sign up HERE:
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/
He is not saying that through the scripture and outside of tradition we get eternal life, which was your original, mistaken, point.
Correct. The New Testament was written by individual apostles, and their disciples, Catholic clergy all.
I think you are touching on the (some) protestant doctrine of Dispensationalism.
There is no decree. The Lamb was the sacrifice and the Lamb, the Son of the Holy Trinity was from before the foundation of the world, but God the Father did not demand the sacrifice.
Roman Empire was largely Christian by 5c. Europe, including Russia, was largely Christian by 9c. The Americas were largely Christian when the Spanish got done with them; the two continetns are still majority-Catholic.
The world was Catholic and Orthodox before northern europe fell to Luther and Henry VIII.
And Greek and Latin were the universal language of the Church. They still are.
Scripture please. Your saying so does not make it so. I gave you scripture.
[God] will render to every man according to his works. To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.(Romans 2)
by works a man is justified; and not by faith only
(James 2)
brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election
(2 Peter 1)
I like your honest appraisal of the "missionary" work of the Conquistadors.
In that passage Christ agrees with me, not with you: " I lay it down of myself". He received the power as the commandment of the father, not that the sacrifice is a commandment.
I have a feeling it is for the second time I explain that.
Take a deep breath. That part is not in the scripture anywhere.
I don't see where we disagree.
Yeah, and we had the Holy Inquisition and the Crusades too. We don't fool around.
I was dealing only with the upper half of a 200 point bell curve. I figured the lower half to be of no concern, since the point of interest here is not the subject of IQ itself, but rather the demarcation line for "genius". That aside, I got off my lazy butt (figuratively speaking, of course) and did some googeling and quickly found out that my info on IQ classifications was being outdated even as it was being taught to me. LOL! Dang government schooling!
"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'."
Aye!
"That said, 130 as a cutoff for 'genius' is a bit low, surely 145 at least.
I would hope so. Mine is 135 and for all the things I've been called over the years, genius ain't one of them.
"(My wife does work in psychometrics, among other things, so I know these things.)"
While surfing, I noticed some classification scales that don't use the term "genius". Has that term fallen out of favor?
Whatever works.
Is that less obscure?
They retired the Jeresy after I took my IQ tests.
Yeah, right.
Well, the Crusades didn't quite work, albeit we'll never know where the High Porte would have been stopped without them.
The fall of the Crusader Kingdom is something we are very busy expiating right about now.
All the old classification names at both ends of the scale have fallen into disuse thanks to political correctness.
(As Mad Dawg said: we now return you to your regularly scheduled theological bickering.)
I am bringing the reader's attention to the dissonance here: the declaration is that the Protestants have zero popes, but the actual behavior is that they have a dosen thousand of them, if not more. If the declaration of zero-popes were followed, we would not have the spectacle of others telling us what veneration of saints is or what the Mass is, or the Scripture is. I understand there is a difference that you point out in theory, but I don't see that difference in practice.
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.
