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/
The Catholics persisted in the habit longer.
To extrapolate the Lord's Supper into alchemy (which is precisely what the word "transubstantiation" implies) is to bestow on the "priestly" class a distinction never given them in Scripture -- an ability to literally change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ.Alchemy is really just Aritotelian chemistry, if you will. The fundamental difference between alchemy and modern chemistry is that the basis of alchemy is a qualitative (hot/cold/wet/dry) change of elements, whereas the basis of modern chemistry is a quantitive (weight) change of elements. In either case, the method involves adding different materials together to produce a change.
Nothing is added to the bread and wine at consecration. Transubstantiation is not a chemical process.
Longer and worse and dirtier and just all around positively Babylonian!
more like Assyrian
Right!
But "Come out of Assyria!" doesn't have the same ring to it.
:)
Though one could argue, Nebuchadnezzar is no easier to pronounce than Tiglath Pileser
Some habits are just SO hard to break, y'know? You got your stake, your marshmallows, your heretic ... what could seem more natural?
LOL!
"The problem is in tracing these various groups because they were decentralized in their church government"
Baptists don't keep lists and if we did, we wouldn't share them 'cause other Baptists would steal (borrow) them.
What do you mean we don't keep lists? Why, some churches have current membership lists stretching to the early 1800S!
Those are just virtual lists made up of dead people, dead beats, and dead heads so that when the pastors get together they can brag about something, find out who is paying their tithes and offerings or when they get into trouble it will be impossible to get a quorum since they can't find the people. Actually, Baptists don't have official lists; they are moved to come together by the Spirit,like "the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest.....," especially when there is food available or an argument to be had.
Lutherans burn their heretics at pot-luck dinners.
Keeps the lutefisk warm.
tsk tsk. Poor totally culturally depraved peoples.
Until you've heard Kumbaya sung in Latin, you just haven't heard it.
Actually, many have been quickened.
"Actually, many have been quickened."
Yeah, but that's only to find the door when they've been asked to serve on a board or committee.
"Whatchoo talkin bout Willis? Committees and boards R Us!
You must be one of them "high" church Baptists that pay their janitors and choir directors and rewards board and committee members with parking spaces in front of the church and pews in the back for easy access to the rest rooms. I bet they don't even allow coffee in the sanctuary for fear it might spill on the mauve colored shag rug.
No one is talking about the two natures of the Word incarnate being "mixed". Even in normal parlance, when a baby is conceived is that spoken of as a mixture or as a union? The answer is clear. It appears you are saying that it is beyond God's capability to supernaturally "unite" with Mary's egg (while keeping the natures distinct) in the way we are saying. No, that's impossible. However, it is fully possible for God to zap a baby into Mary's Immaculate Incubator.
Not only that, but God can somehow take Mary's nature and flesh (or something) and be united, but NOT mixed in the person of Christ. How does this happen so as to meet all the definitions correctly? Magic, of course. When you distinguish between "union" and "mixture", magic is a very useful ally indeed. :)
Christ took on Mary's humanity using her flesh. The rest is an enigma. Mary's flesh had two female genes: that of her mother and that of her father's mother. Obviously, the enfleshment of the Word was not incumbent on her genetics. It was her humanity, her human nature, that the Lord assumed.
If the rest is an enigma, then what does "using her flesh" mean? How did it constitute a union, but not a mixture? Is all of this a roundabout way to give Mary credit for Jesus' sinlessness?
Just as Adam did not need human genes to become human, neither did the Word need human genetics to become human. He used Mary's flesh in order to become related to humanity, Abraham and Adam, as well as David and fulfill the prophesy.
Related to humanity means "but not fully human". This makes Jesus' humanity a sham, does it not?
What do you mean Adam did not need human genes to become human? What did Adam use instead to become human? :) Did Adam not have fully normal DNA? What would you say to the idea that Adam did not become human, but rather God created Adam human with fully human genes? Am I way out in left field here? :) Adam's creation was a true "zapping" in this sense. God created every physical thing from scratch (dust). Adam also had no prophesy to meet. If you say that the human body of Jesus was created in the same way, then that makes Mary a surrogate.
I showed you scripture that clearly and in context supports my position; and I explained why yours is stretching the context of that verse in Ephesians, and the discourse on circumcision in Galatians and works for reward in Romans. Which part of that do you consider spin?
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.