Is this the straw dog you're looking for?
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/
So, I'm now seen by you to be a wolf pack leader?
How sweet.
Actually, I prefer to have nothing to do with wolves. And deal with them sternly accordingly.
But I wouldn't dare imagine I'd ever have any successful influence on your fantasies in the slightest.
noting that I've already mentioned I feel the notion of infailable individuals, a notion inspired by Satan to split the church, started in the RCC and simply grew further with the protestants.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled baseless diatribes and pontifications.
i don't recall asking if you are a pastor (or whatever your church calls em) or not so i can't say as to whether the false faith your church spreads is lead in part by you or whether you simply follow the pack.
yep that's protestants 'please ignore our agreigious rejection of scripture and subjection to the traditions of men' alert number 9,999,999,669.
In the Episcopal church we were just called "PKs" -- "Preacher's Kids" (even though they were ministers or priests, not "preachers").
I was hoping to avoid the "who is more evil" comparisons. That seems like an unwinable argument.
"In the Episcopal church we were just called "PKs""
As a Baptist in New England, "PK" was one of the nicer things we were called, that's in our own church.
Love-hate relationship? Who hates St. Augustine and is Catholic? Perhaps you are confusing the fact that he wrote some things that the Church did not accept as "hate"? Perhaps you are confusing the "disgust" for those who twist St. Augustine's writings? But St. Augustine is a key Church Father and you'd be hard pressed to find something he DIDN'T write on regarding the Catholic Faith. I am currently reading some of his sermons on John's Gospel. Quite interesting
Unless the human ritual of Eucharist is salvation itself, isn't death a pretty harsh sentence to proclaim against all non-Apostolics?
Not entirely...
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 1 Cor 11:28-30
and tell me if this reminds you of Protestantism.
Probably most of the writings of the Fathers which survived I disagree with.
Naturally. You have already pre-determined what the Scriptures teach despite what anyone says, and so anything that was written or believed by the entire Church 1000 years ago is inconsequential.
This is the pillar of Protestantism - rather than receiving the Word of God, accepting as something outside of ourselves, you personally decide what it means. Is it any wonder people claim the Bible backs up their own preconceived theological claims that justify their own ideas? St. Irenaeus had to deal with this himself in 180 AD. Fighting the will of God through His Community is nothing new.
Regards
- - - Q responded : I can't find that verse.
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Luke 10:16
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mat 16:19
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mat 18:18
-------Q wrote: 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.
Christians are called to be like Christ, e.g. humble. This is not an appropriate response by someone claiming to be a follower of Christ.
Regards
oh c'mon you're Bible's a subjective joke, where the apostles drone on wasting their words for 282 words of scripture which aren't applicable because they contradict your church's traditions.
I'd guess that it goes without saying that Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 13 ... was wasted on some.1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
Its not a matter of waste its a matter of folks who deny the commandments in Corinthians being flase prophets, what says Paul with regard to the wolves stealing away the faithful again?
Well, you go ahead and obey the church. I'll stick with scripture. The church isn't always right on with that and I don't care WHAT church you're talking about. M
as i recall you stick with your church in rejecting 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.
I don't presume sainthood. Believers ARE saints. No presumption there.
and folks who reject 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 are false prophets says so right in scripture.
In Orthodoxy, we call this parable "The Parable of The Two Sons". And you are very right about the Pharisees. What the older brother represents is a lack of love and mercy and compassion, but mostly a lack of love. He "did" everything right, played by all the rules, but condemned himself by his jealousy as one who had learned nothing except arrogance and a sense of entitlement which lead not to experiencing the love his father showed, not to becoming like his father, but rather the opposite, consumed with hatred.
That is certainly true, Kolo, but it is also true that the parable advocates rewards for those who disobey and who repent when all else has been lost. Their disobedience is without consequences. Yet the older brother, who was driven to arrogance and envy out of sense of injustice, is the villain.
In some ways, our society does this too, namely reward the negative and suppress the positive. No wonder the negative wins. The younger brother had a good time and when everything dried up and he was starving he all of a sudden 'repented.' He had no choice, but to 'repenet' or die. When he returned to his father and asked to be taken as a servant, he didn't do that out of 'humility' but out of knowing that he squandered his fortune and dignity willingly and knowingly and had no right whatsoever to demand anything. The older brother felt like a fool.
This is one of those homilies that always leaves me with my head shaking.
I believe that the message of the parable is this ... God's love, ... when received, ... triumphs over all.
Consider the fact that the older son's life ... was not negatively impacted by his brother's return ... or by his father's celebration of that fact.
In fact, ... if the older brother had any love for his younger brother, ... he should have been thrilled to have him return.
His brother's return should have been seen as a positive for all. Everyone's life should have been positively impacted ... unless love was lacking (which it was in the older brother's case).
Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them."
The son felt envy and pride, he was better than his brother.
I think Jesus makes it clear also that repentence is involved: "…there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."
Note also that he is not less rewarded for his faithfulness than his brother is for his repentence: "you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours."
The brother's anger was because he thought he was given less than his brother: "you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends.."
Pride, anger, envy. If anything he "deserved" less than his repentent brother who realized he "deserved" to be the lowest of the low in his father's house.
If, in both cases, you helped her out of selfless compassion, because you loved her as your self, did you only choose to do good on Wednesday?
I think Harley explained this better than I did. I was coming at it from the angle that one cannot choose to give glory to God without believing. Harley noted that God still does use unbelievers to bring glory to Himself, but such works are still not "good" in God's eyes because of the unbelief. He also correctly noted that even when believers choose to do good things, it is really God carrying all the water anyway. I probably was not clear on that.
To address your comment, it depends on what you call "good". What most people call "good" is not what God calls "good". Good in God's eyes is that which is of God.
Mark 10:18 : 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good — except God alone.
Rom 7:18 : 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
The only nature lost people have is sinful. Therefore, they are incapable of "good" in the Biblical sense. Consequently, on Monday I did not have the tools within me (God) in order to choose to do anything "good". However, on Wednesday we know for sure that the Spirit was indwelling, and that God causes all things that are good. What I took from Harley's comments (and I could be wrong :) was that on Monday "glory" may or may not have happened, but "good" could not have happened. Is that right, Harley?
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.