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/
Not only are you implying that she had a bunch of children that took her attention away from her real Son, ...
Mary's mind was not always one with the mind of Christ ...Mark 3:21,31-34
When his family heard about this [i.e. that Jesus was preaching to a crowd] they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
...
Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent someone to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
...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 claims of Christ and his teachings drove a wedge through Jewish society, ... even through the midst of some families ...Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
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!
There is no lasting fellowship between believers and unbelievers ...2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
Gospel message? Whose Gospel message? The KJV? The one the very authors admit is not inspired?
The gospel message of the scriptures ... as, particularly, encoded in the early creeds.
"sides, all his real brothers and siters were prolly dead. They aint mentioned when Jesus is Teaching in the Temple and He has to be searched for. It appears He is an only child. Oh well, Mary prolly had anywhere from 15-30 kids and they all prolly died from the flu or something..It makes no diff...
Something being a complete work as opposed to a fragment doesn't say if it reflects the original. It is something that the scholars (several of whom were antagonistic to the idea of biblical inerrancy) have surmised.
Regardless, it is impossible to say for certainty that one thing was an addition and one was a subtraction. We don't have the originals so, you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. Luke makes it a non-issue. She had a firstborn Son. His name was Jesus.
And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch, And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day's journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him
*So, seeing as how men travelled with men and women with women, it appears Jesus had no brothers to say, "Hey, where is Jesus?"
* I suspect Mary did have 15-30 daughters but they all died during the Great Jerusalem Flu epidemic of 31 ad.
Kosta. Go to an Orthodox Jewish family today and have one convert to Christianity. Jesus may have been seen as an evil criminal by his lost siblings. Plus, you have to remember - ALL OF THE APOSTLES ran and only John is seen at the foot of the cross. It wouldn't have been so much an abandonment of Mary as it would have been of Jesus.
Prolly load it up with beer and ice...
Then you don't believe that God has preserved the basic integrity of His Word?
But says nothing about after...
That's what I said, and that is what the Church has said when the question came up.
The strong implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal relations as a married couple
Only if you already believe that in your mind. There is no evidence from that Scripture that Mary and Joseph had sex AFTER the birth of Christ. Considering HOW Mary conceived a child, do you think Joseph would want any part of that sort of relationship with Mary?
They also had children together as James was Jesus' half-brother.
What makes you think James and Jesus had the same mother?
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 am giving you examples of the use of "til" when it does not mean something happens AFTER the fact. I will continue to use apologetic sites, rather than comb the Scriptures for myself when the time requires it. Do you think I have nothing better to do than pore over Thayers to prove you wrong when someone already has done it?
Regards
Your examples are not valid because there are certain rules of language- which is why I pointed you to the lexicon.
Also, one does not build doctrine on what Scripture DOESN'T SAY. If one did, I could say that Joseph didn't die but was taken up by Space aliens. Hey, the Bible doesn't say he wasn't - and you know what, an apparition told me it happened so that must be proof enough.
Sorry. You have to talk your way around way too many Scriptures to say that Mary and Joseph's relationship was anything other than a normal marriage after Jesus' birth.
Since you already think I have been disproven and refuse to look at the lexicon - I guess I will allow you to think whatever you will. You will believe what you want to believe rather than searching it out for yourself. Oh well.
I was raised in the Episcopal church and refused to be confirmed. I became a Baptist about 15 years later. It was meant to be!
One of the great things in the Baptist Church is the emphasis placed on making sure everything is consistent with Scripture.
Exactly. So why are you saying that Mary was NOT a virgin? Where does it say she had sex with someone? Where does it say that Jesus had a blood brother? Where does it say that Mary gave birth to another child? Sorry, the "til" argument is NOT conclusive. I have given you ample examples of "til" being used and an action did NOT continue afterwards. Unless you think Micah gave birth to children after her death...
What we say about Mary is a reflection on Scriptures, realizing that Mary is a type of the Church, just like the Jews crossing the Red Sea was a type of Baptism. Thus, we say Mary was a virgin because the Church is the virgin bride of Christ.
Perhaps you will not accept that. However, we don't interpret Scriptures by the literal sense alone. If we did, we would have a very limited useage for it. The Bible speaks to us today, not merely a recollection of historical events. The relationship between Mary and the Church is just one example of that deeper expression of God's revelation to mankind.
Regards
Of course God preserves His Word - THROUGH the Church... WHO is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Who did Jesus promise to be with for all time? WHO did Jesus say that the Spirit of truth would be sent to? Yes, the Church. God protects His Word through the Church, which keeps it as a treasure, a "deposit", which includes both the written and oral teachings of the Apostles.
Regards
Luke 2:7.
Mary was a virgin. She was not a perpetual virgin.
she brought forth her firstborn son. 7êáé åôåêåí ôïí õéïí áõôçò ôïí ðñùôïôïêïí êáé åóðáñãáíùóåí áõôïí êáé áíåêëéíåí áõôïí åí öáôíç äéïôé ïõê çí áõôïéò ôïðïò åí ôù êáôáëõìáôé (W&H)
ÊÁÔÁ ËÏÕÊÁÍ 2:7 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)
1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550)
Public Domain
7êáé åôåêåí ôïí õéïí áõôçò ôïí ðñùôïôïêïí êáé åóðáñãáíùóåí áõôïí êáé áíåêëéíåí áõôïí åí ôç öáôíç äéïôé ïõê çí áõôïéò ôïðïò åí ôù êáôáëõìáôé
ÊÁÔÁ ËÏÕÊÁÍ 2:7 (1894 Scrivener New Testament)
1894 Scrivener New Testament (TR1894)
Public Domain
7êáé åôåêåí ôïí õéïí áõôçò ôïí ðñùôïôïêïí êáé åóðáñãáíùóåí áõôïí êáé áíåêëéíåí áõôïí åí ôç öáôíç äéïôé ïõê çí áõôïéò ôïðïò åí ôù êáôáëõìáôé
TON PRWTOTOKON signifies that he was the first child of others. The eldest child.
It comes from protos meaning:1) first in time or place
a) in any succession of things or persons
and tiktw
1) to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
a) of a woman giving birth
b) of the earth bringing forth its fruits
c) metaph. to bear, bring forth
In other words, Jesus, per Luke 2, was the first in a succession that Mary gave birth to.
Interesting post, Blogger.
I think James agrees. :-)
It appears that the Greek did not come through on those earlier verses. Suffice it to say that Scrivener, Stephanus, and Westcott and Hort all contain Prototkon in Luke 2:7. The "til" part supports a relationship between Joseph and Mary. The firstborn seals it.
I believe Mary does as well. ;o)
(Somehow in my minds eye I'm picturing this little Jewish lady throwing her hands up "18 hours I was in labor with that one! and they want to dismiss it! Oy vey! "
Mary isn't on a throne. Jesus is. Stop promoting her.
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.