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/
You shouldn't bear false witness against Catholics in that manner.
Well, this guy certainly did not hold to what you believe.
John 8:28-29 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him."So, was Jesus lying when He said: "And He who sent Me is with Me"? Yes or No?
I decline to participate in this misdirection, by the by.
and this
"I'm more concerned with what I communicate."
Admirable sentiments, especially if the people you are speaking to think we worship three "gods". Lest that be true, the following is clear, with no confusion caused by translation. Teach this and there will be no problem with "Theotokos". I have emboldened the relevant parts for this discussion.
" Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων·
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.
Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός. Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.
Here's the best availabvle translation of the this snip in English:
"I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried.
And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets."
Teach them this properly and your issue of Theotokos will simply not arise, nor the apparent unfortunate idea that we worship three "gods" which is the only reason I can see to use your formulation rather than that which the Fathers decreed.
Which attitude should be allowed (for arguments sake) on Free Republic?..
And you should not make personal accusations against Freepers like that. He made a statement of his beliefs. I am sure he believes them to be true. Thus he is not bearing false witness, he is merely stating his opinion. An opinion that, I suspect, many if not most protestants would agree with, BTW. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be protestants.
"+Luke didn't know Chirst in person either."
Oops!
I believe xzins was simply asking you whether the Father and the Son are the same person. Would that be yes or no?
What?
Are you agreeing that you were bearing false witness?
I really don't understand your post.
[.. We come to the crux of the issue - the authority of the Church Fathers. You, and most of the other "Reformists." don't accept the Fathers' teaching authority. The (Roman) Catholics and the (Eastern) Orthodox do... ]
God is my Father as the bible teaches, prists are not and the Holy Scriptures are His Word and not the word of mystics and catholic heresies. The authority of the Chruch Fathers is written of in the Pauline epistles, which Catholics shun in their vain attempt to replace God's holy word with their own lies and heresies.
Search the scriptures my friend and see how they are so different from catholic heresies, remenisent of the pharisees of LORD Jesus time differing from the Word of God given to Moses in their Kornan, or 613 ways to try and keep the 10 commandments of God and His Christ and Holy Spirit.
Catholics need to search the scriptures and reform their mystical doctrines.
You did not answer my question:
Is the Father the Son?
That is an admirable creed.
However, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing clarity in communication.
Please respond to the following. Some appear afraid to do so:
"Pres Bush's policies led to a war with Iraq."
Is that as accurate as it could be? Or would you think it more clear to distinguish between Potus 41 and Potus 43?
(What?)
Search the scriptures, read and weep, accept the word of God and reject catholic hereisies, is you will.
Galations 1:
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
OK, I think you are getting a little carried away here, kindred. You are now accusing Catholics of lying. That is a viscious accusation. The fact of the matter is that they are being sincere. Sincerely wrong perhaps, but accusing them of lying is not profitable. When the "lying" accusation starts being bandied about, the Religion Moderator starts getting testy.
I would advise that you tone it down.
Carry on.
Yes, I agree that Luke didn't know Jesus in person.
However, I've often wondered when Paul's education under Gamaliel began in Jerusalem, and if Paul had been present during the time of Jesus' ministry on this earth.
My guess is that Paul would have mentioned it if he had, but then again, that is an argument from silence, so it's still slightly up in the air.
["Pres Bush's policies led to a war with Iraq."]
Well, I would say the Islamic terrorists policies who slammed the jetliners into the twin towers in New York city justified the war against ISLAMIC TERRORISTS WORLDWIDE, not just Iraq.
Answer the question.
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.