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/
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
For those with ears to hear:
Jesus' hour is not the start of miracles -- it is his crucifixtion and victory over death, glorifying the Father.
Woah! I forget where you were on the whole Trinity thing. Or on the whole Council of Ephesus thing.
So, in a very technical respect, it is simply NOT TRUE that Mary had anything to do with us seeing THE FACE OF ALMIGHTY GOD.
Once again the title Theotokos is shown to be about Christology and even Trinitarian theology. This is fascinating. Leaving aside ALL the other stuff, I would respond, well what WAS that thing she gave birth to if not the perfect revelation of God?
Far out. NO need for reply. Just far out.
Which saint did I call corpse?
Wanna know what the assigned readings were for last Sunday? HEre's a hint. The OT reading began, "In the year that King Uzziah died...."
Not my construction on Biblical reality.
And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
By the way, avoid another Protestant obfuscation: there is no "home" in verse 27. It is not an economic arrangement.
= = =
Now ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, dogs and cats . . . what are all the remotely plausible meanings of:
". . . from that moment, [John] took her to his own" ???
And, then, what is the MOST plausible meaning???
In context, of course . . .
Clearly, for those with a certain perspective to see . . . Christ signaled rather overtly that His former son/mother relationship with her was at an end. John would take care of her as was honorable and loving and fitting. And from then on, His ministry and role in Creation would be different and quite beyond Mary having a significant, active part--meddlesome or otherwise.
And, that's about it from the Scriptural stand point from then on.
Most of my counseling was at agencies where there was a sliding scale and probably most of my clients paid nothing or near nothing. Thankfully, it was mostly a part time effort with teaching full time. I'd have been hungary otherwise! LOL.
Folks who had been to multiple counselors tended to claim that they got further with me in 3 months than others in 12 months or longer. Perhaps some would consider that a waste. Those folks didn't.
Who said anything about perfect record!
But I was no slouch.
Who said anything about having my fantasies!
Have your own. Isn't that part of the objective of fantasies--they're your own!
Mt 13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Now, MD your mind is quite grand enough to wrap itself around the fact that
All the statements about Christ being the image of the FATHER
AND
viewing the face of THE FATHER is an extremely rare thing
ARE
BOTH VERY, VERY, VERY TRUE.
Playing word games with it doesn't change the facts--Scripturally or experientially.
Viewing the FACE OF ALMIGHTY FATHER GOD IS EXTREMELY RARELY ALLOWED. That's just a fact. It's a pretty well known fact in Scripture and a fairly well known fact experientially.
Even folks who God to Heaven and return to tell about it very rarely see the face of Father God and never can describe it when they do. Most just see an almost blinding light.
Yet they may chat eye to eye with Jesus extensively.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Pretending there is NO difference is not true to Scripture nor experience.
Love it.
For one thing you forget that the adoption was symmetrical. Not only John takes her with his own, but she adopts him.
Second, "with his own" together with "disciple Jesus loved" indicates the body of disciples.
Third, there is nothing there to indicate that His relationship with His mother was at an end. He was going to be with a thief in Paradise, but not His mother?
I was referring to Anagignoskomena, the books found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible, which the Potestants either reject or delegate to the section called "Apocrypha."
The term Deuterocanonical is Latin and corresponds to the books of the anagignoskomena. These were the books the Apostles used [because they used Septuagint as Scripture], and which the Church used as well. The eastern Church certainly did without interruption.
They are the same books that were rejected by the rabbis at Jamnia (100 AD) as "Christian." They were rejected the second time by Luther, 1,400 years later.
That's an inference. It's not clearly in the language as far as I can tell. It's a tolerable, reasonable INFERENCE, ASSUMPTION, EXTRAPOLATION--BUT AN ARBITRARY ONE. The text does not require it.
Second, "with his own" together with "disciple Jesus loved" indicates the body of disciples.
WOW. That's a stretch. More wild, arbitrary, inference, assumption, extrapolation--even brazenly reading something into the text that's not there.
Third, there is nothing there to indicate that His relationship with His mother was at an end. He was going to be with a thief in Paradise, but not His mother?
Ahhhhh . . . but great discomfort at someone else's inferences, assumptions and extrapolations. Clearly it's not a two way street! LOL.
I did NOT say His relationship with His mother was totally ended period. Please avoid putting words in my fingers.
I said that the special Son/Mother relationship [function] was ended. That's a very plausible inference. I consider it the MOST plausible inference plainly there in the text.
Somewhat like an elder brother going off to a distant land or planet . . . trusting his mother to his next younger brother--knowing the oldest son will never return and their mother/son relationship and function is now at an end.
Being with Mary and the thief in eternity is a different issue. The handoff to John of Mary was for the rest of this life. Of course Christ is with all believers in eternity. No biggy except for the awesomeness of eternal life and life eternally WITH HIM.
Thanks very much, GC. Great words with great scripture.
Seriously, don't tell me what I know. I never heard of anyone seeing the Father. Not saying it didn't happen, but if it did, there goes the classical Doctrine of the Trinity.
btw, I don't play word games, or at least when I do it's for fun, not for business.
Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Christ did not call +John the Baptist a liar. Nor did anyone call it a ritual.
We believe that sacraments are accomplished by the Holy Spirit. They are not rituals.
To a Muslim or a Jew, the New Testament is "just a book." To you it's a word of God. To us a sacrament is grace; to you ti is an empty ritual.
Don't try to be 'logical' when it comes to blind faith, FK. Any faith is a presumption.
Southern Baptists and Reformers believe that it was Christ's blood that washed away our sins, not a ritual with water
Yeah, I know, cozy and easy. All your sins, past, present and the future ones are paid for. Don't worry, be happy; and sin as much as you want. It's all "covered."
Lev 17:11 : 11
I thought the law was not salvific.
Heb 9:22 : 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission
We need to make up our minds here, if you know what I mean...it is the law or not?
Yes, the Law required rituals, but are we saved by rituals now? Do you think that the OT Jews were actually saved through rituals?
The OT Jews did not feel a need to be saved. Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. The messianic era of Judaism a century or so before Christ was not seeking to 'save' individuals but to restore the Kingdom of Israel.
But the Jews believe that if you live a decent life (accoridng to the Law), do charity, etc. you will be acceptable to God. Those who do whatwe know are immoral things won't. The Jews don't go further than that, sort of trusting that whatever happens will be God's decision and it will be good.
If Moses says that burnt offerings atone for your sins, and +Paul says that faith makes you just before God, why should I believe +Paul any more than Moses? I have no proof that either is telling the truth. Neither do you.
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.