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/
It doesn't work in reverse. There is none nastier than a Catholic who has become a schismatic. Their hatred of the Church is visceral.
Did you really think of yourself a schismatic? I have no trouble believing prots think some of our Doctrines odd. I do think it surprising they would think themselves schismatic. I was learnt protestants were deeply in error and I was learnt little positive about them. Vatican Two really re-oriented my thinking. How could they be charged with the sin of schism if they had been raised as they were?
In any event, I loved reading your witness, especially the part about the Early Church Fathers. I literally do not understand how one can read them and not see the nascent Catholic Church Scripture identifies.
BTW, my Pastor is a convert from So. Baptism. He read his way into the Church while at UChicago. It was the Early Church Fathers for him also. He is absolutely brilliant. And he knows the Bible inside, out etc
So, how's about responding to St Augustine. You asked for a citation and I provided it
*Peter and the Apostles (Pope and Bishops) are all given the authority to bind and loose. However, only Peter is given the Keys.
Reading Isaias 22 helps others to understand what we Teach about The Keys. I'll post a link for you.
I agree. Actual, as a Baptist, there are several minor things with Luther and Calvin I would disagree with. I think these were carry overs from their Catholic days (like the perpetual virginity of Mary). Whether they actually believed it, I'm not sure but I don't think it was high on the priority list and, given the times and men, I don't think they wished to discuss it.
Are you sayijng you think I am not infallible?
And always and everywhere in the Catholic Chuch, Jesus and the Triune God is the object of our Adoration and Worship.
" If the Child Jesus were born in the "normal" way, why would Isaiah think that qualified as a miracle possible only to God? (See Isaiah 7:14)
See my posts# 676 & 687 above."
Because The Theotokos never knew man. Are you saying He just sort of appeared in that cave in Bethlehem?
"Maybe you missed the preceding discussions. Some of them hinted as a carnal (natural) conception with the divine "seed," as much as the movie suggests natural birth. Christ was neither "conceived" nor born the "natural way." Both are miracles and paradoxes."
I was in court all day yesterday and so did indeed miss much of the discussion. I see what you were talking about and agree.
"Are you sayijng you think I am not infallible?"
I would never say such a thing! Have you hurled any anathemas lately? :)
"St. Gregory Nyssa teaches Mary gave birth without pain. See Catena Aurea Luke, Chapter 1"
I know, I know! I was thinking someone was implying that Christ sort of just appeared in the cave at Bethlehem.
Ah, now we have sola Popes, sola Ecumenical Councils, and sola scriptura. Do I hear sola crackers?
So, your contention is that Luther and Calvin gave sermons on things they didn't actually believe? What other things did they speak about that they didn't actually believe? Isn't preaching a sermon on a topic a priority? I would think that if it was such a low priority, they would have remained silent on the matter. What about Wesley? He was preaching more than two centuries after Luther and Calvin?
Then again, if this is a "minor" thing that you disagree with the Reformers on, then why is it such a major issue to you today?
Jesus came to us through HIMSELF. He used Mary has HIS vessel.
As to going through Mary to find Jesus, that probably stems from the unbiblical Catholic teaching that she is our Mediator.
The Bible says that there is ONE mediator between God and men and that is Jesus.
Protestants do admire Mary. She was a holy innocent young lady when the Holy Spirit came upon her. She loved the Lord, and she is definately a good role model for Catholic and Protestant alike. However, NOWHERE in Scripture are we ever told to pray to her, to hold her up as anything other than a woman blessed by God. She sinned (she called God her Savior. If she hadn't sinned, she wouldn't need a Savior). She was rebuked by the Savior at times. And, ultimately, she turned to her own Son and faded into the background - in SCRIPTURE.
The Catholic Church has developed a doctrine of Mary - OFTEN as a result of a "vision" of Mary.
Herein is the difference between Catholics and Protestants.
The BIBLE is our ultimate authority for doctrine for Protestants. For Catholics it is the Bible PLUS something else - all held up with equal validity.
We can not, as Protestants, embrace the Catholic teaching concerning Mary. Some of it is purely unbiblical (such as the praying to Mary, the story surrounding her birth, her assumption into heaven etc.,). But we do love and admire her.
If the Movie shows her as something other than a humble young woman, it is my personal opinion that such a view is probably not the way it was. The God of Eternity reached out and used her to be His vehicle for becoming a man. If someone can't admire her for that fact alone something is wrong with them.
I don't see "he" in that same verse as Christ. The Septuagint doesn't even say "he" but "you." And it says "watch" (as in "guard"), not bruise or crush.
You are correct (re:#532), there was no "seed" (i.e. sperma), which is why I am wondering why Luke uses the same term for conception as he does for Elizabeth (who did conceive carnally), while John disctintly uses the word "beget."
My point was that the Incarnation was not a "natural" pregnancy, nor can it be thought as "natural" conception lest it be distorted into one, which would lead to a distorted and inconsistent conclusion that Mary gave birth "naturally" (vaginally).
The earliest documents showing that the Church believed in Virginal Birth (i.e. the birth canal was closed, the hymen was preserved) dates to St. Justin Martyr (mid 2nd century). That doesn't mean that it is the earliest.
You now agree that Jesus did not pass through the birth canal?
Scripturally unsupportable.
We've now got some on this thread saying that Jesus was not of Mary's seed. We have some saying that Jesus did not pass through the birth canal. We know that Jesus was not of Joseph's seed.
The question then becomes this: "In what way can we begin remotely to derive the idea that Jesus was fully human?"
This sounds like a gnostic preservation of Jesus "actually not" being human. Anyone who teaches this is unaware of gnostic influences that have entered their theology.
How is this not what John warns us of, "those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh?"
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.