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/
Our Lord made a mere seven statements from the Cross. For two thousand years, all Christian theologians have agreed that each of these statements is of monumental importance to us all. He did not simply speak just to pass the time, the hours on the Cross represented His sole purpose for being among us and to that end He wanted to emphasize the significance of His Crucifixion and explain things that we might not have understood on our own.
John was the ONLY apostle present; therefore, at that moment in time, John was the Church. When our Lord said, "Behold thy mother," He was not making "arrangements" for her, He was telling us to venerate her.
The Apostles were not going to abandon the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus didn't need to "remind" them to take care of her. And John didn't "need" a mother anymore after Christ's Death than he would have needed a mother before, so there must have been a need for this that John didn't yet understand.
No, it was much more significant, He was telling all of us that we needed to take Mary into our homes (hearts) as OUR Mother, that she is to be the Mother of the Church.
But for all of the doubters out there, maybe you should ponder this. Mary said that all generations shall call her "blessed." So, if you don't do this, why not? And why must you continue to diminish her significance? She carried our Lord in her womb and cared for Him when he was a child -- don't you think she could care for you as well? When all but one of His disciples fled in fear, she stayed at the foot of the Cross watching her only Son die -- why wouldn't you want her at your side?
The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all the heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets (2), none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house (3). (Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani, AD 396-397)
*Brother, David, sometimes I just can't help myself :)
Don't worry, Lent is not that far off... I can repent in leisure :)
Brother, David. If it were only his Confession of Faith, why did Jesus tell Simon his name would be changed to Rock the first time He met him (John 1)
Even if accurate, that statement does not change anything. Today, for example, a future priest goes to seminary, and goes through a long discernment process. He may or may not end up an ordained priest. It is entirely possible that one element of the discernment in the Ancient Church was election by the congregation; this does not alter the fact that sacramental ordination was necessary. Note that St. Paul does not say anything about election, but repeats many times the imposition of hands, ordination, or appointment.
Of course, communion with the apostolic Church is neccessary before any laying-of-hands ritual produces a valid priest.
More Prayer and Study. Speak to a local Priest
I became a member of the Church the day I got saved.
True, and this is why fundamentasl theological unity regarding Christ's teaching is required before we can speak of a single Church. By and large, we have such unity with the Orthodox; we don't with the Protestants.
Then were gathered together the chief priests and ancients of the people into the court of the high priest, who was called Caiphas:
This is accurate in the historical context, since the episode occurs before the Christian priesthood is established.
There is a tendency however for some to exclude all who do not believe exactly the same way as they do, as not being members of the body. But I aver those who feel this way are in error - the members of the body are determined by Christ Himself (John 1,3, 14-17; I Cor 2; Rev 2-3) not by mortal men, doctrines, traditions, etc.
If one went to Daily Mass, one would hear the whole of Scripture - beginning to end. Show me a protestant community with such a plan
Scripture dropping is what the Early Church Fathers did in fighting the heresies of scripture droppers.
The Devil himself quotes Scripture.
Being ignorant of history and heresies will not serve you well.
Besides, when I quote Scripture it is gainsaid or responded to with "That is not what it means..."
Fine. Then what does Scripture tell us to do when there is disagreement? Tell it to the Church and let it decide. And it has..yet you appear not to want to learn about it, to say nothing about you being willing to accept decisions taken by the Church - such as the decisions and Teachings of Ecumenical Councils.
You forthrightly reject the authority of the Pope even though Jesus Himself made him the head of His Church. So, what profit is there in scripture dropping?
Sure it is. "All generations shall call me blessed"; "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars". You object to our interpretation of it, but it has scriptural roots.
Oh good...FINALLY,something we haven't covered
Well, congratulations then
You know, you don't look Catholic
I did not start it, St. Paul did:
11 ...there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided?Adherence to theologies of men, such as Luther or Calvin, disqualifies as membership in the Church of Christ, despite professions of His name, inasmuch as they differ from the teachings of the apostles.(1 Cor 1)
Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven(Mt 7).
That's just sad. I posted a nice list of what Jesus did not say to Peter that you say about the Pope, yet you still cling to a verse and build a house on it. That house is build on sand.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. – I Cor 3:1-7
I posted three Sentences by Jesus about Simon Bar Jonas being renamed Peter/Rock and being made head of His Church on Earth. If you are one who lives by Scripture how is it you can simply reject Scripture when it goes against your ideas?
* I posted the words Jesus spoke. Why would what He didn't say mean more to you if you are a believer in sola scriptura?
yet you still cling to a verse and build a house on it. That house is build on sand.
*LOL That irony hit the rock and is still reveberating
* I posted the words Jesus spoke. Why would what He didn't say mean more to you if you are a believer in sola scriptura?
.... That house is build on sand.
*LOL That irony hit the rock and is still reverberating
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.