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/
And what a blessing it is. :)
We do pick up bad habits but that's because we don't bother to learn. Most people fall into these self-created errors in good faith, and for pious reasons; their intention is not to minimize God, or to make mary into a goddess.
The way to hell is paved with good intentions. That applies to all of us.
Every now and then we Can agree on something!
I said before, that the people who fall into this error are probably driven by a desire for a close personal relationship with GOD and they have been misled.
Their view that the firmament is not geometric but a boundary between the spiritual and physical realms rings true in the Spirit for me, i.e. that the physical and spiritual realms are not spatially separated.
It is equally possible that the boundary is dimensional though not spatially separated per se.
Visualize the firmament as one of the planes (colors) in this rotating hypercube (which, btw is merely 4 dimensional.)
An interesting side point is that sensing one additional temporal dimension would yield our timeline (arrow of time or sense of time passing) as a plane - where past, present and future all co-exist on the plane. Such a dimension would comport with prophesy as well as answer a number of anamolies in physics: non-locality, superposition, etc.
IOW, as denizens of physical reality with vision and mind limited to four dimensions (3 spatial, 1 temporal) - we would not be able to "see" the spiritual realm, but the denizens of the spiritual realm might be able to "see" us being separated by perception of one or more higher dimensions (or planes):
Those are just my musings on the matter - not leanings in the Spirit. But they are every bit at reasonable and consistent with Scripture as the Jewish mystic musing that the firmament is the "speed of light."
Romans 2:6-10.
This is largely your interpretation. The passage says that those who do good works get eternal life and the rest "wrath and indignation". If you want to wiggle out of it with some casuistry, do it on your own.
James 2
Verse 18, when it speaks of works as a demonstration of faith is put there rhetorically:
18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
St. James does not say it, his rhetorical opponent does. James concludes that "faith without works is dead" and he hcalls the rhetorical opponent, you, "vain man".
James is discussing being saved from physical death
This is your fantasy. St. James speaks of salvation in v. 14, justification throughout the passage. Of physical death he speaks once, comparing it to the death of faith, v. 26.
Romans [ch.4] makes it clear it is discussing eternal salvation and the works it is discussing are all works
The context says otherwise, and nowhere does it say "all works". The context mentions debt, that is obligation to work, and circumcision, that is ceremonial works of Jewish law. Eph. 2:9 adds works of social reward, "boast", to that list of non-salvific works.
No one disagrees that faith can be increased by works
So what are you arguing then? This is the Catholic teaching: works increase faith and hence are necessary for salvation.
but the man in 1Cor. 3 is not being burned, his works are.
Good enough, the purgation therein described is Purgatory nonetheless.
The sin offering was for all women who gave birth because they had sin in their bodies, not for any particular sin
Ah. So, Mary had no particular sin. She simply fulfilled a ceremonial obligaiton.
The only thing counted for salvation is the faith
None of your prooftexts (Rom.4:5,Eph.2:9,Tit.3:5,Rom.4:16) say "only". You read various passages that speak of the importance of faith and jump to your own conclusions.
is insane!
"it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe" (1 Cor 1:21)
This does not speak to the issue. I am not Jewish, I am Christian.
Jerome had a personal opinion about these books, that was not normative for the Church; the books in question were canonized at Hippo and Carthage and were a part of every bible ever since, excepting Protestant falsifications of the scripture. They were also translated by Jerome despite his misgivings, and included in his Vulgate.
I resonate yet again rather wholesale.
Thanks.
In fact, 1Tim. 2:1-5, one that concludes with "one mediator" verse also calls for intercession of saints -- as I do not tire repeating on this thread.
You think. This is your private interpretation. It is not the interpretation of the Catholic Church.
the woman in Apocalypse 12 is Mary because she is identified as the mother of Christ (vv 2 and 10). Rather, this passage is an argument for Mary actually suffering the labor pains. The idea that she did not is popular piety and is not dogmatic. It is also possible to read the reference to pains as her participation in the labors of the entire Jewish nation and not physiological pain.
the woman flees to a sanctuary After the ascension of the child and hides there
Mary did flee to Ephesus, tradition tells us. It is also possible to see the Church in hiding in this passage. The reference to Israel is more clear in the birth pains, discussed earlier.
Catohlics always begin and end their prayers in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, amen. What is and what is not idolatry we tell you -- you don't tell us.
I am sure somebody did. Dan Brown comes to mind as well. The point is, when the disciple who most likely was not at the Last Supper, Cleophas, recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread despite having talked to Him at some length prior and not recognizing Him, the first thing comes to mind is the Eucharist, and not historical speculations.
Why would “Eucharist” come to mind if he had never participated in it? The Gospel does say he was a disciple so he would have participated in the “brotherhood” rite. By the way, Otto was a respected theologian and biblical scholar in Germany. His book “The Idea of the Holy” is a classic.
Ah, that is exactly the point. He has no rational basis to recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread, but not face to face. This points to Christ’s presence in the broken bread, i.e. His eucharistic presence.
I am not sure they are mislead, wmfights. If you asked them, they would flatly deny that Mary is divine. And they would be horrified to learn that others may perceive their devotion as such.
They are a humble Orthodox couple, whose highlight on a trip to Africa was a chance to pay for some poor woman's medicines. That and other charity they did made their trip, in their eyes, evry bit worth all the money they spent.
They absolutely lack any spiritual pride to make this a personal crusade. What they are doing is inaproporiate, but they are not aware of it.
Correct, that's why I started the thought with "I think", instead of "the RCC told me to think". ;-0
If I bring this up to you needlessly, I apologize. Very often as a Catholic apologist, I am asked to supply scriptural basis for one Catholic doctrine or another. Now, for some of our doctrines it is straightforward, for others it is open to different interpretations. For example, one can reasonably see in the mutual adoption of St. John and Mary described in John 19:26-27 Mary as mother of the entire discipleship of Christ or merely of John. The latter tends to be the Protestant belief and the former the Catholic belief. I can argue why ours is more authentic or more reasonable but I would not call your view scripturally unreasonable. It is a possible private interpretation.
Then there are cases where I would argue that not only does our view accord with the scripture, but that yours does not. For example, I do not see how the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide is scriptural — it is after all flatly denied by the scripture.
Invariably, when I point out the Catholic interpretation, I am then told “and this is the Protestant interpretation of this passage”. At which point I lose the interest in the discussion: I am quite familiar with the protestant system of theological thought and I reject it. I do not need to be informed of it one more time and it is not I who had come to you with questions in the beginning. As soon as the Catholic explanation of the scripture is given and clarified, my job, as I see it, is basically done. This is why I try to point out when the conversation crosses over into a debate between interpretations. I am not trying to be rude or sarcastic.
AG: " I prefer the term timelessness, but it still doesn't capture the point that time is a part of Creation and not something in or by which the Creator exists."
Now this is finally an interesting part of this otherwise way too long thread! :)
As I likely have mentioned before, the Cappadocians Fathers commented, "I believe in God; God does not "exist". And on most every icon of Christ you will see the Greek words, "Ο ΩΝ". The words don't translate into English well at all, but they sort of mean The Being which is the source and Creator of Being or Existence. Thus the Cappadocians could say that God does not "exist" since "existence" itself was created by Him ex nihilo. To carry it further, it is similarly apparent that "place" is a spacial or psychological context for "existence". And it is likewise created ex nihilo by God and thus "place" can have no meaning when applied to God because He is "everywhere" and "nowhere" "in" and "out of" what we perceive as time.
Now here's the wonderful thing about Christianity, at least in most of its earthly manifestations. The transcendence of God beyond transcendence, for us, does NOT mean that we are dealing with a divine and uncaring watchmaker or the monster Allah that the Mohammedans worship, but rather God Who calls us His sons and daughters and loves us beyond our ability to understand. It is even more marvelous when one considers the whys of the Incarnation as outlined by +Athanasius the Great, that the "Ο ΩΝ" became Man so we could, among other things know Him!
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.