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/
You're previous post seems to indicate that you feel capable of prophecising regardless of how its spelled...
Clear? For three days I ask you to show me any historical record of Protestant beliefs approximated in the early Church. The best you have so far is that their books were burned. But no other heresy is that obscure: most early Christian writing that survives is apologetical and debates the heretics. How come nothing resembling protestantism shows up in Adversus Heresies?
Thank you AG. It goes without saying. I did not mean to imply that somehow the Judaic more detailed concept of the soul was somehow incorrect, but to point to the fact that carnal in no way implies or means a thought process (nous), as is suggested by the imperfect translation of "prhonema" in the KJV's version of Tom 8:7.
My other point was that reading KJV (which is based on a "Greek" source from a Latin tranlsation, a reto-engineered Greek "original!") is capable of creating very misleading concepts precisely because of its poor correspondence with the genuine Greek text.
I have seen several extensive excerpts from Dr. Eckleburg. In some instances I went to the CCEL site and read up a little bit. This is how I formed my impressions. You cannot ask me to read a thick book when on half a dosen instances chosen by a Calvinist to debate Catholic viewpoints I see gross indifference to the scripture, a lot of extrascriptural philosophical speculation, and a lot of frothy invective agains the "schoolmen".
Sure it is. They used it in The Matrix. So there! What more authority could you ask for which for?
Great quote. I remember from somewhere that spriritual pride is most often the last to go. Of course, I have all the answers to this problem, but I'm keepin 'em all to myself.
Truly I do not have a "problem" with the translations - or their history - and our little sidebar is a good example of why that is so, because the indwelling Holy Spirit of God leads us to Truth. (John 14-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2)
IOW, there is no substantive difference between us even though we have different personal backgrounds and gifts and read in different languages and from different translations.
If you say so, but you need to elaborate, because logically who "prophesizes" if not a prophet? Look up the definition of your own terminology.
I am not interested in your working arrangements. But I do know that people who are called by God to "propehsize" are full-time prophets.
Paul spent YEARS studying before launching into full-time ministry
You are wasting your words. He spent years studying Judaism. What made him an inerrant apostle of Christ was not his study of Judaism. He even admits that he said and did a lot of things against Christ in ignorance. He was "illuminated" and converted in an instant, yet he never followed Christ up to that day, nor did he know His teachings.
You know, let' just stop here before this gets even more absurd. You can have the last word.
I was given a huge list of books to read on this very thread so why not ask you to run to CCEL and see what Calvin actually said regarding the specific subject?
What I witness on this thread is a preconception of what Calvin believed that is based on hating Calvin and Sola Scriptura and TULIP, etc., It is not out of order to say look up his actual words.
With that, I'm outta here.
I have done so.
There are huge discrepancies between different texts, additions, and delitions, differences in length, content, meaning, you name it. I submit that the reason we have so many different "churches" is because of the corruption and divergence the Scriptures have been subjected to.
This Theory of Apostolic Succession is not based in reality. If we consider James, the brother of Jesus, as an apostle. He is the ONLY APOSTLE described in the New Testament as permanently presiding over a church. We have no example in Scripture of any Apostles directly appointing Bishops. We do have a lot of Scripture detailing what traits and gifts a leader should possess, but the monobishphoric structure did not develop until the second century.
Thus, your unbroken lineage passed on by Apostolic Authority is just a THEORY.
How many tenses are there in Aramaic? How easily can one make tense interpretations beyond the reach of cavil or dispute?
To me one of the charms of Hebrew is that it gets away with only two clearly distinct tense forms. So when I read, say, the Beatitudes I feel time kind of smooshing together. The distinctions between and among "already" realized eschatology, "not yet" delayed eschatology, "partially already/partially not yet proleptic eschatology" seem to waver before my eyes.
Just as being powerful sometimes looks like an infant or a crucified man, so also being blessed brings persecutions with it, so is not exactly what we had in mind when we saw "Makarioi" the first time. "Blessed" today might look like what a lot of people call "cursed".
And I will be cursed if I don't buy food for the various critters who rely on me.
When Barnabas and Paul split up, the Gospel spread twice as far in the same amount of time. And when I notice there are five Baptist churches in this very small rural community, I rejoice - because each of them has a ministry different from the next. One attracts elderly people, another couples, another small children, another charismatics, another families.
So while you may be troubling over these differences, I shall be rejoicing and praying "Thy name be hallowed, Thy will be done, Thy kingdom come" - my "no strings attached" prayer.
Truly though, a blessing cannot be measured as comfort; the ones most honored in the "hall of faith" passage of Hebrews 11 are not the ones who were miraculously rescued or comforted (emphasis mine):
The first shall be last and the last shall be first.
It is near, we long for it in our hearts and minds but that Kingdom of God has yet to beocme a reality. So, we pray to the Father that His Kingdom (really) come.
Surely, the our world is not the Kingdom of Heaven, BD, but as Christians we have already left this world in spirit if not in body.
"Surely, the our world is not the Kingdom of Heaven, BD, but as Christians we have already left this world in spirit if not in body."
You know kosta, it happens every time. After we wear each other down a little we find the common ground. You are right, "This world is not our home, we're just passing through...."
Amen. As Scripture tells us, Mary was "blessed among women" to give birth to Jesus Christ because that is how God saw fit to bring Him into this world.
*Such an act, actually, would show more humility :)
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.