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/
In fact, ... if the older brother had any love for his younger brother, ... he should have been thrilled to have him return.
And he might well have been — until he realized that as much as good behavior does not warrant a reward, bad behavior does not suffer consequences.
So ... the older brother's love ... should be conditioned upon reward ?
How fortunate is it indeed ... that God's love is unconditional (agape) ?
Indeed ... it is fortunate that our parents displayed a more agape-type love themselves.
Recall that love is the basis of all things christian. Without love, ... nothing else matters ...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.
...
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
In a Pavlovian/Skinnerian psychology model, you could very well make a case that the father was conditioning his younger son to do it again.
Isn't it fortunate that the foolishness of God ... is greater than the wisdom of men.
The parable says "do what you want, it will all be forgiven if you repent (even if the 'repentance' is under duress)."
The parable says that "all that is repented of ... will be forgiven".
It is the basis upon which any of us ... have any hope of God's salvation.Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
As far as D-fendr's comment in 10,339Note also that he is not less rewarded for his faithfulness than his brother is for his repentance: "you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours.",I believe you are forgetting that in the Judaic society the older brother gets everything anyway unless he sells his birthright.
And this absolves the older brother of his debt of love toward his brethren ?
Or is it not true that ... "To whom much is given, ... much is required" ?
As I understand your representations of what the EO believe is that a person will only be considered righteous after they have died and the sum of their good deeds are weighted. I believe this is also how Judaism views salvation. It is a result of good works.
It certainly would explain your inability to understand the unmerited free gift of Grace.
Wouldn't the greatest disrespect be to come before God without the Holy Spirit in you?
IOW, if you are not saved by Grace through Faith you will not have the Holy Spirit indwelling you and when you are judged you will not be found righteous.
I think this verse is directing us right back to our Saviour Jesus Christ.
DM: The bible is not the Word of God?
So when the bible says "The word of God is living and active and sharper than a two edged sword". It's not talking about the bible. Therefore you would say "the bible is dead and still and dull as a lead pipe?" What's going on here?
It is not possible for anyone who believes that God is omniscient to escape the conclusion that every destiny is known and has been set since the creation of the world.
The only option is to remove omniscience from our understanding of God.
But omniscience does not equal double predestination.
Of course it does. There's no escaping it. God knows everyone, and God knows the end from the beginning; therefore, God knows the end of everyone.
Not sure what +John is but the revelation is from Christ to John and to all the saints who are blessed to hear it.
Foreknowledge does not equal double predestination either.
Apparently but the bible, including Peter states:
Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
10504 was for you.
xzins wrote:
Of course it does.
Hmm. D-fendr and xzins... how do each of you define double predestination?
Such a good post should include Kosta50.
I'm sorry but Revelation is a summing up and an explanation. There is no theology contained therein that is contrary to the rest of the bible. It does not advocate the worship of angels, but just the opposite. Nowhere is one led to use witchcraft to divine the future. The Jews don't like to think that Christ revealed anything so that point is moot.
See 10507.
God either knows everything or He doesn't.
If He does not, then He is not omniscient. To get out of the dilemma, one has to change the definition of omniscience or of God. Either way, that gives us a different God than we had before we changed definitions.
It means that those who are to saved and those who are damned are both covered. In this instance, it means that God knows the destiny of any of us.
Lol, and the giver of it too
It's not the definition of omniscient that's the error. It's equating it with double predestination.
That takes two more steps.
Whoops. I meant to ping you to 10,512.
It really is a fascinating verse. I think the reason for it is to stress as strongly as possible that Christ is within us in real time today, this minute and every minute of our lives because we are His. If we deny the active and predestined work of the Holy Spirit to nourish and guide our new man in Christ, then we deny God's presence in our lives at this very moment.
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.