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 have several books on Bible culture sitting on my shelf. There are references on these things."
If you have books on your shelf and you sit close to them do you have to read them or can you just say during a conversation "I have that book" and it holds as much weight as someone who has read it?
Shhhh...now you're giving away my secrets. ;O)
Very well. It is not uncommon to hear that a Catholic poster has been brainwashed by the Church. I will know that it is a violation of the etiquette going forward.
As is much of the Scripture. It does not mean it should be ignored, or the central figure, described as a queen and Mother of Christ, be explained away as some accidental metaphor meaning Israel, or that the battle Satan wages on he and her spiritual children not happening. It does mean that details such as the color of the dragon, birth pangs, the vomit form the dragon's mouth etc. need not be taken literally.
If it is a rare first edition, then it carries much more weight if nobody has ever opened it, much less read it.
This is an interpretation you like, but it is not what the scripture said. If the keys were given to the apostles, the scripture would have mentioned it rather than allowing you to speculate about it; if the keys were to bind and loose they would not be mentioned at all, or mentioned every time.
Good. Let me state in conclusion that I do not think that the error of Luther is adopted as a true theology out of any malicious intent by you or anyone I converse with. It is, nevertheless, a grave error. Mariophobia is another.
Sure we do. St. Paul consecrated Timothy and Titus and intructed them who to concentrate in succession. St. Peter states that his office will be perpetuated throu8gh generations. I'll have the scripture tomorrow.
We see St. James presiding in a local council, but we see St. Paul and St. Timothy describes as functioning bishops who ordain others.
All: I'll get back for the rest tomorrow. Good night.
"Whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not is really a very minor point IMO. If I were to declare tomorrow that I thought Mary was a perpetual virgin it wouldn't change any of my other beliefs."
You know, during this thread I have wondered the same thing but of course presuming that I were to conclude that she wasn't "ever virgin". I have concluded that it wouldn't change what I feel about her at all, but I'm not sure that means much. I have grown up and lived in a religious culture which taught me about her from before I can remember. I have no recollection of not having her icons around. I have no recollection of not thinking of her as my mother. As I told another Freeper today, she has always been there for me in those "fox holes of life", ever since I was a very homesick 14 year old away from home at prep school to today when I saw her icon when I got up from bed and later sat at a desk in the office with her icon directly in front of me. I can be pretty grown up and educated about patristics and The Faith in most areas, but when it comes to her, well, I'm still that 14 year old homesick kid. I doubt I'll ever change.
"If it is a rare first edition, then it carries much more weight if nobody has ever opened it, much less read it."
Now we're getting somewhere. Like "all" and "brother" could "rare" have many meanings one of which being that even though the book was published recently you bought one of only the few that were sold before they figured out it was a dog or the author was caught in a compromising situation or so far out no one would read it except someone who had no feet in reality?
Mary's pregnancy was not supernatural, the conception of Jesus was. St. Ignatius' quote confirms that both the pregnancy and delivery were natural or normal. :
[Ignatius:] "... He was carried in the womb, even as we are, for the usual period of time; and was really born, as we also are ..."
It's no problem if you want to disagree with what he said, but the fact remains that he said it. :)
"I'm finding it useful in areas like this where there is such a strong disagreement on interpretation to look at what the Apostles actually did. If they believed the interpretation was meant to set up an autocratic hierarchal structure they would have personally picked the Bishops for churches they helped found and declared these Bishops the final authority. Instead, what the Apostles did was assist the various congregations in selecting their own leaders based on the charismatic gifts they possessed and the churches made decisions as a group, or through the elders (plural) that the congregation had selected."
I think if you each take a look at the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch and the Letter of +Polycarp, all available on line, you'll find that the office of bishop, "episkopos" in Greek, was indeed established by the Apostles. Polycarp's letter was written in Greek and there is no doubt about his meaning. The letters of +Ignatius may have originally been written in Aramaic, though that's unlikely. The oldest extant versions are in Greek and the focus on the "episkopos" as standing in the place of Christ within The Church is quite clear. +Ignatius' theology of ecclesiology was that the fullness of The Church was found in a single diocese which was defined as the bishop, surrounded by his clergy and monastics and laity centered on the Eucharist. As he said, there you will find the "catholic (universal) Church". And this is from a man who suceeded +Peter as bishop of Antioch and was a disciple of +John. In fact, +John was still alive and in communication with +Ignatius when he wrote the foregoing.
WF, your description of an "episcopal election" from the early church is pretty much spot on. That practice, by the way, exists to this day in great measure in the Church of Cyprus.
You speak of the hierachal structure of The Church as being autocratic. Certainly it became that way in many places, especially in the West where, on account of any of a number of factors, the Church became a very top down, pyramidal affair with the Pope at the top of the pyramid. In the East, we had and still have in places, autocratic hierarchs. But its harder for them to get away with it in the East. The ecclesiology described by +Ignatius presupposes a "syndeesmos" or synergy among the hierarchs, clergy and laity wherein each has a role but all must work together. Unlike in the West, where a Pope or a council of hierarchs can finally and absolutely order the faithful clergy and laity to do or not do or believe something, in the East it can't work that way. The people have to assent to any proclamation and if they don't, well the rule goes out the window. A prime example of this was the False Union of Florence when Orthodox hierarchs in the 15 th century met in what the Latins call the 8th Ecumenical Council with Latin hierarchs and decided upon a reunion of the Orthodox and Latin Churches. The laity and lower clergy absolutely refused their consent and the union collapsed This system is the rule to this day and a hierarch who tries to abrogate this can and often does loose his position.
"It's no problem if you want to disagree with what he said, but the fact remains that he said it. :)"
I'm glad to see you've been keeping up with your C.O.E. reading list! :)
Your last posts remind me of what I felt as a convert to Catholicism.
It seemed there was a vast richness and fullness, a depth and a fitting together of all things in Catholicism.
And it made me see my many years in Protestantism, in different Churches, as taking off on one aspect and expanding it - but lacking in the depth and richness of the whole.
To me, Protestant Churches seem varieties of Catholic Lite, and a driving motive in each a striving toward minimalism. "What is the least..."
I think the same is true of Mary in the differences shown here on this thread.
FWIW.
You might want to throw out the Luther "invented his theology to support his masturbation habit" too. Many people believe Luther's theological concepts based upon a Scriptural understanding. You may disagree with that standing. But, what was said about it was a bit across the lines of, uh, etiquette.
That's wonderful, HD. Then maybe you can explain the differences in LXX and KJV version of Isa 9:6, and 9:8 for starters. Thank you.
After conception, I would say that His life was very natural, in a physical sense. We know for sure that He sweated, bled, cried tears, thirsted, ate, etc. I have no reason to suppose He didn't have natural bodily functions either. Of course, if the terms are meant to be distinct from each other, His life was other than "usual". :)
So, at which point did the supernatural conception become a "natural" pregnancy and progressed to a "natural" delivery?
It's no problem if you want to disagree with what he said, but the fact remains that he said it. :)
+Ignatius was struggling with cults that denied Christ's humanity and he was doing his best to convince them of that.
This was extrtaiblical stuff. +Ignatius was not there when it happened, so he was giving them his version of it with a clear goal, purpose, interest and desire of convincing them that Christ was not only true God but true man as well.
The recond shows that it is not just I who disagrees with him as much as I understand his motivation, but the entire Church since then.
In His human nature He sweated, bled, cried, thirsted, ate — and died. But that same Christ did none, felt none and suffered none of these things in His divine nature.
So to say that He was just a "regular" Guy is completely dismissing His divine nature which was with Him from the beginning.
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.