they are going to keep one custom or law of a desert nomadic tribe, they should keep them all. They should attend synagogue and keep the practices. If they have slaves taken in battle, they should shave her head to keep the wife from getting jealous and after they marry her and go to church with her, she should keep her head covered. They should do away with diapers as well.
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.