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 "fatal flaw" of sola scriptura is the mistaken concept that silence prooves a point.
The fatal flaw of it is that it is not found in the Scripture. It is, to borrow the expression, unbiblical.
That goes without saying.
Okay, I think this WAS the group I was thinking about. But it was several years ago that I heard of them. He claims to have had the "vision" in 1994, so several years would probably be appropriate. And, they are calling for her deification.
Mary is God Dogma
A new movement of Catholics is calling for the proclamation of a dogma elevating Mary to the status of God. This effort is being led by a Marian visionary who claims to have received visions of the Blessed Virgin way back 1994. The visionary's group, MARY-IS-GOD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT (MIGCM), claims Marian Divinity to be the real third secret of Fatima.
To present the Catholic Church has not issued an official statement on the allegations of MIGCM, raising more speculations in favor of the movement's claim.
In Catholic Church history, several saints have alluded to the belief of Marian divinity. But writings by these saints were however sensored to prevent such writings to reach the faithful and cause a major division.
"MIGCM visionary claims that Virgin Mary appeared to 3 children in 1917 to prepare the world for the proclamation of Her Dogma as God. The visionary further claims the Third Secret was intentionally for the Second Vatican Council, hence was the instruction from the Blessed Mother that the same secret be revealed just a few years before 1960. The First Session of the Council was held in 1962."
Mary is God Dogma
A new movement of Catholics is calling for the proclamation of a dogma elevating Mary to the status of God. This effort is being led by a Marian visionary who claims to have received visions of the Blessed Virgin way back 1994. The visionary's group, MARY-IS-GOD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT (MIGCM), claims Marian Divinity to be the real third secret of Fatima.
To present the Catholic Church has not issued an official statement on the allegations of MIGCM, raising more speculations in favor of the movement's claim.
In Catholic Church history, several saints have alluded to the belief of Marian divinity. But writings by these saints were however sensored to prevent such writings to reach the faithful and cause a major division.
MIGCM visionary claims that Virgin Mary appeared to 3 children in 1917 to prepare the world for the proclamation of Her Dogma as God. The visionary further claims the Third Secret was intentionally for the Second Vatican Council, hence was the instruction from the Blessed Mother that the same secret be revealed just a few years before 1960. The First Session of the Council was held in 1962.
I think the Feminists I was thinking of were Episcopalians not the Catholics - though reading what those Feminists were saying it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't in league.
Satisfied?
What you showed me about Mary Is God is a website that a teenager could throw together in one day. Why should the Holy See pay attention to them any more than to the Applegate cult?
Medjugorie is a genuine concern of Rome because it is a genuine pilgrimage site that is very popular. The official reaction to it is overwhelmingly negative.
Did you read the newspaper article???? Good grief you are obstinate. The "Holy See" has paid attention to them, in the form of Benedict XVI.
I may still be off on the timing, because June 05 is the earliest mention I can find. But I substantiated my claim that there is an offshoot of Catholicism petitioning the Pope to Deify Mary.
If you look at Medjugorie, it is claimed that JP2 was quite favorable towards it-- http://www.medjugorje.org/pope.htm
I never said that Holy See endorsed them.
"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil" [Job 1:1]
Oooops!
Gen 20:4 God says there are not only righteous people, but a whole righteous nation
Oooops!
Exodus 23:7 God commands: do not slay innocent and righteous.
Ooops!
Psalm 7:11 God judges the righteous
Ooops!
Mat 9:13 Christ says: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Ooops!
Mat 5:45 God "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
Oooops!
I think it's obvious that "righteous" and "just" did exist and that Paul's statement must be interpreted in less then a Protestant literalism.
For, surely, the Protestants would agree that Moses was just and that the Prophets through whom the Holy Spirit worked were among the just, and righteous, as the whole nation of Israel (according to the OT), or as Job was in God's eyes.
In Christ, we are righteous. Looking forward to Christ, the Old Testament Saints were righteous.
Galatians 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Oops. Better go back to the drawing board there Kosta.
Why is everyone acting as if being called (or better yet qualified) as Nestorian is an "insult?" If I say that I believe that we don't need baptism for remission of sins I would be expresisng theology accoridng to Pelagius. If I expressed theology according to John Calvin, I would be qualified as a "Calvinist." Calling Copts monophysites is not an insult. There is even a church named after a man Martin Luther, so all its members are Lutheran.
The fact that the Catholic and Apostolic Church rejected all those is another story. They rejected doctrines associated with those individuals. If anyone feels that they should not have been rejected, they should state why, but that doesn't change the label or the theology the label reflects.
First because by calling me a Nestorian, I was being accused of heresy.
Second, because calling me a Nestorian was a clear misrepresentation of my stated belief.
Just catching up and am not surprised nothing has changed. I think it's interesting that when Origen mentions the "Protoevangelium of James" and it's DUBIOUS RECENT APPEARANCE he also states that while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore children for Joseph) was true and acceptable.
It seems pretty clear that this understanding of Scripture goes back to before the Canon was formed.
Yep.
The apostles didn't at all link Christ to David through Mary -- they did it through his legal adoptive father, Joseph. Both genealogies go from David to Joseph. One involves an episode of a brother raising up seed, legally, for his brother. The other is a pure bloodline.
"Yes, in that passage alone Christ suggests that his disciples are His brother, or sister, or mother, depending we assume, on sex and age."
No. He suggests all are His bros, sisters, maothers ect. That was in response to the announcement, "your mother and brothers are outside looking for you".
"But the expansive use of "brother" to refer to spiritual kinship we find in many places."
Sure, but not in this passage, or John 7. In this passage, the distinction is made between his bros, as in related and close to Mary and all others.
" My point is that the passage does not say anything about Christ's disagreeing with His mother or other kinsfolk.
I didn't say He did. I have no idea where you got this from.
Re: why he didn't refer to John the Baptist as "brother John"?
"1. The recorded speech of one of them to the other tends to be coached in lofty terms: "I must decrease for He must increase"; "so it becometh us to fulfill all justice". This precluded "brother" as an affectionate term."
Irrelevant. THe term bro has no connotations of stature.
"2. The expansive use of "brother" is common when several relatives are addressed collectively. When just one person is addressed, a more precise term, such as "cousin" would be typically used."
No. The term may apply to cousin. It is not a term that refers to generic relatives.
" 3. John was renowned in his own right, while James a.o. were only known in relation to Jesus."
Both John and James were only "renowned", because of the existance of Jesus.
Oka, thank you. I remember reading somewhere that +Jospeh's line was something less than clear, but I could have misunderstood.
Tha would certainly apply to His most blessed Mother. So, why are you digging up Romans 9?
Are you aware of any apparitions of Mary that appeared before 1531 that the Vatican looks favorably on? Is there a listing somewhere of when and where Mary has appeared?
Heresy only has a meaning within the Church. Since you are not in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, heresy should mean nothing to you.
A heretic is someone who professes a doctrine other that the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is actually a "legal" definition of heresy – doctrine outside of, unrecognized as canonical by the Church.
For that matter, calling someone "Calvinist" would be just as "wrong" since, as far as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches go, John Calvin's teaching is outside the teaching of the Church.
Second, because calling me a Nestorian was a clear misrepresentation of my stated belief
If we misunderstood your beliefs, I apologize on behalf of all Catholics and Orthodox. Perhaps what you said misled us to believe you were subscribing to Nestorian beliefs.
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.