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/
Amen. Words matter.
Ah, but if memory serves me correctly, these writings are not "inspired" writings. Do you believe that every idea that popped into the Apostle Paul, John or Peter's head apart from what the Church has stated to be inspired was a direct oracle from God? For that matter, would you say that Ignatius' writings are inspired? I believe the Church has taken the position that they were not.
Is this all? I don't think anyone thinks that Kosta believes Christ wanted to fool us with His complete and perfect humanity. This is what I suspected, that you geenerate noise out of nothing meaningful to say.
"Assumed" in a theological discourse as everyone knows has plenty of connotations free from and sense of deception; note a quote from Ruskin below.
- To take upon oneself: assume responsibility; assume another's debts.
- To undertake the duties of (an office): assumed the presidency.
- To take on; adopt: “The god assumes a human form” (John Ruskin).
- To put on; don: The queen assumed a velvet robe.
- To affect the appearance or possession of; feign.
- To take for granted; suppose: assumed that prices would rise. See synonyms at presume.
- To take over without justification; seize: assume control.
- To take up or receive into heaven.
Yeah, John Ruskin, that great orthodox theologian. Maybe you should put a + sign in front of his name?
What you say in that post is 100% orthodox, Blogger. I still don't understand what the controversy wiith Kosta is all about.
привет Asterisk-Pound-x43F-semicolon
Asterisk-Pound-x400-semicolon
Asterisk-Pound-x438-semicolon
Asterisk-Pound-x432-semicolon
Asterisk-Pound-x435-semicolon
Asterisk-Pound-x442-semicolon
с новым годом
In the case of Luke 1:34, the mistranslation is very subtle. KJV translates it correctly. To a casual reader, there is no difference between "I know not man" and "I am a virgin"; but the implications are completely different.
I do not think Ruskin had the same difficulty with English that you exhibited here.
That is my understanding of double predestination, which I happen to believe in. We are all lost, God chooses to save some. All those He chooses, He graces, and then all of them later choose Him. All those He passes over with this special grace are left to their own devices. All of them are lost.
Others agreed with that or said it themselves, I believe. I did not want to single out anyone in particular, FK.
You have been showed many scriptures that tend to support our position
There is neither any tradition in the Jewish culture nor any Scriptural reference that allows for such assumption, FK. All Scriptural evidence points to a supernatural event.
But, then, you believe that Christ is a "mixture" of human and divine, which would make your "egg" theology consistent .
There are no gymnastics, Blogger. She is the Mother of God because in her God the Word took on humanity (human nature) and became man, and she is related to Him in her humanity and in her flesh that He used to assume human nature and become man.
In addition to that, she carried the incarnate God in her womb for nine months and gave birth to Him. The 'holy thing' she gave birth to is God. What else can she be called?
I asked someone who is a Christian, but is not into theological studies what he gets from the title "Mother of God" and he said that to him that implies that she came BEFORE God- so, no, the title isn't clear
I am sure if you asked him about the Holy Trinity or the dual nature of Christ, he wouldn't be clear on that either. It's not common sense, Blogger.
If the Scripture is not afraid to say that the Word BECAME flesh, and if they aren't doing the acrobatics that you are doing trying to justify your usage of tense...
What is your problem? Did I ever say that God the Word did not take on Mary's flesh and became human? He did that without alteration or change.
Surely you don't mean to insinuate that God the Word somehow changed and is no longer the same God?!? He took on human nature, at one moment in time, but without change to His divinity (divinity, divine essence, is incorporeal among other things). God does not change.
Yet that same God the Word took on flesh and became human (the property of human nature is corporeal), and He exists as both, divine and human, without confusion or mixing. Maybe Protestants believe otherwise. Based on what I am reading here, I wouldn't be surprised.
P-Marlowe, a simple Google dictionary or an oxford or Merriam-Webster's dictionary will fully support Ruskin's definitions. You listed a very deficient (and secular) definition of the word "assume." Annalex correctly showed you that your definition was incomplete.
Surely you don't mean to suggest that the Apostles taught +Ignatius erroneous things or remained silent if his teahcings were erroneous?
Why so? IMO, what made her virginity noteworthy and special was that it was the manner in which she gave birth to the one and only Jesus Christ. It identified Jesus apart from all others born, ever. That is worth remembering, and so she is. After Jesus was born, though, I don't see why she should or should not have remained a virgin, since she was never destined to give birth to anyone like Jesus again. One Jesus, one virgin birth.
Oh, her virginity has more than that!
I know. Sometimes it makes me nervous. LOL! :)
FK: "One reason I can't reach the Roman Catholic level of veneration for her is that she got so little ink, as it were."
So did the Holy Spirit. What do we know about Him? Not a lot. Amount of ink is a poor way of measuring the importance of something, ...
Oh, I don't know. In the NIV there are 95 references to the full phrase "Holy Spirit", while there are only 57 for all the "Marys" combined. I think the name AND concept of the Spirit got a ton more written about Him than did Mary. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that for every one thing about the Holy Spirit that an average Catholic could tell me, that he could tell me at least 10 things about Mary. This is the sort of thing I am talking about that doesn't sound quite in line to me.
"Do you believe that every idea that popped into the Apostle Paul, John or Peter's head apart from what the Church has stated to be inspired was a direct oracle from God?"
Surely you are not suggesting that the Gospel of +John is not inspired are you? If that Gospel was inspired of God, something we know because the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (not Calvin or anyone else) has told us so, why do Protestants reject its words on the Eucharist and, for that matter, +Ignatius' Eucharistic theology which he learned from +John? +John didn't reject him.
"FK: "One reason I can't reach the Roman Catholic level of veneration for her is that she got so little ink, as it were.""
All kinds of ink was expended on her by the men who established the canon of the NT, FK. They venerated her. They named temples after her. Were they right about the canon and wrong about her? If so, why?
There are a ton of gymnastics! Everything that we point out as Scriptural, you have to find another, not usual, meaning to. Scripture says that Joseph and Mary came together as husband and wife, but that before that, while she was yet a virgin, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Scripture says that she gave birth to her firstborn son and laid him in a manger and that Joseph didn't know her physically as his wife until Jesus was born. Scripture names Jesus's brothers and speaks of his sisters. Scripture shows Mary referring to God as her Savior and she even gets a mild rebuke from Jesus when she asks him to turn the water to wine before it was his time to reveal himself. Scripture is clear. Mary was an ordinary but virtuous woman. She was from the line of David and was chosen by God to be the vessel through which He would enter the world as man. She was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. But, Scripture strongly implies(in the above mentioned portions) that she and Joseph had a normal marital life including the more intimate parts of marriage. It names Jesus' brothers and sisters and does not call them the children of Joseph by some other wife or cousins, but His brothers and sisters.
You may deny it but it is only gymnastics and a stubborn tendency to hang on to the extra-biblical doctrines gaining popularity in the 4th century on that leads you to dismiss the Scriptural evidence and conform Scripture to your church's dogma. Again, firstborn doesn't indicate a second. Before they came together doesn't indicate that they came together. Until after doesn't mean anything happened after. Brothers and sisters don't mean brothers and sisters. Savior doesn't indicate someone actually in need of a Savior.
As far as Mary's title goes, Mother of Jesus. Period. Jesus defines himself, unless you believe calling Jesus by the name Jesus denies His deity. It's ridiculous.
As far as what occurred when God became flesh, again, it is an unexplainable feat; yet we know that God does not change and His divinity was unaltered.
The confusion is in your own words. You have said
"God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity."
Now you say "Yet that same God the Word took on flesh and became human"
Your explanation? You weren't referring to the incarnate God the Word but rather God the Word pre-incarate who "IS" present tense without flesh.
Olga Korbut couldn't have done better.
Why do you believe the NT you have and quote from and interpret by sola scriptura isn't a 4th century (or for that matter a 16th century) fabrication, Blogger?
By faith in God. He promised to preserve His Word in Scripture. By faith, I believe He has done just that.
God preserved His Canon, not in a centralized organization in Rome, but through his universal church of all believers. All of God's local bodies of believers copied and passed the letters back and forth to one another and God preserved that which he wished to be preserved. In the end, a grouping of representatives from throughout all of the Christian realm gathered together and after prayer wrote down which books were canonical. By faith, I believe that they were inspired by God when doing so.
I have never claimed that councils were always wrong or unscriptural. Many times, they were led by people who truly wanted to honor and obey the Lord. And, just as God inspired men through plenary verbal inspiration to write Scripture, He preserved it through working through human beings.
These human beings, can fail. They can err. They can distort. We've seen throughout history various church leaders who were not leaning upon the Lord for guidance but rather were there because of personal ambition or because they were the second sons of European Aristocracy.
When the various local bodies of believers which make up the universal Church are led by people who speak that which is contrary to Scripture, I reject that leadership. Again, even Paul commended the Bereans for checking what he said in comparison to Scripture - so there is a precedent set.
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.