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's like this. I know a Peruvian woman. I knew her when she was 19 or so. She got pregnant before being married. She believed the RCC's teaching about artificial birth control.
She didn't get that the whole thing is a unitary package, and that, y'see, there's this other teaching about intercourse when you're not married: Don't.
Kolo et al. are going in this direction: If you pull the phrase "Mother of God" out of the Church, who knows what will happen? Ditto with, "Jesus is God."
Fornication (which is to say 'illicit sexual intercourse') is no less a sin because you don't add the use of weird devices or hormones to it. I can see telling the judge, "Yeah, I shot him, but I didn't cuss at him." The correct answer is,"Good! Not cussing is good. But you're still a murderer."
More appositely, eschewing Artificial Birth Control is not a virtue when done in the context of fornication.
As Kolo says, or at least suggests, devotion to our Lady assumes the context of the Church, the Creeds, the whole Megillah.
If I say,"I personally would not mind firing the bullet that helped Osama to his final destination," you would probably need to know a little history to avoid thinking that I want to shoot rich Arabs.
So if Theotokos is confusing, if there actually IS somebody who is confused by it and not just somebody displaying unneeded compassion for the someday possibly confused, that is not sufficient to show it's a bad term, anyumpore than Bush's (ONE of the Bushes anyway ...) saying, "Bring it ON!". What looks like swagger in some contexts is perfectly good on others.
Let's roll.
(1)I have no problem with GOD being a consortium of Spirits(Father, Son, Holy Spirit)..
(2) or of God being of a modal nature.. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are MODES of one Spirit..
Note: because its hard for humans to grasp (oneness so intimate) the truth could be both concepts could be true at the same time.. You know, Infinite oneness.. only possible in the "Spiritual Dimension".. But here in this dimension three entities.. Kind of makes the "Bride of Christ" take on another dimension don't it.. and the term that a husband and wife should become "one flesh" metaphorically..
The Spiritual merging of spirits could be the norm in the future.. At least some spirits.. And human life on this planet qualifies you(your spirit) for mergeing OR NOT.. the ones NOT qualified being denizens of "hell".. True this is all speculation.. but then children(of God) are all about speculating about things..
---------------------------
When the Apostles asked who would be greatest in "heaven".. Jesus grabs a child and said "one like this is the greatest in heaven"..
This part of your sentence doesn't work. Can you restate it?
Is that a yes?
Some of us RCCs and EOs actually know our way around a Bible. Check the thread. We may reach conclusions different from yours, but that won't be changed by great chunks of Scriptural excerpts, IMHO.
"Monarchian"?
This is amazing to me. How in the world do you get that from scripture?
What about the baptism of Jesus: "...voice from heaven...this is my Beloved Son...Spirit descending like a dove."
[How would you define 'mysticism' in the context you use?]
Basically, add on doctrines and false scriptures that are not the Word of God but rather the traditions and fables of men who withstand the word of God.
That's a charge Protestants and Catholics through at each other and repeats your other claims; I don't undertand your addition of mysticism to it.
Is this the total of your understanding of the Christian mystics?
Yep. Sorry. Spelling matters, doesn't it?
"Just answer yes or no. How hard is that?"
PM, simplistic, and apparently deficient, Protestant understanding of the Trinity doesn't get to set the terms of a debate which ended more than 1000 years before anyone ever heard of Protestantism.
Now you may prefer more clarity than God has graced us to possess thusfar. But that isn't the way it is. So we are left where we find ourselves. If we had a level of gnosis such as you seem to desire or if, lacking that, God were circumscribed by human understanding and experience, one might well be able to pose the question as you have, but God isn't, is He? Our understanding, by God's grace, is that God is One. This is why, when you say in the Creed about the Son, and I assume you believe it, you pray:
"One in essence with the Father through Whom all things were made...."
"Are you some variety of Monarchist?"
You've lost me. I'm sorry.
See 7730.
Are you a sabellianist?
"Yep. Sorry. Spelling matters, doesn't it?"
Thanks, MD! Padre, I thought you were asking if, a) I believed in monarchial political systems (no, not generally) or b)if I believed in the Monarchy of The Father (yes).
As for the Monarchian heresy, no I, like all Orthodox Christians, am most definitely not a Monarchian.
"Are you a sabellianist?"
Nor am I a sabellianist. :)
How are the Father and the Son different? Or do you think they are the same?
No its a I don't know for sure.. Who could?..
Thats what it is.. The Father Son and Holy Spirit.. are one..
Just how one they are is debatable.. At one ment is wonderful..
On ANY level.. Even on THIS thread..
That's a charge Protestants and Catholics through at each other and repeats your other claims; I don't undertand your addition of mysticism to it.
Is this the total of your understanding of the Christian mystics?
Mysticism is a plague in the Catholic Church and has resulted in the lies that the catholicism spreads worldwide.When one would subvert the Word of God, they generally begin to add on and take away from biblical doctrine with their own doctrines and the devil has his way.
The ravages of the roman church are apparant and yet none search the scriptures and reject the false doctrines that cause the heresies of catholism to spread. And catholism is full of mstic doctrines.
mys·ti·cism
Pronunciation: 'mis-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power
"How are the Father and the Son different?"
Hypostaticly.
"Trinity is simple unity; it is not merged together - it is three in one. The One three-hypostatical God has the three hypostases perfectly distinct in Himself." +Gregory of Sinai
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.