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/
The passage says, "All scripture is INSPIRED by God." Literally, that means "God breathed."
God so comes upon, so affects the mind of the writer that they write what God wants while preserving their own identity.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
All scripture is GOD-BREATHED. That's what the Bible says.
he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. (John 20:22)
Who said what was and was not Scripture? Who decided those very words would be in the Bible?
He didn't. People have received salvation through Christ alone throughout the ages. God alone gives salvation. He draws those to Himself those who will be saved.
Wagglebee, I tried from the beginning to get this thread designated a Catholic Caucus, but was not supported in that. Therefore, it is an open thread. In general, I think the laws of decorum have been followed. However, there have been many disagreements with theology or with ideas, but I don't think individuals have been attacked....not in the posts that I've seen, anyway. I admit that I do not read all posts.
My efforts to have this classified a Catholic Caucus thread were to: Pyro7480, sitetest, religion moderator
They can be seen at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1748533/posts?page=93#93
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1748533/posts?page=290#290
So far a others carrying on on Protestant threads. I have seen it happen. I have also seen threads whose titles were demeaning of Protestants or designed to proselytize protestants.
No big deal.
Thank you for a copy and paste from your catechism. I've already studied it though to see what Catholics believe, and I am very careful when I choose my words. I do not say you "worship" Mary as God. But she is called Co-Redemtrix and Co-Mediatrix. This concept is unbiblical (as are many things). Sorry if you don't like what I am saying. I am trying to follow the rules of the thread and be respectful. But, in my estimation, having studied the subject at length, Catholicism's doctrine concerning Mary is unbiblical and I reject it.
Maybe frustration just got the better of me. I don't see why this needs to be a caucus thread. The article was how someone thinks that a movie is inconsistent with Catholic teachings and unsuitable for children. I don't have any idea if this is true or not, I haven't seen the movie.
However, if the movie is inconsistent with Catholic teachings, that is a fact. Whether Catholic teachings are correct or not really doesn't need to be a function of the thread. But sometimes it seems that every Catholic thread almost becomes a debate about Mary (there are two other current threads about discovering St. Paul's tomb and somehow they are now a debate about Mary). It often seems that some Protestants are far more obsessed with what Catholics believe than they are concerned with their own relationship with the Lord.
It seemed to me you were confused as to Mary's role as Mediatrix. I guess you were not.
In any event, you must beleive that, at least when she wrote and compiled the Bible, Holy Mother Church was infallible.
Now, the difficulty arises in advancing an explanation as to how that once infallible Church failed that doesn't render nugatory the promises of Jesus about His Church He established.
That was why I thought it should be a caucus thread. Pyro asked for protestants to tone down their objections, and that, too, was a reason I thought it should be a caucus thread.
You might have noticed by the results....I'm not in charge. :>)
The Bereans only had the Old Testament available to them as Scripture.`
* I know that because it is not in Scripture you are :)
When I refer, though I didn't in my post to you of this mysterious and as I see it very unhealthy and misogynistic need to pristinate Mary, I'm referring to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that's irrelevant as far as your post to me is concerned, but I thought I'd take this opportunity to elaborate on that in this post to you.
So let me get on to and with the Calvin/Luther part of it. Luther may have affirmed her perpetual virginity and Calvin too, and IIRC what Calvin really said when explaining himself on the issue was that one way or another it's idle speculation, and that it serves no purpose, and I really couldn't care less whether she had conjugal relations or not. If she did it takes nothing away from her, but instead makes her a wife who loved her husband.
The crux of the matter is that (IIRC) neither Calvin nor Luther said a person's salvation was contingent, even marginally so, on holding that belief.
I don't expect you to understand, but I thank God for the Reformation. I thank God for the Reformers because they gave me a refuge from a Rome that I consider to have very harmful propensities. That is the Rome I know, not on paper, but in fact and deed. They are who they introduced themselves to me as, and all the darkness that carries with it, and they always will be. They have only themselves to blame.
I would say may God have mercy on them, but I'll worry about God having mercy on me for my own sins first.
And you don't know from scripture whether Jesus had brothers and sisters since from your point of view, if the names are not linked to a parent, they could be siblings, relatives, friends or members of the common community.
That's because Origen was a brilliant theologian. That doesn't mean he was right. His embrace of Gnosticism proves that satan can corrupt even the best minds.
Which is another reason why we should always defer back to Church, lest our own self-righteousness lead us into the place designed for satan and his angels, unless, of course, you think that the Church is enslaved by satan since the beginning.
The point I was making was as early as 200AD the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity was not accepted fact
There has never been a complete consensus by all the Father and doctors of the Church on all issues. It took them some 300 years to agree on the Christian Canon. The only consensus that ever existed was in proclamations of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Individual fathers wrote and said all sorts of things. Origen turned on the pope; so did St. Cyprian at one point, although he staunchly defended papacy. Some of St. Augustine's writings are vehemently rejected by the Eastern Orthodox ("Original Sin," "double predestination," "total depravity," the "filioque," etc). The Greeks and the Latins did not agree on the meaning and extent of the Petrine Ministry (and still don't). St. Gregory of Nyssa believed that eventually even those sent to hell would be saved.
These have been, as Kolokotronis correctly observed, "theologoumenna" (religious opinions) of individuals learned members of the Church. They were not dogmas (essential religious belief held by the Church). Everyone is allowed to make a hypothesis, but that is not automatically accepted as truth. Hypotheses cannot go against dogma. Other than that, they can be pretty wild, as long as the author does not challenge the established truth (i.e. such as Dual Nature of Christ, Holy Trinity, Resurrection, Scripture — the Word of God, etc.)
"I've always wanted to know why the Protestants think the warning in 2Peter 3:15-16 doesn't apply to them."
Where do you find evidence of this?
Isaiah foretold a THREEFOLD sign to King Achaz:
1) That a virgin would conceive a Child.
2) That a virgin would bring forth a Child.
3) That the Child would be "God with us."
The miracle of the Theotokos conceiving without knowing man covers only the first part of the sign.
The miraculous nature of the Child's delivery covers the second.
Catholic teaching is that the Child left Mary's womb to appear in her arms miraculously, to fulfill the second part of Isaiah's prophecy, confirmed by Matthew.
Dr. E., I just thought of something that I thought I'd run by you since you're a Mom and I'm not. It's my understanding that a baby sort of helps his mom when he's being born in that he struggles through the birth canal too, until he emerges. Is that accurate? It's a beautiful image as I envision Our Lord making his way into this world the way all humans do.
First, the Holy Mother Church's history is a bit questionable (such as Peter's role as the first Pope). During the time that Scripture was written, the church was based not in Rome but in Jerusalem as is evident by the Council at Jerusalem. James was apparently lead there and Peter at some point was rebuked by Paul.
Scripture was penned under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. but NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that the Church itself is infallible. Paul, in fact, commends the Bereans for daring to question him.
So, as they wrote Scripture under the Holy Spirit's guidance, yes, they were writing infallibly. As a church body making decisions and sharing (sometimes contradictory) decisions, they were not.
The Rock that Jesus was to build His church upon was not Peter. Rather, it was Peter's confession or the truth that Jesus Christ is the Lord, the Messiah, God in the flesh.
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.