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/
Living the faith, dying unto our pasisons, praying three times a day, charity, loving our enemies, practicing mercy, humility, confessions and communions, repentance, hungering for righteousness, thanking God for everything including bad days, leaving all your earthly cares...I wouldn't call it work. It's a life.
My conception of theosis was an attainment of something, but here it sounds more like an awarding of something
Yes, it's called likeness to Christ.
The answer of course is that protestants are not seeking out the Holy Spirit for discernment but other men's opinions.
It sounds to me like Paul in Romans says that listening to Apostles -- those sent -- is a critical part of coming to call on the Lord. AS near as I can tell, the Bible suggests listening to those who are sent.
I suspect you're misremembering: IQ tests are normed to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. None of the properly normed IQ tests is sensitive to differences out beyond 4 standard deviations, so reporting IQs above 160 or below 40 is one of those statistics that fits into the sequence 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'.
That said, 130 as a cutoff for 'genius' is a bit low, surely 145 at least.
(My wife does work in psychometrics, among other things, so I know these things.)
Calling believers "saints" or "divines" (which is icnredibly arrogant) was something +Paul came up with. That is Paulian Christianity. The term agios, as used originally, was always reserved for God. Until Paul changed it. The Church, however, ignored Paulian innovations and reserved it for only special individuals who have supposedly attained theosis, martyrs, and people who generally fit the Beatitudes (cf. Mat 5), the pure in heart, the poor in spirit ((humble), the merciful, etc.
Certainly it wasn't through reading a printed instruction manual.
Indeed, the confession that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" is from Christ. So is the Church who told you that.
No argument there, but where does it day that god demanded that ransom?
does it say that God demanded
Sorry.
Do you know the lord personally?..
If the new testament is accurate who knocked Saul off his transporation and blinded him?... Who is the Lord?.. The father, the son, or the Holy Spirit?..
Maybe its you that do not know the Lord personally...
I don't know this as a fact.. but could be..
I say this because I don't believe in miracles...
I rely on them..
The paraclete(Holy Spirit) is an ever present personality available for help..
And is no doubt looking over your shoulder as we speak..
I think what Kosta is saying is that the Apostles James and Peter for instance traveled with the Lord personally for a lot of time, where as many of the 70 apostles simply had a vision of or encountered breifly the risen Christ.
Indeed. That is what I thought you meant.
"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." -- John 10:18
Thus it is Christ's perfect, merciful obedience to the commandment of God that saves us.
The people you trust are also the ones who wrote the history books. At some point in time, you are trusting that what the priests and historians are telling you is true. That is faith.
= = =
This is very congruent with Scripture, in my construction on reality.
The apostles referenced the Old Testament many times. The word of God, whether it is preached or written in Scripture, is the same forever.
We can argue if baptism itself or the intention of the Church to baptize is efficacious, but my point is not that the faithful never receive the Holy Ghost, but rather that when they do, it comes from the Apostles, St. Peter is this instance, and therefore from the Church.
= = =
Hmmmmm . . .
So, Christ came and died, shedding His Blood horribly so that we might have DIRECT UNFETTERED, UNHINDERED ACCESS TO DADDY.
And Christ then sent Holy Spirit to continue to facilitate WITHIN all such believers that DIRECT ACCESS WITH DADDY.
Yet, Roman doctrine contends that HS insists on their functioning as . . . well . . . not a middle man . .
a middle what . . . a, a, a, . . .
a bureaucratic fossilized MIDDLE-EDIFICE of cold lichen encrusted stones and of contentious factions pretending to be a homogeneous mass over many centuries but actually being a mess of contending political factions warring even with spears and arrows when the weapons of our warfare are not to be carnal???
And this is PROGRESS?
I fail to catch a glimmer of God being that foolish anywhere in reality and certainly anywhere in reality.
B-D: John 3:16, "And this is the way God loved the world, He gave His only Son to die for us...".
Amen. A better question would be why do the EO think God died for us? Whimsy?
I rather agree with you, Bro.
Welllll! Harumph.
SOME of us wear a bolo tie cross when we feel especially sanctified.
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.