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/
-A8
Taller, shorter, more muscular, more thinner, blond hair, brown hair...on and on. We understand that we're inadequate but we don't quite understand in what way. It is through Christ and drawing close to Him that we finally, as Paul states, find contentment in all things.
Old Holy Night is my very favorite Christmas hymn. Thank you for playing it. Have a very Merry Christmas A-G.
Christ's method of course. :)
A visible Church with the keys of authority.
Now, as for what a good Sola Scriptura Christian should do, it does get complicated.
Impossible in practice, I'd say. Each would have to re-do the process of the canon, translation, interpretation and so. This just doesn't happen. They choose another authority. Based on some discrimination of course, but it is impossible to re-check the whole of scripture and doctrine, each person, each time.
Word of mouth transmission?
Words are but one aspect of communication, judgement and one aspect of the Word of God. But in the a large degree, yes. This is what we mean when we, and you, say the Creed: "Apostolic Church". From the Apostles to us in an unbroken line.
You have pictures?
Mary was pure and undefiled (in the sanctified sense that you are posing) ... when she offered herself to God for His purpose. Afterwards, God left her with us ... as a continuing blessing to us ... to Joseph, to Jesus, etc.
Some people's calling becomes their life. Mary is one such person. She devoted her entire life to God. That much is clear.
So ... Mary was not a wife ... to Joseph ?
Where is your proof for the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary? The scriptures clearly state that Joseph did not know Mary until after Jesus was born. If the scriptures intended to convey the idea that Joseph did not know Mary at all, the scriptures would have stopped when they stated that Joseph did not know Mary. It would have said Joseph did not know Mary (period) (end of sentence).
But the scriptures say that Joseph did knot know Mary until after the birth of Jesus. The clear and unmistakeable implication is that he did, in fact, know her after the birth of Jesus.
Now show me anywhere in the first 300 years of the written history of the church where this idiotic assumption that Joseph and Mary did not have an intimate relationship was taught as doctrine.
Another fallacy of the argument from silence.
-A8
Perhaps that is the difference and why we talk past each other. Many Protestants consider only "true" believers as members of the Church, which is synonymous with the elect (which would be an invisible body), while Catholics consider a person baptized as part of the Church (making the Church visible to the world) - while again, the elect are unknown in this life. The Catholic view takes into account the parables of Jesus and discussing the Kingdom, consisting of weeds and wheat, good and bad fish, and so forth.
Your comments?
Yes ... I will presume to speak for Protestants in saying that we do, indeed, regard only "true believers" ... as members of Christ's church (i.e. the ecclesia or "called out ones").
Unbelievers may participate, to an extent, ... in the context of the church, ... but are not considered members of the church ... until they declare their personal belief.
See here. It is a heresy called "Antidicomarianism" that grew out of Ebionism and was discussed by Tertullion circa 200 AD.
-A8
"Because a teenage mother out of wedlock in Israel 2,000 years ago needed a man to belong to, to protect her, to give her legitimacy"
God did not need a charade to cover what He was doing nor a protector for Mary. He was quite capable of bringing His purposes about without creating a ruse to fool the authorities or violating His instructions to husbands and wives.
"Remind Judas Isacriot."
He received the same treatment as Achan. However Judas did not diminish or desecrate the holiness of God, in fact, it shown brighter on the cross.
" See here. It is a heresy called "Antidicomarianism" that grew out of Ebionism and was discussed by Tertullion circa 200 AD."
Beat me to it! Good for you! :)
Hardly. The word "until" is not silence. The logical implication is that Jospeh did know Mary after the birth of Jesus.
Now are there any scriptures which categorically deny that Joseph and Mary ever consummated their marriage?
No.
Thank you.
A "word" is not silence, but an ambiguity is. The word in Greek [hews] translated as 'until' in Matt 1:25 can mean (1) up to but not excluding continuation of the action or (2) up to but not after. There is no way to tell (from the context of 1:26) which of these two senses is meant. But using the absence of a specification that removes an ambiguity as evidence for one or the other disambiguation is an argument from silence, and thus is a fallacy.
-A8
Marital intercourse for the sake of procreation has no fault attached to it, but for the satisfying of lust, even with one's husband or wife, for the faith of the bed, is venially sinful; but adultery or fornication is mortally sinful. Moreover, continence from all intercourse is even better than marital intercourse itself, even if it takes place for the sake of procreation. But even though continence is better, to pay the dues of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of procreation is a venial sin, although fornication and adultery are mortally sinful.
It should be noted that Paul's viewpoint is somewhat different ...
Paul writes that marital intercourse should be consistent within the marriage, ... and that neither party should withhold from the other, except for mutually agreed upon periods of prayer and/or fasting, ... and even then encourages the couple to come back together in a timely manner so as to avoid the temptations of Satan.1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Sure you can. The normal usage of the term in context would imply that the virginity of Mary was a temporary rather than a permanent condition. It was noted that she was married to Joseph, but Joseph did not consummate the marriage (know) "until" after Jesus was born.
It is only if you have a presumption that she was a perpetual virgin that you would have a problem with that being the proper use of the word in context. That presumption did not begin to show its face until 3 centuries later.
That simply begs the question.
-A8
It implies neither one, actually. There are several cases in Scripture where the same expression is used where nothing "temporary" can possibly be implied.
-A8
"There is no way to tell (from the context of 1:26) which of these two senses is meant."
But when you add to it the scriptures that say Jesus had brothers all ambiguity is removed and there is no longer silence on the subject.
Those who can... do. Those who can't... teach.
Keep it up teacher.
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.