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/
Gee, why am I not surprised? You could have said the Church split, but as far as I know the Orthodox or the Catholics never left the Church.
The authority of the Church comes from the Apostolic succession, and the validity of clergy and sacraments from that authoirty.
Protestant "authority" is arrogated by the prototype of the original me-me generation. It's a man-made "church," imo.
"It's a man-made "church," imo."
I love the quotation marks! Always the gentleman, Kosta. We Greeks wouldn't have been that kind! :)
You want logical explanation of something you yourself claim is inconceivable? How can something we cannot grasp be "illogical?" Your reasoning bis befuddeling.
There is no contradiction. God is eternal and unchanging. That means that God the Word is the same unchanged God He is all along. Do you deny that?
A mother in this instance is the one whom gives you life
God gives life, Blogger. Humans don't give life. A mother is someone who carries a child and brings forth a child, whether that child is alive or not.
Since the second person of the Trinity existed eternally prior to the Holy Spirit's union with Mary, Mary did not give him his beginning as God
Where does it say in the Scripture that the Holy Spirit "united" with Mary? Please find me a version of the Bible that says "united." You are making things up.
Mary did not give God the beginning, but she gave birth to a Person who is God. Mothers do not give birth to nature, but to persons. Again, is the Child Mary put forth God? Yes or no.
It also lets one base one's Christology on who the person of Jesus IS rather than who Mary was - as it should be
Jesus is Jesus. That who He is! Christology is not based on who; Jesus is, but what Jesus is. Based on what He is determines what Mary was in relation to Him.
Oh, I do my best :)
No, the scripture doesn't "strongly imply" that. When it names Jesus's brothers and sisters, most of them are also named elsewhere children of another woman. We have been here before; if you want to imply something from what reading you do, that is your right, but for what the scripture does or does not say, I have better authority and they disagree with you.
What;s wriong with a little anti-Protestant rant? You guys made a religion out of protesting. Eat your own medicine.
Because He was. Christianity 101, Blogger.
The translation is not unique, but the underlying Greek word, kecharitomenos/e, is not used anywhere else in the New Testament.
Any of these verses indicate that Mary sinned?
They never left the Church. The Protestants did.
The Protestants left a Satanic organization led by the second sons of European aristocracy in the Middle ages. Simony. Pluralism. Buy an indulgence to save your soul and help me build an edifice to my own honor while the people starve. Sorry, it was Satanic. At least today you can see some areas where Rome cares about the people. Corrupt Pope after corrupt Pope had sickened the European church and God. And like the Israelites out of Egypt- the Protestants left.
The church is Christ's body made up of all believers. And, like it or not, MANY Protestants will be in heaven and many Catholics in Hell. It's not what is over the door, its whether or not you have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Peter said that we ought to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is found in us.
You believe because the Catholic church says so. When asked, you pointed to a website rather than a carefully laying out of why YOU, TAdams8591 believe. In relying on others to answer the tough questions (or easy ones), you are believing blindly.
Search the Scriptures. In them, you will find eternal life.
If Mary were sinless, why would she need a Savior?
Mary had children aside from Christ. Get used to it.
You are aware that there were very few Jewish names during that time. Naming them elsewhere is your supposition. It isn't Scriptural. The Bible says Jesus's brothers and sisters were coming to Him. Period.
"It's not what is over the door, its whether or not you have a relationship with Jesus Christ."
How, Blogger, does one have a "relationship" with God? That's so 20th century Western, 1st World of you. Where in the bible does it say that in order to fulfill our original created purpose, we need to have a "relationship" with God?
Let's assume for the moment that the original Protestants had justifiable complaints against Rome. Why in leaving and since did they and do they feel it necessary to throw out virtually every aspect of The Faith except what each of them, and don't say its otherwise, individually divines from whatever version of a translated scripture they read? None of the original reformers' complaints against Rome were applicable to Orthodoxy. Why didn't they go East? They knew the direction; they knew Orthodoxy existed. Why did they leave The Church? Wasn't it simply an overwhelming arrogance, the desire to replace the rule of Rome with the rule of the kirk and the preacher, every man a pope? Within one generation of Luther, Protestant divines at Thubingen did correspond with the Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim II. The letters are fascinating in what they show about the mindset of the Protestants only a few years after Luther's death. Their heresy and arrogance was so overwhelming that the Patriarch eventually had to tell them to go away and stop writing to him. The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies, Blogger.
"Mary had children aside from Christ. Get used to it."
I know we've said this before, but, well, the bishops who put the canon together didn't believe that, Blogger. You wouldn't either except that you think Panagia's perpetual virginity was something your Roman bogeyman made up (which, by the way, it wasn't). Even Luther and Calvin didn't go that far.
How does one have a relationship with God? The same way that Adam did. You walk and talk with Him every day. Of course, Adam sinned and broke that fellowship with God - so that the ONLY way we can have a relationship with God is through Christ Jesus' His Son. Such is not a new concept. It is as old as the Bible itself.
1 Corinthians 1:9
God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
2 Corinthians 13:14
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Romans 5:10
For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
2 Corinthians 5:18
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
Colossians 1:22
But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Romans 8:15
For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."
"If I pick up a Douay Rheims Bible or a KJV or an NIV, I find God's plan of salvation to mankind preserved in each and every one. Yes, there are some differences based upon translations and manuscripts used and approach to the text - but the essential message has remained."
Perhaps you've read The Shepherd or the Gospel of Barnabas or the Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians. Do you think they too present God's plan for salvation? If not, why not?
I find it difficult to understand your explanation of your acceptance of the canon of the NT as decided by The Church as being a matter of Faith. Faith in whom? God? The Church? Both? Did God tell you this? Do you believe that the HS simply told the bishops what to do in a piecemeal fashion over nearly 400 years or was it like Mohammad having the words of the Evil One dictated to him by a demon masquerading as Gabriel? In fact, if the Holy Traditions these bishops held to are "non-scriptural" and thus worthy of Protestant disdain, did those Traditions come from demons? If they did, are you sure it wasn't the same demon or demons which lead them over 400 years to establish the canon of the NT?
Your faith argument simply doesn't hold up, Blogger. You believe the canon of the NT as you read it is the definitive canon because The Church said so 1700 years ago.
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.