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/
Not really, think in terms of those that are raised inside an institution where the authorities inside the institution tell them all power and understanding is only invested in them and if you leave, or disobey, you will die. In that environment it truly is surprising any open their eyes and see the error.
WIll all those in this conversation who were ever told that all power and understanding was invested in your institutional authorities please raise your hands?
I'm a convert, wmfights. I converted in middle age. I don't meet your description. I don't think any Catholic or Orthodox person here was told that all power and understanding was invested in their "authorities".
What continues to fascinate me in this conversation is the number of Protestants who "know" things that aren't true not only about either doctrine or praxis in the Catholic Church but also about my experiences!
And then they say WE make stuff up!
That was my mistake. I was asking about the quote by Athansius "God became man so man could become God".
Just as a matter of curiosity, what do Protestants think happens to those who have attained theosis?
I don't know. I am not a Protestant.
I know you've tried to explain theosis before but it is all greek to me. Is it similar to what we call sanctification, which occurs after we are justified and is the process whereby we turn more toward God in thought, word and deed.
Amen, wmfights.
This is not true. Christians from the beginning recognized the symbolic nature of communion and baptism. It is just some sects like the RCC and EO that did not.
The Didache goes into detail about how communion and baptism could be performed in different ways. Why would this happen if there was a "mystical" transformation taking place? The answer is that flexibility would not exist.
The original practice during the Agape Feast for communion was to eat the bread before supper and than after supper pass the cup. It was being done in remembrance proclaiming the sacrifice made for us that we never, ever, deserved. If the substances were being transformed again why would there be such flexibility? Obviously, there wouldn't be any flexibility.
Also, one of the persecutors of Christians, Pliny the younger, writing to the emperor Trajan indicated he found "no signs of cannibalism" and all the foods consumed were "ordinary". He was torturing Christians to death and these Christians never thought the bread and wine were the actual body and blood of Jesus.
I think the best explanation I've ever heard is Jesus is present (not in any of the substances) because of the communal nature of the remembrance.
I will pray for you.
Who has the authority to interpret in your sect?
Who is the sole person who can make infallible statements that you must follow if you are to be in good standing in your sect?
You see, Quix, when I first believed I was not just absorbing Light (using hosepipe’s metaphor) – I was a black hole. Light cannot escape the gravity of a black hole, and light passing by it is bent by the intense gravity. That’s me. Left to my own devices, I would absorb all of God's Light and hurt those around me.
Therefore, I personally cannot afford the luxury of slacking off, dear brother in Christ. So I will continue to try to be like a diamond, though I know in the end I’ll be blessed to be an amethyst.
I think all of us were black holes. And none of us can afford the luxury of slacking off.
But I must push this metaphor a bit more . . . though it seems to be breaking down somewhat in terms of applicability from my perspective.
If God designed you to be . . . a pot of pristine use at a State Banquet . . . trying to be a chamber pot would be rebellion. If God designed you to be a chamber pot, trying to be a pristine banquet goblet would be rebellion.
As we have noted, all one color--as you said--in a painting conveys no beauty or message of The Lord.
A saphire is transparent. A flawless blue saphire created by The Father to be a blue saphire and to shine forth Christ's image in that perfect blue saphireness . . . is fulfilling it's role perfectly. What more can be wanted?
I think there is something insideous from satan which tries to get us to feel horrible because we are not some mass produced amorphus mass of sterilized clones made in satan's featureless image instead of the wonderous variety God intended us to be. And then when he successfully deludes us into thinking that glass pipes are MORE HOLY AND MORE PERFECT AND MORE SANTICIFIED, he's won something horrid regardless of how subtle.
Being Conformed by Holy Spirit completely and perfectly to the image of His Son is not the same thing as losing our personality to zero.
I do not believe that our personalities were designed to be a kind of . . . temporary shoehorn to get us into the perfect glass pipe form, shape and condition and then be discarded as stinking refuse.
I believe that as we become more and more perfectly conformed to the image of His Son, that our personalities become MORE ROBUSTLY US, more intensely us just as we become more thoroughly Him. It's a mystery.
ALL of the Heavenly visitations I've read have described saints of old running around loose with their personalities MORE ROBUSTLY INTACT than ever--just as, in Heaven, they are perfectly conformed to the image of His Son. I think Roland Buck's ANGELS ON ASSIGNMENT describes such well.
Don't know how to put it any better.
Obliterating me is NOT what God intended in the process of me becoming conformed to the image of His Son.
Christ hung on the cross that I might becme more fully and freely me IN HIS IMAGE--not that He would have 'another layer of totally transparent me fat' on His left bicep, for example.
The glory God designed for us and for Him in us is maximized by Him transforming us to be MORE US AND MORE IN CHRIST'S IMAGE ALL IN THE SAME OPERATION, PHENOMENA, TRANSFORMATION.
It's not that we get fully conformed to Christ's image and as a milk sop consolation get a microsopic gram of our personality left on the side.
GOD created us for FELLOWSHIP. By definition, that requires diversity . . . something MORE (not less) than cloneness; off white sameness; all grey numbness . . .
I'll hush, for a few seconds.
LUB,
You wanna play rough? Okay.
I'm not a member of a sect, so your quesiton does not apply.
Wanna rephrase in a manner which two courteous brothers might use in a conversation?
This thread has so many surprises. Substitutionary Atonement was Christ's mission on Earth. To deny that is to take the foundation out from under the gospel.
He paid a price He did not owe, because we owed a price we could not pay.
I suppose that if you think you can pay the price yourself, then you would probably think that Christ didn't need to pay it on your behalf.
This is the foundation for the Blood Atonement heresy and the justification by works heresy.
We should pray for all non believers as well as our brothers and sisters in Christ that they may truly be in a right relationship with our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST.
= = =
AMEN AMEN AMEN!
I'm sorry your "feelings" are so easily hurt.
As a Christian, when someone is in error and we are having a discussion it would be a failure to confess Jesus to not point out their error. The truth is your salvation rests with JESUS ALONE not in your membership in a sect.
BTW, sect n. a religious group (Websters dictionary).
I use the term sect because RC posters have indicated they are not a denomination, since that term was first used by Protestants after the Reformation, and RC's want to claim they are the "one church" which historically is just not true.
You're reasoning ahead of your data. There are plenty of non-controversial ways to ask your question.
When you seriously want to discuss what we believe, get back to me.
Not at all a priority for me to do that.
I think the poing in your post is moot. Soooooo?
Therefore????
Of course Paul, Peter, James, John . . . existed at the time they penned the Scriptures!!!
I can't imagine that they expired and their pens rose up by themselves and proceeded to pen Scriptures beside their increasingly stinking bodies! LOL.
Not new information.
Denial of Christ's Penal Substitutionary Atonement is indeed another gospel. It is a key truth of Christianity. Without the understanding that Jesus died to pay the penalty for MY sins, how can one be saved?
It is a dangerous conceit that we can receive it from Christ directly as if we were apostles. Exceptionally we could, but ordinarily we get it from the Church. To presume that we have it because we feel it, or because we read the scripture a lot, etc. is prideful.
= = =
NOT AT ALL. Actually, the reverse is true.
Scripture declares it's about THOSE WHO BELIEVE etc:
Luke 11:13
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
Acts 5:32
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
Mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
And here:
GOD HAS APPOINTED--not through; not by; not via; not with the political help and manipulations of a multilayered bureaucracy full of fossilized traditions and pontifications of man--but
GOD DIRECTLY APPOINTED:
1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
I am fast getting the notion that RCs use one kind of language about the atonement, EO's use a similar one, and among the other groups or non-groups represented here there are lots of other approaches.
Does that sound correct?
Here's a rerun of the bunch I put up earlier:
Any clarification or comments?
And all I can say is that however the Church looks from the outside, what I have found within is Jesus.
I am not admirable. I am old and fat and weak. I have more than my share of chins. But I have seen the Lord, and He is beautiful and, just the memory brings a smile to my lips.
If the choice is between Jesus and the Bible, I'm going with Jesus.
= = = =
Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition. I still find you admirable in your faith and praise God for it.
I hope you realize, not all folks in ANY group are as pure and God focused in their faith.
And, that each group has their group-inherent flaws which detract from; hinder and in too many cases out right prevent folks from seeing and following closely to Jesus.
I'm not very often interested in critiquing thing which are Biblical and facilitate folks being close to Jesus.
Things which hinder and get in the way between individuals and Jesus concern me a lot--in any and every group.
This falls apart because these departed believers are not omniscient.
= = =
I think it also falls apart in that:
1. Heavenly residing believers have other God given priorities.
2. God is not interested--is likely very averse--to sharing HIS ROLE with anyone . . . CHRIST IS
THE
INTERCESSOR. Sharing His glory and role as that is not part of the script.
And 'bought' the role with His Life and Blood.
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.