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/
If in Timothy's church an intercession is made, say, for a king, then Timothy is praying to Christ on behalf of the king. Christ is mediator, Timothy is intercessor, and the king is the benefactor.
If a king came to Timothy and asked Timothy to pray for him, that then would be entirely biblical, because this would be exactly what the scripture tells Timothy to do.
If Timothy were to die, and go to heaven, Timothy could continue doing the same thing. That is because Timothy would then receive eternal life promised him in 1 Timothy 6. But now the king would be praying to St. Timothy, would he not?
The dirt nap referred to soul sleep. Such is unbiblical. Apparently, prior to the resurrection, OT saints were not in a physical state different from NT saints (they were recognizable- witness Abraham, Moses, Samuel), their location was different (Paradise as opposed to heaven). Beyond that, we aren't told of differences.
That is not Scriptural. It is a fabrication of men. Necromancy is not far off.
i was pingged to this thread several times, but have yet to comment as far as i am aware.
i am also a bit confused by the discourse between the two of you:
MONKFAN: Are you seriously asserting that there was no resurrection of the dead ~the reuniting of the immaterial nature of man with the physical body~ BEFORE Christ's ressurection?
If so you are incorrect. Lazarus immediately comes to mind, as does the young girl that Jesus resurrected. That's just New testament. There are also Old Testament examples of dead people being resurrected.
BLOGGER: Are you talking about Physical resurrection or the disposition of the non-corporeal nature of man (soul/spirit)?
CDL returns to lurk mode.
You object to the fact that Timothy has eternal life, or to the fact that he can pray to Christ when in heaven, or what exactly is not scriptural, do you think, and why?
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that there was NO resurrection prior to Christ's resurrection. Lazarus was raised. Many came out of their graves when Jesus resurrected. Jairus' daughter was raised. However, with very very very few exceptions most who have passed away who were Christians are now with Christ Jesus but have not received glorified bodies as of yet. In the moment, in the twinkling of the eye, they will be changed. The mortal will put on immortality. They exist today in a recognizable state. But in the future they will receive something akin to Christ's resurrected body (walking through walls even, apparently but yet physical enough to be able to eat).
It doesn't make sense to "pray to" someone who you are in the physical presence of.
Possibly the most hysterical post on this thread. The Church has held and practiced certain beliefs for two thousand years. If necromancy "wasn't far off" shouldn't have happened by now?
What do you think talking to dead people and asking for their intervention is?
What do you think Eternal Life in Heaven is?
Really? Perhaps your frequent use of the internet conditioned you differently, but I come into the physical presence of quite a few people in the course of my day, and we exchange requests. It works, -- they give me money for it.
You reference St. Anselm in regards to the Orthodox teaching. Please look at New Advent. Catholics claim their doctrine is derived (modified) from St. Anselm as well.
I find Catholics tend to say things are inaccurate when, in fact, they are simply an analysis of their own doctrine.
Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. - Clements
My (3) is what you might call blood atonement.
Virtual presence and physical presence are not the same.
No, but your statement that Timothy in heaven cannot pray to Christ because he is in His physical presence still makes no sense to me.
I wouldn't exactly call it Kosher. But I will grant that you do not attribute your veneration as "worship" and that your worship of God would be on a higher level than your veneration of Mary or the saints.
That's about all the concession I would be willing to give. I still believe that what is done in regard to the "veneration of Mary" and "prayers to or through the saints" is contrary to scripture.
We talk to people who are next to us in the room or in our presence. Prayer has a certain level of separation built into it. Christ is ever-present but yet our senses usually do not perceive Him in the same way that it would be if His physical body were with us in the room. Prayer involves praying to one who is Supernatural and is in heaven. If you are already there, there is no need to pray, just talk to the Lord.
There is no biblical example of praying to a Saint.
This is what prayer is.
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.