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/
I'm sure they wouldn't. I did have a passover seder once, but it was with a reformed Jew.
I wouldn't say it was the first Christian on Christian persecution. When the State got involved in Rome, there were several groups that would have had the basics right that were nevertheless persecuted for this that or the other.
You cite the unity of certain protestant groups verses baptists. To my knowledge, none of the groups mentioned believes that one must ABSOLUTELY be baptized to be saved.
We Southern Baptists certainly do not believe that. Baptism is an obedience to God, and while very important, it is not salvific at all.
Baptists believe it is a picture of what has transpired in the life of the believer. When one is immersed, it isn't unusual to hear "Buried in the LIKENESS of his death and raised to walk in a new kind of life." It is a picture of regeneration but is not salvific.
Absolutely correct.
I don't. The Holy Spirit dwells in ALL believers. When the Apostle Paul was speaking to Christians he said without discrimination 1 Corinthians 6:"19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." He doesn't say get your act together so you can be indwelt with the Spirit. He says get your act together BECAUSE YOU ARE indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
That of course includes avoiding spiritual pride - but what produces less spiritual pride than realizing that all that we are or ever will be are God's?
Agreed. Baptism is a picture of what has already transpired. It is not a part of making one a Christian. It is an act of obedience because one IS a Christian.
Precisely what we've been saying all along.
You've better balance that with...
Anyone who would react to Mary as if she were a goddess would be practicing evil. And what does the Bible say about this?
(1 Thessalonians 5:22 KJV) Abstain from all appearance of evil.
So since the scriptures do not demand that we kneel before statues and sing praises to Mary, and from an objective standpoint these practices appear to be idolatrous, therefore it is clear that the scriptures do command that we abstain from such behavior.
I wouldn't agree the Catholic Church errored in the idea of Original Sin and absolute depravity. The Catholic Church has errored in trying to reconcile the interpretation of the Theotokos with Original Sin. It can't be done. If you believe in Original Sin you can't believe that Mary was without sin.
I agree.
If it gives the appearance of worshipping a goddess, then it is wrong.
That was precisely the argument of Paul regarding eating meat offered to idols. Sure, we're free to do what we want, but giving the appearance of idol-worship upends weak souls. He goes on to say that idols are nothing, but that there are demons behind them.
Paul saw a thin line between the spiritual world and this world.
"So since the scriptures do not demand that we kneel before statues and sing praises to Mary, and from an objective standpoint these practices appear to be idolatrous, therefore it is clear that the scriptures do command that we abstain from such behavior."
The Church disagrees, obviously. And The Church disagreed when it set out the canon of scripture.
"Paul saw a thin line between the spiritual world and this world."
As an Orthodox Christian, I can't say that I believe there is any line at all, Padre. And that's what makes heresy and modernism so very, very, very dangerous.
I agree with you for the most part, Kolo. If there is a line, it is a perception.
Jesus' walking on water and changing water to wine testifies to that.
Where in scripture does it authorize any man to kneel before a statue, or to pray to a dead person, or to sing praises to Mary?
The scripture clearly condemns such practices. So if I have my choice between the Word of God or the traditions of men, I'll bank my eternal destiny on the Word of God alone.
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:13 KJV)
It was the Holy Spirit that laid out the cannon of scripture. Those who chose that cannon did so at the leading of the Holy Spirit, who was determined to preserve his word by any means.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalms 138:2 KJV)
Jesus prayed for all who would believe through the testimony of the Apostles.
The NT is that testimony for those who came after the Apostles' era.
Therefore, scripture has supreme say in the church as the words of the Apostles, upon whom the church was built, with Christ the chief cornerstone.
It is irrefutable.
Those either are or are not the words of Christ.
Amen!
What a great way to start the day, with the simple, uncomplicated truth. We need JESUS not a bunch of dead people.
I hope you find some Catholics to answer your claim.
Great point!
What also conveniently gets forgotten in the discussion about pre-Reformation Baptistic sects are the other characteristics that you see in Baptist Churches and in many Protestant Churches. The church government is decentralized and congregational just as the early church was. The strong belief in the separation of church and state. The great concern about church discipline. Also, most importantly you see the primacy of SCRIPTURE in these different sects of Christianity.
(Us Russian Orthodox are a bit more Vareniki (okay perogie. *sigh*) scarfing folk. :)
You responded to the points made in my post by throwing invectives at the sources and not answering the points that were made.
I returned the favor.
I don't think we have any common ground upon which to have a discussion. You reject the plain words of scripture in favor of tradition. I reject your tradition in favor of the scripture.
Have a nice day.
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.