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/
Ah, well, Mary,
Have SOME compassion.
Look who they had goading them this morning! Though that wasn't per se my goal! LOL.
AMEN, and thanks for the kind words. I greatly enjoy reading your posts, and have read all of them on this thread. Keep up the great work!
It's human nature that when arrows are flying we focus most on the ones headed our way..
Am humbled by your gracious and encouraging words.
Thanks tons. I greatly value your inputs--each and every one. Am always blessed by them.
LUB,
True, true.
You mean all those things sticking in my rear are not tail feathers???
So people do not HAVE to look at the array and call me a turkey? . . . or a peacock?
In general, I think I agree with the view that works are the means through which merit is generated. So, if one goes through life participating in rituals and doing good deeds because that is central to his understanding of salvation/theosis, then he follows what I call a "works-based" salvation model. Reformers, OTOH, believe that salvation is had not by the "works" of men, but by the work of Christ already done.
LOL. So it is. I was in a hurry. What's a "stickin' ring?" Maybe how wedding rings fit during pregnancy. 8~)
The magic words are "already done".
I feel like a vaudeville gag which is is told so often that soon the laughter is not because it's funny but only because it's familiar.
The works are a gift. The merit is a gift. It is all gift.
The stock prayer at the end of the Rosary is in versicle/response form, thus:
V: Pray for us, Oh Holy Mother of God,
R: That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Would somebody please notice the mystery of this simple exchange? (I'm not asking that anyone agree, just that they notice.)
In the normal conversation about "just deserts" and all that, the notion is that because of my -- famed in legend and song -- innate abilities and virtues AND my marvelous accomplishments, I "merit" or "deserve" or "am worthy" of certain rewards.
Anyone who has (a) lived more than 10 minutes as an adult and (b) read chapters 6-8 of Romans knows that this is on its face ridiculous, when the thing in question is the favor of God. So we ask, not that the worthiness we have be acknowledged, but that we be made worthy -- that some change be wrought so that the worthiness of which we are incapable be made in us.
Let me rephrase: Mary, please ask God to tear down this termite ridden and vermin infested hovel that I currently am, and to erect in its place a dwelling in which He would be pleased to dwell.
Now the Reformers say we are proud. If a beggar girl, afflicted with an STD AND a lousy complexion, were taken out of the gutter, washed, cleaned, bathed, healed, vaccinated, given all the facials it took, exercised, toned, sculpted, and incomprehensibly rejuvenated, and then the One who did all that to her and for her said, "You are so beautiful; I love you; will you marry me, and live for ever with Me in bliss?" would you say she was proud to rejoice in the beauty and health He had given her and loved in her? Would you rather He left her lousy, sick, stinking, and rotting and loved her just the same?
Yes, the once for all sacrifice of Christ is the well-spring of worthiness. And it is the grace of God that leads us there and holds our lips to the water, and teaches us to suck, and our thirst is quenched.
I say this, and then am said to think that my works lead me to deserve God's favor; I am told I think my works lead to the quenching of my thirst. Can any one wonder why I think this is madness?
Wonders never cease, and the preference to see what one thinks is there before seeing what is in fact there is very strong, sometimes too strong for me to confront.
I can't wear rings much anymore because of the swelling in my hands at times. I don't even know where my wedding ring is (my bad) anymore. So I can identify with stickin' ring (LOL). Love, Mxxx
I thought it was Stankin.
Maybe she had a headcold.
You showed me NO salvific works. You showed me at best works that will be rewarded. For by Grace you are saved, NOT OF YOURSELVES. IT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT ABOUT US!!!!!
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.
Who considers salvation to be a strictly legal issue ?
Salvation is about hearing and believing the truth, ... about being reunited with our spiritual Father, ... about rediscovering our real selves, ... about becoming part of a loving family, ... about learning to work with your brothers and sisters to accomplish some good in the world.
And our loving Father desires that we grow up to just like Him, as all good fathers do.
While we grow, He has promised not to cast us away.
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.
Scripturally, ... those who believe ...... have become the children of GodOne may be able to consciously decide to walk away from such as this salvation, ... but it is certain that we don't work to maintain our standing with God. Our works proceed as the result of our relationship with God ... which is based upon our faith.
... have become new creations in Christ
... have been sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of salvation
... are indwellt by the Holy Spirit
... dwell in the spiritual safety and security of the Fahter's own hand
Our security in Christ is as strong as ... His promise ... and our faith.Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Well, in my part of the country, it's steenkin. (LOL)
Lots of compassion. Zero tolerance.
thanks for your reply.
Would it be accurate to say that the difference in your view is not the works but what one believes about salvation in regards to them?
And further that nothing one does before salvation can affect his/her salvation; And, hypothetically, nothing one does afterward can affect his/her salvation.
Would that be an accurate description of Reformed theology?
No, both St. Paul and St. James are very clear that it is matter of salvation and condemnation, and not any secondary rewards.
6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.(Romans 2)
by works a man is justified; and not by faith only
(James 2:24)
Matthew 25 describes how the saved and the condemned are separated by their works. It does not describe a separation of two classes of the saved by works, The "sheep" will "possess the kingdom" and the goats will "depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil".
....OOOOOOOOO....
Scripture hurts, eh?
She didn't forget it. She's Orthodox, and doesn't proclaim heresies. Take that one up with the minority of Latins who, blessedly, have not persuaded any Pope of Rome to give the Theotokos that title, thereby adding another obstacle to the reunion of the Church.
INDEED . . .
Though at some point on that issue . . .
CHRIST DIED . . . for us.
Yes, per the Father's request and for The Father's Glory.
But not for a rat, pigeon, radish or rock . . . for us . . . made in HIS Image.
His Blood indicated our worth in some sense . . . Priceless--to Him, to The Father.
A mystery and paradox, it seems to me.
There's a truth in: IT'S NOT ABOUT US.
And
There's a truth in: CHRIST'S BLOOD indicated we were beyond price.
imho, of course.
Bride without bridegroom,
Mystic heifer,
(And as a challenge to the protestants so well versed in the Scriptures, why is the second
1. not insulting?
2. an apt title?
hint: look in the Old Testament.)
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.