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/
You don't know. I know. Read the lives of saints and you will know, too.
Christ told you to obey the Church, and no He did not mean your pastor.
That is true. But so, before there is a test of faith, I would suggest not presuming sainthood.
I can't find that verse.
That alone should put a damper on any historical aspirations, as St. Augustine is a late authority with regional appeal. fortunately for him, while he was an inspiration for the Reformers, he never actually believed anything the Reformers accuse him of believing ...
I find it interesting that when Augustine says things you don't like, he is a late comer with only regional appeal, and besides, he took back everything that you didn't like. But when he says things you do like, he is "Blessed Augustine". It was your folks who declared him a saint. Based solely on comments from Catholics, I really see a love-hate relationship with this man.
[Irenaeus:] Those, therefore, who speak against this gift [Eucharist] of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.
Unless the human ritual of Eucharist is salvation itself, isn't death a pretty harsh sentence to proclaim against all non-Apostolics?
..............
and tell me if this reminds you of Protestantism.
Well of course it doesn't, but why should it? Probably most of the writings of the Fathers which survived I disagree with. It wasn't my attempt to show otherwise. My point was to note that Protestant ideas DID exist from early on, and that the Reformers did not make everything up, as is so often the accusation from Apostolics.
Are you ready to admit now that you believe the Church trumps the scripture? It's OK, go ahead. We know.
Well that makes one book we got lying around here somewhere and the Orthodox won't share???
You still haven't answered the question, how do you know your version is correct? Are you willing to say that every liturgy and prayer that you recite is in error? How do you know your version of Ezekial is correct? Simply because tradition states it to be so?
Feel free to include me on posting your excellent comments. It's refreshing to the soul to find someone who believes the word of God.
"What did Christ's death do in the view of Orthodoxy?"
Read +Athanasius the Great's "On the Incarnation". Its what The Church believes and put far better than I can.
"I find it interesting that when Augustine says things you don't like, he is a late comer with only regional appeal, and besides, he took back everything that you didn't like. But when he says things you do like, he is "Blessed Augustine"."
No, not the Latins, FK; that's we Orthodox who do that.
A: " and tell me if this reminds you of Protestantism.
FK: Well of course it doesn't, but why should it?
I suppose I'm curious why those passages from the Fathers don't remind you of Protestantism. On their face that is precisely what they describe.
"My point was to note that Protestant ideas DID exist from early on, and that the Reformers did not make everything up, as is so often the accusation from Apostolics."
Heresy has indeed been around from the beginning. We see it even in Acts. But surely you aren't saying that the first of the reformers had access to information that no one has seen about these proto-protestants ever since? If you find the time, make a study of the heresies of the first two centuries of Christianity. You'll find nothing you want to identify with, FK. Personally, I sincerely doubt that the early Reformers looked to early heretics for inspiration. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura forms a much better basis for Protestantism than anything Gnostics or Montanists or the like believed. I understand that the creation of a sort of historical continuity is important to answer the criticisms leveled by The Church that Protestantism is an innovation, but that sort of historical exegesis is modern post hoc propter hoc arguing and ends up tying you to people you really don't want to be identified with. Stick with Sola Scriptura and blame us Greeks for the "error" of the first 1500 years of Church history.
The message of the parable is simply this: have all the fun, do whatever you want, and when the funds or health run out — "repent."
You will have a much more interesting life experience. Let the idiots be obedient. We never throw parties for them.
But for the 'bad boys' we will make even their desperate return into a party!
The Septuagint and any interlinear New Testament are available everywhere. Please help yourself! :)
"Does seem unfair, doesn't it?!"
How is this any different than the thief on the cross and someone like Paul or James. All are in heaven with the Father. Or how is it any different than the parable of the farmer who goes into the labor market and pays the same wages to those who were hired early and toiled through the heat of the day and those who were hired late and maybe worked for an hour? It is all in the sovereignty of God and His dispensing of His grace to whomever He wills.
I don't. I know that the Apostles used the Septuagint as Scripture; so do we. That much is certain.
The Tradition does not say what is correct. The Tradition puts the Bible in context of the early Church understanding and experience.
Cultures change, languages evolve, concepts morph, until the point of being unrecognizable or even opposite of what they were before. The English word vengeance used to mean something rather different few centuries ago.
It's not that the writers and readers have a desire to misrepresent or misread. The language and concepts of their time are simply not the same as those of the times past.
Holy Tradition is the reference to the times when the Church was nascent and the people who read and listened to the message of Christ were in the culture and society that was very similar if not identical to the culture and society of the Apostles.
Holy Tradition are commentaries by people who were taught and ordained by the Apostles (+Ignatius, +Polycarp), or who knew those who were. They help us see Christianity in their eyes and in their language, in their context of times and realities.
If they had mistaken concepts from the get-go, then we are just imitating their errors. In essence, that's what the Protestants are saying: the Church was in apostasy until a renegade priest by the name of Martin Luther came along.
If that's what you believe, so be it. It's your belief. I did not come here to change it. I am merely stating what we do and what we believe.
We have no way of knowing which version of Ezekiel is absolutely true. There are no originals of any kind. The original books Moses supposedly wrote do not appear to be extant. No one knows for sure to what extent our OT agrees with the original from 3,200 years ago, or even if there was an original.
We do know that scribes changed words not necessarily out of malice but because they believed that the scribe whose copy they were copying made a mistake. We do know that the Septuagint and the OT the Christ-denying Jews and Protestants use are not the same. but we have no way of knowing for certain which one is "truer" other than the fact that the Apostles used the former in most cases, and the latter only occasionally.
In absence of absolute knowledge, we rely on what points to the understanding of the early fathers and the Apostles. We use the books they used and wrote. The rest, we simply believe.
BD, like I said, doesn't seem fair does it? But His ways are not our ways.
You don't know. I know. Read the lives of saints and you will know, too.
= = = = =
I'm convinced that MarySecretary knows more about suffering and sainthood than most folks hereon.
And that NOT at a mere intellectual level.
GRRRR
You're right on the money, BD. That's the message. I say pecca fortiter and repent in the last moment. Bad boys and slackers get to do all the fun things and they get all the benefits too! Right?
That is true. But so, before there is a test of faith, I would suggest not presuming sainthood.
= = = =
MarySecretary has been there and done that dozens of times over.
Any conjectures, so called perceptions; assumptions, inferences, extrapolations otherwise are about as congruent with truth as a lot of the nonsense proffered as sound theology hereon.
And, strike me as self-lofted lofty postulations and pontifications gone to seed.
Christ told you to obey the Church...
- - -
I can't find that verse.
= = =
Welllllllllllll, Bro, IF you'd bet a RUBBER Bible that would S T R E T C H FARRRRRR ENOUGH, maybe you could find it! LOL.
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.