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/
When sola-scriptura involves inumerable different interpretations some of which give us 'churches' that bless gay marriages, ordain gay bishops, promote abortion for the poor, etc. It's clear that even if your allegations are true (that the church has overiden scripture, which I don't buy it has) it's preffereable to every joe schmoe overiding Scripture with his 'personal interpretation'.
Protestants "get to work" by sharing the Gospel of Christ with millions of people who have never heard it before. How do the Orthodox "get to work"? :)
There is no salvation before judgment. ... Only after judgment will we be either saved or condemned; only then will we have a ticket to heaven or hell. ... and while none of us deserve salvation, some will receive it for no other reason that God's incredible mercy.
My conception of theosis was an attainment of something, but here it sounds more like an awarding of something. Does that distinction make any sense?
Protestants in Russia usually get to work conning old timers out of their valuables.
Meantime the Russian church runs numerous Orhpanages and Schools, and many Hospitals. They work to get religion classes in public schools. They protest against abominal things like gay parades.
JTB's quote tells you that physically dead humans abide in us??? I cannot comprehend how you can possibly draw that conclusion. What in the world does one have to do with the other? Is this quote from JTB the totality of your scriptural evidence?
'Sides, we stole it fair and square
Intercession is the only thing I think of when I read those words -- well, intercession and the fruit it bears.
The Hebrew root which is interpreted saint, also meaning holy or sanctified, is chaciyd.
Further meanings attached to the word “saint” originate from the doctrines and traditions of mortal men: Etymology of Saint
Personally and for cause, I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of mortal men:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deu 4:2
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: - Rev 22:18
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 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 10:7-18
Saying it three, count 'em, three times puts the commandment in "flashing neon" importance.
So I ignore the doctrines and traditions of mortal men and feed on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God - including the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ Himself. (John 1, Rev 19, John 6)
Wonderful spiritual, Biblical truths.
Praise God for His faithfulness through your fingers.
ping
"No matter how one understands Peter’s blessing in Matt 16:19, we ought remember that Jesus’ parting commandment to Peter was to feed His sheep"
What we continually forget is that one of the last words of Jesus to Peter was, "It's none of your business."
If Peter was to have leadership of the apostles and the church you would think what was happening to one of his charges would be his business.
Jhn 21:21, "Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me."
Just to be clear, the Catholic Church doesn't think that a "declaration by some human" makes people into saints.
Great point
As to the one person who worked with me for a while, I did begin to discuss the destinies of various sheep with her and let her advise me about their care. But as a rule it wasn't like that.
I see an additional Truth there, that being treated equally is a concept of man - not God.
Sadly, a desire for equity (actually, a desire for the same break as the next guy) is one of those things that IMHO causes people to anthropomorphize God. He thinks he has a better understanding of "right" and "wrong" than God.
I'm not saying that Peter was anthropomorphizing God, but I do think that tendency causes a lot of false "divisions" in the body of Christ.
I have a further question regarding your picture of a "Protestant notion of a bloodthirsty, Dagonesque monster demanding the personal satisifaction of the death on the Cross of His Son because He is offended by our sins. We have no disagreement that the Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ voluntarily gave himself up as an offering for our sin to ransom us. Yet the same Scripture that speaks of His blood sacrifice also says this:
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
...10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;[g] when his soul makes[h] an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
These also say that God did it. The LORD crushed him. The LORD put him to grief. The LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all. What do you think? Why else would God do this to His Only Beloved Son if not that our sins are a most severe offense against His Holiness, righteousness and justice? Why does God's love manifest itself in a blood sacrifice, in this brutal manner, if not that it is 'required' by God's justice? Not that God is subject to some pre-existent, impersonal uncreated force called necessity, but simply that these combined actions of justice and mercy flow from Who He Is. If it's just "love" why the blood and killing?
Cordially,
Sadly, a desire for equity (actually, a desire for the same break as the next guy) is one of those things that IMHO causes people to anthropomorphize God. He thinks he has a better understanding of "right" and "wrong" than God.
Excellent point. Men have always struggled to make God a respecter of persons. But ultimately there are only two classes of people, the acquitted and the condemned. Peter stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Paul and you and me and all the saints of God's creation who have been redeemed by His blood.
Additionally, if one were going to pick an apostle to rise above the rest, Peter seems a questionable choice. Three times he denied Christ. At least Paul had never met Christ when he tormented Christians. Peter had witnessed His glory, looked into the face of God Himself and STILL denied Him.
When we return to Scripture, the Roman hierarchy just isn't there.
Truth well put.
Personally, I am drawn most strongly to the Apostle John who loved Jesus wholeheartedly. His Gospel, letters and Revelation speak to my spirit at a level that words fail to explain.
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.