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/
And because he was perfect man, he had a perfect sexual and human nature so we cannot measure him with our own limitations.
Let's say I write a novel. In that novel I have a number of characters who do things as I determine they will do, what color hair or eyes they will have, what gender, where will they be from, how they behave, live, when they die, etc.
I write and they do as I wrote. There is no chance that any character in my novel will 'rebel' and do something that's not in the script, that I didn't put there.
My book will begin, develop and end as I envision it exactly as I wrote it. Nothing will change the outcome once the book is published.
Now, in my book I have a character who is envious of his neighbor. And, one day, in a fit of jealous rage, my character kills his neighbor. What should be my reaction to this act? How should I "feel" as the creator of the character and eveyrhting he does, including the murder, if it is entirely the product of my authorship?
Can I justifiably be 'angry' and 'disappointed' with him? Can I 'repent' for having created him in my book without blaming myself?
"The author of that spendid article forgot that Greek-speaking Jews"
No, he didn't forget. See, the Jews had their own magesteriam, called the Sanhedren, and they decide what is in their canon, not scriveners in Egypt. As Josephesus reported, the Apocrypha didn't make it and no self respecting religious Jew would add it to the canon. Kind of like when the Council of Trent decided after 1400 years to override the doubts of all that went before and add it.
Rationalizations, FK. Gifts are things we give for Christmas, birthdays, Valentine's Day, etc. Freedom is freedom. If someone is freed, he is either pardoned, or released, or "made free." Mercy is just what the word means — mercy; being spared.
Reformers believe that only those predestined to receive mercy will receive mercy, so it is no gift but an 'executive' (no pun intended!) decision before all ages before those receiving mercy were even created (and 'enslaved').
Saint Augustine is a Saint in the Orthodox Church. Saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church can be referred to as "blessed."
I see your point, and maybe "the younger son's 'humility' is false humility" is true. I'm assuming it isn't true, not based on the verses of the parable itself, but on Jesus's lead-in about repentence.
If we assume the younger brother truly repented then that affects the calculation.
Also as far as the "conditioning" to bad behaviour, another consideration: the younger son's experience PRIOR to coming home was not one of positive conditioning. We know that sin is also its own punishment. Sinning boldly results in bold suffering.
CUTE. As long as it's not THIS Mary (lol). Mxxx
And why we protestants are beware of Catholic teachings...
The KJV calls angels in Job 2:1 "sons of God" as well.
We don't exactly ignore the catholic saints. We just believe that God doesn't play favorites and He considers all of us as His saints. Many christians lead remarkable lives too. You don't hear much about them because the media won't print anything good about what christians are doing (and suffering) all over the world.
The church is any body of believers who gather to worship. It's not the Catholic church, annalex. It's not even the building.
Nope. I won't answer him anymore.
I guess the Apostles were not self-respecting Jews then.
How would you know what the Jewish "magistrerium" was considering that the priests who were in charge of the Temple were Sadducees who died out? We only have morphed Pharisees who re-set the canon in Jamnia.
One of the Jamnia-invented requirements for acceptance of any text was that it be written in Hebrew. For three hundred years many Jews used the Septuagint and not one complaint was heard about it.
Their 'beef' was with Christianity being a 'law-breaking' sect which is actually correct. One of the descriptions of +James by Josephus, the 'brother of the so-called Messiah" is said to have been executed as a 'lawbreaker.'
AMEN, b-d.
I dunno, I think we have the whole of the Westminster Confession posted in pieces on this thread.
Must have some weight for some groups of Christians.
I agree, but the way the parable is worded, it looks like he was on his last straw, so to say, before 'repenting.'
We know that sin is also its own punishment.
In the long run, yes, but we are drawn to it because it "feels good and is comfy." It's something we do 'naturally.'
Sinning boldly results in bold suffering
Touché. :)
. why would I want to? It is the revelation of Jesus Christ, the end of prophecy
Rev 22:7
Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book
22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
This has got to be the longest thread in the history of FR! LOL.
But thye are not bound by their creeds.
OH? Sex isn't sin? Not within the bounds of marriage, no. Fornicators will NOT see the Kingdom of heaven. Fornication is SIN, Mercat. Homosexuality is SIN, Mercat. Looking at a woman/man with lust is SIN, Mercat.
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.