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/
I think the confusion is quite intentional: these people went to seminaries, so that they know how to better lie about the Gospel. Witness the lumping together the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanon: this cannot be an honest mistake.
Silverlings confused the Apocrypha with the Deuterocanons. See my previous post.
Thanks. I have seen these verse ad nauseum. Wrong tradition.
Septuagint - Apocrypha + N.T. = non Church (hatred towards the Church) Therefore: Apocrypha = Church
Trying to win sympathy for your argument? How sad.
By taking the absurd notion that "the Jews said so" as your argument for tossing out the Deuterocanonicals and STICKING TO IT is merely obstinate behavior that can only be explained by refusal to admit one is wrong. When one steadfastly holds to an obviously fatal logical conclusion in the face of evidence that destroys their OWN foundation, I can only conclude that you are willing to believe anything if it places some cloud of doubt over the Church. Even if that "anything" destroys the very ground you stand upon...
If you would step back from your hatred for a second, you would see that your defense "the Jews said so" destroys the basis for your very belief that Jesus has risen and is the Messiah. Even when this is pointed out to you, will you continue with this silly argument? It appears that you will - but now, you use this "formula" that is supposed to cover up your inadequate logic?
Sorry. Just admit your wrong, that the Jewish decision at Jamnia is worthless regarding the Scriptures in the Christian eyes, and move on. This continued defense of "the Jews said so" is unworthy of further discussion.
Regards
I stand corrected, thanks.
See a few posts of mine above this for what the Church is.
I see. So the bible is not inspired at all. Thanks for laying down your cards.
You are quoting the wrong guy, BD. try again. But i happen to agree with jo klus 100%.
Your math is fuzzy. The side that denies "deutoerocanonical' books doe snot use Septuagint.
The difference between inspired and "dictated by God" is a key one.
SOT + A + NT = C
Better check your math again.
S(OT + A) + NT = SOT + SA + NT...
Regards
It is true that many are in Heaven and not canonized, and not marked by miracles because people do not know to pray for their intercession. Still, for some, we know of their sanctity and we can prove it. These are the canonized saints.
Harley you are so precious! I believe you just admitted that septuagint is Scripture. :)
Which is why I dislike conversations with obstinatne people. No matter how much you tell them something, they will come out next day and say the exact same thing over again. Hence the frustration with spreading the Gospel with people.
Regards
You explained why Luther could doubt the inspired character of the Deuterocanon, but you do not explain why did he take the unprecedented step of declaring them uninspired, and why did his followers remove them completely.
You math is fuzzy too, padre. S(OT+A) does not equal SOT+A buit SOT+SA. So much for the 'cat'
None of the Marian doctrines contradict the Scripture, and all have scriptural support, sometimes direct and sometimes indirect.
Now give us your thoughts about removing 7 books of the Old Testament because they do not agree with how the Protestants want to play church.
It was the comment "What Jews accept for their own canon is irrelevant" that I was referring to, not the specifics of the finding of the council at Jamnia. The Jewish Canon had been established long before Jamnia. There was clearly an accepted Canon before Jamnia for Old Testament books. Jesus refers to "Thus saith the Scriptures" The Bereans searched the Scriptures. They were not searching miscellenous old writings. They were searching Scripture. Jewish Scripture. And what they, the Jews, including Jesus, Peter, Paul, et al., considered Scripture is HIGHLY RELEVANT to what we consider Scripture today in the context of Old Testament (and New Testament if we are discussing the Messianic Jews mentioned). There were the prophets and the law. There were the books of poetry. Many of them were referred to by Christ and were quoted in the New Testament. The Jews did not consider the Apocryphal books Scripture at that time. Jesus never disuaded them of that opinion. Thus, what Jesus considered to be Scripture is quite relevant and the fact that he was a perfect Jew at the same time makes it even more important.
Now, as to the antisemitism, I have just seen it run throughout the thread, mainly with the RCs. I do not agree with the scholars at Jamnia in so far as they rejected Christ and Christianity. However, to discount what the Jews considered Scripture at the time of Christ because of what the Jamnian scholars did with the New Testament is a mistake.
The Canon was settled before Jamnia for the Old Testament. It did not include the books known as the Apocrypha.
Suppose there is such willingness, why is it anti-Semitic? We do not want to side with the pharisees. You got a problem with that?
13 And who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous of good? 14 But if also you suffer any thing for justice' sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled. 15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.(1 Peter 3)
We know that the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon, was a primary source of the quotes in the New Testament (7207, 7405, 7414, 8277), therefore we very much care what the Jews of the time of Christ, and especially Jesus and His apostles, considered scripture, and this is why we preserve the Christian Canon based on the Septuagint. What the Jews who refused Christ considered scriptural in AD 90 is not relevant, because the entire council was a big mistake.
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.