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/
All true, and I fully agree.
You seem to be trying to present this crazy idea that there are two distinct parts of His Nature and that they operate separately of each other.
Well, instead of seeing it as different parts of one nature, I believe Christ had two natures, one human and one divine. I was under the impression that all of us believe this. Do you not?
Our Christ is a unified Christ, AND, we can see different emphases in one nature or the other in some of the actions He took. For example, when He literally forgave sin, the emphasis was on His divine nature. However, when He prayed generally, or when He specifically asked for the cup to be taken away, that was more an emphasis on His human nature.
So let me get this straight: God the Word was physically in the Womb, yet something else other than Him passed through the birth canal?
Have you ever studied the history of the Popes?
They have not always been inspired either.
My arguments are from the Word of God itself. I may not always get it right. I do not expect to enter heaven and have all of the apostles stand up and applaud me as the one who nailed it on every single point of doctrine. But, when God says that He would guide me into all truth, I believe Him. Otherwise, nothing is knowable and God is a liar. Since He is not a liar, I take Him at His Word and believe in faith that this which He wants me to know will be revealed to me through His Scripture.
For those who have Christ Jesus as their Savior, most of the time, Scripture is not a hard thing to understand. Sometimes its sayings are hard. It's called "Strong Meat" in Scripture. But it isn't hard to understand once You know the context. It shouldn't be taken lightly, but should be something developed through much study of God's Word.
Robby, do not let the "church" or anything else rob you of the joy you get from studying God's Word. You can KNOW what You are reading is right because You know God's Word is right and He has promised to help You understand.
Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures daily.
Jesus commanded us to search the Scriptures. Would He have done so had they been unintelligible to us?
Scripture is open to all. To the Spirit led, they can be understood.
# Matthew 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
# Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
John 2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 20:9
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
# Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures
Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 10:11
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
When Christians sit down with Christians, we may be guided by the Spirit in that we each want to know the truth. But who decides between us when we disagree?
Continue to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit ... and He shall teach us ... until we all come together in the knowledge of the faith.Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come together into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
We are all deficient in our knowledge of the gospel ... because, as long as we remain, the Holy Spirit has not yet finished teaching us (if we will listen).
So, then, FK, when Jesus was praying, what was God the Word doing? I think you are mixing up nature or essence with Person. You are trying to think of Him either as God in one moment and as man in another, in a schizophrenic way, separated from the divine – kind of like multiple personalities.
A8 is right: that is Nestorianism.
Truth is, whatever Christ did or does, at no time was in conflict with either of His two natures, or separate from His natures. That's why His Incarnation, Mary's pregnancy and birth, were not your "natural."
But, if a scientist examined those tears and compared them with those of a normal person, would he see any difference?
Of course not, just as His flesh was human flesh and his DNA was that of Mary's human DNA ( but not "natural" in that, technically speaking, such DNA would make Him genetically a female haploid).
I don't see how that effects what Jude wrote years after the resurrection. As a matter of fact, it would give more force to his writings by making the more direct claim (if true).
Regards
Quite honestly, our knowledge of God develops over time as we pore over His Word (whether oral or written). Did the Patriarchs understand everything God told them? I contend that the Apostles did not KNOW everything about God - and that the Spirit continues to reveal more about Himself through the Apostolic teachings already given.
Regards
I have found that this happens quite often - although some people refuse to admit that we do agree on many issues. I suppose some people prefer to see the Body of Christ divided.
Regards
This conversation is over. I have better things to do then argue like a twelve year old.
That's your perogative. What I wonder about is why do you actually care what I believe about Mary?
Christ didn't bless heretics. He who rejects those sent by Christ rejects Christ. Isn't that exactly what you are doing?
Regards
Oh. I see. You say something. I say the opposite. And you take your marbles and go home. I thought it was a discussion. You thought it was arguing. If this "arguing" bothers you so much, you may have chosen the wrong forum to be on.
And you gave up being a Southern Baptist for this??? Oh, brother.
What a way to start my morning! Nothing like being called a heretic before you even get out the gate! Noone can say that Christ is Lord except by the Spirit of God. Jesus is my Savior and my Lord. Do not call me cursed.
I reject that Christ sent many of the people that have lead the Catholic church (or many Protestant denominations). A quick study of history and the Popes would back me up.
The church is made up of human beings. Human beings are fallible. The early church certainly was or we wouldn't have gotten all of those letters from Paul and others correcting their theology. John would have no need to write to the 7 churches in Asia because they would have all been right on the same page with Christ. They weren't.
You are deifying the church. The church is NOT Christ. The true church, the body of ALL believers from all times, is the Bride of Christ. Insofar as she follows His lead, she is to be trusted. When she walks away from what He has laid forward through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, she is no better than a human institution and is sometimes quite a bit worse.
Don't forget that she now sits enthroned in Heaven acting as our mediator and advocate. But, uh, we don't worship her.....
Oh boy. I've been doing this for awhile. I have come to realize that you have nothing further to add to convincing me that Mary had more children. Nor will anything I say convince you she remained a virgin. Further "discussion" is merely divisive. Or is that your intent? To continue dividing the Body of Christ? Quite honestly, continued arguing over this matter is destructive to my spirituality.
Thus, I ended it.
Regards
You do agree, though, don't you, that if a person were to use ONLY scripture as their guide to doctrine, that the deduction from scripture that Mary had other children would be a very likely conclusion.
Yes, and many will say "'Lord, Lord" and will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven... Are you doing the will of the Father by your continued rejection of Christ's apostles?
I reject that Christ sent many of the people that have lead the Catholic church (or many Protestant denominations). A quick study of history and the Popes would back me up.
Oh, so you also reject the ORIGINAL twelve apostles, as well. A quick study of the history of their actions would show they were not perfect, either. What you fail to understand is that God does not choose perfect people, nor does God remove all of their quirks. God works through clay vessels, whether they were Saul, King Cyrus, Paul, Peter, St. Francis of Assisi, or Pope Alexander III.
The church is made up of human beings. Human beings are fallible. The early church certainly was or we wouldn't have gotten all of those letters from Paul and others correcting their theology. John would have no need to write to the 7 churches in Asia because they would have all been right on the same page with Christ. They weren't.
Of course people make mistakes. But God also assured His Church, the visible community that He established, that its authority would bind other Christians. The Apostles were given the power to bind and loosen, a power given from above. Now, you can believe that the Apostles made that all up - I have argued over this with atheists - but then you would be ignoring Scriptures. Thus, when Christ said that "what is bound on earth would be bound in heaven", Christ is assuring that authoritative decisions would be infallible. Unless you believe that heaven makes mistakes.
You are deifying the church. The church is NOT Christ. The true church, the body of ALL believers from all times, is the Bride of Christ. Insofar as she follows His lead, she is to be trusted. When she walks away from what He has laid forward through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, she is no better than a human institution and is sometimes quite a bit worse.
In the sense you are speaking of, I am not deifying the Church. Yes, the Church IS the Body of Christ - and IS divine as well as human (so was Christ). But I don't deify the leaders of the Church. I honor them and obey them because that is God's will. Trust me. I am a non-conformist. But when I come to the conclusion that God's will be that we obey the leaders of the Church (as Scripture tells us), then I obey. THAT is the will of God. God expects us to be like Christ - to be humble and obedient. I will continue to follow that example and the example of His mother Mary.
Now, you claim the Church "walks away from what is laid forth in Scripture". YOU have walked away from the Church's understanding of the Sacred Scriptures. It is the Church that has given us the Scriptures and the Church that interprets them through a particular paradigm. You think that is something new? Read up on St. Irenaeus. He also contended with men who thought they knew better then the Church. They presented men with their own perverted teachings of the very same writings of the Apostles. The difference was not the Scriptures, but interpetation of Scriptures. Thus, St. Irenaeus made it clear that only the Church could give the proper understanding of these Scriptures. He was writing in 180 AD. You see, heresy is nothing new. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have said "he who rejects YOU rejects me"...
Regards
No, considering that their is little provision in Greek for distinguishing between cousin and blood brother. Thus, we must rely on other sources to more definitively understand what the writers meant.
And I will leave it at that. This subject has been beaten like a dead horse. Nothing further can be added to it. Surely, as a pastor, you can appreciate the desire to NOT continue being divisive? Being Advent season, such conversations are not conducive to preparing to receive Christ.
Regards
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.