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/
Briefly, +Paul speaks honestly at all times. He spent his whole life after conversion in repentance for his deeds before. And God did use him for a special an unbelievable feat: to save the dying church in Israel and to make pagan Gentiles to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And the good Apostle did the impossible (with God's help, as he says). And we thank him in every Divine Liturgy with the reading of his Epistles before the reading of the Gospels.
And 1 Cor 11:5 says: "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."
Verse 11:15 refers to the custom of some men having long hair. He is saying that women should have long hair and men short hair. Verse 5 refers to woemn rpaying uncovered.
So, you are rejecting Paul as being as equally applicable to Christianity as the Gospels? Paul was taught of the Lord. He knew what the message was
I take no position on that. I merely observe glaring differences. I know the Church does not read +Paul's letters together with the Gospels, but separately (this goes back at least 1,600 years).
Must be if you say so!
Cheez, indeed.
Just curious, what does that means?
Why would Christ say folks must be baptised and beleive to be saved?
I don't suspect what Paul implied but did not say somehow contravenes what Christ DID say.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
Remember the Arc of the Covenent. Wouldn't the form of the Mercy Seat with a Cherub representing His Perfect Righteousness facing the other Cherub representing His Perfect Justice, always demand the propitiation offering in His Perfect Holiness? Whenever faced with Injustice, His Perfect Justice demands Perfect Righteousness and whenever faced with unrighteousness, His Perect Righteousness demanded Perfect Justice. Hence in the Garden at Adam's fall, the separation of man's perfect spirit from fellowship with Him demanded a perfect spirit be returned to Him.
When our Lord and Savior delivered His spirit to the Father, Jesus Christ suffered a spiritual death. He then sacrificed His soul by remaining faithful to the Father, while just hours before, all sin of mankind was imputed upon him.
An interesting aspect might be to resolve which Person of the Godhead removed the soul of Christ Jesus from His body.
Are you saying Christ does not atone for our sins?
So you see a difference in meaning between "demanded" and "commanded?"
"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." -- John 10:18
Amen.
But awhile back, you didn't even think God wanted a sacrifice, let alone demanded one when you said "No, God definitely does not want a sacrifice."
Not only did God want a sacrifice, His "perfect righteousness demanded perfect justice," as Cvengr just wrote, and thus God ordained the cross and all its gracious aftermath.
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." -- Hebrews 12:2
These guys just can't ever admit it when they are wrong.
Ah. Neener-Neener Theology.
Still, it's an interesting discussion.
That'sa verya interestinga posta (Lingua Italio-Greek).
Several good points to consider there. Thanks.
I would disagree.
One becomes a regenerated child of God by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
"Whoever believes in Him shall not perish."
"If we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our heart that God raised Him from the dead we will be saved."
Excellent post, A-G. I would add the following about objective Truth:
And those to whom He reveals Truth know the revealed Truth.
But, you are correct that the full range of objective Truth is known only to God.
Jesus said to Pilate: "I came to testify to the Truth."
Distinguo: "Eternal" is not synonymous with "everlasting". "Eternal" is NOW, "Everlasting" is "which wert and art and evermore shall be, or as we say saecula saeculorum "unto ages of ages." or L'Olam. So "one long everlasting" is not how I would describe it either. From a temproal POV it was "then" and in the Mass, that then becomes "now", as I said, thorugh the 'calculus of eternity' (my phrase, so far as I know, don't blame it on the Church).
One consumes his flesh and drinks his blood not in physical objects but through the union of one's will with His in belief.And the union of Will is God's gracious gift, right?
The language of some Reformers is interesting. There are some who will say there is no "real presence" in the bread and wine, but rather in the believer who partakes.
And then out there at the polar opposite end of the spectrum from us'ns is the memorial which is undertaken, in obedience -- and in hope of a blessing?
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.