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/
What part of what I said suggested such? I was explicit in the fact that God does NOT change. Address your own statements as well while you on your little anti-Protestant rant.
Your insistance that Mary is not the Mother of God but the "Mother of Jesus. Period" only adds insult to injury as you are now denying that Jesus is God and that she gave birth to God.
There is no anti-Protestant rant on my part. I just know a little bit better what I am dealing with. I have no desire to change your beliefs. You stated yours and I stated what the Church has taught all along.
You reject the Church and I reject Protestantism. Protestants obviously believe in an evolving and changing God and deny the divinity of Jesus by refusing to say He is God, and that Mary gave Birth to God.
You obviously believe that God the Word was changed by the Incarnation. These are not Christian beliefs, my friend. We do not share the same faith.
So, we stated what they are and we now need to part our ways because there is nothing more I care to hear from the Protestant side, save for those who wish to return to the Church.
It is my understanding that pain during child birth is part of the punishment for original sin. Since Mary was born without original sin, it makes sense, along with the other given reasons, that the birth of Jesus was painless.
Why did Mary call God her Savior?
Well, I certainly have no interest in saying that you folks "left Christianity" like some groups have actually done over time. (I hope that's not what you mean about us.) However, neither would I say that about our Orthodox friends. That's probably as far as I'd like to go on schism. :) All of us are still Christians. We just now have some radically different ways of getting to similar places.
God certainly took care of the Korah problem. If the earth opens up and swallows all Reformers, then I will admit that you were right. :)
Luther would have been a great reformer if he could have stayed within the Church's teachings and not refute her authority given by God.
I have no idea how any one individual could possibly be an effective reformer in the Catholic Church. Everything I know about says that would be impossible. How can someone reform anything "within the Church's teachings"? Isn't that like saying: "As long as you agree with me, you can disagree all you like"? Maybe if one was the pope, he could do some things, but short of that, it seems to me any attempt would be clerical suicide. I don't see how Luther had any real choice.
Many Catholic saints have argued with Popes and the hierarchy to correct abuses.
And 99% of the time they were either ignored, or thrown out of the Church, or flat out killed, I'm guessing. :) I thought popes were officially incapable of "abuses". I've never heard a Catholic say that the pope bore any responsibility for the abuses concerning indulgences, for example. Those abuses were certainly front and center during the Reformation, but what really needed to be changed was so much bigger than that, IMO.
The Supreme Court is NOT guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Supreme Court does not claim infallibility for its decisions, unlike the Church.
I would certainly agree that I think the hierarchy of the RCC is guided by the Holy Spirit to a SIGNIFICANTLY higher degree than our Supreme Court. :)
You are kidding yourself if you think Reformers agree as much as Catholics. I go to other forums and there is a wide disparity of beliefs on even whether God is a Trinity or not...
I've never been to any other forums, and I've never heard of a Reformer who denied the Trinity. I would say that is impossible, so it depends on your definition of Reformer. I was thinking more along the lines of the Reformers on the L&E thread, all from different churches and backgrounds, and all the different Catholics. I really don't think you all were any more unified than we were.
Where EXACTLY does this speak about righteous men who sinned occasionally? You sure you have the same bible? The entire section has NOTHING to say about righteous men, but wicked ones. Where do we see righteous men spoken of in this manner in the Psalms?
You were the one making the relation to Psalms exclusively, not me. Before I can even begin to address your comment I have to know what you think a Biblically righteous man was. I have no idea now. :)
On the surface, you may say it has little difference. But it makes ALL the difference whether we say a man is totally corrupt or man is wounded.
I fully agree that it makes a big difference. It is the difference between cooperation and God choosing whom He will save through His own will.
A totally corrupt man has NOTHING to give, not even if it is something given to him by God.
That is not the Reformed view. We would say that a totally corrupt man has nothing to give of his own, and that all people have "something to give" if it was given by God. We would say that for the important matter here, salvation, that God gives some totally corrupt men grace, and that ALL of those men "give" back their belief of their own free will. IOW, if God gives one grace, it never gets wasted.
A wounded man can, with aid, become righteous as a result of God's work.
And that would be thanks to the goodness that is within him that he has so wisely chosen to use. Other people were not so wise to use their respective inner goodness(es), and so they are lost. That is a very different view from ours. :)
This is where one must invent imputed; "infused" righteousness. This idea effects our ideas of salvation - to include sanctification...
Or something like that.... :)
Why do you separate the faith of the man from the man??? The fact of the matter remains that SIMON is now called KEPHAS. Not Simon's faith! Paul doesn't refer to Simon's "faith" as Kephas, but his person. WHAT was called Kephas in the Scriptures?
I'm not making that separation because I'm not talking about Peter's own exclusive faith. I'm saying that God's Church is built on "true faith" itself, and Peter was one among many who had it.
We were talking about Matt. 16:18. There, the Strong's number for Peter is 4074 (Petros). It refers to Peter as a name (male person). The number for "rock" is 4073 (petra), which is a feminine use of the word. If Jesus really meant Peter, then He would be calling him a woman. Since that is unlikely, Jesus is using a play on words.
Why are you so uptight about giving honor to a person?
Because people are never deserving in comparison to what God has done for us, IMO. It is very humbling to me that I have to keep reminding myself of that. :)
But God is love. Love shares itself. God GLADLY draws men into His salvation plan. Perhaps you have detected this in Scriptures?
One thing I have detected in scripture is that our loving God is also a jealous God, and generally doesn't like it when men raise themselves up over where they belong. I have found that even with the way I look at things, God has given me more of His love than I can possibly deal with. :)
God GLADLY draws men into His salvation plan. Perhaps you have detected this in Scriptures? God didn't have to use men, you know. But He did.
I don't think we'd be thinking of the same scriptures on this statement. :)
I suppose this "need" to give God "ALL" the credit is a result of how you look at God - a jealous and envious Being who creates things for the specific purpose of destroying it and causes men to do EVERYTHING. As I have said before, this is a caricature of the Christian God of Love Whom I am familiar with.
Well, this is certainly a caricature of the Reformed view. I don't even know what you're talking about.
Why WOULDN'T He desire to share the "credit", as you say???
Because He is the God of truth, and men could not possible merit any "credit". I don't understand any human mindset that "needs" to have any credit. God is fully love and I don't need any credit for my salvation. I think I appreciate Him more because I don't get any credit. It makes me more dependent on Him. If I thought I deserved a pat on the back for being smarter than the next guy for choosing God, then I would feel like I needed Him less. That's just me.
As Mary's purpose in God's plan was to give birth to Jesus, Jesus in essence was also Mary's saviour, was he not?
No. Her giving birth to Jesus wouldn't mean that He was her Savior too. Savior means deliverer. Preserver.
If Mary were without sin, then she would need no Savior.
If pain in childbirth were a punishment for original sin and Mary had no sin, original or otherwise, she also would not have died - since death was a punishment for sin as well.
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
Jesus was sinless, but He became Sin for us. He took our punishment which is why He died.
Mary died because she had committed sins in her life. She was a wonderful virtuous woman, but she was not sinless.
Amen, FK!
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." -- 2 Corinthians 12:9-10"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
She was saved preemptively.
Hi Dr. Eckleburg. Good seeing you here.
Just in case she would sin? I see.
In reality, the Marian devotion that we see would make the real Mary very sad. Hopefully, God has her shielded from seeing any of this.
Who are you to presume what she thinks/feels??
Likewise, Blogger. 8~) Your posts on this thread are terrific. Very clear and Scriptural. I've learned a lot.
I am a Christian. I read of Mary in Scripture where she is shown as a very humble and devout woman. She, like the Holy Spirit, does not draw attention to herself, and based on her presence in the upper room following Jesus' resurrection, she would be faithful in pointing people towards devotion to her Son, not setting up statues to herself.
I find the threads edifying. It makes you stop and think about WHY you believe what you believe, rather than just believing it blindly. We have faith, but it is not blind faith - for we see with our own eyes the works of God in our lives and world every day!
Your statements are illogical.
Mary gives birth to Jesus; (we agree)
Jesus is 100% God; (we agree)
therefore Mary gives Birth to God; (you disagree!)
Like I said, if you wish the final word, it's yours. The only one who is doing verbal gymanstics is you. Be it as it may, we are not getting anywhere, so let's just say drop it. Can you handle that?
In order to be pure enough to carry and birth Jesus, Mary had to be born without original sin. Thus, Jesus was also the saviour of Mary.
As much as you would like to deny it, Marian devotion is not an end of itself, but draws a soul closer to Christ.
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.