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/
Oh yea, I forgot!
Regards
Brother, I am not even going to touch this conversation with a 10 foot pole!
Merry Christmas
This discussion of Jesus' DNA is actually fascinating to me, because while Jesus can't be a clone of Mary (if He were, he would be a she!) we know that he assumed his flesh from Mary's flesh ---she was His true genetic as well as parturient mother --- and that he had bloodlines going all the way back to David, and beyond David, to Adam and Eve.
If you have any ideas on this. would you like to speculate why it says in Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed..." thus, oddly when you come to think of it, identifying the coming Messiah with the seed of the woman, and not with Adam?
Of course Jesus is Adam's natural descendant ("son of Adam still Thou art, Savior to our race") but doesn't God do something counter-intuitive there, taunting the Serpent to the effect that the woman's seed would defeat him?
Thoughts?
God does not stand and hold anyone back from Salvation. If someone goes to Hell, it is because they have rejected the message which God gave them and because they are a sinner.
However, nobody comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him, and of all that the Father gives Christ he will lose nothing. The very faith to believe is a fruit of the Spirit of God in our lives, for our nature will give us an inclination to turn from God, not to Him.
We are much closer together on man's righteousness than one would imagine. But I am "Calvinistic" (non hyper-Cal) in my view of how man fits into the equation.
Your assertion that I was wrong and an actual correction or error are two different things. By my count, I've made one error in this conversation (not that I couldn't make more). If I make an error, I'm not above admitting it (as I just did). We have a theological disagreement. Your pointing out to me that you disagree with me and that the Roman Catholic church disagrees with me does NOT constitute showing me my "errors."
I read your reply and I fully agree. It is sad that some have to have a 'sceintific' reason to believe a miracle.
I did, P-Marlowe: I said "in his human nature." That answers all your questions.
His blood descent of David is through His Mother and that's not how the Law sees it. His descend of David through His adoptive male parent, St. Joseph, is one of adoption and not blood lineage.
However, more importantly, having been incarnated of a Jewish woman, He is related to Abraham in flesh, and to all humanity in nature.
We are in perfect agreement, P-Marlowe. You seem not to understand (regrettably).
Funny, considering that being "calendar challeneged" was good for the Orthodox Church for the past 1980 years (and still is for 85% of all Orthodox in this world), and that it was a heretical Greek Ecumencial Patriarch who, among other things, in 1923, unilaterally recognized Anglican communion and uniaterally proclaimed Orthodox-Anglican "union!"
Thank God for keeping us Calendar "challeneged!"
touche :)
[just kidding]
“and as such she is truly the Theotokos, the bearer of God,”
To be accurate, she was the bearer of the Logos, the Word, that became flesh, not God. It was not the triune God but the second person of the Trinity that assumed human nature, body and soul. His divine nature did not become flesh, it was perfect and complete and nothing could be added to it or taken from it. The incarnation was a “personal” act; the person of the Son of God became incarnate, not his divine nature. In speaking of the incarnation in distinction from the birth of the Logos, His active participation in this historical fact is stressed, and His pre-existence is assumed. It is impossible to speak of the incarnation of one who had no previous existence.
The Word becoming flesh does not mean He ceased to be what He was before. His essential being was exactly the same as before and after the incarnation. John 1:14, “the Word became flesh” does not mean that the Logos changed into flesh, and thus altered His essential nature, but simply that He took on that particular character, that He acquired an additional form, without in any way changing His original nature He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God.
The incarnation was an act of each of the divine persons, God, Matt. 1:20, Luke 1:35, John 1:14, Acts 2:20 Rom. 8:3, Gal. 4:4, Phil. 2:7. It was according to the eternal plan, the good pleasure of God in eternity past. The important element in connection with the birth of Jesus was the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, for it was only through this that the virgin birth was possible, Matt1:18-20, Luke 1:34-35, Heb. 10:5. Thus He, the Holy Spirit, was the efficient cause of what was conceived in the womb of Mary, and Jesus assumed His human nature from the substance of Mary, not merely resembling our nature but derived from the same stock as ours, and the person who was born was not a human person but the person of the Son of God, who as such was not included in the covenant of works and was in Himself free from the guilt of sin. The Holy Spirit sanctified the human nature of Jesus in its very inception, and thus kept it free from the pollution of sin, not only in its conception but throughout the life of Jesus. John 3:34, Heb. 9:14.
"Funny, considering that being "calendar challeneged" was good for the Orthodox Church for the past 1980 years (and still is for 85% of all Orthodox in this world), and that it was a heretical Greek Ecumencial Patriarch who, among other things, in 1923, unilaterally recognized Anglican communion and uniaterally proclaimed Orthodox-Anglican "union!""
Another example of the Orthodox Laity NOT saying "AXIOS"!
touche :)"
Τουτζε!
We do not know the mechanism of God's Incantation. We are only told that Christ used Mary's flesh to take on human nature. Incarnation is God's miracle, an enigma not ours to decipher by logic and science, not a "natural" phenomenon for sure.
The Protestant side further rationalizes that a haploid egg (ovum) could be made viable by some sort of "divine genetics" (providing the necessary genetic material for Christ's with a Y-chromosome [whose?????]), thus suggesting a demigod zygotic fusion, or that somehow a haploid cell can be viable with half the number of chromosomes, thus leading to even greater fantasy.
The suggestion that the Son of God became Incarnate by "natural" means, that Mary's conception and pregnancy, were the "usual" procreative events, and "deduce" that our Lord's Birth had to be "normal" is unknown in the 2,000 years of Christianity.
P-Marlowe, you just stated that Incarnate Logos is not God! Lord have mercy!
Advent blessings to you both!
-A8
Indeed. And knowing that the very same heretical EP, who proclaimed the non-existent Orthodox-Anglican union, by personally "recognizing" their ordinations, is the architect of the "new calendar," it is indeed surprising that his unholy legacy continues to dwell and divide Orthodox Christians.
An Orthodox abbot told me the other day that the current EP Bartholomew I promised him and others personally in 2003 that he would return the Church to the Calendar that served us 2,000 years, but apparently reneged on this promise.
I am not sure how much truth is in that rumor, but it is certainly something the EP should be doing.
-A8
P-Marlowe, my apologies for having mistaken you foir blue-duncan in 2936.
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.