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/
For more on private revelation, see Private Revelation
This is an excellent article on predestination: On Predestination.
No it doesn't. What error did the corrupt popes teach?
Not interested in the article. Where is the Scripture that supports this view?
Matthew 25, primarily. The elect are elect form the foundation of the world, but are judged by their works.
The article brings in quite a bit of scripture, of course. I would not be able to top it.
I have always wondered why the second part of Matthew 25 (the sheep and the goats) is deemed to be a parable, because it does not fit the mold of any of the other parables.
The chapter you speak of supports no such concept
.
I don't think it is a parable. It is a very clear and direct teaching.
Nothing says scholarship like 'whut'.
'Whut up dog'.
Of course it does. Do you disagree that it teaches that the elect are from the foundation of the world? Or that they are judged by their works of charity? Or what do you think is missing in it, in support of the doctrine of predestination and free will?
However, if you ask Protestants about it, they always want to dismiss it as a parable, because it completely invalidates their "sola fide" invention.
Whatever context is conveintent when excuses whatever prots happen to like to do regardless of what scripture says. Like book worship, denying the Holy Spirit, ignoring commandments that folks be baptised.
Face it protestants have the lego version of Christianity where they get to build whatever they want regardless of whether it goes with the instructions; it may look neat but it ain't what Christ came to deliver.
By the way, like most Catholics, I used to think that the Protestants generally have a good grasp on the scripture, till I discovered this cavalier attitude to all but isolated prooftexts. In one of his sermons Luther admitted to the parables being a complete mystery that we should not attempt to understand. Not surprisingly, it was the parable of the rich man asking how to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, and Christ answering, essentially, "by your works of love and dedication".
I have noticed a lot in these forums recently that certain challenges to Protestants go unanswered, my guess is that they lack a "pre-packaged" response to it.
I was asking last week why it is that God would devise a plan for Salvation that involves reading the Bible when the that would be nearly impossible for nearly everyone for almost fifteen hundred years after his death when the printing press was invented. After a few of us remarked about their avoidance of the question, they all collectively seemed to agree that God had just planned it that way.
Think of all the "illegitimate" children most of those travesties produce. Astounding.
A legal annulment on the grounds of deceit is one thing. But to say a 20-year, church-sanctified marriage with children never happened is cruel lunacy.
It was no rebellion. Moses was giving, "the word of the Lord". Dueteronomy says it came from God, it did not. When Jesus speaks in the Gospels, he's speaking to the reader. He gave an example of the bread of the scribes and pharisees, that exists in scripture.
Yet you do not understand that God foresees from the beginning all that people do within time, that this divine foreknowledge is stable, but the works of humans within time are free. – Orthodox View
"Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. – Former Catholic View, Augustine on Predestination
I'm pretty sure that this is essentially what the Church said to Henry VII. His response was to join up with the Protestants, destroy many of the monastaries and nunneries in England and have his wife beheaded,
From a Protestant perspective, can you cite one single thing that Henry VIII got "right"? Because I am unaware of anything he did that was.
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.