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/
May I ask how you think this comment advances the conversation?
Would it improve communication if we attributed pathology, fear, and dishonesty to those with whom we disagree?
This seems to me to be an ad hominem remark. Yes, if you all are right and we are wrong, then certainly we would need to look at why we deceived ourselves or allowed ourselves to be deceived. Similarly if the tables are turned, then you all will have some possibly painful self-examination to do. So what?
I don't see any benefit to anyone in suggesting that the reason people disagree with me is that they dread the consequences. The remark might turn out to be a false accusation. The risk/reward ratio is not attractive to me.
The Catohlic Church says that they are innocent of personal sin but carry the Original Sin. The Orthodox would also say that the children are innocent of the personal sin, but they would qualify the condition they inherit from Adam differently and not call it sin.
Right; however we believe that one cannot understand God by reading the Old Testament alone, and the New Testament is very far from the wrathful sacrifice-hungry God that the Old Testament sometimes seems to describe. Christians know God as the essence of being and of love.
Right; however we believe that one cannot understand God by reading the Old Testament alone, and the New Testament is very far from the wrathful sacrifice-hungry God that the Old Testament sometimes seems to describe. Christians know God as the essence of being and of love.
No. Clearly it comes from the Holy Spirit.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" -- Acts 10:44-45;47"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Peter's preaching the Gospel was the means which the Holy Spirit employed to make itself known. But the power was of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and not of the man, Peter.
No, -- I don't see either in John 10:18 where Christ speaks of His power to offer the Sacrifice of the Cross, and specifically says that He does so "of Himself".
I will have mercy and not sacrifice (Mt 9:13, 12:7)
Somehow I think that the Pharisees would have been the ones criticizing the posture of the publican.
What business is it of yours whether the guy next to you is kneeling or slouching or clapping his hands in joy? Seems to me that there is simply too much emphasis on judging others by their appearances. Oh, I'm holier than him because I wear an Armiani suit to church and he wears blue jeans. Oh, I'm holier than him because I sit up straight and he slouches. Oh, I'm holier than him because my face is dour and he is smiling. God forbid that anyone should have joy in the Lord in Church.
/rant
Should be easy to google info on this..
Most all greek scholars know this.. at least the older ones..
Maybe older non Roman Catholic ones..
I use Kenneth Wuest's "Golden Nuggets" from the Greek as a source..
Might hard to find that volume these days though..
Very special insights on many greek words.. christian wise..
Actually the Greeks had no word for "Christ/Messiah" in the Hebrew sense either.. one had to be invented.. Interesting display on how that word happened also.. Ancient Greek was and is a very rich language (in meanings) but certain concepts were foreign to the Greeks.. and actually everybody else but the Jews.. No doubt translating to other languages (of the time) had the same problem.. But I learned of this "problem" from Kenneth Wuest..
In John 5:38f? Not at all. Christ is talking to the pharisees and is asking them to search the Hebrew Scriptures, because the pharisees think that eternal life comes form the scriptures. He invites them to discover the prefiguring of Christ in them.
like saying a librarian has a part in the writing of a book because she cataloged it
My Church wrote the New Testament, not meraly catalogued it. Your community of faith, however, banned some Christian books and doesn't seem to be able to read and comprehend the rest.
Certainly not. Your confusion comes from the fact you have an incorrect understanding of who makes up the church.
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
Chapter XXV - Of the Church
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto. IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will. VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.
Meant to ping you, too. I got lost in the html. 8~)
If you acknowledge being sent to the Old Testament to find the preincarnated Christ, then why do you question finding Him in the New Testament, completely and perfectly?
The Orthodox explicitly regard Christ as the head of the church.
“For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore just as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it” (Ephesians 5:23)"
"Oh, I'm holier than him because I wear an Armiani suit to church and he wears blue jeans."
Please, please, don't forget the Hawaiian shirts for us holy, humble and deeply spiritual, 40 Dayers (KJV only).
SO THEN.... Mother Teresa is a saint and so is John Kerry/Teddy Kennedy since they are a Roman Catholics in good standing?..
Before Sola scriptura there were at best 6 'paths' right or wrong.
Post sola-scriptura there are 20000+.
The facts are: sola scriptura results easily in massive misinterpretation of scripture.
"That God's word damns your ceremonies it is evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, 'Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee; that do thou; add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.' Now unless you are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and them." -- John Knox (Knox, Works, 1:199. Cf. Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, in Tracts, 1:128-29.)
True, -- but first the martyrs and then the scriptures testify to Christ. The Church is what Christ set up to testify to Him.
Spiritually perilous thing for anyone to put himself between Jesus Christ and one of His sheep
It is perilous if Christ is obscured, as is the case in Mt 18. It is what Christ asked us to do if Christ is revealed: "Teach the Gospel to every creature".
He did not hand those dispositive keys over to Peter
Why are keys to the Heavenly Kingdom and power to bind and loose not dispositive? The fact the Christ holds the same key at the Day of Judgement does no diminish the clear scripture of Matthew 16.
Amen.
But the greater fact remains there is one truth and it's our job to search the Scriptures and find it, by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
And further, the truth is just not that difficult to grasp. Because of Adam's fall, all men sin and none are righteous. God, through His infinite mercy, chose to save some men by paying the penalty for those sins Himself and thus sent His Son to carry those transgressions to the cross. And to prove that it was God who accomplished this unmerited grace, Christ rose bodily from the tomb.
If we believe our sins have been forgiven by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ, then we may stand confidently before Him, acquitted of our sins and loved by God, who decreed all history from before the foundation of the world, according to His good pleasure alone for His glory alone.
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.