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/
go ahead. We know.
I don't think it's all THAT OK. But we certainly know! LOL.
"Bad boys and slackers get to do all the fun things and they get all the benefits too! Right?"
Story of my life. Being brought up in a parsonage I had to "experience" the "fun" after developing a keen conscience. Double the guilt with no sense of satisfaction! I had no one to brag about it to and every one I was with said "you shouldn't be doing that, your dad is a Pastor..
The term "Holy tradition" doesn't appear in the bible.
Simply because tradition states it to be so?
= == = ==
Cue Tevya. Do they pay Tevya royalties? Or is there an icon or statue to Tevya somewhere?
Would that make his name
TEVYA BYZANTIUM UPTRADANTIUM?
Where and how many times did He say that and how many times are we told to beware of false teachers?
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.
= = = =
Thanks and likewise to you, Dear Heart. Likewise.
[was beginning to think my humor had fallen out of favor or vogue! LOL]
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!
= = = =
Am curious . . .
Have the newer rubber Bibles started using silicone yet? They are reportedly, supposedly more durable and allows more flexing, bending, distorting with better bounce back.
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.
= = =
Agreed . . . though I'd exhort keeping in mind . . . "whosoever will, may come."
Unmeritted favor.
Overwhelming Love.
Uppermost authority.
Mercy triumphing over even His Justice.
. . .
While the intellectually constipated and prissy are not content until every last serf has paid every last Chinese fen for every last offense and especially don't forget the Temple tax! And the bill can be produced in quadruplicate, if needed.
Sigh.
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.
= = = =
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . So, we can have RUBBER BIBLES
BUT NOT . . . . DRUM ROLL . . .
RUBBER TRADITION!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TRADITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IS EVERLASTINGLY PURE, STATIC, SOLID, FOSSILIZED, PRISTINE, 1,000% DEPENDABLE . . . etc. etc. etc. and etc.
Makes perfect sense . . . in Alice in Wonderland's theology.
The term "Holy tradition" doesn't appear in the bible.
= = = =
INDEED.
But never fear . . . we have 100's of years of
TRADITION POUNDERS doing their diligent 'holy' work . . .
purely pounding precious preposterous pontifical proud pristine perfect
!!!!!!!!!!!!!TRADITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INTO pristine perfect shape.
And all who didn't conform to it . . . got pounded no little amount as well--
of course pounded only by
100% pur holy pounders.
Now where they got THEIR purity has yet to be discovered. I've heard of Enoch and Elijah getting special rides to Heaven. I haven't read of the
pristine perfect santified utterly holy pounders getting special rides back from Heaven.
= = = =
BTW, You know of anyone who's listed out all the mentions of tradition in Scripture--especially in the NT . . . and counted up how many were positive statements or direct positive inferences and how many were negative?
"Story of my life. Being brought up in a parsonage I had to "experience" the "fun" after developing a keen conscience."
HA! The Greeks have a saying, "Son of the priest, grandson of the devil!" :)
"HA! The Greeks have a saying, "Son of the priest, grandson of the devil!" :)"
You've been talking to my wife again! Are you getting this icy weather?
let me translate your comments into reality:
1. angry illiterate west europeons figured they were the center of the world.
2. their angry decendants thought so also and fragmented their 'churches' from 5ish to 20000+
3. protestants think that english is God's language and everything else is irelellevent.
4. protestants ignore the greek original text because their pope (themselves) says its superfluous
5. protestants hold fast to traditions like Christ is really a book, and headcovering isn't needed because it clashes with church tradition
6. protestants do just about everything except worship God in their 'meeting houses'
7. protestants understand Christ better than everybody because they're infailable Popes with the sole authority to decide scripture, therefore making the original texts superfluous to their divine reason.
Am I supposed to be impresxsed by a bunch of angry west europeon churches founded by illiterates who thought themselves personally superior in matters of scripture?
Oh c'mon protestants routinely trump Scripture with tradition.
Women needn't cover their head because 282 words of St paul just don't apply; tradition tells protestants that head covering ain't neccessary and the personal popes know better than Scripture to be sure.
It's rather interesting that the Orthodox base everything they believe upon what a group of people agree to. I can't say there is any other group of Christians that would make that claim.
Well Christ did say we'd know false prophets by their actions. St Paul even said that folks who refuse to acknowledge that what he wrote was commandments from God were false prophets yet protestants were founded by murderous folks and in only 400 years of protestantism have managed many firsts such as rejecting St Paul on headcovering and women preachers. Promoting abortion under the guise of helping the poor. Saying that a Christian church can have homosexual clergy. Saying that Christian churches can bless homosexual relations. Meantime they've gone from 5 something denominations to 20000+. Boy wouldn't SATAN want to do all those things?
Now who seriously is leading protestantism? God who is not the author of confusion (As Saint Paul tells us) or Satan who benefits endlessly from the vile things protestants due in the name of God?
There's tons of em. Protestants for instance reject 282 words by St Paul (which he says are commandments from the Lord) because their tradition tells them women don't need to cover their heads.
So you are saying that Protestants are generally more evil than Catholics therefore it is the protestants that have the false teachers and there are no false teachers or teachings in the RCC? Does that sum up?
No I'm saying everything about protestantism since day one was inspired by Satan to fragment Christians and that the notion that one personal alone is somehow uniquely guided by the Holy Spirit to the extent of knowing more than the Church Fathers is deliberatly inspired by Satan so as to create numerous opposing sects and replace Christianity with a bunch of arguing sects all of which feel they have divine authority.
Well, at first it sounded like you were saying that the way to know a false teacher was by his murderous behavior, ie fruits. It now seems like you have reconsidered looking too closely at behavior, good idea on your part, and are simply defaulting to the old we're right and you're wrong. And your proof that you are right, "the Church Fathers". This must explain why RCs so often drop names of such fathers when trying to prove a doctrine that doesn't exist in the bible.
I still maintain that the bible warns about false teachers. When I hear teaching that is not in the bible and that is often the very opposite of what the bible say that is pretty simple proof that a teacher or even a whole denomination is false. The bible places unlimited confidence in itself but not in man. The bible's definition of the Church has never been the RCC so any verses about the Church can only be about believers, not a particular denomination.
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.