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/
It is always the battlefield.
What year do you think the Catholic Church began? (Apparently, you haven't yet read Adams's The Spirit of Catholicism or Whitehead's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic).
-A8
Define Catholic. I specified Roman as in the Bishop of Rome ruling over all other bishoprics. So, define Catholic.
LOL. God's word is your light, whether you realize you see by its strength or not.
The Word of God is unchanging in its divisive character. As Calvin noted, "It is the native property of the divine Word never to make its appearance without disturbing Satan and rousing his opposition." We see the divisive nature of the Word in the cross of Christ: on the one hand, there is the Word of salvation, and on the other hand, the Word of condemnation. Everywhere the Word is, there is division. God's Word is a separating word, and as a separating word, those who believe it are duty bound to protect it and defend it against all attacks. We must also recognize the simple historical fact that the church's greatest attacks have always arisen from within the church itself. We are not the first, nor are we alone in the fight...""...Make no mistake. We are engaged in a solemn and a holy war for the truth, the honor, and glory of God. This war is between those for the Word and those against the Word, and it has been raging since the beginning of time.
Thanks for your helpful comment. Jewish tradition in this instance seems to contradict the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which specifies that Moses was virile up to the day of his death.
" Wrong again, but nice try. Yeshua speaks of His departure being a prerequisite for the delivery of the Spirit in John 15:26: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."
His deperture was not a prerequisite. The Holy Spirit had come all along. The Holy Spirit came to Mary, Elizabeth and Zechariah. The Holy Spirit was present throughout the OT. John 1:14, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Notice, the Word became flesh, not was flesh. W/o the flesh, there is only the Holy Spirit. The flesh simply supports the functions of spirit.
"Are you suggesting that post-Resurrection the Messiah Yeshua became disembodied again?"
I have no idea what this means. Disembodied?
"You are obsessed with Yeshua's flesh, as if that were all the Son is. Why should it be so confusing to you that a member of the Trinity should pre-exist His incarnation as a Man?"
It is not all the Son is. His spirit, the Holy Spirit preexisted. That is not the Son though. The distinguishing characteristic of the Son is His flesh, the incarnation, the happening where God became man. W/o that, there is no Son and therefore no Trinity.
" How is it that you don't even know the basics of Messianic prophecy?"
Both passages refer to the incarnation. It is the Holy Spirit of the Father that became flesh and dwelt among us. These passages do not mean Jesus preexisted. It means the Holy Spirit of the Father would become man.
Re: John 10:30
"But that just proves my point, of course. Yeshua, the Word and Son of God, pre-existed His Incarnation; therefore, the Trinity pre-exists Miryam."
You don't know what a trinity is. You'll have to learn what it is before you can understand it. Before the incarnation, there was no trinity. Trinity requires the incarnation and God was not eternally incarnated. The universe is only about 15B y/o.
"Until the coming, there is no trinity. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Your "logic" is sloppy."
Explain trinity.
"Only by becoming fully identified with Man in every way could God redeem us in His economy of justice and mercy. Therefore His Word, who had previously been known as the Angel of the LORD, was born into the world as a human being, so that He could be our Kinsman-Redeemer."
It was the Holy Spirit that was known and became incarnated.
Re: As per prior post above, Eve is the mother of all the living.
"Except Adam, and except the Living God."
The prior post quoted Gen. Adam named Eve. As I said, Eve is the great, however many times grandmother of Mary, who was the Mother of God. That is a truth regarding the incarnation.
"Tell me, if Mary is the Second Eve, did she not come from the Second Adam as the first Eve came from the first Adam? And did not both come from God, who is the Second Adam?"
Mary is the Mother of God. She is the Mother that gave birth to God and facilited the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. God is the Father of all the living, w/o exception. That includes His incarnation, the beginning of His Trinity.
Find eternally begotten in the creed.
I'm not giving RC teaching. I can't make head, or tails out of their concept of trinity. If you have one that contrasts with what I've said, post it and point out the particulars.
-A8
Here is some history for you.
Excerpt from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church." There was only one.In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.
The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.
The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.
The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.
Again, it was already understood that the Church was "catholic" because -- to adopt a modern expression -- she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be "universal" in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that "the powers of death shall not prevail" against her (Mt 16:18).
That's correct.
"Nevermind that the Bible refers to Him as the creator."
Creation included the incarnation. Before God decided to create, He was not a trinity. The eternal person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit and the being of the Father that held that Spirit. It is the same Spirit that was incarnated.
"Nevermind that when earth was created, God said "Let US make...""
God is talking to Himself here, just as He did in the Gospels often. The human being that held the function and responsibility for God's Spirit in this world was Jesus. It is the same with a man and His soul that provides for the function of eternal spirit.
The man, from his own free will determines the character and makeup of his spirit and thus the destiny of his soul. Man is in the image and likeness of God. He is also a trinity. The man is the right hand man of his soul.
I have a Masters in History. Emphasis is Medieval Studies. I am well aware of the history. The definition of Catholic, as "Roman Catholic" was not the early understanding. Universal, as the article suggests, is what catholic meant in the early creeds.
I believe in a church that is a universal church made up of all believers. It is not an institution in Rome, though some members of the Roman Catholic denomination belong to it being true believers in the Lord Jesus.
Rome's preeminence was not clear at all until some time after the apostles. In some quarters (orthodox for example), it isn't clear today either. The Bishop of Rome is seen among equals. Not superior to other bishoprics.
For Protestants, the Roman bishop nor the councils hold authority. They have been Scripturally correct on a number of occasions. But we take issue with many other issues "settled" by the "Holy See."
This is just an example of the kind of error people fall into when they leave the guidance of the Sacred Magisterium, and attempt to interpret Scripture on their own.
-A8
That version of the Nicene creed appeared in 1975. The original versions from Nicea and Constantinople had, "only begotten" and "begotten of the Father before all ages". The only "age" of relevance is the creation of the world. Eternally begotten of the Father can only apply from the point of God's decision to create this world, not before.
"This is just an example of the kind of error people fall into when they leave the guidance of the Sacred Magisterium, and attempt to interpret Scripture on their own."
I don't see a contrasting explaination of the concept of trinity in your post. You need to present one, or the claim stands empty.
-A8
That is anti-Scriptural.
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:4-10"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Man is in the image and likeness of God.
Pre-Fall, that statement is correct. Post-Fall, man is in rebellion against God.
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." -- Ephesians 2:1-3"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
He (man) is also a trinity. The man is the right hand man of his soul.
That is heresy.
What faith do you follow?
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.