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/
No hate. That's your imagination. I was merely stating what Protestants told me: God paid for all their sins, past, present and future, so it doesn't matter if they sin, does it? They are the already "saved." Whatever, indeed.
I stand corrected. Still work we must.
It is something we do with Him, personally and intimately, because by ourselves, we can do nothing:
Amazing that those words are like acid thrown in the face to some..
Simply amazing that those words are not obvious to ALL..
LOL!!!! You mean to tell me there are some real Christians who don't sin?
LOL It well could be.
I think the error of our RC FRiends is rooted in their incorrectly defining down justification into a kind of sanctification; as if their very salvation depends on their continual, progressive sanctification and not upon the finished work of Christ upon the cross.
Justification is the cause of our salvation; sanctification is the effect.
A better way to see our salvation is to say "work we will." (Phil. 2:13)
Our redemption by Christ's sacrifice was completed on the cross and proven by His resurrection.
If we have been graced by God with faith in His son we will believe and be saved and act accordingly, out of gratitude and obedience and reverence.
Because it is the will of God.
Yes, Christians have a will. Unless God steps in that will, will run to temptation. "Lead us not into temptation." Isn't that the prayer all Christians should pray? We don't make a "decision" as to whether we want to think evil thoughts.
that's rather harsh given the circumstances
Matter of opinion. Others didn't survive. I guess Josephus was a survivor.
there's no reason to believe that his surrender to the Romans would affect his testimony about the Jewish canon, a completely unrelated issue
Josephus was following his own agenda. He did and wrote what was good for him. The unfortunate part is that there is almost nothing to go by to corroborate his writings from independent sources.
Even the one piece that exists about Christ is rendered in four versions.
Anyway, the fact that the Hebrew was transmitted correctly and faithfully has actually been confirmed by the DSS.
Apprently not if "There are a handful of places where the LXX may be the more accurate than the Masoretic" as you point out. Who is to say that the text used to translate LXX was not more accurate than the Hebrew/DSS version? If anything DSS revitalized the validity of LXX, not the other way around.
But why would you single out Sha'ul as a "special case"
+Paul preached his own gospel. I will leave it at that.
It seems to me that we should take special note that the Apostle to the Gentiles didn't use the LXX nearly half the time!
It seems to me that the Gentiles should have been preached the same Scripture preached by Christ in the Gospels, which is LXX.
Amen to that.. The observer problem is indeed a test to the spirit of man..
Schere genius this "test"...
Surely must be for some future purpose(this test)..
Maybe has to do with the parable of the talents(a test)..
What you are trying to say, without succeeding, is that most of the Bible is allegorical and refer to the metaphysical. Some of it certainly is. Most is not. There is nothing allegiorical or metaphysical in the passages in question:
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?(James 2)
54 ... Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
(John 6)
Then why do you repeat Luther's spin on the very clear gospel?
And I have been calling that very thing "work", and so does St. Paul who wrote the passage.
Didn't I just say that?..
Sorry, I'm not buying.
The will of God is that we use our own will. Then, and only then He will work in us. "By works a man is justified; and not by faith only".
You are spinning the word "lust". Predisposition -- sexuality -- is not yet lust. Lust is a decision. Thus understood, it is indeed sin (except maritally).
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.