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/
The Holy Spirit is God. The Church is not God. No thing controls God - God has no "boundaries."
I disagree. Christianity does not consider Satan a necessary "soteriological" factor, let alone part of the divine Economy of our salvation! Nor do we consider Satan to be God's obedient servant! In Chrisitanity, Satan is a fallen angel who rebelled (and rebells) against God.
Satan is as completely subject to the Will of God as any other creature. Period
Being subject to the will of God doesn't mean God is willing to stop evil.
That is a conjecture, Quix. No doubt, people have and will continune to read into it.
As folks with your perspective have obviously done.
Edgy isn’t the word for it.
But it’s not as though this is new. Seems to go with the edifice itself.
But much more of such edginess and everyone will be bleeding to death from paper cuts.
Reverencing or worshiping the church is and would be gross "idolotry".. could be called spiritual mirror gazing.. or worse..
As Dr. Eckleburg points out, it is very difficult to come up with the proper words to explain such concepts.
I went with no delineation (as in "no bright line") and yet a difference - and returned to "facet" as I recall, in the same post. LOL!
The "facet" term has been fairly successful in explaining how all of us can be looking at the same diamond and the same Light and yet see slightly different things depending on which facet we are facing.
But language fails...
If the Church believes this, and teaches it, then the contention against Catholicism cannot end.
The Holy Spirit is God. The Church is not God. No thing controls God - God has no "boundaries."
Said much more beautifully, simply and briefly than I, for sure. But sure my convictions on it.
ALLLLLLL Christian congregations are an affront in some way or another to the PURE UNADULTERATED BIBLICAL GOSPEL OF JESUS THE CHRIST--to some greater or lesser degree. There is none, good, no, not one, Scripture says of individuals. How can motley collections of individuals be any different!
Alas, some congregations and even denominations for historical as well as political and sociological as well as trumped up theological reasons seem to make it a raison d'etra to follow the pharisees of 2,000 years ago in throwing sand in God's eyes; straining at gnats and swallowing camels; majoring in minors and minoring in majors; ignoring the spirit of the law while ranting over the tiniest letters . . . etc. etc. etc.
Christ sliced through it all as the most recent ONE ANOTHER articulates: love fulfills the law. But that's too hard. OUR congregation's distinctives are MOST HIGH MOST HOLY and we can't stoop to that common love stuff. Besides, it's tooooooo hard.
Sigh.
tests us. God only sends us blessings. The rest is our doing...
= = =
Not according to Scripture.
But I’m not going to look it up tonight.
Dogma is essential to Christianity. Trinitarian nature of God is a dogma. Dual nature in one Person is a Christiological dogma. Christ's resurrection is a dogma. It is required of a Christian to believe that.
Doctrine is what the Church teaches. It is based on Scripture, record of worship (liturgy) and teachings of individual Fathers. It represents what the Church considers to be the truth. Doctrines change. Dogmas don't.
Thus, in the 14th century the Eastern Orthodox Church adopted monastic hesychastic teachings (of Cappadician and Desert Fathers), rather than westsern scholasticism, as "official doctrine" of the Church.
There are beliefs that are expressed as hypotheses (theologoumenna) by individual Father and laity. They are neither doctrine nor dogma unless the Church receives thgem as such, or proclaims them at an Ecumenical Council as essential elements of Christianity.
Mary's painless birth is a theologoumennon (hypothesis) of some. This is no different that a Portestant (say a Prebyterian or a Baptist for example) agreeing with some of Luther's teachings but not all of them. Agreement or disagreement does not constitute apostasy or heresy.
Human life is a Maze.. a test.. Failure is Draconian, success is Utopian..
Could even be a contest.. or better a qualification for some future Universal Authority over a "few or many things".. I like qualification better.. but test works.. Jesus implied many of these things.. If his metaphors can be decrypted its not a secret....
No, I read it straight and narrow. :)
Our difference over Eze 28 is not a problem to me. We sometimes will look at the same passage, and spiritually hear different things.
But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among [their] kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. Luke 2:41-50
Truly, valuing any thing or any one above God is idolatry.
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.