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/
Indeed. Paul was like the other Jews who needed to relearn Scripture under the paradigm given to the Apostles on the Emmaus Road
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27.
They were all used to reading Scripture through tradition, not a Christocentric lens, which is the way Jesus told the apostles it should be read. Paul supposedly needed three years of study and prayer to "unlearn" the bad teaching/tradition. That's never a bad idea.....
True... Not all christians are christians, not all Jews are Jews, not all muslims are muslims, and there are even some non believers that believe..
As the bible specifys.. The goats MUST be separated from the sheep.. Above you just outline one of the processes that is doing just that..
And you do bleat in a funny way.. sheep are sheep and goats are goats..
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
~1 Peter 3:18
= = = =
[brazenly pinging particular loved ones specifically selected for this pontification]
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Ahhhhh . . . but dear Sister ...
As any Jewish religious leader of 2,000 years or 3,000 years ago could have told you . . .
THERE'S NO MONEY IN THAT.
There's no industrial strength edifice building in that.
There's no industrial strength mass manipulation in that.
There's no lavish political power mongering in that.
There's no fattened bureaucracy for all and sundry uses, in that.
There's no vain glory, in that.
There's no intimacy with endless encyclicals with that.
There's no kowtowing to cold, encrusted, fossilized traditions with that.
There's no dead, dry, hollow, useless rituals in behalf of hundreds of robbers of God's Glory in that.
There's no mansions of cards methodically constructed to hundreds of foci of adoration, veneration and closet worship in all that--the focus is GOD ALONE in that.
There's only Christ and Him Crucified, in that. There's only Glory to God, in that. There's only intimacy with God, in that.
You don't really believe your post #6296 do you?
It sounds to me, coming to it for the first time, like you've tossed Paul, his epistles, and his ministry, entirely out of the Church.
Please tell me I'm reading you wrong; that you just got carried away in a debate.
If this is orthodoxy, then "how the mighty have fallen."
= = =
Oh, dear Harley,
Glad I missed that one . . . boggles my mind that anyone would seriously believe that in this day and age.
I knew the teaching of history had fallen on hard, disinformation times . . . but don't they even teach a basic accurate summary anywhere any more? Sheesh.
I know the Shrillery, Soros globalist revisionists are very thorough etc. but they are kindergartners by comparison.
Indeed.. your link at post# 6485 makes it easy to sample..
And exactly WHY John Fox made the murderous attitudes a permanent history by writing it all down before the expected re-writing of history.. that was sure to come.. and DID come..
Bored with his work?
LOL
ROTFLOL
GUFFAWS TO THE MAX
HYSTERICAL ROLLING IN THE AISLES.
Though some of the . . . infractions migh well have a frustratingly boring sameness. I'm sure trying hard to avoid such.
Besides . . . the ideas are so . . . swiss cheesy as to afford abundant opportunities . . . . all on their own.
LOL . . .
. . . [rambles off muttering & guffawing in his white beard . . . ]
Hogwash.
Oh. I see. How wrong I was! But this well-reasoned, articulately expressed and persuasive argument immediately convinces me of the error of my thinking.
= = =
tee hee . . . to those who see, more shall be seen . . . grossly brazen paraphrase . . .
Clearly, my brief listing of Scriptural phrases were inadequate to the task for many . . .
EXCEPT YOU COME AS LITTLE CHILDREN . . .
to CHRIST
WHO CAME AND DIED FOR WHAT?
TO RESTORE FELLOWSHIP AND INTIMACY WITH WHOM?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
DING, DING, DING!
Give the man a gold star!
THE FATHER!
Wheeeeeee
Elementary my dear Watson.
Exceedingly and everlastingly elementary.
Except you come as little children . . . let me introduce you to SUPER DADDY children . . . DADDY-- . . . HERE'S . . . who have newly fallen in Love with you in me and I in you.
I'm saying the idea of the invisible Church is itself vaguely gnostic, not in its background but in its essence.
= = = =
Not so fast sherlock.
As I recall, that notion has been soundly refuted many moons and posts ago.
In my construction on reality, one can not make of gnosticism a rubber wet blanket tailor-made to be one size fits all PROTESTANTS only.
Nonsense.
Merium Webster
Main Entry: gnos·ti·cism
Pronunciation: 'näs-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis
If we are going to rubberize the notions of gnosticism--the following is more logical, to me . . .
The TOM [Traditions of Men] edifice asserts that wrestling with our current tangible realities is essentially evil--even with tangible SCRIPTURE . . . and that we are emancipated MUCH MORE SUCCESSFULLY by KNOWLEDGE of departed saints and reverence toward them, veneration toward them . . . even covert worship of them . . .
If gnosticism is the topic . . . seems to me the plethora of extra-Biblilcal saints and immaculate . . . constructions . . . builds an enormous edifice that quite consistently facilitates, encourages a mental manipulation of reality and religion quite along gnostic lines.
It's a paradox, really. On the one hand there's all this immersion in drearily obsessive/compulsive tangible fossilized rituals and traditions and doctrines of men. On the other hand, there's all this unBiblical supposedly heavenly minded stuff of focusing on supposedly heavenly things--any one of a list of hundreds upon hundreds of heavenly beings--as long as it distracts from God's Glory and Christ's intercessions for us . . . all the better.
Sigh.
That's all I'm saying: two very different ecclesiologies, related to two very different views of authority.
= = = =
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
THAT is indeed true.
The authority of The Word with the authority of Holy Spirit--paramount to all Biblical, thinking protestants.
Christ died to remove the [evidently by then 3 foot thick] veil, curtain between the Holy of Holies and the rest of us.
Romanism and all the embelishments, traditions of men, fossilized empty rituals etc. reinstalls that and more between man and God.
No thanks.
PING TO SOME BUDDIES.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
THAT is indeed true.
The authority of The Word with the authority of Holy Spirit--paramount to all Biblical, thinking protestants.
Christ died to remove the [evidently by then 3 foot thick] veil, curtain between the Holy of Holies and the rest of us.
Romanism and all the embelishments, traditions of men, fossilized empty rituals etc. reinstalls that and more between man and God.
No thanks.
About as well as the reverse routinely works.
APOSTATE
and a pleathora of other words . . .
But I don't mind all that really . . . grossly hypocritical slams drive me to distractions but . . . it goes with the territory.
And,
IF WE CAN'T DIVORCE OUR IDEAS, CONVICTIONS EVEN BELIEFS ENOUGH FROM OUR PERSONS to have some dialogue about same--even in a constructively raucus way--If we can't handle it without stacks of chips on our shoulders--without going ballistic . . . then probably we ought not dare to post on such threads.
Such threads are poor places to make up for REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER stuff with warm bear hugs and fluffy pillows.
I love it when Franklin Graham comes on Fox. He never misses an opportunity to get in a salvation plug. It's fun just seeing how he is going to work it in. And, he's always working on Alan Colmes to try to get Alan to come to Christ. Fun to watch.
= = =
I agree entirely.
Reminds me. I want to send Samaritan's Purse a donation.
Are we on the same planet?
The same Galactic Cluster?
Has Stargate SG-1 struck this thread?
Has Alice's rabbit hole sucked us in?
Thankfully, I missed out on that revisionism in my spiritual education.
God had a dozen ways to insure Christianity's success. He happened to have chosen Paul as PART of the picture.
The One capable of raising rocks up as children of Abraham was not limited to Paul's Spirit-Filled efforts . . .
But Paul's Spirit-Filled efforts were wonderously sufficient.
OK,
we now return you to a regularly scheduled rocks-at-St-Paul throwing session . . .
Yes. Jewish dietary laws were divinely inspired too. If that is true, then the NT's release from dietary restrictions sounds like God changed His mind.
Now it seems the Church considers the writings of the early church fathers, in some cases, to be inspired
Never.
It is interesting to note how you really seem to have a problem with St. Paul
I don't have a problem with +Paul, nor do I reject him. I find some of his theology interestingly different not only from what the Church holds (such as his doctrine of redemption), but how different it is from the accounts written by the Apostles who actually walked with Christ.
+Paul's vocabulary and theology change. He uses novelties, such as calling the faithful 'saints.' In the Philippians he says that Christ existed in the "form of God" (2:6), and in the Romans he says that not the hearers, but the doers of the Law will be justified (2:13).;
I do have a problem with people who proclaim +Paul to be inspired and therefore his writings to be the word of God, yet blatantly ignore those passages they find "unfitting" for their purposes. Such as the already mentioned restrictions +Paul puts on women speaking/preaching in church, or women being covered in church.
This kind of phenomena are observed only in Protestant churches in which, by and large, +Paul stands out as the defining theologian of the NT.
If his words are not his but God's then these restrictions are absolute not relative, or subject to fashion and social norms. Yet they are related as such.
Can bishops (priests) marry?
Priests yes; bishops no. The Church implemented many disciplines that were needed or were considered profitable for the well-being of the faithful; some were in response to changing times, some were in response to different cultures. But that is not theology.
For instance, the 40-day fast before Nativity and Resurrection was implemented by +John Chrysostom 1,600 years ago. The Church documents explain why it was deemed necessary and good for the faithful to follow those, but no one remotely familiar with the Church will confuse them with theology. I find strict rules applied to everyone patently wrong, particularly dietary ones. But the Church reminds us that "do no harm" applies to you as well as others.
I would like you to show me where the Orthodox Church changed its teachings (theology), not vestments and discipline, but if you want to lump them together, that's your prerogative I suppose.
I do appreciate your candor. It explains a lot.
If you believe God is so weak that he can not preserve his teachings for his children, why not place your faith in an institution, created by man, that will tell you what to believe and can make it up as you go (tradition).
I am not the one to toss out +Paul. I do believe that he did what he needed to do to save the Church from sure extinction in Israel. I do not see it as something negative, do you?
I do know that Christ never advocated changing the Law or tossing out the Law. Nor did He teach that restricted foods should not be restricted. Nor did He authorize his disciples to change what apparently God set (if we believe that the OT is inspired), for the dietary restrictions and the Law came from God. Did God change His mind through +Paul's writing?
If +Paul's writings are no different than the Gospels, why then do Protestants have women preachers, and why are women in church not covered? Why is it that I am the "apostate" for seeing +Paul in an unorthodox light, but beneficial, if not essential to the Church, and yet those who toss out those parts of Pauline writings which do not fit their agenda are not?
In fact, let the one who follows the Bible 100% make that accusion and question my faith!
Kosta, you are starting to remind me of the modernist professor, Fr. Paul Tarazi, at St. Vladimir's. His Scriptural commentaries seem to buy into German 'higher criticism', and he's given to shocking Biblical literalists by trotting out such this-worldly analyses in the midst of an otherwise conservative reading of Scripture.
Surely the fact you put a + in front of the Holy Apostle Paul's name indicates you regard him as being lead by the Holy Spirit in his actions. The indisputable fact that a sober this-wordly analysis of the religious situation c. 70 AD suggests that the Church would have at worst died out, or at best dwindled to an odd little sect like the Mandeans (Iraqi marsh Arabs who regard the Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John as the Messiah), had gentile converts been obliged to keep the entire Mosaic law, does not in any way negate the fact that the Holy Apostles, both the 12 and the 70, were vessels of the Holy Spirit, nor the Apostolic Council's preambulatory "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. . ."
I'm not sure, either for you or Fr. Paul, what the point of dwelling on the material circumstances that shaped the composition of the canon and its contents is--particularly when writing or speaking to an audience of non-Orthodox certain to take offense at the discussion.
I realize that as an Orthodox Christian, it is quite easy to simultaneously accept the this-worldly analyses of how Scripture got composed, and to believe that it is still the result of the activity of the Holy Spirit, but tweaking the attitute of protestants that the Bible is a sort of Christian Koran, literally dictated by God, by unedifying means, rather than showing the attitudes of the ancient Church toward the Scriptures, fun though it may be, is, well , unedifying.
Yep. Too true. It's a shame.
(You do know that the stuff I put up in black was a quote from the first post on this thread, right? I used a smaller font -- or at least tried to -- than that used by the original poster.)
REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER
LOL
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.