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/
None of which replied to the historical facts and point.
Now Marlowe, we shouldn't be too hard on them . . .
they were merely following the
TRADITION OF MEN ignoring the Scripture about the weapons of our warfare NOT being carnal
and extending the Papal territory.
Very political.
Not very Scriptural but very political.
One wonders how many were turned from God vs to God by such efforts.
Evidently we have a different Bible. That would explain a lot of things.
by whom we can cry, Abba, Father . . .
Daddy's a pretty accurate translation.
We don't fool around.
= = =
Except when distorting far out of whack
the truths of Scripture and the truths of history.
"Do you actually read your own prooftexts?"
Actually it is reading the whole of scripture not just one verse. Here is how Jesus looks at how the Pharisees use tradition to interpret scripture. (Mar 7:13) "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."
Now if you understand that you can see understand what He is saying in John 5:38-40, "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
Why would they not come to Him, because their tradition laden interpretation of the prophecies would not permit it.
It's now considered more accurate to think of 7 or so differnt IQ's . . .
mathematical; verbal; spatial; relational; . . . I forget the others at the moment.
Body sense--body movement as in sports & dance is another . . . musical and artistic are others, I think.
we now return you to your regularly scheduled theological bickering.)
= = =
Sigh.
No more so than a thousand priests in a thousand Roman congregations are seen by many as Jr Popes with perhaps more influence and control over their lives than the one in Rome.
Methinks the allegation is grossly disingenuous.
He says that it is the scripture that testify of Him, not tradition that the Pharisees were relying on for their works based righteousness. Jesus was telling them it was the scripture that revealed Him as the Way, but they would not believe Him because they were invested in their tradition interpreted scripture.
= = =
Well put.
Thanks.
I rather agree with you.
I have. A blessed book.
A tear jerker as well.
What's the Greek for "Gimme That Old Time Religion"?
BLESS YOU! BLESS YOU! BLESS YOU AND YOURS ABUNDANTLY IN PEACE, PROTECTION, PROVISION, HOPE, JOY, LOVE, GUIDANCE in this New Year.
Praise God for His faithful insights through your fingers.
Not disputing the the "Daddy", disputing the "Direct access". "through Jesus Christ our Lord" isn't just a formula, it's how prayers are made in fact, we believe..
= = =
Hogwash.
What's so complicated about
COME UNTO ME ALL YOU WHO LABOR AND ARE HEAVY LADEN.
COME UNTO ME LITTLE CHILDREN.
EXCEPT YOU COME AS A LITTLE CHILD.
A little child comes how?
"DADDY . . . . . !"
--IT HURTS, DADDY.
--I WANT, DADDY.
--I LOVE YOU DADDY.
Very eccleasiastically pontifically bureaucratticaly complicated, that.
it is the pharisees, who are described, with some irony, as those who think that everlasting life is found in the scripture., when Jesus is sitting right in front of them.
= = =
Perhaps reading your own post 25 times would be helpful.
This is NOT an aid to the perspective so often signed by your screen name.
It is an assertion that FACE TO FACE WITH THE LIVING WORD DIRECTLY--IS THE SOURCE OF SPIRITUAL TRUTH, GUIDANCE, PROGRESS.
INSTEAD
of narrow, rigid, pontifical clamorings about bureaucratic assertions about hair splittings about the text of Scripture from an ancient organizational perspective.
HELLO?
Not only do you have Muslims and Jews who claims the same God of Abraham, but among Christians you have various sects and cults that are complete strangers to each other.
If I believe you (and I have to, lest I judge and presume), then I must believe Mohammad's story as well.
It seems to me that either God is leading people in different directions or that different people, with diffreent agendas, are making God in their heads.
Is this what your church teaches you? Who is your bishop, Thomas Jefferson? Do the scissors come with safety tips or do they trust you not to injure yourself or others as you rip apart God's Word?
I am stunned! How do you believe anything? How are you able to even call yourself a Christian when you have such a low opinion of the writer of 3/4 of the New Testament much less a low opinion of the Lord who called Him?
The more I see you write Kosta, the less likely I think it is you are a Christian. And before you press abuse, I really think it bears examining. This is not a personal attack. How on earth do you believe anything with such a low regard for Scripture?? Surely Orthodoxy doesn't teach you to dismiss the Apostle Paul as a flim flam salesman of Gospel tracts.
But the poster implied that the sonship of God somehow negates the Apostolic Church.
= = =
I did? Hmmmmm . . . ponder, ponder . . .
In many senses, I suppose it is conceivable to pretend that's true--IF--one ASSUMES, INFERS, EXTRAPOLATES, PRETENDS
That the Roman bureaucracy = the Apostolic Church.
But I don't consider the Roman bureaucratic edifice the Apostolic church by a million miles. I doubt it was EVER very close to being so, even.
Now, there may be isolated congregations here and there even today which would qualify by virtue of Holy Spirit leading them in more or less a full I Cor 12-14 Apostolic form of congregational life.
Otherwise, I don't see how the Roman edifice comes remotely close. Not that a lot of Protestant ones do either, BTW.
= = = =
Yeah, there is the thing that ABBA, DADDY
means Christ died that we can go direct to DADDY.
And that NOT DOING SO
IS AN INSULT TO HIM; TO HIS BLOOD; TO HIS LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION.
To avoid doing so at the behest of and in the name of
ANY HUMAN ORGANIZATION AND LIST OF TRADITIONS OF MEN
IS AN INSULT AND AN INDICTMENT to that organization.
PING to the below:
But the poster implied that the sonship of God somehow negates the Apostolic Church.
= = =
I did? Hmmmmm . . . ponder, ponder . . .
In many senses, I suppose it is conceivable to pretend that's true--IF--one ASSUMES, INFERS, EXTRAPOLATES, PRETENDS
That the Roman bureaucracy = the Apostolic Church.
But I don't consider the Roman bureaucratic edifice the Apostolic church by a million miles. I doubt it was EVER very close to being so, even.
Now, there may be isolated congregations here and there even today which would qualify by virtue of Holy Spirit leading them in more or less a full I Cor 12-14 Apostolic form of congregational life.
Otherwise, I don't see how the Roman edifice comes remotely close. Not that a lot of Protestant ones do either, BTW.
= = = =
Yeah, there is the thing that ABBA, DADDY
means Christ died that we can go direct to DADDY.
And that NOT DOING SO
IS AN INSULT TO HIM; TO HIS BLOOD; TO HIS LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION.
To avoid doing so at the behest of and in the name of
ANY HUMAN ORGANIZATION AND LIST OF TRADITIONS OF MEN
IS AN INSULT AND AN INDICTMENT to that organization.
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.