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/
beats the protestant 'we beleive scripture but only the parts we like' mentality.
Omniscience renders that an impossible distinction to make.
So, now some Christian groups even decide who is a Jew and who isn't? That's a new one!
Doesn't violate omniscience, doesn't infer double predestination.
'tis a two-fer.
It is? Which version? Did God dictate it? Did God write it? Do we have any original of any of the books of the Bible?
I will accept that various authors were 'inspired' who then wrote what they knew as best as they could, using the language and the cocnepts of their culture and times. They proclaim what we believe is the truth about God. And that I say solely on faith, which is to say hope, and not much more.
I thought he was a convert to Christianity. I guess you learn something new everyday...
Regards
The question is at which point do our passions become 'abusive' and require self-restraint.
Yes it is; but these people have a structure and a hierarchy. The Church consists of the faithful on earth, the souls in Purgatory and the saints in heaven, headed up by Christ. The Church on earth (known as "Church Militant")has a pope, a hierarchy of bishops, priests, monks and nuns, and laity.
Wow - this must be the longest thread on this site.
Some of the authors were direct witnesses of Christ's works and words, and others got is from the Holy Tradition, that is, from Christ indirectly. Generally, the Holy Tradition preceded the Holy Scripture and wholly contains it.
And what does that have to do with why the Jews' decision on the Canon during Jamnia has anything to do with the Christian decision on what to include in THEIR canon? Why on earth are we going to follow the Jewish decision, which at the VERY SAME COUNCIL claimed that the Christian Gospels were heretical and were not Scriptural??? Am I supposed to be steered away from this logic because you note that Jesus was a Jew? So what? The fact of the matter is that if you take the Jewish decision as your basis for the canon, you must also exclude the New Testament. Thus, what point of view are you really defending???
Not the council of Jamnia's decision per se. They were obviously wrong when it comes to the gospels.
If they were "obviously wrong" about the gospels, then why are you so certain they are "obviously right" on everything else they declared? Did you know that they did NOT include Esther as part of the Canon at this stage? Really, this is special pleading. You are using a supposed appeal to authority to cancel out the OT Deuterocanonicals but you turn a blind eye to the same group's inability to see the Gospels as Scripture? This argument that "the Jews said so" is beginning to wear thin. Their ability to determine anything about God was severely curtailed when they failed to recognize the Messiah.
Beware, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Regards
What anti-semitism? Jamnia is a council of Jewish rabbis that rejected Christianity and established a Jewish canon. Thus its determinations are irrelevant to Christians -- not because of ethnicities but because of religion. The nationalities of the people at the foundation of Christianity are not relevant either ("no Jew nor Greek", St. Paul says). So where do you see "antisemiitsm"?
You say love is not based on reward? Is not love rewarding? How many people would go to church if they thought all this is for nothing? We could count the number of people in all the churches of the world on the fingers of one hand, maybe.
You expect 'unconditional love' from sinful, fallen humans because God's love is unconditional? Can you match anything God is capable of?
The fact is the younger son was an irresponsible, self-loving, I don't care punk who sauqndered his father's money and 'repented' only when he was out of it and had nothing to eat. The older brother was the kind of a kid everyone would like to have. Instead of punishing the younger brother for his irresponsability before being restored to his fathers hiome, he get's a party! There is something seriously wrong with that picture.
LOL! That's got to be the biggest understatement I have heard here! There is plenty of theology present here, especially about what is to come and the afterlife.
There is no theology contained therein that is contrary to the rest of the bible.
I don't recall saying it does. The problem that you are ignoring is that the Book of Revelation was NOT universally accepted as part of the Canon of Sacred Scriptures. It is considered part of the NT Deuterocanonicals. Despite your pleas and attempt to change the subject, the fact remains that the Church did not universally and unequivocaly accept Revelation, just as they did not accept 2 Maccabees. Thus, they are called "Deuterocanonicals", which means "second canon".
Back to the original question - WHY do you accept the NT Deuts, but not the OT Deuts?
It does not advocate the worship of angels, but just the opposite.
Which OT Deut advocates WORSHP of angels? I have read them, and I don't know what you are talking about. Tobit has an angel charecter (Rapheal) in there, but he is certainly not worshipped - just as John does not worship the angel in Revelation...
Regards
The Church consists of those who are baptised and obey the teachings of the Church. The communities of faith of Protestant persuasion do not generally qualify:
Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned.
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
That is a valid observation, but I disagree. the Bible is clear that we will be judged on our deeds. Our deeds must have a righteous intent. Judaism requires obedience to the Law. As +Symeon the Theologian says in his "On Faith" (Philokalia, Vol 4) "I neither fasted, nor kept vigils,...but humbled myself and...God saved me."
Yes, that's the question. I think there's whole books on it.
I think we could start at the other end and look at using instincts for what they are given to us. E.g., hunger to let us know our body needs nourishment. Eating for other reasons or past our needs for nourishment would be abuse. And so on for other instincts.
It's interesting to me that abuse of instincts is almost solely a human capacity and a lot of things can flow from that realization.
thanks for your reply..
The + is a shorthand for 'saint' or 'blessed'. God does not have revelations. Men do.
Yep, it's almost as long as Pride and Prejudice...
I have already answered that. God did not dictate the Bible.
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.