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/
"While I can see why you interpret these verses the way you do, I see it a little different. (Shock! :) I don't see the angel and the elders as actually having offered the prayers, but only the incense. The incense represents the prayers, but are not the prayers themselves. The parallel is to a regular Temple service, wherein the priest would offer incense while the people prayed (directly) to God."
Actually, incense is seen as a sublime offering to God and in a sense is a prayer. Your comment reminds me of a verse/refrain we will chant tonight at the Presanctified Liturgy:
"Let my prayer arise as incense before You and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice."
Based on what scripture? "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only" (James 2).
Faith is salvific based on Eph. 2:8-9, among others. ... This is also in James 2:
James 2:14 : 14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
He is talking about a claimed faith that is not true. Works WILL come from true faith, and notice in v. 14 that faith comes first. Works without faith are rags and faith without works is not true. Faith and works are not being put on the same level, or as being independent of each other. See also from James:
James 2:18 : But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
James clearly says that works are an evidence of faith, not a partner in the salvation equation. Here is the same idea:
Matt 7:15-18 : 15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Good or bad trees refer to people who do or do not have true faith. The fruit (works) is one way we can tell the difference. The tree always comes before the fruit.
True; my question was, why ask others to pray for us given that the outcome is predestined.
That the outcome is predetermined is irrelevant as to whether it is a good idea to pray for others. We have the direct example of Jesus Himself praying for us (believers). He already knew the result, and yet He prayed anyway. We also have Paul:
1 Tim 2:1-2 : 1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
Prayer is good for both the pray-er and the pray-ee for reasons other than just getting the desired thing. Asking others for these prayers facilitates this, so it is good in the sight of God.
But the "complete" canon is not available. You could only say that if the RCC gave away zillions of free Bibles every year, but to my knowledge that does not happen. I'm sure there are well over a billion people who have no access at all to a Bible of any kind, until met by a missionary. I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I'd be willing to bet that Protestant churches and organizations give away many, many more free Bibles to lost people than does the RCC. These people do not have a choice between a Protestant or a Catholic Bible. They are blessed to see one of any kind. This is why I would have thought you would be fine with a Protestant Bible vs. no Bible at all.
(I have a concordance and I'm not afraid to use it ....)
FTD, God established the New Covenant for all the reasons given in Heb 8. People have ever-so-slowly accepted, with much doubt and wondering, what God was revealing to us, even to this day, going back-and-forth. But the Faith God delivered once has not changed. People's perceptions have.
Well according the Catechism that I cited, they at least rejected the Apocrypha books because they were not in Hebrew
It's not an official Orthodox Catechism. There is no such an entity. Maybe the Tsarist Russia issued something "official," but it certainly is no more Orthodox than a 17th century Calvinist Ecumenical Patriarch was. It's an aberration if it truly says what you claim it says. No Orthodox Church Rejects Apocrypha because it is part of the Orthodox Scriptures, even less so because they are not in Hebrew.
i dont know where you get that assumption from.
FK: Faith is salvific based on Eph. 2:8-9, among others. ... This is also in James 2:
Looks like you will have to explain the discrepancy, and also with Rom 2:13 "for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified."
The idea is that faith is required, and so are works, but neither is sufficient by itself.
"Psalm 141.
(I have a concordance and I'm not afraid to use it ....)"
Well of course you do! You used to be one of them bible thumpin' 'Piskies!
Same here, although it is nice to take a break from these conversations when they appear to do little but tread water.
It's funny that they would throw some of their own under the bus to justify their Christianity
The person I was conversing with was a conservative heterosexual man, who had some sympathy with certain "gay rights" claims. I do not know how representative he was of the GLBT views. He reduced what is wrong with homosexuality to one thing everyone agrees is profoundly wrong: a married man having a homosexual affair, and tried to convince me that that was the only thing St. Paul meant to condemn. What I see coming directly from the gay lobby is more of a generic kumbaya stuff.
If God gave me an indestructible motor, it would remain in tact no matter how many accidents it was in. The important point is that God would NOT tell me "Here is a car that runs forever". That would be very misleading since God could very well give me such a car. If only the motor was meant to be indestructible, then that's what He would say. I think it is the same with "eternal life". If He really meant "eternal life with a ton of strings and conditions attached" then He would have said so.
Same as with Honda's near supernatural hardware, the "motor" is given you so that you can exercize freedom driving around. It is impossible to give one a car which you yourself drive, and then protect you from driving it into a telephone pole. Jesus did say so much, -- moving on to John 6:54.
The verse by itself says that if you take Christ inside yourself, i.e. accept Him, that you will have life in you. It does not add a further condition that you will lose that life if you do not do a, b, and c
This is the verse 54, again: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you". The condition is right there: take the Eucharist, and the consequence of violating it is there, too: you shall not have life.
I know there are a few verses that "sound" like one can lose his salvation, but the whole weight of scripture is squarely on one side, IMO.
he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved (Mt 10:22, 24:13, similar Mark 13:!3)Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor 10:12, also see the entire preceding discourse)
by good works you may make sure your calling and election. (2 Peter 1:10)
6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)
The incense represents the prayers, but are not the prayers themselves
The text does not say anything about "represents" in either Chapter 5 or 8. Besides, what difference would that make anyway: obviously incense is not the prayer itself, but the reality described in Apocalypse 5 and 8 is still saints praying to God who knows of the prayer as He is judging us.
Very true. So that equally applies to prayers that involve saints, the initial controversy we discussed.
Probably so; we do not think that giving a pagan a Bible without a witness of the Church does all that much.
Thanks much for all your pings and great points.
Excellent point.
The COMPLETE SCRIPTURES IN THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS
ARE NOT AVAILABLE to mortals, currently.
THEREFORE,
All the pontifications about
MYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY SCRIPTURES are longer than yours
are . . . preening, prissy, prideful, pontifications probably not worth stale air.
It inherently turns into a very pharisaical water fight about who's umpteen hundred/thousand extra extrapolations on every phrase . . . are more righteous.
And Jesus ALWAYS sliced through such arguments quite kattywumpus from all sides and pierced to the heart motives and attitudes of the people involved.
He always side-stepped the prissy petty little minutae of the particular arguments involved.
And we PRESUME to do BETTER by taking the PHARISEE'S pattern instead of CHRIST'S in such situations on such matters???
And we think that's SMART????
Probably so; we do not think that giving a pagan a Bible without a witness of the Church does all that much.
= = =
And, as I demonstrated umpteen hundred posts ago . . . that assumption has been proved to be inaccurate--wholesale untrue.
Holy Spirit and The oral Scriptures on MP3 players have PROVEN to be more than adequate at raising up tribal churches and maturing folks in The Lord in at least 60% of the placements of the MP3 players.
But ONE case would have been sufficient to have disproven the RC perspective. 60% of the cases MORE THAN PROVES it.
And another Protestant denomination is born, MP3 Tribal. Like I said, does not accomplish all that much.
Like I said, does not accomplish all that much.
= = =
I suppose it is still possible for you to
TELL GOD
that a fully functioning Biblical tribal church is inconsequential and worthless.
I hope you are well grounded by a huge lightening rod when you do.
Like I said, does not accomplish all that much.
= = =
I find that idea, that perspective, that notion, that . . .
EXCEEDINGLY BRAZEN, UNBIBLICAL, ARROGANT, HAUGHTY toward dozens and dozens of balanced Biblical tribal churches and the precious saints who are part of them.
Sometimes I wonder if insufferably brazen cheekiness is part of the RC dogma and catechism.
Poor Holy Spirit, can't function without the MAGICsterical. /sar
Worthless it is not, but do not expect the Church to participate in multiplying Protestant denominations.
I have a right to expect any church that claims to be Christian
to be
Biblical
Truthful
Honest
About itself and about other Christians.
I haven't seen much of that in your posts about the RC edifice, quite frankly. Disappointingly little, at best.
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.