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 am willing to admit that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I hope that others are willing to admit that Protestants are not raving, fanatical out-in-left-fields cultists because they believe the absence of evidence is sufficient reason to come to a different conclusion.
We have scripture, we have the history that treats Mary doctrinally only as the virgin mother of Jesus and the fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy.
Using those facts we construct our teachings.
There is nothing irrational or faithless in it. It is premised on a sincere desire to deal with the facts at hand.
The only official doctrine of the Undivided Church (and of the Orthodox Church today) regarding Virgin Mary is that she is the Mother of God (Theotokos). This was proclaimed as Church dogma in 431 at the Council of Ephesus.
There is not a single instance where she is officially referred to, 400 years after Christ died (5th century), as "ever-virgin" by the supreme body of the Church, individual authors' and Church Fathers' personal views notwithstanding.
Ah, I sat in the bull pen watching the Celtics in the playoffs. I figured the medical people had enough on their hands with K that they didn't need another patient to care for.
Mary is the Mother of God only in that she is the mother of Jesus.
As many have agreed, Mary does not precede either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd persons of the Trinity, nor did she give rise to the eternal Godhead.
"Tradition ought not to be the source of ANY doctrine."
But tradition, custom and convention are so comfortable and effortless. It allows the professionals to interpret for you and you don't have to think for yourself. No messy working out your salvation in fear and trembling. Just do what they say 'cause they know. Neet huh?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
It's kind of a code thing. Comes with the handshake.
Thank you. That will be on my shopping list. In the meantime, can you give me a synopsis of what sources the authr uses to come to that conclusion?
No. However, Scriptures tell us that we are one in Adam and one in Christ in different ways. That is why Christ's redemptive work is effective for ALL men. Again, there is a difference between Adam/Christ and the typical man. One of us does not represtent all of humanity.
If it makes you happier, the Catholic church considers original sin a state of exitence, a lack of God. Surely, you understand that we cannot enter heaven WITHOUT God. Thus, the state of original sin prevents one from entering heaven. Not because of what they have done - necessarily - but on their state of existence upon their birth.
But, then, as Agrarian once reminded me (although woithout references), the choices in the world to come shall only be good choices, so the possibility of another Fall will not exist. But, then, neither will freedom. The question that inevitably comes to mind is: why didn't we have it that way from the beginning?
That is interesting. The angels are said to have made an irrevocable decision - yet they maintain free will. I think we will be in the same boat when we enter heaven. As to why we didn't have it from the beginning, I again ask you why do we discipline our children? The Scriptures tell us that we discipline them to teach them. How could Adam learn about perseverance or humility or forbearance otherwise?
Regards
Why would you admit that?
Of course it is! The fact is that it is strong circumstantial evidence of absence. In court we use the fact of the absence of evidence all the time to disprove assertions of fact. If someone claims that they were seriously hurt in January but there is no medical evidence to show that they saw any doctor until July, then that is both evidence to show that not only did they not get injured in January as they claim, but that they were not seriously injured as well.
Here you have the Catholics arguing that this is a first century Apostolic teaching, but there is no evidence until the Fourth Century of ANYONE actually teaching it. The absence of evidence both goes to prove that it was not a first century teaching AND that it is not an Apostolic teaching.
This "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trueism is a falseism. The fact that you could not find any evidence of it being taught for 300 years IS evidence that it wasn't. I would say it is pretty close to conclusive evidence.
Jesus established a living authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, preserved from Teaching error.
I can't even imagine the God-Man, Jesus, establishing His Church upon Peter, sending the Holy Spirit upon it to Teach it all Truth, telling others Who ever hears His Church, hears Him, and then letting that Church teach errors and lies.
There is certainly no hint of that in Holy Writ and were that to have happened, all of Jesus' promises would have beeen unreliable.
He promised He would be with His Church until the end of time.
Were we teaching error, Jesus would be with us wile allowing that to happen.
Does that make any sense? No. It makes a mockery (worse, actually) of the promises of Christ
This is not a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but rather the doctrine of the Communion of Saints and the Mystical Body of Christ and how they interrelate. The saints have the same ability as Mary in this regard.
Regards
Then she should have been called "Christotokos" as Nestorus suggested, or perhaps as "Iesutokos," but the church resolutely rejected that (I believe only thee bishops of 150 or so) voted for Christotokos. I suggest you read the whole text of the Council in order to get their reasoning on this one.
Of course, the implication is that she is not someone who preceded either Person of the Holy Trinity.
Personally, my approach to orthodoxy is defined by Leo Tolstoy's Three Little Hermits. I am perfectly comfortable just praising in humility and awe the Tiune God and letting Him guide my heart, even if I don't know how to serve Him, or how to "officially" pray to Him.
Yes, there is no doubt that I have scriptural proof that they were Mary's children; however, you imply that you have already seen it. If you close out any argument about Jesus' siblings, then that pretty much shuts down the debate. In recent times, BD has taken the lead and produced several excellent posts showing the Sola Scriptura case for the fact that Mary had other children. I copied them, so if you have not seen them and would like to, then I (or he) would be happy to post them for you.
As to being a loving wife, Consider what St. Gregory Palamas says:
For this reason she who is really a virgin – who models herself on Him who is virgin, who was born of a Virgin and who is the Bridegroom of the souls that live in true virginity – will shun not merely carnal wedlock but also worldly companionship.
For what reason? You've just given me the conclusion. In any event, in the past I think I have been fine with many or all of the quotes I have been showed from Palamas. Even if it turns out that I disagree with him here about Marian doctrines, that is not the end of the world as far as I am concerned. As has been on display, I also disagree with Calvin and Luther on some of them too. :)
If God were physically present in your home, would you tend to other interests? Would you put God on a "backburner?" Would you, in His presence, find other things more interesting? (please say "No!")
OK, "No!". :) HOWEVER, I'm not sure of your entire point here. Is it that if toddler Jesus is running around the house, then surely Joseph and Mary can't have sex at night? I do not understand this. We are clearly told that Joseph and Mary don't fully "get it" as late as the only story (I think) of Jesus as a young man.:
Luke 2:48-50 : 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." 49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Clearly, Mary and Joseph did not get the full picture at this point. So, why would they have had other than a normal marriage at least until then? But even forgetting that, what is so terrible and sinful, or inappropriate, about marital sex? It kind of sounds like you are saying that if God is far away in Heaven, then marital sex is OK, but if He comes to stay at your house, then sex is off limits. Why? Is marital sex something we should be ashamed of?
My argument about Mary is that scripture tells us that she probably did not fully understand the identity of Christ as late as when He was 12. Therefore, there's no reason, according to your premises, that Mary and Joseph couldn't have loved each other as a man and wife.
The overall message I am getting is that marital sex is somehow "bad", although I would not quote you as saying that outright. I am confused.
Despite what we are told in scripture about the Temple scene when Jesus was 12, do you say that Mary and Joseph worshiped Jesus as a child? Or, did they teach Him as parents do? Did they discipline Him before the age of reason? etc.
I'm starting to wonder if we have extremely different ideas about what was going on during Jesus' upbringing. :)
I don't think you are a raving fanatic because you come to different conclusions regarding some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
However, I am wondering how you trust the Catholic Church in such matters as the Trinity, the relationship between the Son and the Father, the relationship between Christ's humanity and His divinity, and other such Catholic doctrines that are not CLEARLY laid out in Scriptures. As you may know, these and many other beliefs were hammered out over many years by bishops and other men poring over Sacred Scriptures AND the Apostolic Tradition passed down (read this as "correct interpretation of Scriptures). Why is it that you decide that the Church is right on such matters as the contents of Scriptures (which point to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth) and many doctrines defined many years later, but NOT on such matters as Mary's virginity?
If we believe that the Church infallibly tells us the contents of the Word of God, then we should believe that the Church ALSO infallibly tells us an explanation of the Word of God. From your studies up to Irenaeus, don't you remember what he said about heretics who used the VERY SAME SCRIPTURES to "prove" their fantasies? Several times in Book One, he mentions this. Thus, Irenaeus saw the Church as the protector of the CORRECT interpretation of Sacred Writ. Now, why would God suddenly drop His guidance of His established Church?
This is where I am lost regarding the Protestant mindset. It is a contradictory stance. Either determine the Scriptures for yourself and invent any sort of idea you want, or believe that God has revealed Himself through ONE Body. I don't see how you can have it both ways except by special pleading.
Regards
IC is not your ordinary baptism. So, by that fact alone she was made extraordinary.
Obviously, Jesus loved John. That is a tautology. Do you think He didn't love the other Apostles as much?
To me it is strange modern evangelicals desire to throw-in with Helvidius, and even repudiate the reformers as a way of doing that. However, free will being what it is, and antipathy and opposition to the Catholic Church acknowledged, I am not surpised at anything anymore
Utterly ridiculous.
Where do you find what sort of utensils that Christians used to eat? Well, according to your logic, they didn't use any forks or knives or spoons. They don't write about it, so they must not have used any utensils. Apparently, they ate soup with their bare hands...
You see, Marlowe, people don't normally write about things that are taken for granted, nor do they write about things that people "all" agree on. Most of the writings we have are written to give suggestions on solving problems or making general proclamations. Mary's viriginity was not a prime issue of importance when people were discussing the resurrection of Christ. That talk only came later.
Thus, there are these two reasons why we don't find Christians talking about Mary's virginity the first 150 years. It was either already well known or it was not worth arguing about because it was already accepted.
Regards
I am willing to admit that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I followed by saying that the absence of evidence can also be exactly what it appears to be.
However, in terms of logic it is entirely possible that something has happened and I just don't have the evidence to prove it.
Everyone must admit, though, that this claim should prompt no one to be arrogant about any contention based on it.
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.