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/
When I say "doomed" , in this case I mean, "The way the smart money is betting." And I love to see the smart money be wrong, even if it's my money.
Even my "booster" of goods from stores (who was also proud that he had no children, interestingly) had SOME sense of morality. You are right: there is a spark there which the divine afflatus (LOVE that word!) could blow into a fire some day. And since my efforts at piety and generosity must seem laughably puerile to the Holy Ones, I'm in no position to misunderestimate what is indicated and what can be done with the gentleness of someone who eschews felony robbery for felony shop-lifting.
And yes, I LOVE the idea of the thieves act or, even, policy of gentleness being like the widow's mite. He gives all that he has.
At this point we need an eirenic Calvinist to help us see where he can agree and where he must disagree. Are there any eirenic Calvinists?
Thanks again.
uhhhhhh
whatever.
well i'm sure everyone is looking for your judgement as to their Christianity.
Is that what they mean when they talk about "work-outs righteousness"?
OMG! That is just PRICELESS. I want the advertizing contract!
Feel like the weight of the world is on your shoulders? Join St. Christopher's! We'll give you the strength to carry ANYONE across ANY river, yes ... even (dramatic pause -- organ arpeggio dissolving into harp arpeggio) HIM!Let's throw it in the stove and see if we get any white smoke, whaddya say? I think I can get what's his name, you know, the kid from Titanic to play the role of Jesus! And that babe, yeah, you know, the one with the ....., yeah! I think she'd be great as Mary Magdelene. I see whole ad series here. "Rotator cuff injury from all those stonings? At St. Christophers we can make you so strong you'll ALWAYS cast the first stone!"
Wow, I think I've got a new career here.! And it will only cost me my soul! Is that a deal or WHAT?
Now you got me laughing again - "the gentleness of someone who eschews felony robbery for felony shop-lifting" - and looking up afflatus.
But I fear that Calvinist irenics has no bridge over the Tiber.
thanks..
You're good! I pray you never go over to the Dark Side.
:)
LoL..
Even as a Southern Baptist I know that baptism is not required to be Christian. Of course, God commands it, and so all Christians should be baptized, but it is not salvific. Paul appears to recognize this, but as before, Paul is still very pro-baptism. Paul is correcting all those who believe that ritual is required to enter Heaven.
But one thing is clear: the purpose of the account in the so-called 'Council' of Jerusalem was to provide scriptural 'justification' initiated by +Paul to dispense with God's Laws given to Moses so as "not to burden" the Gentiles when Christ never explicitly or implicitly gave such permission or even mentioned such a possibility.
Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, and He gave His revelation to Paul personally. Paul speaks of the fulfillment that Christ promised.
"Club" is not just vague, it completely misses the point.
Christ said: "Like my Father sent me, I send you". St. Paul asks, "How can they preach unless they are sent?". Christ again: "Forgive them their sins". And then, "Gates of hell will not prevail against my Church". Also, "Preach the Gospel to all creation".
The Church is people on a mission, to break the gates of hell. Communal, clubby exclusivity is donatism, -- it is expressly un-Catholic. If you want secular comparison, try "army".
Sanctification is the process of growth toward godliness ... in the lives of those that believe (i.e. have faith). It is God's desire that His children grow in grace ... as it is our desire that our children grow in character and maturity.
Do you believe in "Once saved, always saved", Quester? I hadn't gotten that in the past from you. However, those who DO believe that, sanctification is really a pointless exercise. If Christ covers us up with His own righteousness and we are saved for heaven no matter what we do after that one-time faith declaration, then it is an utter waste of time and effort. Think about it. OUR OWN sanctification doesn't matter, because Christ will cover us with HIS anyways ...
I believe that ... as long as one wishes to be a child of God ... and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ ... then one's desire is in agreement with God's desire ... and that God will facilitate that desire.
Note that the knowledge of God ... and the desire to be with God ... comes with a lot of baggage (if you will).
By that, I mean that the soul which desires to be with God ... will also desire the things of God (i.e. love, peace, joy, contentment, etc.) ... and that God will grant that soul the power to realize such desire.
I do not, necessarily, believe that the soul which has, once, chosen God ... will never choose to reject God, ... but I maintain that this would be a defining life choice ... and that, such a decision would be irrevocable (like Satan and the fallen angels).
I believe that God might let you walk away (Hebrews 6:4-6) ... but that He will never let you just slip away (John 10:28-29), ... that He, Himself, will never cast you out (John 6:37), ... and that He will never leave us (Hebrews 13:5).
I agree that sanctification is VERY important on whether we will enter the Kingdom or not. My question was a rhetorical one to Blogger. In the world of OSAS, sanctification is a moot operation.
Santification does not become a moot point ... just because that it likely that the child of God ... will always be a child of God.
Even if you are irrevocably saved ... God still desires that you will grow. He doesn't want us to be spiritual babes forever, ... but He will not discard us for being spiritual babes, either.
He will patiently endure with us ... to ultimately grow us up.Matthew 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
First, Christ did speak to the Apostles only when He was teaching. Other sheep refers to other Semitic people, the Phoenicians, the Canaanites, and other Jewish tribes. The word "people" really means clans. The Greek word fulh in the NT refers to the descendants of Jacob, not Gentiles.
But the text doesn't say "people", it says "sheep". Obviously "sheep" does refer to the concept of people, but you can't use the Greek for a word that isn't there. :) Besides, if every reference to Christ's sheep only referred to Jews by birth, then we are all toast! :)
To your first point, Christ commanded the Apostles to go out and spread what He taught them. Those teachings were meant for us too, including the teaching to further spread the word. If they were not, then what's the point? If only the hierarchy are called to spread the word, then far, far fewer people will ever hear the word, and far fewer will ever be saved. That contradicts your position that God wants all to come to Him.
In the context [of Matt. 8:5-10], the centurion converted to Judaism, not some new religion called Christianity. Nothing stops the Gentiles from embracing Judaism. Christ however, never taught that Judaism needs to be modified, by breaking God's Laws, in order to accommodate the Gentiles.
We are talking about whether Christ spoke of saving Gentiles. The centurion was clearly a Gentile. Christ said he had great faith, leading us to believe he was saved. There it is. --- As we have been discussing, Christ came to fulfill the Law, not to break it, whether in accommodation or not. Paul reveals that fulfillment.
Dear Dr, E. You have to spell it right to get the message across. It's "STEENKIN" rings. (Smile)
Well, I'm a REAL Christian and she's Jesus' mother to me. Not queen of heaven or mother of God, but Jesus' mother, plain and simple.
You need to quit lumping all the protestants together like we're some kind of vermin to be squashed. You get pretty sickening at times. Blahhhhhh.
And good ole' Adam stood right by and allowed it to happen. (Smile)
Your arrogance is amazing. You astound me sometimes. You're gonna hate us when we get to heaven and prove you to be wrong in some of your assumptions of us.
Pride goeth before a fall. Hope you have your padding on.
I thought so. That moment of faith 20 years ago is not the only part we play in salvation - and thus, it appears you do not believe in "OSAS". Your first sentence tells me that you believe faith is an ongoing decision, one we make daily.
I believe that God might let you walk away (Hebrews 6:4-6) ... but that He will never let you just slip away (John 10:28-29), ... that He, Himself, will never cast you out (John 6:37), ... and that He will never leave us (Hebrews 13:5).
As long as we do not abandon Him first, we can rely and trust that God will not pull the rug out from us. We believe God is righteous and will honor His promise to reward those who obey Him and love Him. However, to those who do not, even those who at one time DID make a proclamation of faith, there will be a condemnation awaiting them:
"For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries" Heb 10:26-27
"A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us." 2 Tim 2:11-12
Also, apparently, those who commit certain sins and not repent of them (even those who had once proclaimed their faith in Christ) will not inherit the Kingdom of God:
"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God" 1 Cor 6:9-10
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God" Gal 5:19-21
Even if you are irrevocably saved ... God still desires that you will grow. He doesn't want us to be spiritual babes forever, ... but He will not discard us for being spiritual babes, either.
What is the purpose of our growth in this scenario? If one sees salvation as a strictly legal issue, then does it matter, legally speaking, if one has obeyed God a bit more? Under such a scenario, we are nothing but dirty rags anyway. Apparently, God is ready to pounce on what we have done wrong - and they would outway any good we might do during our sanctification. When we consider salvation as only a legal issue, sanctification is meaningless, because salvation is ALREADY a done deal.
This is not biblical - because salvation is NOT a done deal in Sacred Scriptures. Salvation is seen as a past, present and future event. Thus, when one looks at only the past, denying the present and future aspect exists, one runs into problems with Scriptures.
Regards
IMHO and from what I've heard before, Father in this case means the same as Master and we're to call no man MASTER because God alone is Master. I don't know what the original language is but perhaps someone smarter than I will let us know.
And I'm sure THAT will get all of you into heaven while the rest of us burn in hell because we don't wear scarves.
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.