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/
bornacatholic,
You are a hateful individual. Our conversation is over.
Blogger.
Maybe I will re-read your post, during Lent
I missed one verse, so sue me. Your definition of Church is quite different from Paul's. And as I said, we are through talking. Good day.
You know, when I said those things about Luther I meant them in a nice way
How about admitting you made an error about Scripture... just once.
You just accused me on not knowing Scripture - I am not the one who claims that which IS in Scripture isn't there. I have, repeatedly caught you making similar errors and there is no admission on your part that you have made an error.
Try a little humility, brother
You didn't just "miss one verse." You claimed that verse was NOT in the Bible. You have made similar claims all the while professing you are guided by the Holy Spirit.
Explain to me how one guided by the Holy Spirit can claim that which IS in the Bible is NOT in the Bible when your ENTIRE arguement is premised upon sola scriptura and you being personally guided by the Holy Spirit.
"Your lack of knowledge about Scripture and its contents would astound me if you weren't a Catholic. This is not necessarily a slam against Catholics by the way, for my own denomination suffers the same issue amongst the laity. But, it has been my experience with the Catholics I know that they can quote the Catechism or some Marian doctrine but not Scripture. To familiarize yourself with it, first, the church is not called the "pillar and ground of the truth" in Scripture. Scripture gives itself you the answer - but you are too bound by tradition and the shackles of your mind to search it out for yourself. I have posted numerous verses on this thread detailing the role of Scripture in the life of the believer. You can not post a single verse showing that the Church is the ultimate authority in all things."
When bornacatholic pointed out that the Scripture does in fact teach that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth", you replied,
I missed one verse, so sue me.
Wow. Be careful not to let winning a debate become more important than acquiring truth. You insult Catholics for their ignorance of Scripture, and then when bornacatholic points out a serious deficiency in your own knowledge of Scripture, you just dismiss it without any humility or gratitude or acknowledgment of the log in your own eye. We will all be better off if we are willing to learn from each other, and laugh at our own mistakes.
-A8
"I don't remember the Father, he is referenced in this thread someplace, but he was dubious of the recent appearance of the protoevangelium.
There were several Fathers who had problems with the Protoevangelium of James. It is of course an apocryphal book. Tertullian thought that all apocrypal writings were false and heretical, a unique position among the Fathers and as we all know, he died a heretic. +Irenaeos asserted that the work was clearly a forgery. +Jerome and several other Fathers rejected specific parts of the story relating to +Joseph.
My suspicion is that the Fathers who quoted the Protoevangelium were fully aware that it was neither scripture nor written by +James. Rather, they were aware of the fact that it is a recording of what someone believed were the beliefs of early Christians about Mary. Its a very early work, though clearly composed after she died. To the best of my knowledge, Orthodoxy has no dogmas as such which find their origen in the story, but there is theologoumenna which find their source there.
A woamn who carries a child to term is that child's mother. There is nothing in it that says she must have given that child its life. You would make Christ into a demigod, "conceived" by some strange junction of Mary's halpoid DNA and some God's "genes."
Please don't quit your day job. :) One needs to understand the basics of Sola Scriptura before attempting to employ it.
[Luke 8:46-48] And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace.
*Ok, it is obvious what Scripture is telling us. Other than a Father, who refers to a young woman as "daughter?" We read in the Scriptures the woman had an issue of blood for twelves years. IOW, she prolly just started menstruating. "Twelve" is, obviously a reference to when she began her period, because "for" can also mean "since" accrd to some scholars.
This violates Sola Scriptura on several levels. One is that one must use tortured logic to arrive at your conclusions. Sola Scriptura advocates for common sense. Without scriptural evidence against it, "for twelve years" would simply mean "for twelve years". To translate "for" into "since" would not be indicated because the verse could have said "since she had just turned 12", or something similar. Further Sola Scriptura evidence is found in verse 47, where the female is referred to as a "woman". Although I know that Catholicism does not hold the view that Jesus had any children, the reasoning you use in your example is EXACTLY of the same kind I see Catholics using ALL THE TIME. :) Sola Scriptura is the "anti" of that, so I think you have it completely backwards.
Prolly, Jesus had a daughter out of wedlock and she was having a tough time with menstruation etc. but she didn't want to embarrass Him publicly by identifying Him as her Father, and thereby jeopardizing His Ministry, so she just touched His garment...
This also violates Sola Scriptura. Look at verse 47, "In the presence of all the people, she told..." Then, Jesus says to her "Daughter ...". Presumably, this was also in the presence of all the people. Simple common sense. With such a public admission, surely this incredible circumstance would have been written about by others. More common sense. Further, having a child out of wedlock would have ruined Jesus' status as sinless, and also would have made Him a liar in His teachings. Doing no work at all, Sola Scriptura immediately throws ALL of this out the window.
Tha's what happens when one reads the Bible literally, the Protestant way. Abraham's children did not come from Abraham's seed, they came from his seed and his wife's seed seed.
It's not 2+2=4, it's 1/2+1/2 = 1
The way some Protestants on this forum imagine Christ, he is indeed a demigod. But, then, once one takes the wrong exist one won't get back on track unless one makes a u-turn.
No, there is no doctrinal statement on these verses in Romans 3. However, we approach Romans 3 KNOWING that man is NOT totally corrupted - but merely wounded. Also, when further exploring Romans 3, something that you as a Protestant are quite capable of doing WITHOUT Rome, should be able to see what I am talking about. I have already detailed this to you quite extensively a few months ago before entering therapy!
Succinctly, Paul quotes from the Psalms. These VERY PSALMS ALSO speak of righteous people, as well. Thus, Paul AND the Psalms talk about wicked men, not one of them turn to the Lord. But in the same Psalm, they also speak of the righteous men that DO. Surely, Paul knew this. Thus, I contend that Paul did NOT mean that ALL men literally are wicked - he would be contradicting Scriptures. Paul utilizes Scripture in context. Thus, when he quotes it, he realizes that he is also using the background of his quotes to portray something. Furthermore, note in Chapter 2 what Paul says about the Gentiles. These are strange words - that they follow the Law written on their hearts, that they are spiritually circumcised, etc, IF ALL men are wicked!
Clearly, in context, Paul is saying that Jewish customs and their national heritage does not save a man - which is NOT what the Judaizers thought... FAITH in God does. The Jews thought that the Gentiles should be circumcised. Remember this is one of the big problems Paul had with the Jewish Christians, right? Paul is saying that one didn't have to become a Jew FIRST to have faith! This faith can even be exercised by Gentiles, as Ch. 2 describes. This faith, of course, is from the Spirit, who is the Author of the Law on our hearts! The problem is your paradigm that sees all men as evil, and thus, you overlook the context of Romans 3 and the Psalms that it quotes.
Is this interpretation from the Catholic Church? Not necessarily. We have a particular paradigm that we have been taught. Part of this is that ALL men are NOT wicked or will refuse to turn to God. Clearly, the Scriptures refute that idea over and over by mentioning righteous people. Thus, when we hear your interpretation of Romans 3, we know it is false. Not because Rome has passed out a commentary on Romans to us, but because it doesn't fit in with the "traditions passed down". But even a non-Christian would see my point of view and disagree that Paul could have meant all people are evil, because they would only have to read a few of the Psalms that deny this idea - which Paul quotes from.
Many of you must have thought that some wicked Jews were sinless
HUH??
Regards
"As it is written: There is not any man just. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery in their ways: And the way of peace they have not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes" Rom 3:10-18
These words are spoken about the wicked in the Psalms that Paul is quoting, not man in general, brother.
While NO ONE can say they are sinless, I believe the point Paul is making is that the Judaizers were no better than the Gentiles. The Jews were proud in their Law and their customs and their circumcision. They felt that one had to become a Jew first before coming to Christ. This defeats the purpose of Christ's efficacious death on the cross. Paul defends some of the Gentiles in chapter 2, saying some were spiritually circumcised and followed the Law written on their hearts. This is NOT what the Judaizers thought about their Gentile "brothers". Thus, Paul quotes from the Psalms of David, who attacks JEWS (wicked ones, of course)... Thus, as David was frustrated by wicked Jews, so, too, was Paul. God is not a respecter of persons. Even Jews. God is a God of Jews AND Gentiles. Thus, I believe that Paul's primary point in Romans 1-4 is to say that the Jews are not without the need of Jesus Christ's saving work AND that for one to receive Christ's redemptive grace, one didn't have to become a Jew first - because man is saved by faith. Even Gentiles with faith in God!
Merry Christmas, brother
Christ had no physical relationship to Mary?
Is that what you are saying?
In what way then is Christ the Son of Man?
In what way is Christ the Son of David?
In what way is Christ the seed of Abraham?
I already admitted I was wrong by saying that I missed the verse. A little grace would be good on your behalf. And you can not name another verse where I have made an error. Good day.
I didn't insult Catholics. I stated a fact. My own cousins having grown up in Catholic school can't quote the first Scripture. I am surrounded by Catholics at work who are the exact same way. Not a verse. But they can tell you what the Catechism says.
Oh, and since you evidently only read what you want to read, I also said that my own faith is guilty of the same. By and large, most people are ignorant of Scripture.
Beware of expecting to find a perfect Church here on earth before the parousia, my brother...
"Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. Mat 13:24-30
"Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Mat 13:47-50
God will ultimately "clean out" the Church. While we certainly have a responsibility to try to keep the Bride pure and clean (as the Corinthians were told to do in 1 Cor 5), God will be able to identify the cockle from the wheat at the end of time.
Regards
Thank you for a civil response.
"Succinctly, Paul quotes from the Psalms. These VERY PSALMS ALSO speak of righteous people, as well. Thus, Paul AND the Psalms talk about wicked men, not one of them turn to the Lord. But in the same Psalm, they also speak of the righteous men that DO."
I recited the 51st Psalm with the priest just last night. Kosta knows what THAT means! :)
"Thank you for a civil response."
You are very welcome. Its remarkable what a couple of generations in the Anglo world can do for the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants! :)
A Blessed Nativity Feast to you and yours, Blogger!
Uh, man is not wounded. He is DEAD. Demised. An ex-parrot. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can make him ALIVE (Quicken) to Christ to where he will choose Christ.
Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Job 15:14-16 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
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.