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/
First, in a way trivial but in a way not: Sacraficere means "to do a holy thing, as I have done said before. I've said it three times now, so it's true.
Of COURSE, the Holy thing we're doing usually is giving something up, like a man running to first base or an unblemished ram a year old either from our sheep or from our goats.
Second, the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is THE sacrifce par excellence. All sacrifices up until then point to it.
Because it was a Sacrifice offered by the Christ, it is at once temporal and eternal. And once you hit eternal, the normal rules of time change.
Therefore in the Mass, we are, so to speak invoking or otherwise contacting the eternal. Calvin (!) says, (I read this a LONG time ago -- it may even be true) that when we sing the Sanctus, the hymn of the Seraphs, we are taken up into heaven - or something like that.
It is not some NEW sacrifice, some repetition, that we are doing. It is THE sacrifice, brought into the now.
At one point in my life I had a very great grief. (The cause was small, not a great tragedy at all. I'm a sap.) I have read about grief and ministered to those in grief, so I had some clue about what was happening to me. But what was happening was that I lost all sense of where and when I was in time and space. Really. I was driving and not only did I not know where I was, though I'd been on the road many many times before, I didn't know WHEN I was. Was I in my 50's or was I in my 20's? I was uncertain and confused. The new loss trashed my memory for a few minutes.
When we "remember" in the mass, we "remember" big time. We do some SERIOUS remembering.
What was THEN is NOW, what was THERE, is HERE.
Now, of giving-up-type sacrifices there are many kinds. Some are to propitiate an angry person, as one might give some money to someone one had injured. Some are to procure the release of a bond, as one pays off the debt and gets title to the pickup.
And some are to get to where you can crunch the bad guys. One sends a small weak unit to distract the enemy's big and strong one, while one's own big and strong unit gets behind the enemy. All these are sacrifices in the "Giving something up, like for instance your life" sense.
And every parent knows that he or she has taken on some burden and given up some ease to show the little ones that, yes, Papa can, from time to time, be disciplined so they can too.
In these and possibly other ways I, without benefit of the Magisterium looking over my shoulder with the lighter fluid nearby, think we can properly call the Mass a sacrifce and what Jesus did on Calvary (but also with his whole life) a sacrifice.
Once again, rushing in where other fools fear to tread, I remain your most humble and verbose servant ....
If it is a ransom paid the devil, I don't believe this is Scriptural. God owes Satan nothing. Period. Other than a swift kick in the butt into the lake of fire. But, I will await your answer.
Dawg. What about Jesus' statement "it is finished" and the fact that the sacrifice is done "once for all?"
None of these say that we receive the Holy Ghost directly from Christ; but the Apostles did receive it directly (John 20:22). In Acts 2:38 it is clarified, that the faithful receive the Holy Ghost once they are baptised in the Church.
Well done. Especially the explanation of eternal - outside time, kinda.
I think the Saints in Heaven with us is the kind of thing.
1. John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
2. John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
3. John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Oh, we are just playing with you. :)
Kolo is a Greek-American. He learned it at home and in Sunday schools...alpha, beta,...xenoi, sporoi, turkophago, ouzo, oupa...you know, the usual. :)
You know how it is, haven't you seen "My Fat Greek Wedding?"
It is that very "once" that I'm talking about. We're not doing another or adding to Jesus's sacrifice, we're participating in THAT ONE sacrifice.
It almost trivializes it to say that that's the "calculus" of eternity, but I don't know how else to say it.
There is one turning point in the history of the kosmos, only one - the "Tetelestai", the mighty shout of triumph, theyielding of the spirit. Well might the earth shake, the veil be torn, the graves be opened. All the old rules were turned upside down, and the universe was set not in a new direction but in an entirely new way of moving, one in which the old renewed and blemishes beautified, and wounds healed, and griefs gave joy. That the whole thing didn't go up in smoke at that point still gives me pause -- but the God who can sneak into the world as a little baby, not disguised as one but Truly one, well, He seems to like surprises.
It is that sacrifice which, as we believe, is on our altars. It is the telos and perfection of all sacrifices.
Bed time.
1 Thessalonians 4:8
He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Acts 1
6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
We do not believe that Christ continues to be sacrificed in one long everlasting sacrifice. We believe when it was finished, it was finished. No more need for a sacrifice for it was done. We partake of that sacrifice not through wafer and wine but through belief in what it was that He did. He died that we might live. He shed His blood to pay our debt. When we place our faith in Him alone for our salvation, we have received the full import of what Christ did on Calvary.
In the old Testament, men offered the blood of animals to atone for sin, but they could not take it away. Jesus Christ was the perfect sacrifice and His blood washes away ALL of our sin (which was ALL future from the point of Calvary). Then, He sat down for it was truly finished.
One consumes his flesh and drinks his blood not in physical objects but through the union of one's will with His in belief. Christ's words in Matthew were obviously symbolic for when he said them the sacrifice was not yet completed. He pointed to his future sacrifice on the cross as a way of saying those who find their sustenance in ME, will live forever. In the Lord's supper, we are drawn close to Christ not through some mystical change of the elements but through the mere reflection of the enormously significant thing that Christ did for us. Man may forever be thankful for one who saves his life. Jesus Christ saved our lives and souls and became our very life. He is our all. He is everything. That is what Lord's Supper should be about. It should be a solemn rememberance of what He did and who He is. (unfortunately, too often I have witnessed it being just the opposite. However, wherever I have influence on how it is treated [I am a church musician and our church insists on music during this time], I make sure that I try to draw minds in to focus on what it is all about, and what He did for us.)
Here are some examples of songs I will play at this time:
When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.
Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.
See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?
His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.
And like you, I pity those who miss the beauty of the living canvas, the Creation - spiritual and physical.
+Paul's ministry is decidely distinct from other Apostles (for obvious reasons). The Gospels simply tell us what the Apostles remember Christ doing and saying. +Paul actually interprets what Christ did and said.
+Paul is the one who gets into the nitty-gritty stuff, such as chastity, celibacy, women not being allowed to speak in church, dispensing with the Law, no need for sacrifices (Heb 10 again), and so on.
This stuff is night and day different from the Gospels. But, +Paul was commissioned and sent to sell the dying Church in Israel to the Gentiles. He knew that the Gentiles will not accept Judaic dietary practices and circumcision, and he urged the Apostles in Jerusalem to change or perish.
Let's face it: if I have to make a distinction between the Church and Protestants, I would say the Church is mostly based on Gospels; the Protestants mostly on Paul. Take out the Gospels and the Church is dead. Take out +Paul and Protestanstism vanishes!
The Gospels are about Christ. The Epistles are what +Paul makes of Christ. Now, having said that, he may have well been inspired and his words are those of God. That's the position the Church has held (although Hebrews were probably not written by +Paul), and still holds.
+Paul saved the Church from certain extinction in Israel and in that he is next to +Peter as far as the Church is concerned. Other than that, I will be honest, I have problems with many things +Paul says, but as always I defer to the Church and trust that, although not obvious or often talked about, the Church sees no problems with Heb 10 and similar chapters.
I can't say anything to that because than would be blasphemy.
However, when I read that women should be covered in church (something everyone nowadays ignores), no one treats +Paul's verses as coming from God, but rather as something that is subject to current fashion and social norms.
Peter also referred to Paul's apistles as Scripture. P
Kosta, the thing I do not understand is why you see a lack of harmony between the two. It isn't like Paul is presenting some new point. ALL of Scripture is a harmony pointing to Christ and our life in Him. Protestants accept both The Gospels and the Epistles and interpret both in light of the whole. Such is Sola Scriptura. Our "proof texting" is not done in a vacuum. We look at all of Scripture to see what Scripture testifies of itself. You look to your church to interpret what Scripture means. There is the difference.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. - Matt 19:14
The LORD [is] gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. - Psalms 145:8
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. - Romans 9:15
Though in 1 Corinthians Paul excudes certain things which he says are COMMANDMENTS of the Lord and protestants ignore them.
Women not preaching in church for instance!
But that's the meat of it, Blogger! Satan triumphed when Chirst died. But that was short-lived because Satan soon realized that he was duped, as +John Chrysostom says in his Easter homily, 1600 years ago, "Death took the body, and found God." Oooops!
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.