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/
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
And God alone sends Him, not Peter: John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
= = =
INDEED! INDEED! INDEED!
IN OTHER WORDS . . . .
based on
THEIR ACTIONS SPEAKING LOUDER THAN THEIR WORDS . . .
Their priority list seems to be:
1. MARY UPPERMOST
2. Then the RC edifice--especially favored parts of it
3. Then God, Son, Spirit.
Mary, being the mother of God, is number 1. Mary being the mother, is also the Holy Spirit, number 2, and the Church is number 3. Jesus is somewhere in there, a baby in a manger maybe.
That would be consistent with a lot of actions.
Thx.
"However the numbering of chapters and verses in our modern publications are probably arbitrary. It is easy to read into the theology one's own impressions and meanings, which is only human. However, one reason to compare scripture with scripture is to eliminate human error."
I agree that it can be arbitrary but it happened so many times - where the meaning of the number of the verse coincides with the meaning of that particular verse. I questioned the numbering of scripture, chapters, etc. and went to Wikipedia. I'm sure there is a better source but they were a quick reference.
"In the New Testament, the verse divisions were first
added by Robert Estienne in his 1551 edition of the
Greek New testament. In 1557, the first English New
Testament with verse divisions were used in a
translation by William Whittingham (c. 1524-1579). These
divisions have been used by nearly all English Bibles
since then. Unlike the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the
structure of the Greek language makes it highly
susceptible to being broken up syntactically into
inappropriate and even sense-contrary divisions. Inexact
apportionment of Greek into verses therefore could
easily have obscured the intent, relation, emphasis and
force of the words themselves, and thus elicited the
most strenuous objections of theologians. The retention
of Robert Estienne's verse divisions essentially without
alteration is a tribute not only to the inherent utility
of his contribution to Bible study, but also to his
excellent knowledge of the scriptures and grasp of the
fine points of the ancient Greek language. The first
Bible in English to use both chapters and verses was the
Geneva Bible in 1560, coming soon after Estienne's
introduction of New Testament verse numbers, and quickly
rising to acceptance as a standard way to notate them."
So, the verses were placed in that order long ago and the King James is still in that order. (Another coincidence - the original King James was the 7th Bible, #7 meaning spiritual perfection)
The gematria of names is important too. The name Jesus makes the numbers 888. The #8 denotes resurrection, regeneration, a new beginning or commencement.
You could be right in that I'm reading my own theories into this but it just seems past the odds of coincidence.
Of course, I also believe in the Bible Code so this was just a small step for me. It feels like one of God's little miracles for us, a sign to strengthen faith. But, as you say, comparing scripture to scripture, is the most important process.
"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." -- Romans 14:23
Thanks for your reply. Very well thought out and presented. Some questions:
Isn't all good conscience, the ability to know good, from God?
Doesn't anyone who chooses to do good based on love glorify God?
Are these limited completely to saved Christians?
FK, if everything is developing along God's plan, if God's will cannot be resisted, there is no reason for God's anger, and you know that.
It's an unwarranted pardon, an act of underserved mercy and not something we carry. It i not a "gift" like a book or a piece of jewlery.
I will always use the phrase "free gift" because it clearly relays what's happening
There is nothing 'happening' there. It's clemency which you can't earn, buy or deserve. Mercy pure and simple.
But, you can do whatever you wish; some people persistantly say '10 AM in the morning..."
True, but as we've seen with our only impeached President, pardons are not always "free." They can be bought.
Mercy is a free pardon; we have been acquitted by God's grace alone through Jesus Christ taking on the punishment rightly due us and paying for our sins in full.
Free of charge. No payment required. Only gratitude, after the fact.
Doing "good things"? Non-Christians (and Christians for that matter) can do good things but that doesn't earn them any status with God. God shows no partiality and all have sinned.
OTHO, if you means can non-Christians do works that glorify God, sure. Joseph's brothers did a very "evil" thing in selling Joseph into slavery, but God meant it for good. God caused it to happen.
You're equating doing something very good as something that God finds pleasure in and glorifies Him. God glories in His own work, not ours. We take pleasure in His glory and we rejoice in His work.
Amen.
Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Colossians 3:1-3"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
I remember reading about Lincoln vetoing some bill of Congress because he thought it was unconstitutional.
I wish that President Bush had shown that kind of courage on campaign finance reform.
I'm not totally convinced about him or his prophecies but what do I know. I do have pretty good discernment about these things but that doesn't mean I'm always right. Darn. I LOVE being right. At least I'm on the right side...smile.
I am constantly amazed at these posts. I can't fathom why Christians aren't taught that in their various religions. I was a Methodist and an Episcopalian for many years and never heard how to be saved. I finally got saved in a Baptist Church when I was 30 years old--almost 38 years ago. It was clear to me then and it's clear to me now. I don't have to do anything to earn my salvation nor do I have to go through any rites or prayers or anything else. I only have to believe that Jesus died for MY sins and receive Him into my life. It's not that tough! Why religions make it so confusing or difficult is astounding to me.
LOL! Mxxx
I will take the word of God in scripture over any book written by any church's leader or father or whoever. Who's to say THEY are right? They are NOT infallible.
We have started drawing Mennonites to our area in Central New York, as well as Amish. There's a church in Madison, NY. I've often wanted to go there just to see how they do worship. I'm sure it's a lot different from ours (smile). They make windows and install them, also small buildings. They're very industrious and self sufficient. I like that.
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.