'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

Your views of Luther are excessively tainted. You ascribe to him some motivation other than what history shows.

As to quoting Paul, you just lost the argument for you would have us embrace a narrow reading of James and throw out Paul (the majority of the NT). I really don't think you want to go there for THAT is a red flag if I've ever seen one!

So, let's see...
Here is the testimony of the New Testament concerning the doctrine of election:

Jesus Christ:Matthew 20:16
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Jesus Christ: Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Jesus Christ: Mark 13:20
And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

Jesus Christ: Mark 13:27
And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Jesus Christ: John 13:18
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Jesus Christ: # John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Jesus Christ: John 6:44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Jesus Christ: John 10:14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30I and my Father are one.

Jesus Christ: # John 15:19
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Jesus Christ: 9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

Paul: Romans 8: 28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Paul: Romans 9: 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul: Romans 11:7
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Paul: Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Paul: Ephesians 1:11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Paul: 2 Thess 2:13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Paul: Colossians 3:12
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Paul: 1 Thessalonians 1:4
Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Paul: 2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Paul: 2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Paul: # Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

Writer of Hebrews: Hebrews 2:11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

Peter: 1 Peter 1: 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Peter: 1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Peter: 1 Peter 5:13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

If therefore, we are chosen and predestinated by God to come to Christ; and, if therefore all that the Father gives to Christ WILL come to Him and of them he will lose NOTHING - then Calvinist Soteriology is correct and your rejection of it is off base.

This, sir, is Sola Scriptura in action. We do not deny that other sources may speak to Scriptural concepts and from those sources we can receive edification and learning. But those other sources MUST tie in with the whole testimony of Scripture. Scripture itself must be viewed as a whole for God's testimony to mankind is not fragmented. It is a whole. There is more than sufficient Scriptural support to indicate that we are chosen, saved, sanctified, justified, and glorified all as a work of God and not of ourselves. One may cherry pick certain passages which say differently on their surface - but Sola Scriptura indicates that they must be evaluated in light of the whole.

Therefore, when James says that Salvation is of works, but Paul and Christ say it is of faith and Peter calls those who are saved "elected", then James must be further evaluated. James speaking of the evidence of salvation brings him into perfect harmony with the rest of Scripture. SHEW ME YOUR FAITH WITHOUT WORKS AND I WILL SHEW YOU MY FAITH BY MY WORKS. James' concern was with those who claimed to be Christians but showed no evidence whatsoever of their Christianity in their lives. Their proclamation of faith was meaningless. They were not true Christians but were still dead in their sins.

Of course some orthodox council someplace declared these doctrines anathema somewhere in time so you must interpret Scripture not by what Scripture says but by what your church council declared. Hence is the difference between our faiths.

From a Roman point of view, I should think the same reasoning would apply to us, Kosta

Legally, morally, spiritually, the mutual excommunications of 1054 were invalid. Furthermore, they applied only to specific bishops of Elder Rome and the New Rome. There was never a formal excommunication of the entire Greek or Latin Church.

Cardinal Humbert was no longer a papal legate, and therefore stripped of his privilege, when he delivered his bull on a horse at the altar in Agia Sophia, but EP Celerius was no less bullish of a man.

The mutual removal of these excommunications in 1964 , committing them to oblivion means the Church does not recollect such event took place.

This was done by both sides, so as far as the Church is concerned, the Church was never divided. The Church is in internal disagreement over theological and petrine subjects, which is no different than all the internal disagreements the Church experienced together in the first millennium. Just because a married couple is no longer living together doesn't mean the marriage is invalid, Kolo.

Besides, the Church is where the bishop is, because he is continuing the ministry of an Apostle by direct lineage to one. That's where the Church gets it authority. A dissident bishop may be excommunicated by another bishop, but all that means is that until such time they iron out the differences he will not be able to commune with the other bishop. It doesn't make his Apostolic Succession invalid.

If a bishop teaches outright heresy, after an Ecumenical Council has determined it is heresy, then that bishop is no longer in the Church he is anathematized, which is more like cursed or at least . Thus, Bishop Lefevre was excommunicated (censured), but not anathematized. He was denied communion, but no one denied his Apostolic authority.

Now, we have called each other heretics and schismatics at various times, but to the best of my knowledge no pan-Orthodox Council or a Vatican Council formally anathematized the entire Eastern Orthodox Church (I have never heard of it at least).

Regardless, the bilateral retraction of personal excommunications of 1054 committed these acts to oblivion and that essentially means the Church is in disagreement but not separated, personal opinions of some individuals notwithstanding (as we have witnessed over the years on both sides of the disagreement).

Alex's comment about being shocked is also a mutually experienced event. I think the orthodox are equally shocked to find out that our Patriarchs have earnest desire to treat the Pope of Rome with the dignity and precedence due to him, even if out theologies and his jurisdictional authority are not seaml;essly integrated.

obviously the heirarchs on both sides firmly believe that our differences can be resolved (in an ecumenical Council) and that in order for this to take place we need to agree on the Petrine role in the Church. +BXVI is willing to even retunr the role of the Pope to the 1st millennium if that will mean a jump-start.

Both sides seem convinced that re-union is possible understanding that this will not take place by fusion or morphine of one side into the other, but rather of finding a language that will show that either our disputed issues are worded in such a way that we do not understand each other or that one side's definitions are more fundamental than others, and give the former precedence 9as seems to be the direction of movement with respect to the filioque).

But then, Kolo, you know all this. :)

I appreciate your admission. I don't think anyone would want to support the shenanigans of Roman Catholic hierarchy during that time. There were Popes with mistresses and children. High churchmen with multiple offices who never even visited the congregations they were supposedly shepherding, brothels in Rome for clergy, and of course the selling of indulgences to pay for a big cathedral. Luther's 95 theses were valid indeed.

And Luther had no desire to break from Rome. He thought after posting the theses that the Pope, whom he held out the benefit of the doubt concerning if for a short time, would call for reform once he heard of the abuses. Instead, Luther's own life was put in danger unless he recanted his theses. The church pushed Luther into that corner which he didn't wish to go into initially.

Luther had an epiphany though in his translation of the New Testament into German. He realized that what was being taught by the church was not Scriptural. He could not help but go in an opposite direction - towards Sola Scriptura. For when the church says that you can buy your way or a relative's way out of punishment in purgatory, it is preaching a different gospel altogether than that once delivered to the saints. When the churchmen are allowed to use their posts not to shepherd flocks but to fleece the flocks, one must go in another direction. Rome was in big trouble in Luther's day and only through the reforms of Ignatius did some of the most obvious abuses improve (though we as Protestants would still argue there is a different gospel found within Rome and we would do so from Scripture).

Protestantism is fragmented. I think God designed it that way because of what a centralized church became. On the essential of what actually saves, you will find much harmony between Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and most Protestant groups. We have a lot of difference on what I would consider non-essentials. But there is some difference within Catholicism on the non-essentials too (some Catholics are charismatic, some want a Latin only mass, some are more adherent to the Pope's social pronouncements than others etc.,)

Oh well, Annalex. I know we won't agree on this. I did want to say that I appreciated your acknowledgement of Luther's initial objections being valid and the fact that Rome's conduct was less than desirable. We can agree on that if nothing else.

Our ability to perform good works, just like our ability to obey and repent and believe, are all given by God alone because it pleases Him to see His Son in us, not because He sees our own righteousness.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
"John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." -- John 3:27
"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." -- Matthew 13:11
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." -- 1 Corinthians 2:12

Good works are the evidence of our redemption, not a requirement for it. Paul tells us our good works are the proof of God's will working within us...

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2

To misunderstand God's will in election and Christ's justification of us through nothing in ourselves but through His obedience and sacrifice alone is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of God and the life He's given us in Christ.

"Since God has chosen to reserve the treasure of true wisdom for His children, it is not surprising that there is so much ignorance and stupidity in the majority of men. In this majority, I include even those specially chosen -- until they are grafted into the body of the church.... If, at any time, we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us remember that no one can understand the mysteries of God, except those to whom it is given." -- John Calvin, Chapter 8, Institutes of the Christian Religion

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.