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/
Israel = Church = Mary. Who ELSE gave literal birth to the man who would rule with an iron rod?
Regards
Israel is NOT the church. The church was grafted into Israel. She did not obliterate her. Read Romans 11.
Mary had several children. One was a child by God. The others were by Joseph.
Oh, because you SAY it happened that way, I must be daft to disagree with you, despite people living much closer to the event then us have told us that Mary did NOT give birth to anyone else but Jesus Christ. Sorry, but your proclamations are not going to change my mind. This is obviously one of your "traditions of men", because the Bible doesn't make a mention of "children of Mary".
The best you can do from Scripture alone is to leave the matter unresolved. Not your definitive answer "Mary had other children".
Regards
I never said any such thing about obliteration. The Church is the People of God. Israel is the People of God.
If A = C and B = C, then A = B.
Regards
I didn't say it. The GREEK says it. Argue with Luke. Not me.
The Greek does not say that Mary had more children. You are *interpreting* it as though it does. But as I have pointed out a number of times now, both terms, 'until' and 'firstborn' are fully compatible with Mary having only one child.
-A8
Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Read Romans 9-12 for that matter. It explains the whole thing.
Incidentally, what about: Matthew 13:55
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Mark 15:40
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.
You will likely say, these are Joseph's children or cousins. Scripture doesn't say that. Adelphos is usually translated brothers.
Acts 1:14
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
But lets' look at what Christ Himself said...
31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
Does it REALLY make sense that Jesus would have been saying "here are my mother and my cousins?" Now such doesn't eliminate Joseph's unmentioned earlier wife from the equation - but contextually it seems that Jesus is recognizing these people as His Mother Brothers and Sisters.
Firstborn again lends biblical support that they are children of Mary.
Not until in it's grammatical context and not Firstborn in its literal sense. You have spoken about the rights of the firstborn - but with Israel and with Isaac, there were literally those who were the firstborn (Esau and Reuben). There were other children. Still, pointing to the Old Testament to try to wiggle out of the meaning of the Greek is a little iffy in and of itself.
Prototokon comes from the greek meaning (1st in a sequence... and brought forth from the womb). Yes, there are other meanings to Protos but they don't affect Jesus' being the eldest Son of others of Mary. For example, one meaning is preiminent. The one deserving most honor. If there is one deserving more honor - it implies others deserving less.
Luke did not use ONLY Son. He said FIRSTBORN Son. If Jesus were Mary's only Son, then the rights of the firstborn are His because He has no competitors to His estate. He is God's Only Begotten Son. No competitors. No questions. He is Mary's Firstborn Son. In terms of her estate, there would have to be a legal precedence set up. Jesus was her firstborn Son. He had brothers. He had sisters. They had names.
Paul speaks of them
1 Corinthians 9:5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?
Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
Sorry. Scripture is not on the side of Mary's perpetual virginity.
And therefore, bringing the discussion back to the subject of the thread. If the Catholics who are upset wish us to apologize for showing Mary as the biblical Mary and not the Catholic Mary then sorry, an apology will NOT be forthcoming.
None of that refutes what I said: that these verses are fully compatible with Mary having no other children.
If there is one deserving more honor - it implies others deserving less.
No. Otherwise every only male child would not be "prwtotokon", and would not have the rights and privileges of the firstborn. But every only male child *did* have those rights. Therefore, your conclusion is a non sequitur.
Luke did not use ONLY Son. He said FIRSTBORN Son.
True, but trying to use the former claim as evidence that Jesus had 'uterine brothers' is to commit the fallacy of the argument from silence.
He had brothers. He had sisters.
Indeed He did, but nothing in Scripture shows that they were 'uterine brothers and uterine sisters'.
Paul speaks of them 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ? Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
You are assuming, without any Scriptural evidence, that these are references to 'uterine brothers'. Assumptions don't do evidential work.
Scripture is not on the side of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Scripture is perfectly compatible with Mary's perpetual virginity. You have not a single shred of evidence that is incompatible with Mary's perpetual virginity.
-A8
How does this tie in with the Protestant sola scriptura? It proclaims relativism! Relativism doe snot contain the Truth. Each man his own pope. NO wonder there are so many different Protestant "denominations."
At least we in the Aposotlic community of Churches know what the Church taught all along. We don't have to make up things as we go along. The Church preserved the word of God as it was understood 2,000 years ago.
Luke makes it a non-issue. She had a firstborn Son. His name was Jesus
Firsborn before all mankind. Eternal God. The Word. To Whom goes all the Glory.
I think we have beaten this dead horse long enough.
No, not me. I am not going to stick around and go in circles (not again anyway).
EVERYTHING I have said has shown Scripture to be incompatible with Mary's perpetual virginity.
I have spent hours now trying to argue with people who refuse to see the plain meaning of Scripture. I have shown you the Greek. You put your fingers in Your ears and click your tongues and say it doesn't say what it says. I can't argue with someone who recognizes neither the ACTUAL WORDS OF SCRIPTURE and basic logic.
Go your way. You have been shown the truth but like Israel you plug up your ears that you can not hear it. I only hope one day you are in a place where Mary herself will correct you of the delusion.
Kosta
11But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
My answer to you is 1552. Goodnight.
Not one single verse you have pointed to in Scripture is incompatible with Mary's perpetual virginity.
I have spent hours now trying to argue with people who refuse to see the plain meaning of Scripture.
That's an ad hominem, and it begs the question. I have spent hours dealing with your insistence on reading more into the text than what is actually there.
I have shown you the Greek. You put your fingers in Your ears and click your tongues and say it doesn't say what it says.
That's an ad hominem.
I can't argue with someone who recognizes neither the ACTUAL WORDS OF SCRIPTURE and basic logic.
That too is an ad hominem.
Go your way. You have been shown the truth but like Israel you plug up your ears that you can not hear it. That too is an ad hominem. I could say the same to you.
I only hope one day you are in a place where Mary herself will correct you of the delusion.
And of course if I am right, it is you she'll be correcting.
-A8
Dear Antoninus,
Thank you for your recommendation!
We just got back from the movie. Minor quibbles aside, it was very good. We all enjoyed it. I found it an encouragement to my own faith.
sitetest
How marvellous is the priesthood of the Christian, for he is both the victim that is offered on his own behalf, and the priest who makes the offering.I appeal to you by the mercy of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice. Brethren, this sacrifice follows the pattern of Christ’s sacrifice by which he gave his body as a living immolation for the life of the world. He really made his body a living sacrifice, because, though slain, he continues to live. In such a victim death receives its ransom, but the victim remains alive. Death itself suffers the punishment. This is why death for the martyrs is actually a birth, and their end a beginning. Their execution is the door to life, and those who were thought to have been blotted out from the earth shine brilliantly in heaven.
Thank you. One wouldn't ordinarily argue about words, but "elder" is such a wooden englishism that is comlpetely laughable, with its subtext of temporal power. Is Christ an elder?
And you find me appealing to scripture, as is every Catholic. Show me where does it say that scripture governs alone in the sense in which you use the phrase: so that, putatively, if something is not in the scripture than it cannot be taught as doctrine.
"If Mary is the New Eve, she was born sinless - meaning, she was born with God's presence within her. That is exactly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. She was born with God's presence AND she was born without the stain of original sin (stain = effect of original sin, which is concupiscence)."
First, Mary is the New Eve, but she wasn't the Same Eve. Eve's created purpose was to become fully "a god", to paraphrase +Athanasius, and pass on that potentiality to her descendants. We are taught that by her sin, she cut off the possibility of attaining that created purpose because she become a bondswoman to death and that bondage, not by the way a punishment from God as the Baltimore Catechism would have it, was passed on to her descendants to this day. It was passed on to Mary just as it was to each of us. And each of us are conceived and born as "sinless" as Mary was. Mary, unlike the rest of us, the consensus patrum says, remained sinless (but we all know that not all The Fathers agreed with that)and she remained that way through a complete subjugation of her will to that of God which happened because of her particular response, cooperation or synergy if you will, to God's grace. To say this is not absurd at all. This could not, however, have resulted in theosis because no matter what, she was in bondage to death until her Son broke the bonds of death by His death, descent to the dead, the breaking of those bonds and His Resurrection. To say otherwise is to deny that Christ was her savior, which, so far as I know, no Father ever said. To say that she received a "superabundance" of grace, issues of the nature of that grace aside, is to deny that God's grace falls equally on all creation, which is, to say the least, a basic tenent of Orthodox Christianity.
Mary is indeed the New Eve, because she is The Most Holy Theotokos, through whom Christ entered the world and through whom our created potentiality again became attainable, having been lost to death through the sin of the First Eve.
" Death itself suffers the punishment. "
Marvelous line isn't it! Reminds me of this:
"Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?"
King James is not all bad, it is certainly miles ahead of the modern Micky Mouse translations (of which the New King James takes the cake). Yet the systematic mistranslation of "priest", as well as a few other features that represent nothing but Protestant spin, make it ultimately harmful.
In making textual arguments I use Unbound Bible which contains most truncated translations, the Septuagint, the New Testament originals, and the Hebrew Old Testament. I often include King James in my search, first because it is often dispositive for the Protestant opponent and rarely disagrees with Douay, and secondly, to grow my collection of KJV abnormalities.
The verse in Timothy is translated ELDER, and such translation makes perfect sense since the verse reads 1 Timothy 5
1Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father;
In 1 Tim 5 it is possible to translate "elder" as the reference is to age. Douay has it "ancient". If KJV had not made abundant references to "elder" meaning "priest", it would have been an appropriate choice. However, in 4:14 the reference is made to the sacramental function of the priest, yet King James leaves it untranslated: "presbytery". Would it have killed them to say "priest", the established word that the reformers themselves would use describing Catholic ordinations?
The reference to "forbidding to marry and eat meat" is criticism of the gnostics; if your intention is to make reference to the Catholic practices, do not forget that St. Paul recommended celibacy for priests.
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.