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/
Well, there is the life of our Lord Jesus Christ as a model unless you believe he was married. Oh wait, that's Dan Brown's particular belief isn't it?
Have a nice life, sir
However, He did not call her "Daughter" like He did earlier when He was speaking to His Daughter
You said the Church is not Jesus. I showed you where Jesus told Saul (who was persecuting the Church) Why are you persecuting ME
You never responded.
You never do.
When ever you are corrected -using scripture solely - you simply do not respond and you move on to another topic.
Look, you have free will, borther. Do as you desire...It is no consern of mine. I have tried my level best
Have protestants held a council to decide what is and isn't an acceptable definition of sola scriptura?
I have seen many differet explanations of what it deosn't mean. I have never seen a definitive statement by anyone as to what it does mean.
I mean, who has the authority to decide its meaning?
[...]
Why do you think the Pharisees had no answer when Yeshua asked them why David called the Messiah "Lord" in Mat. 22:43-45? Because they understood that no father should call his son "lord"--rather, the son should address the father thus. Yeshua was using the Psalm to point out that the Messiah pre-existed His father David as a way of backing up His claim to be One with God.
The scripture tells us that Mary is called "the mother of our Lord". You tell us she is not to be called "Mother of God", but the above logic would likewise prohibit the former title.
The problem arises when the Catholic uses the title "Mother of God" as justification for the unBiblical practice of going to her with their requests instead of going to God: "If your mother asked you do do something, wouldn't you do it?"
I never heard of this "justification". The justification I am familiar with is the Marriage at Cana story.
LOLOL!!! Don't you read half the posts here. ;O)
Amen, Blogger. We are not afraid to say that the men we respect were fully fallible and subject to error. That is no shame on them, it just means they were fully human. We know when they were right based on scripture.
What about Wesley? He was never a Catholic.
Hmmmm...I've been reading your exchange with 1000 and I was at first a bit skeptical and then intrigued. I will say that I have always thought this to be a cultural thing, with Christ referring to them in some type of cultural environment; much like 1000 believes. However, upon closer inspection I'm not so sure.
While I don't believe Christ was these people physical father, I think He might have been referring to them in a spiritual sense. To each of the person He refers to as "Daughter" and (yes) "Son" (Mar 2:5), it is because He preface it with "Daughter, your faith has..." or "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee". I believe what you have stumbled on to was several examples of where Christ was personally acknowledging these people as Sons and Daughters of the kingdom of God. Consequently, they were His Sons and Daughters; Children of Abraham made righteous through faith. There are no examples that I can find where Christ calls a non-believer a "Son" or "Daughter".
Sola scriptura once again prevails.
Ping to the above.
Thanks for the direct answer, it's refreshing.
How can you be sure you are not being deceived? We have all been warned that in the last days many believers will be tricked into following false prophets.
Huh?
The Church's devotion to the Blessed Mother has existed uninterrupted since the Lord told the Church to "behold its Mother" and the Apostle John took her into his home.
"Obviously folks lived longer back in the day."
Right, mt parents at 92 and 93 just celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary and are still going strong. My brothers and sisters are hoping they will slow down soon so that they can retire.
"The gates of hell will not prevent against [the Church]". I do not rush to believe any reported apparition (we had one next door last year with a statue of Mary weeping). My faith does not depend on them. But on the other hand, I do not have a reason to disbelief an apparition that was studied for conformity with the General Revelation by my Church; in fact such disbelief would be a defect of faith.
The question was if you believe the apparitions that are purported to be Mary are real, how can you be sure you are not being deceived? We are warned in Scripture that in the last days there would be many false prophets.
Also, I am only aware of one time humans have been sent back to Earth and that was to meet with Jesus, not to rely messages to other humans. Scripture has shown us that God either does it himself or by using Angels.
Does not believing something, or being skeptical, even if your church says it is so affect your status in the RCC? As a Baptist, I question everything and measure it against what Scripture teaches.
Not even, lol
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.