MOVIES: The Nativity Story

[latin_rite]

Are you confusing virgin birth with perpetual virginity?

“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
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com)

 

[LilyM]

“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
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Ummm, you’re thinking that because she is portrayed as giving birth in the normal way that somehow that denies that she kept her virginity intact?? No such thing.

Any bible-believing Christian is well aware that Mary was virgin during the entire processes of pregnancy and birth, in fulfilment of the OT prophecies, regardless of the method of birth. I will repeat that because it bears repetition - REGARDLESS of the method of birth.

And the Church Fathers, great theologians though they are, in no sense described the method of Christ’s birth in any way that is binding on the faithful except that Mary retained her virginity before, during and after.

 

[MJE]

I have not seen the film yet but I was told that at the end when the Magnificat is being recited is omits “for me” as* The Lord has done great things. *True?

 

[st_ignatius110]

My response to this letter.

In Reparation for the Sins Committed against the Immaculate Heart of
Mary1,

Is it a sin to be against the Immaculate Conception if you do not know it to be the truth? I thought that our Church teaches that knowledge is a key factor in determining if something is a sin? Now, I do not believe that this movie commits sins against the Immaculate Heart of Mary but it is an interesting question.

We refute and condemn the movie “The Nativity”

Written by Daniel and Kathleen H.

December 03, 2006

Who is this couple? I have no idea who they are but there letter is all over the internet. Any ideas?

On December 2, 2006, on the First Saturday of December, we went to the local movie theater to watch the movie "The Nativity. Based on previous reviews of this movie that we had heard, and the fact that the Vatican2 held a premier showing of this movie, we were expecting a movie that at the very least held to Catholic beliefs. However, from the very beginning of the movie we soon realized our high expectations had to be thrown into the trash, for as the movie progressed, we became more and more disappointed. The overall conclusion of this movie is that it is not a catholic movie at all, but at best, a Protestant movie directed by men who did not even follow the Biblical account of the birth of Christ.

I am not sure why this couple went into the Theatre assuming that this was a Catholic movie. Nowhere had it been promoted as such. Instead, we all knew that this was a movie on the birth of Christ produced and directed by Protestants.

At worst, it is a vile anti-Christian movie created by people who hateChrist and His Church and whose main motive was to defame the name ofthe Blessed Mother and warp the story of the Birth of Jesus.

The only words I can find right now to describe this couple is anti-protestant. Since when have our separated brethren (yes, I dare to use these words) been anti-Christian? This statement makes no sense and we shall see why this couple believes this words as we delve more deeply into this letter

As mentioned before this movie discredits our Catholic beliefs, beliefs that are so essential to our Faith that if we do not believe in them, the Church no longer considers us Catholic. What beliefs are these that have been maligned? It is those beliefs which we hold sacred: the Immaculate Conception3 and the Virgin Birth4.

As the letter progresses this is explained further.

 

[st_ignatius110]

In one of the very first scenes of the movie, Mary is shown with her friends, sowing a field of what looks to be corn. These friends of Mary give sideways glances and smiles to each other after looking at a group of boys that are nearby. Then one of these girls runs to tackle one of the boys and what ensues appears to be a pile up of youths in the cornfield with Mary sort of participating in on the outer edges of this
entanglement. Then from the house emerges Mary’s mother looking stern and upset. She calls to Mary and shakes her head “No.” The fact that Mary looks to have been participating in some kind of impropriety and had to be corrected by her mother is beyond belief but this is only one
occurrence of “sinning” on the part of Mary.

Since when is it sinning to play with your friends? Mary was a child. We seem to forget the human side of Mary whenever we discuss her. Mary was not involved in an “impropriety.” If anything, it was her mother Saint Anne who did not realize what was going on. Mary was involved in nothing wrong and it seems Saint Anne walked in and thought Mary was shirking her duties when we who were watching the movie knew full well that she was not!

For throughout the first part of the movie, Mary is depicted as any normal 14 year old given to sullen, sulky moods. This movie shows her to be unhappy with the future marriage that is being arranged for her by her parents (which we know to be historically incorrect). She walks out of her house in defiance when her father tells her that she is now betrothed to Joseph. These scenes call into question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

I find it very difficult to see in this movie that Mary walked out in defiance when her father tells her she is betrothed to Joseph. This couple fails to mention that Joseph offered her the cup to drink from and she did so accepting the betrothal. It was after this that she turned and ran out of the house. Why is it impossible for the Mother of God to experience fear? She was only 14! Why is this interpreted as defiance? If the Mother of God did this (and I emphasize if) it would have been to do as Jesus did when He went to the Garden. To beg God to take this cup from her but if it was His will then she would submit to it.

The scene of Annunciation was not anything that a catholic would contemplate while saying the rosary. They depicted Mary reclining under a tree in the middle of the day while others were around her working. What is supposed to be the “Archangel Gabriel” is first shown as a hawk and then as a man with an Afro-like hairstyle and white robe looking as if he could be a son of Cheech or Chong. The “angel” had no mystical or holy appearance and he is shown at quite a distance from Mary. The portrayal makes you wonder if he’s truly Heaven sent.

I don’t want this last paragraph to imply in any way whatsoever that Mary was shirking her duties as others around her worked. She was taking a break and wiping sweat from her forehead as she sat down under a tree.

I will say that I too was disappointed in the angel Gabriel. However, I would challenge this couple to recreate the Annunciation and see how well they do! How often can someone catch on film a scene of a Heavenly visitation and portray it the way it actually happened? I do think they could have done better on the angel scenes. Side Note: I wonder if this couple would provide us a review of Cheech and Chong?

The Visitation was portrayed as an excuse to run away from her “intended”, Joseph. A way out all of it- as if the whole idea of the coming of Our Lord and the idea of marriage was too much for her.

Perhaps this couple missed the scene where Mary asked for her parents permission (not so rebellious after all) and when given told Saint Joachim thank you. Before he gave Mary permission to leave he asked her if Joseph could expect her back. She answers yes! When Elizabeth tells her she can stay with them she tells Elizabeth, “ No, I made a promise to be back by harvest time.” And indeed she kept her promise although her belly was huge and she knew she could be stoned to death!

 

[st_ignatius110]

The Magnificat was left out of this scene; however it was partially narrated at the end of the movie omitting the first half of this beautiful prayer:

" My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior;
Because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid; for, behold,
henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is
mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; And his mercy
is from generation to generation on those who fear him…"

You can be certain, upon looking at these omitted words, just why they
were omitted and the intentions of the creators of this vile
cinematography!

No, I am not certain why they were omitted. It seems to me this couple has forgotten exactly what Protestants believe in regards to the Scripture. It is called “Sola Scriptura.” Remember this? Why would they omit this? I sincerely doubt it would be because they want to defame our Blessed Mother or purposefully leave out Scripture.

The birth of Saint John was very degrading. This scene is about two minutes long, depicting Elizabeth holding her upper body up off a chair by holding onto ropes, screaming from pain while two women are ready to
receive the child. She delivers, while Mary, with a horrified look on her face, stands by watching. This scene is not suitable for children to watch.

The screaming in pain I fully agree with!! I have no doubt I yelled just as loudly as I birthed my firstborn. The pain is something one can never imagine and birthing a child is just about one of the most dramatic things to ever happen to a woman as her body takes her over in way unimaginable. I do agree that as she holds on to the ropes and pushes her bottom hits the floor very hard. I did see this as overdramatic and no I would not want my daughter to watch this scene. Of course, my three year old will also not be at the birth of her new brother or sister in May. I will also comment that I did not think Mary’s face was horrified but merely concerned. Who would not be when experiencing birth for the first time? Again, Mary was and is human.

During Mary’s absence at Elizabeth’s, Saint Joseph was portrayed as being upset that Mary left. Also were included, implications that Joseph did not expect Mary to come back, as in one scene where he was deep in thought pondering his future with Mary holding his carpenter tools - then suddenly with a look of frustration and anger, he throws his tools to the ground. Saintly behavior for sure!

Since when have the saints never experienced a moment of frustration or even doubt? The saints are not gods who know all and see all!! They are men and women who have feelings and thoughts just as other men and women do! Why do we tend to de-humanize the saints? Yes, Saint Joseph was a great and righteous man and we know now that he is in Heaven. However, how we do know he never had a moment of frustration in his life?

 

[child_of_God85]

A lot of people on this thread seem to think they know more that the Bishops. On the USCCB website they gave it nothing but praise. Even the Vatican recomends it. I think they know a little ore about Mary than the people on this site.
And I agree with what another poster said, that a lot of people on this thread tend to want to portray Mary as some sort of God. What, was Mary too good to play with her friends. Did she think that was beneath her dignity? Yes, we are supposed to rever Mary, but we are not supposed to worship her.

 

[Tom317]

A lot of people on this thread seem to think they know more that the Bishops. On the USCCB website they gave it nothing but praise. Even the Vatican recomends it. I think they know a little ore about Mary than the people on this site.
And I agree with what another poster said, that a lot of people on this thread tend to want to portray Mary as some sort of God. What, was Mary too good to play with her friends. Did she think that was beneath her dignity? Yes, we are supposed to rever Mary, but we are not supposed to worship her.

Having read the Vatican review and verious others, it is my impression that the Bishops and the Vatican view the movie as a net positive because it is infinitely better then other movies out there…I do not recall anyone from the Vatican making theology statements about the film. The world has been so de-Christianized that anything to get people to think of Christ is now seen as a good thing.

Further, people that object to the movie on this thread do not think of Mary as God, yet they also do not think of Mary as a normal person and it is my personal view that Mary is the holiest human who ever lived and she was the only person to be kept in a state known as “full of Grace.” Mary and Joseph in the Gospels are very holy people indeed and the Gospels do not go into smalls details of their lives, yet the movie takes libertities that imo are very Protestant in nature.

I also believe in my heart that satan wants us to be lukewarm. The movie projects an image of the Holy family that makes them appear to be just any old family, it ignores the truth that Mary was full of Grace (a huge point imo), it shows Joseph in one scene as a petulant child when he broods about not being able to teach Jesus anything, it implies Mary had further kids and it implies Mary had pain in childbirth. It also displays a less then honorable birth for John the Baptist. In other words, Catholics across the world except this Protestant movie as being true to the Gospels, when it is not. Many Catholics simply look at it as “good enough” which the very foundation of being lukewarm…imo.

 

[st_ignatius110]

When Mary had returned to Nazareth, Joseph was excited to see her. However, on lifting her from the wagon he discovered that she was heavy with child and walked away upset. Mary tried to convince her parents
and Joseph that she was not pregnant due to another man but that “an angel” appeared to her and told her she was going to have a baby. There was no evidence of any of the three believing Mary. It was implied that
Joseph was ready to stone Mary until he had a vision through a dream (with that “angel” again) that Mary was telling the truth.

And again the saints are all knowing? Why should Joseph have believed Mary? Had it already been revealed to him that she was to birth the Son of God? No, that was to come later. If Joseph had not doubted and been afraid why would the angel have appeared to him and told him to not be afraid and that it is ok to take Mary as his wife for she is to bear the Son of God? This had to be revealed to him. He was a saint but still human. Joseph was portrayed as having a nightmare of Mary in the streets with an angry crowd around her. A stone was pressed into his hand and he was told to throw it. The angel appears before him and blocks the way and then reveals to him that Mary is carrying the Son of God. Do we know for sure this is the dream Joseph had? No, of course not! But we do know that Mary being stoned was a very real threat and one that Joseph and her parents would have worried about.

The traveling of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the best of all scenes in the movie. But even during this trip there was an occurrence that was disturbing. While Mary and Joseph were walking through a market of
a town, a palm reading woman offered Mary a small piece of cheese or bread which Mary accepted but then this sorceress read Mary’s palm and claimed she was going to have a son. Mary accepted this prophecy with a smile and Joseph shook the woman’s hand, thanked her and then they continued their journey. The implication was that Joseph and Mary had no objection to fortunetellers.

I too wondered why this scene was included in the movie. However, when this woman took Mary’s hand Joseph looked worried although they did not say anything to her. When this woman offered Mary some food Joseph told her no. She said (if I remember correctly) not to worry that it was for the mother and the child implying that they need not pay it. It was only THEN that Saint Joseph said thank you. Should he have been rude and ignored the offer of food when they had been without?

The scene of the Nativity was extremely heretical. Besides this grave evil, again we find it necessary to say that this movie should not be viewed by children.

To all of those men and women who have allowed their children to see a brother her sister born, shame on you! ( I say this with all sarcasm) I personally would not have my children in to see a birth but then again, this all depends on the child! Labor is not something disgusting and horrible to be feared by families but something beautiful and to be embraced!

 

[st_ignatius110]

Mary was shown to be in labor while she was in the town of Bethlehem. Joseph rushed around carrying Mary in a frantic state trying to find a room for her as she groaned and breathed heavily as if she had taken Lamaze lessons. The worst of the worst occurs once they arrive at the stable with Joseph kneeling ready to deliver the baby. He partially lifts Mary’s dress putting his hands between her legs ready to receive the child. Mary is laboring, her face sweating and in extreme pain with all of the normal actions of a woman in a delivery room and then she gives birth.

I personally did not think that Mary was in extreme pain when I saw this scene. I was thinking how they portrayed her as having a pretty easy birth and labor. She was concentrating and pushing, but not yelling or screaming. They did not portray the birth of Christ as they did Saint Johns. Why not? I have been looking into the teaching on the painless birth of Christ and the Church has not yet defined this. It is not required to believe. If I am wrong please feel free to point out anything I may have missed. It seems that this thought of a painless birth is still up for discussion among theologians. I personally have not decided what to believe on this particular thought but I am open to study and discussion.

Joseph raises Jesus in the air showing the baby covered with blood and Joseph laughs for joy totally discrediting belief in the Virgin Birth. There is no sign of worship or adoration by either Mary or Joseph. Therefore this was not only a Protestant view of the Nativity but also is directly an act of disbelief in the Divinity of Jesus. There was no indication that Mary and Joseph believed Jesus to be God.

Is it because Jesus is covered with blood or that Joseph laughs for joy that discredits the belief in the Virgin Birth? I will assume that it is because Jesus is covered with blood therefore showing that the physical virginity was not kept intact. From what I understand, please correct me if I am wrong, when the Church says Mary is a Perpetual Virgin She did not make clear if this meant physical virginity or simply that Mary never slept with a man. If the Church has spoken on this and I am wrong I have no problem whatsoever believing exactly what the Church teaches.

I will also say that simply because Joseph held up Baby Jesus and laughed for joy does not mean he did not recognize Jesus to be God. Should he have immediately laid Him on the ground and worshipped our Lord? Let us again remember that while our Lord Jesus is God, He is also human and therefore had the needs of a human baby.

Meanwhile, the Archangel Gabriel (yes, that same “angel”) appears to one shepherd to inform him of the birth. There are no other angels that appear as stated in St. Luke’s Gospel “And suddenly there was with the
angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying glory to god and the highest on earth peace among men of good will.”

All I can say is this. You try to re-create perhaps THOUSANDS of angels praising God in the Heavens. I would not even attempt to try this. You would never be able to re-create it.

 

[st_ignatius110]

One by one, the shepherds seem to be leaving their sheep in a “zombie-like trance” and seen walking NOT RUNNING toward the star as it would seem natural to do considering they received this great news from a heavenly vision of great beauty! There was no joy exhibited in this scene by these shepherds. It only looked as if these guys were told to walk to this cave and stare at something. When the shepherds arrive at the stable Mary is seen reclining and holding the child; he is not lying in the manger.

I did think that the director should have left the Christ Child in the manger since the angel had just told the shepherd they would find the Babe lying in a manger.However, I did not see the angels in a “zombie like trance.” Mary had just birthed a child and any human being would be respectful of that. What if they had swarmed the cave screaming and shouting for joy? How do you approach our Lord in the Eucharist? Do you run down the aisle shouting for joy or do you approach with quiet reverence? I think my point is made here.

None of the shepherds worship or adore the child and they arrived simultaneously with the three Kings. Who neither appear to be worshipping him. Then there is this GREAT pause in the movie as we look on at this living Nativity Scene. Some kind of cold, blue lighting is glaring on Baby Jesus that causes him to keep his eyes closed. Surely they could have done better than this!

This is wrong. The shepherds do worship Christ. They are on their knees!! Were they supposed to say something? Do something? I would be interested to find out what this couples definition of worship is. They fail to mention the old shepherd man who falls on his knees in front of Mary and Jesus. He reaches out a trembling hand to touch the Child but draws back, as though he is not worthy. Mary then lifts up the Christ Child and says, “ He is for all mankind.” The shepherd then gently touches Christ as he cries. Why was this scene left out of the letter? Perhaps it would give a Protestant movie to much credit!! Also, the wise men did indeed worship Jesus. ( and they actually arrived just after the shepherds) Each wise man genuflected before our Lord (much as we do before the Eucharist) before presenting each gift. As a matter of fact, the third wise man (the unbeliever) experiences an obvious conversion! He is the last to kneel down and as he sees the Christ Child a very obvious transformation comes over his face. He genuflects and gives the Babe his gift of myrrh. He is asked by another of the wise men if he now believes. He does not answer but the look on his face answers the question. Again, another VERY important scence left out of this couples letter.

This was to be the culmination of the greatest act of love - God
becoming Man to die for us! And yet this movie could not convey even a hint of this profound act of God.

Only a personal opinion not a fact.

Is this the best Jesus movie ever made? No, it could have been better in my opinion. I still say that Jesus of Nazareth is much better! However, this movie is not even half as bad as this couple makes it out to be.

 

[Sr_Sally]

We saw it this weekend and I was very impressed. It did show Mary being a bit sulky at one point and said nothing about her being a consecrated virgin before her betrothal, but I wasn’t really expecting to see that. On the other hand there are several comments made (one by Joseph) about her virtue, truthfulness, and kindness.
The acting was wonderful, the story was carefully told, and I did tear up at several points. My whole family loved it. I recommend it on it’s own merits and because I do think it is important to support clean, uplifting films when we can.

 

[system]

However, this movie is not even half as bad as this couple makes it out to be.

St ignatius 110 - thanks for the labor in your above rebuttals. It was a very good movie, and I ended up seeing it twice. I brought my dad, and thought it was good enough to take my wife and kids.

This couple was looking for things to complain about, and is WAY off the mark on many of their statements.

As a freind of mine says from his homeland of Northern Ireland; “those people will drive a hundred miles out of their way to be offended”

 

[Tom317]

St ignatius 110 - thanks for the labor in your above rebuttals. It was a very good movie, and I ended up seeing it twice. I brought my dad, and thought it was good enough to take my wife and kids.

This couple was looking for things to complain about, and is WAY off the mark on many of their statements.

As a freind of mine says from his homeland of Northern Ireland; “those people will drive a hundred miles out of their way to be offended”

I did not see the movie, will not see the movie, and do take offense with a clearly Protestant view of Our Lady. To each their own, you liked it–good for you.

I personally see no reason to see a film, or to participate in reading/viewing any media that portrays Jesus or His Mother, or our Lord’s Church in a lesser light then the fullness in which it is. I realize my view is probably seen as “extreme.” I suppose in the end I see an awful lot of lukewarm Catholics and this movie simply helps them remain lukewarm. Lukewarmness is tearing down the one true Church–imo.

 

[st_ignatius110]

I did not see the movie, will not see the movie, and do take offense with a clearly Protestant view of Our Lady. To each their own, you liked it–good for you.

I personally see no reason to see a film, or to participate in reading/viewing any media that portrays Jesus or His Mother, or our Lord’s Church in a lesser light then the fullness in which it is. I realize my view is probably seen as “extreme.” I suppose in the end I see an awful lot of lukewarm Catholics and this movie simply helps them remain lukewarm. Lukewarmness is tearing down the one true Church–

imo.

To be honest this was not a clearly Protestant view of our Lady. If you have not seen the movie then you are choosing which side to believe based upon anothers review of the movie. This is not a wise choice as this movie obviously has both good and bad reviews from faithful Catholics. If you do not want to see the movie then don’t. But please do not say it is “clearly a Protestant view of our Lady” unless you have factual evidence and not hearsay.

 

[Tom317]

imo.

To be honest this was not a clearly Protestant view of our Lady. If you have not seen the movie then you are choosing which side to believe based upon anothers review of the movie. This is not a wise choice as this movie obviously has both good and bad reviews from faithful Catholics. If you do not want to see the movie then don’t. But please do not say it is “clearly a Protestant view of our Lady” unless you have factual evidence and not hearsay.

I heard a trailer reflecting the use of “highly favored” in reference to Mary during the annunciation. That is the modern Protestant interpretation of the critical passage and that alone is enough for me. However, I also read an article that included direct quotes from a producer of the film and he said the film was made from the Protestant view, not from the Catholic view. I also saw several trailers, one of which was Joseph acting all pouting and petulant about not being able to teach Jesu anything, along with several other short clips that I found offensive along with a clip in which Mary spoke of her needed to stay pur until the end of her betrothal, which is another Protestant point of view because they take that passage to mean that Mary had children after Jesus. Frankly, I did not base my decision on a review. So, my views ARE based in fact, not guesswork.

IMO, Catholics must NOT allow themselves to fall into a trap of lukewarmness about Our Lady, she was NOT merely a highly favored person, she was full of Grace through a special gift from God alone…she was the holiest person who ever lived. Abraham was favored, yet he was not full of Grace and he became the father of a multitiude–how much more is Mary’s place in salvation history that she was given a state that full of Grace, rather then merely favored as many prophets and patriarchs were.

Nope, the film is quite Protestant in its view and a Producer even admitted as much. Therefore, it is not for me or my family.

 

[system]

I did not see the movie, will not see the movie, and do take offense with a clearly Protestant view of Our Lady. To each their own, you liked it–good for you.

Yes, I think it was good for me. If you you’ve read this entire thread, you would know that I did have some mixed opinions on the movie, but found that the movie as a whole, was worthwhile.

I personally see no reason to see a film, or to participate in reading/viewing any media that portrays Jesus or His Mother, or our Lord’s Church in a lesser light then the fullness in which it is.

If that’s how you feel, I suppose the only reason to see it would be for you to be able to make your points with more credibility. It is precisely BECAUSE I have seen it, that I can speak to those who have misrepresented it.

I realize my view is probably seen as “extreme.” I suppose in the end I see an awful lot of lukewarm Catholics and this movie simply helps them remain lukewarm. Lukewarmness is tearing down the one true Church–imo.

I can think of only two reasons how you could argue this:
a) you believe (or fear) that sitting through roughly 120 minutes of a “protestant film” will harm a Catholic’s beliefs
or
b) you are calling those of us who liked the movie, “Lukewarm Catholics”

Both of these are offensive.

Throughout history Catholics have been questioned, tortured and martyred without losing their beliefs…Do you think a 2 hour movie that doesn’t perfectly match Catholic dogma will destroy a catholic’s belief?

Also, I suggest you get to know people before you call them lukewarm. Sounds like you’re putting yourself above the rest of us sinners.

 

[st_ignatius110]

Again, you are entitled to your opinion.

However, I also read an article that included direct quotes from a producer of the film and he said the film was made from the Protestant view, not from the Catholic view. I also saw several trailers, one of which was Joseph acting all pouting and petulant about not being able to teach Jesu anything

Pouty??? Are you kidding??? In this scene Jospeh was in awe that Mary was to birth the Son of God and he talked about how he felt afraid. Is there something wrong with a saint being afraid? He said, " I wonder if I will be able to teach Him anything" clearly showing that he recognized this Child to be God. How can you teach God anything??? It is statements like this that make me realize many are judging this film only because it was created by Protestants NOT because of facts. Saint Joseph was never once “pouty” as you have described. If you would watch the WHOLE clip you might have seen it differently.

 

[Writer]

“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
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com)

I think you’re being too critical. I thought it was a very well done movie, and so did the other Catholics who attended it with us. I’d suggest that this movie got it right, and that it made the person of Mary more real for many of us than she was before. I also found the cinematography to be captivating. I suggest that we vote with our pocketbooks to encourage the studios to produce more movies like this.

 

[Tom317]

It is precisely BECAUSE I have seen it, that I can speak to those who have misrepresented it.

I did not need to see the Da Vinci Code to know what is in it. Nor do I need to see “The Nativity Story” to know it does not present a Catholic view of Mary. It makes little difference to me that the movie is fairly well made and I have no doubt that it is entertaining. I just have no desire to see a clearly Protestant view of Mary…that is my opinion, which I know many people do not agree with.

I can think of only two reasons how you could argue this:
a) you believe (or fear) that sitting through roughly 120 minutes of a “protestant film” will harm a Catholic’s beliefs
or
b) you are calling those of us who liked the movie, “Lukewarm Catholics”

Neither option. I do think many Catholics are lukewarm, yet I have no way of knowing if anyone on this thread is lukewarm. I do believe that the movie is not likely to hurt anyone’s faith, since strong Catholics will know where the problems are, and lukewarm Catholics are in dire need to be exposed to Christ as much as possible to a point that even a Protestant film of the Nativity is probably better for them then nothing at all. I see the movie as just “more of the same” Protestanizing of the Catholics in this country and most Catholics who see it will not even realize that–though I think 40 years ago most Catholics would have seen it and I think the Vatican of 40 years ago would not have supported the film as it does today.

Throughout history Catholics have been questioned, tortured and martyred without losing their beliefs…Do you think a 2 hour movie that doesn’t perfectly match Catholic dogma will destroy a catholic’s belief?

Strong Catholics…no. Weak or lukewarm Catholics will simply have their weakness or lukewarmness affirmed.

Also, I suggest you get to know people before you call them lukewarm. Sounds like you’re putting yourself above the rest of us sinners.

I agree completely and I have not called anyone here lukewarm.