'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."

Actually Nestorianism didn't die out after the Third Ecumenical Council--it got confined outside the Empire. The poor Chaldeans now suffering in Iraq (though their Patriarch, whose theoretical seat is Baghdad, has had his actual seat in Chicago for years) commemorate Nestorius in their liturgies, and accept only two Ecumenical Councils. At one time, several Mongol hordes were Nestorian Christians, and there were Nestorian monasteries in China: Kubla Khan sent a Nestorian monk west to propose an alliance between the Mongols and the Christians against Islam. Alas, he ended up in Paris, and was regarded as a mysterious curiosity, rather than in Constantinople, where the proposal might have done some good and saved us the current unpleasantness.

I hope Blogger is doing something charitable for his fellow Nestorians, as they really have fallen on hard times.

By grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourself it is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast - for we are HIS workmanship- created unto good works IN CHRIST JESUS

For someone called the Reader, you don't read well. The testimony of Scripture is in faith in Christ, not in works. I would post a gazillion Scriptures, but I don't believe you would read them.

Second, there are two judgments. One for the saved and one for the lost. One is called the Great white throne judgment. One is called the Judgment seat of Christ. At the judgment seat of Christ believers are judged according to their works - not for salvation but for REWARD. GREAT IS YOUR REWARD - or YET AS BY FIRE.

The lost are judged at a different judgment altogether. They are judged based upon what they did with the light they had. All at that judgment will go to Hell. But, for some, the punishment will be less severe than for others (it will be better in that day for Sodom and Gomorrah than for these).

Now, on interpreting James, we are not far apart. My works are evidence my faith is genuine. If I say I have faith in Christ and do nothing for Him, however, chances are,my faith is not genuine. James is speaking of the evidence of faith and how we are justified as Christians before men (and women) of God.

Good works are a necessary component of the Christian life. But they do not make one a Christian. Faith in Jesus Christ ALONE through HIS GRACE ALONE is what saves. NOT OUR WORKS.

Here is how Paul put it... (Pay special attention to verse 5)
Titus 3

1Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

2To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

12When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter.

13Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.

14And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

15All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.

Work we must! It is part of purpose as Christians. But it does not make us Christians. God's grace through the gift of faith does that.

If one says they have faith but have no works, then that faith is not genuine. It is dead. James said I will SHOW YOU my faith BY MY WORKS. It is evidentiary, not salvific and it is a key reason we were saved that we might do them (Ephesians 2:10) But the works follow after we are saved sealed and sanctified in Christ Jesus.

"Christ does not say, "believe in me" or "have faith", but gives him concrete actions "works" to perform"

"Here, those saved and those condemned are separated not by their faith, but by their works"

You miss read the intent of both of the passages. In the first Jesus gave him something he knew he could not or would not do to prove that what with man was impossible with God was possible; salvation. It was not works that was the subjest but the attitude of the heart.

In the second, it could not have been works that saved because the saved did not know they had done anything that would commend them to God. Their question was "when did we do..." not "look what we did...". Again, it was the attitude of the heart, the fruit of their salvation not the cause of their salvation.

Verses concerning faith in the New Testament (6 pages)
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=faith&version1=9&searchtype=all&spanbegin=47&spanend=73

Verses concerning grace in the New Testament (5 pages)
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=faith&version1=9&searchtype=all&spanbegin=47&spanend=73

Works also has 5 pages, but many of these works are the works of Christ himself.)

Please note these words though...Matthew 7

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

John 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Your church persecuted and killed those they referred to as heretics and burned their writings.

The Church never killed a single man. The Church found heresies. The state executed heretics according to their laws. It may be a fine distinction, and without much difference since many heretics ended up dead anyway, -- but it has to be made.

It is also true that the Church had no interest in copying heretical writings, and perhaps lees such survived. Nevertheless, the writings of all other heretics somehow survived: we know quite well what the donatists taught, or the gnostics, or the arians. It is suspicious to me that precisely the proto-reformist beliefs got completely destroyed, and no reference to them can be found. I suspect it is simply a wishful thinking on your part.

I agree of course that some similarity between the Reformers' heresies and the early heresies can be found.

Nevertheless, if the 4 solas weren't taught by a single church authority after the apostles - it is still Scriptural

We just got done discussing Sola Fide -- it is only scriptural with much spin of existing scripture, with ignoring scripture you don't like, and by mistranslating it when all else fails.

With Sola Gratia we don't have much problem, however it is our uinderstanding of grate as transforming the believer, that is scruptural.

Sola Dei Gloria is a fine phrase, but you use it to deny the existence of Communion of saints, and that is not scriptural. I would admit that the practice of veneration of saints found its full expression in the age of martyrs and after the canon of scripture was closed.

Sola Scriptura is, of course, a counterscriptural fantasy, also amply discussed right on this thread. There is plenty of scripture that praises those who study it and praises the scripture itself as inspired, holy, and inerrant, but there is no scripture that says that only in the scripture can the teaching of Christ be found.

Calling Mary the mother of GOD makes her the mother of the Father and the mother of the Spirit

No it doesn't. Women give birth to persons. Many other things happened to Christ the person alone, e.g. crucifixion and resurrection. so the birth happened to Christ alone.

Mother of Christ is fine

It is fine; but if you call her Mother of Christ yet refuse to call her mother of God, you are denying the divinity of Christ. It was explained to you about a dosen times by know. It is nestorian.

I don't care what some man's painting says

And I care even less what Luther or Calvin said. You cite your authorities and I cite mine.

You suggested that people misunderstand the title and think that it makes Mary mother of the Father, etc. Well, your ignorance or indifference of iconography notwithstanding, the icon proves you wrong because it depicts every person of the Trinity separately and only Christ as a newborn.

Kosta:

BD: Romans 8:7, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

BD, there you go reading the KJV again. It will mislead you for sure. The Greek original used the term phronema, which is a mind set, an attitude, predisposition, inclination. The Greek word for the mind as the Apostles knew it is nous, which always involved rational understanding.

The Apostle used the correct term, but the KJV doesn't. It calls phronema a 'mind.' Now, you being an enducated person would have no difficulty discerning a keen difference between a mind and a mind set so as to render posting lengthy dictionary definitions unnecessary.

What comes to our mind from the flesh are simply impulses, drives, not noetic thoughts, for the the flesh moves by necessity and not by reason.

The Apostle correctly observes that a carnal mindset is something (essentuially, that is as regards to nature) alien, indeed antithecal, to God.

I cite Scripture and refer to Calvin or Luther when the context requires (such as when someone say that the idea that Adam and Eve had free will was not Calvinism). If you have a problem with the authority I cite, oh well. Sola Scriptura.

As to your icons, if I were to ask someone what they were all about they would say "Its a piece of religious artwork." God spoke to us in words that could be understood. The church took the words away and made them the property of Monks and Priests and Second sons of European Aristocracy. Luther, Wycliffe and others, through the grace of God and in due time, gave it back.

I am not ignorant of iconography, for in addition to my degrees in history and religion, I hold a degree in Art (albeit a bachelors degree). I have created my own works of art which depict the Gospel of Jesus Christ in order to reach the lost and educate and edify the saved. No piece of artwork is a substitute for the written Word of God.

[the Beatitudes are] not a prescription for entrance into the blessing, but a description of the blessings of the believers now

This is of course better than simply waving the Beatitudes away, but is still extremely strained reading of a clear passage. It is true that some rewards of heavenly life are mentioned as well, but the undeerlying theme is that these who possess these virtues will "enter heaven", "possess" it, "obtain mercy". Christ is speaking of salvation in vv 3-10. Only verses 11 and 12 speak of a special reward for the martyrs. This is consistent with the Catholic theology; completely inconsistent with the Sola Fide fantasy.

the evidence that it is not a works salvation is the question the blessed asks (in Matthew 25), "when did we do...". the good works they do are the fruit of the new nature in Christ Jesus not the cause of it. It is something they naturally do because of the grace given to them in Christ Jesus.

But you forget that the condemned also ask a similar question. The differentiation is very clear: those who did the works of charity go to heaven, those who did not, go to hell.

Ephesians 2:7-10

Does not say what you want it to say. It says that works done for social recognition are not salvific; and that good works are ordained by God. It says exactly what the Church teaches: that good works done in humility in recognition of the will of God are necessary for salvation.

Well, then I guess we can make the distinction that Osama Bin Laden never killed a single person on 9/11. The distinction isn't just fine, it is inappropriate.

Funny about the Donatists. You say we know well what they taught. Another Roman Catholic apologist on the internet that I was reading today said "We don't know what they believed, but we know that they didn't believe like the Baptists!" I don't dispute that they weren't entirely Baptistic, but I would dispute that we have a lot of understanding about what they believed. We know that they rebaptized those who had left the church.

The facts are, when Rome adopted Christianity, the whole character of the church changed. What used to be a persecuted church held largely in houses and smaller facilities was now the official state religion. As an American, you should understand what was REALLY meant by separation of Church and State and why. When the state takes over in matters of faith, dissent becomes rebellion against the State. The power of the State is then used to move justice against those who hold contrary to what the State wants and true religion is cast aside. Kings are manipulated and manipulate to get the power that so many crave and Christ becomes a mere tool to achieve it. The Catholic church killed nobody? Perhaps they didn't light the match, but they caused many to be burned and hung and drawn and quartered. Kings who ran into difficulties with Popes in their political ambitions were threatened with excommunication (see King John and Henry III of England for example).

Regardless, the faith delivered to the apostles is the same as the Reformers. If the entire church were blinded to this faith during the middle ages (it wasn't), my stand would still be on the Word of God for it is life and truth and God's revelation of Himself to mankind. What compliments it, I will entertain. What stands against it, is anathema.

Kosta. You're irritating me.

The feeling is mutual, Blogger.

"HOW DARE YOU QUOTE CALVIN OR CALVINISTS"

Are those my quotes you are imputing? I can't think of as reason why you could not (let alone dare not) quote John Calvin!

If I quote a Calvinist like Sproul who is explicitly explaining a doctrine, you reject it as well.

Blogger, I don't reject Calvin, I reject Protestantsim, period, no matter what flavor.

I merely observed that what you call "Calvinism" is not what other TULIPs call "Calvinism" on this Forum. Please take that up with them, not me.

They explicitly deny free will, even mock it. Your statement stood out in such sharp contrast to theirs that I had to make a remark, but that remakr was intended only to move you to discuss this with them, not me.

You're just interested in constructing your straw men with which to try to burn us

LOL!!! I have no desire to burn anyone. You are reading my mind and my intention. That's really an ad hominem.

The incarnation? READ "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us"

It is talking about why He saved us, not the incarnation. The incarnation isn't even the subject. Have you read Titus 3????

Here is the whole chapter. It isn't long.

Titus 3

1Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

2To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

12When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter.

13Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.

14And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

15All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.

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.