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/
Do you for a moment think that Jesus loved +John more than His own blood "brothers?" God is nor partial. Do you think His blood "brothers" would not have loved their own Mother? You don't think they would have raised legal issues with +John taking custody of their Mother? And do you think the Jewish and Roman authorities would have listened to +John's argument that His Lord, who had been condemned to death as a common criminal, told him to behold His Mother while dying on the Cross? That would really carry a "lot" of legal weight, Blogger.
Obviously (for whatever reason), ... it never came to that.
BTW ... I don't think that any other hypothetical sons of Mary would have a "right" to her ... as much as a "responsibility" for her.
Jesus, at the cross (where His brethren most likely were not) ... took care of providing for Mary's care ... by placing her with John.
Taking into account that Jesus' brethren were not believers at this point; ... while Mary and John were, ... and of the sharp divide in the Jewish community that belief on Jesus caused, ... it is not at all unfathomable that the two groups (believers and unbelievers) ... would choose to go their own way.
!!! Not everyone on your "side" says that. You have forgotten that there are as many ideas about God in the Protestant camp as their are heads (...paraphase of Luther, discovering the Pandora Box he had opened with Sola Scriptura)
Regards
Perhaps for you, that is subjectively true. But I am speaking about objective truth. Sources outside of myself say that human liberals cannot hatch from eggs, because then they would no longer be human, by scientific definition.
Oh... I guess then they aren't human :-)
What sources would you like me to state? I wasn't there, so I use historical evidence AND I ascertain whether the witnesses cooraborate the history. Reliable men have vouched for the Scripture's veracity, as well as the Church's veracity. But in the end, it comes down to experience and faith in their witness. How do you know George Washington was a president?
Regards
Perhaps for you, that is subjectively true. But I am speaking about objective truth. Sources outside of myself say that human liberals cannot hatch from eggs, because then they would no longer be human, by scientific definition.
Oh... I guess then they aren't human :-)
What sources would you like me to state? I wasn't there, so I use historical evidence AND I ascertain whether the witnesses cooraborate the history. Reliable men have vouched for the Scripture's veracity, as well as the Church's veracity. But in the end, it comes down to experience and faith in their witness. How do you know George Washington was a president?
Regards
FK, Mary was destined to be the Mother of our Lord and nothing else, for anything else that she would be remembered for would diminish not only her special place in God's Plan but our Lord as well. It takes an active stretch of one's imagination to think that she was used as a temporary dish to carry God Incarnate only to be used later for unholy things.
Holy Cow, Batman! They've turned Mary from a human being into a relic, an icon, a holy object.
No one could "touch" mary without defiling her! This would mean that Joseph could not hold her hand, or hug her, or kiss her, or accidentally spit on her while talking, lest he defile this sacred object. Only Jesus could touch her. She could not have other children as that would mean that her other children would have touched her. She could not have other children because that would mean that Jospeh would have had to touch her. She was "untouchable".
I think I get this thing now. Mary worship is the same as icon worship and relic worship and object worship. It is the adoration of idols and graven images and objects. Mary is not simply a person on a pedestal, she is a HOLY object. Do not touch her, lest ye defile her. Bow before her, as SHE IS HOLY.
I thought I had seen everything. But now I get it. They can deny that they "worship" of Mary all they want, but this is worship. There is no other word for it.
jo kus. No, the word "til" does not always mean something came afterward. But according to the Greek Lexicon (Thayers), when coupled with ou, it means up to the time when Jesus was born. So, Joseph knew her not up to the time when Jesus was born is the meaning of the text.
The strong implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal relations as a married couple. They also had children together as James was Jesus' half-brother. Jesus as Mary's FIRSTBORN Son (prototkon- meaning eldest son or firstborn) also implies other children.
Please do not clip from an apologetics site. Look at the lexicon yourself to find out any special context concerning the word in question. I did.
I have no such problem. By the completion of the Canon, I mean when John wrote the last letter of Revelation around 90 AD. EVERY MAJOR DOCTRINE all Christian essentials were contained in Scripture. The divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the Unity of Christ's person were all complete in Scripture whether or not man got it at that point or not (which he did- only schismatics like Arius denied some of these things).
The problem with some of the newer doctrines is not that there is suddenly a fuller understanding of Christ but that the doctrines coming out actually contradict and twist Scripture. Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Mary had other children. Nothing was sinful about either aspect. But she was also a sinner. She called God her Savior. One has no need of a Savior if one is sinless. She is NOT a co-redeemer. By that same logic, So was John, so was Peter, so was Pilate for all "suffered" in some aspect in the death of the Savior.
The early church, even in Scripture, had its problems. It was not inerrant otherwise Paul wouldn't have been writing all of those letters to the various churches. The Thessalonians thought they were in the Tribulation. The Galatians thought they had to be circumcized to be saved. The Corinthians were FULL of problems.
Of course, the Holy Spirit breathed and directed the writing and formulation of the Canon of Scripture. But there were various doctrines along the way, such as Pelagianism, Arianism, Gnosticism, that were not Scriptural or inspired by the Holy Spirit. When things contradict Scripture, they were tossed. The same standard should apply today.
God preserves his Word, but the church of Christ is not perfect. If something contradicts Scripture or can not be fully supported by Scripture, toss it.
SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA FIDE SOLA GRATIA SOLOS CHRISTOS
And the KJV actually states that the Matthew verse has "prwtotokon."
My whole point was that fraud and corruption is to be found in what we call the "word of God." and that we should approach "text-proofing" very cautiously.
So many versions, deletions, additions, redactions, etc. have been made of the original that we don't know which is true and which is misleading. In other words, the Bible is thoroughly corrupted by human hands and minds, agendas, prejudices, etc.
In view of that, accusing anyone of dishonesty when it comes to the Bible, is just plain silly, or worse. Scratch the surface of any Christian community, any sources, etc. and you will find dishonesty, greed, corruption, discrepancies.
The same is true of the various version of the Septuagint, the differences between the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Bible may have been inspired by God and pure in its original version, but by now it is a tainted beyond repair.
The reason I took issue with you is because, to their shame, everyone claims that "small differences" (what an understatement!) do not change what the Bible teaches. Yes, to some extent that is true, and miraculously so, but clearly we do not believe in one and the same thing, and probably a lot has to do with the fact that we do not read one and the same Bible!
Otherwise we wouldn't have a major division within Christianity, and thousands of divisions of "true" churches in the Protestants community. I would go as far as to say that there are as many versions of Christianity as there are people!
What is really dishonest is that everyone discards gross differences and claim without any proof whatsoever that a word here and there does not affect the verse. Is that not incredibly dishonest, Blogger?
You and I were arguing over whether Mat 1:25 actually says "firstborn" because to you that was an indication (if not even "proof") that Mary had more children. Without that latter-day addition, you would have never used that verse to attempt to draw that conclusion.
So, imagine how important it is what an individual reads and believes to be the inerrant word of God! What he or she ends believing will not be determined by the Holy Spirit but what a human mind decided to add or delete, and human hand wrote intentionally or not.
Oh, yes, it matters a lot. Take Isaih 9.6 in Septuagint and KJV. The latter compares the son to God almighty, Prince of Peace, the Comforter. The former calls the son a messenger of great counsel. Imagine what impression you are left with if you read only one version? In one, the son is God; in the other the son is a messenger (aggelos), an angel.
Did you notice that only John noted he was the one loved? Fo you think his ego was a mite unrestrained? I am just saying ...
Do you doubt the scripture on this point ?
Do you think that God would have allowed "John's ego" to be ordained as Holy Scripture ?
Of all the Bible in the English speaking world, the KJV has been elevated to the status of the "most reliable," the "official," etc. Clearly, the authors of KJV didn't think so. They were humble enough to admit that theirs is a work of men.
How do you know it is a latter day addition? You don't. We don't have the original autographs. As I stated before, just because a particular manuscript is older doesn't mean it is better. Lots of heretics took their crack at writing books and tinkering with Scripture.
The textual critics ASSUME that it was a latter day addition because in some manuscripts it isn't found in there. In others (quite old ones as well such as the Peshitta Syriac) it is in there. Who took it out or added it? We don't know for sure nor can we claim to know since we don't have the autographs. We do know that it appears to consistently be in Luke, so what is the problem with it being in Matthew as well?
The problem with the Greek Orthodox commentator is that he interjected into Hebrews something that wasn't there. Noone disputes that Jesus is the WORD. His implication is that the Bible said Jesus was the firstborn WORD and he then took that to say if firstborn WORD only means first with others following then there would be other "WORDS." The Bible doesn't use the phrase firstborn WORD though. Such an argument was dishonest. Sorry. That's how I see it.
"Text Proofing" should be done cautiously. But caution and arrogantly tossing on Scripture because you buy into some belief that it is somehow untrustworthy is another.
The Septuagint, incidentally is a bit older than the manuscripts used for translation of alternate Greek Texts from the Textus Receptus. By your logic, it should be better. Incidentally, in this case I would agree knowing the care that the Jews took to preserve their Scripture. They wouldn't have stood for some insertion.
Consider the context of the manuscripts found then make a decision as to which is the better.
In other words, the Bible is thoroughly corrupted by human hands and minds, agendas, prejudices, etc.
Surely you do not believe this.
That there are some differences in the versions, translations, autographs, etc. ... is undeniable.
But those differences are a very small percentage of the text of scripture.
The basics of scripture ... for instance, that which was encoded in the early creeds (i.e. Apostles', Nicean ...) ... is unambiguously agreed upon by the whole of Christianity.
I would say that everything else ... is peripheral to the basic gospel message.
And I would say further ... if one cannot trust the scriptures to adequately proclaim the gospel of Jesuus Christ (because of these minute difference within the texts), ... how is it that one would trust the communities (i.e. churches) which are responsible for this so-called corruption ?
Supposing that she had children other than Christ, do you think they loved her any less that they didn't deserve her, or that for some reason they couldn't or wouldn't take care of her?
Besides, it was a matter of law. Christ was a condemned criminal. There were no witnesses that He "gave" her away. +John, a follower of a condemned criminal, was not in a position to make any claims. The Jewish and Roman law would have prevailed. The children would have claimed her.
There were no "other" children. No one claimed Mary. Our Lord knew that when He dies she will be alone, so He gave her to the only disciple who was brave enough to be with Him at the Cross.
Not only are you implying that she had a bunch of children that took her attention away from her real Son, but you are also implying that because they were not believers they were not "worthy" of their mother! And, in the same vain, you are assuming that they didn't love their mother enough to want her.
The Holy of Holies in the Temple was only for the High Priest. No one else dared enter that special place of the sanctuary. Mary's womb is considered a taberacle. It was cleansed by the Holy Spirit and made pure. Christ is the High Priest. No one else was to occupy that womb.
Of course not. Trouble is such concordance is limited to very generic concepts: Holy trinity and Christ's dual nature and will in one Person. Mainline Christianity really doesn't agree on more than that.
Once we get past that, anything goes precisely because of everything human mind and hand has done to the originals.
The fact that we agree she remained sinless through her entire life is proof that she had no concupiscence. It is impossible to remain sinless without a special grace from God. To say that Mary was an ordinary person who remained sinless by her own power is absurd. Scriptures cry out against such ideas throughout.
Good points, Jo. What say you guys?
So, you are saying that her own "children" didn't love Mary as their "mother" because they didn't share her belief, and abandoned her? Wow!
No, just her womb, purified and made fitting for God, the High Priest, like the Holy of Holies in the sanctuary. I really feel sorry for Protestants, for they cannot see the obvious.
The Codices are complete works. Textual criticism is based on complete works being compared to existing fragments. Based on that, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have been used since their discovery as the more correct version.
would agree knowing the care that the Jews took to preserve their Scripture. They wouldn't have stood for some insertion
Well, the Septuagint (fragments) and the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Jews as well, and they don't agree with the fragmetns that correspond to the Masoretic Text.
Besides, the New Testament uses almost exclusively LXX as its source.
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.