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/
You didn't present anything but a bunch of false assertions about what I believe. Sorry, my answers are on this thread. Look for them.
"St. Seraphim of Sarov was transfigured in light during his conversation with Motovilov, even as Our Lord was on Mount ..."
Huh?
The misunderstanding of the phrase 'Mother of God' you are objecting to is one reason that we Orthodox tend to leave the technical Greek theological term in Greek even in your English translations of hymnograpy: Theotokos.
The infelicitous Englishing of the term as "Birthgiver of God" is closer to the sense of the original Greek than "Mother of God".
You really ought to read the decrees of the Third Ecumenical Council against Nestorius to get the full sense of the term, and why the title is necessary to a proper understanding of Christ.
Well, you *can* do a Google search for "Seraphim of Sarov" and Motovilov if you don't know what I'm talking about.
I did and I don't believe it.
So you don't believe that we are to become partakers of the divine nature as St. Peter wrote in his second universal epistle? Or do you have some problem with it happening before our physical death?
That's an ad hominem.
Do you think the Godhead died on Calvary? Is that what you're saying?
No. I never said that. Christ died on Calvary. And Christ is truly God. And so in truth God died on Calvary. That does not imply or entail that the Godhead died on Calvary. (That would be a heresy, patripassionism and/or Sabellianism.)
-A8
You're very close. It all depends on how you are using that little word "as" both times. Mary did not give to the Logos His divine nature. But she did give to the Logos His human nature, His human beginning. She is the Mother of the Logos (and hence the Mother of God) because she gave birth to the Logos according to His human nature.
-A8
I have a hard time believing that after Christ's transformation that it would happen to someone else.
It's not an ad hominem if you ARE using the language loosely...which you are.
If the Godhead was not on the cross, then SPECIFICALLY who was?
I say it was the incarnate 2d Person of the Godhead.
Do you think it was the 1st Person of the Godhead or the 3rd?
Well, the Fathers commenting on St. Peter's Second Epistle, and Christ's rhetorical self-defense in which he quoted the Psalmist " . . .I have said ye are gods. . ." say what He is by nature, we are to become by grace.
If your concern is whether or not I believe Jesus was God at conception - He was. And before then.
Saying she gave him his beginning as man, I can partially agree with (in that she didn't do it alone. Only God could have performed this miracle. He used Mary's body to do so, and she was humbled that he would choose her).
I just dislike the term mother of God, because of what it implies on the surface. Theology can be difficult to grasp at times, without using terms that need to be carefully qualified in order to be understood properly. Mother of God is not the only confusing term that is used. But it would be just as easy to call her Mother of Christ or Mother of the Son of God. Or even to a point Mother of the God-Man Jesus Christ. Mother of God implies she preexisted God and is just an innecessarily confusing term. IMHO
The Church does not draft her documents for those who don't know theology, those misinformed and uneducated folks who might misunderstand a term if they came across it. She drafts her documents for her bishops and priests, those knowing the theology and tradition of the Church. The Council of Ephesus in 431 declared Mary to be the "Mother of God" specifically in response to the Nestorian heresy, and after the doctrine of the Trinity had been hammered out in the first two councils. The Catholic clergy would in no way misinterpret "mother of God" to mean that Mary was the source of the divine nature. And as I showed above, denying that Mary is "the mother of God" logically entails one of three heresies, and therefore the Church must affirm it.
-A8
You are free to dislike the terms. . You say that she is a virtuous woman? How virtuous? Do you draw any distinction between her and Elizabeth? There exist degrees of natural virtues. There exist different charisms. Some saints are greater than others. Mary a role model? Only as the model Christian. As the mother of Jesus, however, she was closer to Jesus--literally--than any other human being not just until she gave birth to him but afterwards. She was his mother. To say,as you and Nestorius siad, that she was only the Mother of Jesus, or the Mother of Christ is to try to separate his divine nature from his human nature. His human nature was as much the doing of God as his divine nature.
Why do you keep saying that Mary is the mother of the Father?
That's exactly what the Nestorians and Arians wanted to do. Those are attacks on the *deity* of Christ.
Christians are called "sons of God". See John 1:12, Rom 8:14,19; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2. So if Mary is merely the mother of the "son of God", then that makes Christ no more divine you or me.
And to be "Christ" does not necessarily mean to be "God". So, to call Mary merely the "mother of Christ" makes it possible that Christ was a mere man.
The Council knew what they were doing. Christ's divinity was at stake. And if you cave on "mother of God", you are giving away Christ's deity.
-A8
Why do you keep denying the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit?
-A8
The point is that neither Thayer or Liddell-Scott attach any special meaning to the "ou" adverb. The "till" os "until" are valid translations (in my mind, "until" leans more to the meaning you want that "till"). Either with or without "ou" "eos" describes the condition prior to the event controlled by "eos"; whether or not the event changes the condition (e.g, as you argue. St. Joseph no longer abstains from carnal relations with Our Lady) is to be determined by context.
So you agree that Mary is the mother of the FAther?
No! The Church has never claimed that Mary is the mother of the Father. To claim that Mary is the mother of the Father is heresy!
-A8
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.