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/
Of course I did notice that you've backtracked from the early comment that the "seed of faith" comes from God. At the very least you have not explain your position. Would you care to explain what is faith and where it comes from?
LOL!!! You're just sore because you voted for St. Bob's points and lost on St. Fred's.
"The bottom line is that I worship Jesus Christ, second of three persons in the holy Trinity of the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, all the same in substance, and equal in power and glory, while you worship the vessel through which God chose to bring Jesus Christ to earth."
Won't say it will you? Lets see, are you Nestoria or Aria?
"At your peril"
LOL! That's rich! You claim to be a woman "preacher" and you preach the one of the oldest heresies and I'm in peril?! Wow! You and I have nothing more to say to each other.
All those on this thread who worship the Virgin Mary, raise your hands. Yes, As I thought. Nobody is raising his or her as the case may be hand.
All those on this thread who don't see a difference between worship and veneration, explain if there is anybody whom they respect at all, and if there is anybody for whose prayers they ask.
Finally a riddle in two parts: (1) We say A is B. We say C is the mother of A. Can we say C is the mother of B?
(2) We say Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Can we say Mary is the mother of God?
Discussion: If not, if we can't say Mary is the Mother of God, does that affect the interpretation of the statement A is B? How?
Comment: To say Mary is the Mother of God is, to me, PRIMARILY a statement about the wonder and incomprehensible mystery of the Incarnation.
Nother comment: Finally, I wonder if Mary was nice, as somebody said. "He has filled the hungry with good things," "He has lifted up the lowly" that's nice. "But the rich he has sent empty away,""He has scatterd the proud in the imagination of their hearts," That's not nice. Good, but not nice. Good is often frightening, at least to this sinner.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that etymology. The "y/upsilon" to ae and then to "e", the exchanging places of the l and the b -- I just don't think so. Can you give some documentation or refer me to someone who can?
"That sounds very much like a Clitonism."
It does, doesn't it!
"Sorry, if I understand you correctly, that's the old Catholic argument; "The scriptures are infallible because we say it so."
I think you misunderstand. The Church recognizes Truth and the scriptures as we have them in the canon are in perfect accord with Truth to the extent we understand it. They are, therefore, inspired of God; every word in scripture is True. Infallibility isn't an attribute of things but rather of The Church. The meaning of the inspired scriptures can be infallibly determined by The Church insofar as that is possible for man. There is much in scripture which is a complete mystery and there is nothing wrong with saying that, especially when it comes to the "nature" of God. The Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and when their writings are within and part of the consensus patrum as determined by The Church, the writings may be said to be inspired. No matter how inspired any individual Father was, each could individually err and many (maybe all of them) did in one way or another. That's why I said that it depends on what you mean by "inspired". Inspired doesn't, at least for us, mean inerrant. The scriptures are in complete accord with the Truth as The Church has been given to know it and thus are "inerrant". The Fathers are not.
"And if memory serves me correctly, the Orthodox are not ashamed to admit they are willing to change teaching and doctrinal positions."
If a teaching of a bishop or a council is not lived out by The Church, then it is error. The history of The Church has a number of examples of this. I guess I miss your point, HD.
"Does that mean what was the infallible position of the Church, like bishops being the husbands of one wife as Paul stated, is no long an infallible teaching? Was Paul out of date? One has to wonder if it was good 300 years later why it isn't good now? It does make one question what the term "infallible" means?"
That's not a dogmatic matter upon which salvation hinges, HD. Those are disciplinary matters. I suspect they can be changed without danger to anyone's soul.
"I guess that makes some of the writings by St. Bob or St. Fred equivalent to St. Paul and St. Peter; at least as long as a few hundred people vote to say it is."
Well, if the writings of St. Bob and St. Fred are written within The Church and are accepted and lived out by The Church, perhaps their writings are inspired. Maybe even the writings of people outside The Church which are consistent with the Truth as it has been revealed to The Church are inspired. If one posits that +JC Ryle, the great Anglican bishop of the 19th century was outside The Church, nevertheless one would be hard pressed to say that his sermons and tracts were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. But are they so inspired that they are the equivalent of the scriptures, no, The Church doesn't teach that at all.
Which version of the Bible says that Mary and Jospeh did "come together?"
I think that is obvious from the context, as regards the statements and the follow ups.
Lovely. Well concealed from public knowledge I suppose.
Nonsense. The Lord never taught anything about bishops being husbands of one wife, nor that presbyters and their wives are to be "model citizens." Even +Paul admits on more than one occasion that what he is writing are not God's commandments, but his own.
As far as the Church is concerned, a bishop being celibate is a matter of dicipline, where celibacy was always held to the highest degree, including by Apostle Paul.
The doctrines of the Church concern themselves with the Holy Trinity and Christ, based on the Scripture and what was not reduced to writing but taught by Apostoles verbally.
Show me when and by whom are the Orthodox willing to change their teaching and doctrinal positions?
"As for sola scriptura, please review Acts 10 ....."
Let's pause for a minute. Why would God ask a Gentile to read the Old Testament? They would make no sense to him since the Holy spirit had not come to him as yet. The scriptures weren't complete at that time.
Cancel on the future gift part. Your verse number in the Douay Rheims is different from other Bibles.
It doesn't negate the point though. Jesus said "THIS IS" He spoke in the present, AND he spoke in the future. When he spoke in the present He was speaking symbolically for it wasn't His physical body. It represented what WOULD HAPPEN.
Now, I await your answer to my question about what would happen if I didn't like the thought and refused to partake of Mass.
Please forgive my delay in responding. Yes, what you say above is exactly my view on the subject.
If by "Immaculate Incubator" you mean the proposition that Mary was merely a gestational device, this is a very grave error.
Yes, I believe it is error. "Immaculate Incubator" is an accurate term, IMO, coined by Marlowe to describe the positions being taken by Catholics and Orthodox on this thread. If you haven't already read them, these ideas are much further developed in the 100 or so preceding posts to your 3147. That's as far as I have gotten so far, so there could be more. :)
Amen in all respects, brother. I have never heard of any of this either. It's interesting that you go on to mention the catechism. I still have a ton of reading to catch up on this thread. I wonder now if any evidence is ever offered from a catechism. In fact, even up to the point of your post here, I'm not really sure of what positive "evidence" we've seen in support of their position. :)
Please forgive me for jumping in at this point without having read the whole 3,700 posts of context. !!! And if I'm just repeating what others have said (sigh) again I ask you, forgive me.
It seems there's an unnecessary hangup here about the word "assumed."
What's confusing is that, in some contexts, "assumed" means merely to take on an appearance, even for the purpose of deceit, e.g. "he assumed an expression of indifference" "he had a disguise and an assumed name." But in a Christological context, "assume" means "to take up" or "to take upon oneself," "to adopt," or, even better, "to take as one's own."
So that when we say that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, "assumed" flesh or "assumed a human nature," we mean that He, the Son, a living Person from all eternity, co-eternal with the Father, took on as his own a human nature, becoming true Man, becoming what we are, including smallness, weakness, growth and development, hunger and thirst, real desires and real hurts, real pain and real death.
To use a good phrase of the Catholic Conciliar document Gaudium et Spes (para 22), "For by his incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart."
You know, I was just thinking this today. The Gospels are written in Greek, but Jesus spoke Aramaic; so we have very few of his ipsissima verbi, His exact precise words as he said them. Our earliest manuscripts are, themselves, translations of His verbal preaching and teaching.
But offhand, I can think of two places where we do have the unvarnished Jesus-Aramaic: where he says "Abba" (Father) --- expressing his intimate relationship with the Father; and where He says "Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani--- My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken me?" --- his utter abjection as a man in torment and anguish, his utter bereavement.
It's just inconceivable -- isn't it? --- inconceivable, what He did for us.
P.S. Let no one deny that Mary was Jesus' genetic mother. I mean, we don't, can't, know the details about Jesus' human genome, but we do know that Mary was His true genetic link to his human line of descent going all the way back to Adam and Eve. That is beyond debate. Jesus is absolutely, dogmatically, the son (descendant) of Adam according to the flesh.
What? Not at all. You are saved if you are free from unconfessed mortal sin at death. Otherwise, with Hymenaus, you have made a shipwreck of your faith and not saved. I am really surprised you know so little about Catholicism after spending all your time on Catholic threads.
you've backtracked from the early comment that the "seed of faith" comes from God.
I did not backtrack form anything. The seed does come from God. It is up to the faithful to grow it or to wreck it.
This is, by the way, another argument why most putative proofs os "sola scriptura" from scripture fail. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16 the reference is to the Old Testament if you take it literally.
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.