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 haven't changed. If you say that God cannot die, then either Christ did not die (that's Docetism), or Christ was not God (that's Arianism). Both are heresies.
You appear now to be agreeing that it's best to be specific about which person of the trinity we are referring to.
No, it is best to state the truth. And the truth is that Mary is the mother of God, because she is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Second Person of the Trinity is God.
-A8
Incorrect. Jesus would have been God had he never been incarnated. He was God always. Never wasn't God. Therefore, Mary was not the mother of Him AS GOD. She was the mother of Him AS MAN. He was both. She was the mother of one of those elements and gave it life. His humanness had a beginning. His Godhood did not. The divine part of Christ eternally preexisted Mary so therefore could not have been sired by her.
So, why do you keep insisting that the Father is not God?
Did the 2nd person of the trinity exist before Mary?
That's Nestorianism, dividing the natures. Mary was not merely the mother of a *nature*. She was the mother of a *Person*. That *Person* was the Second Person of the Trinity.
-A8
I have never said that the Father is not God.
-A8
Of course.
-A8
Sure you have. You said that God died on the cross.
That means that you think The Father is not God or you think the Father died on the cross.
Which is it?
Then she couldn't have been His mother - AS GOD. She was His mother as MAN. He had no mother as God. She was mother to Him as human. Yet, the divine still existed independent and yet in complete unity with the human. As I said, a mystery.
She is the blessed mother of Jesus. That's what the Bible calls her. To call her mother of God implies that God had a beginning - which is in itself, as You have said, heresy.
G'night
That's a non sequitur, because, as I explained above, there are three Persons in God. Just because the Son dies, does not entail that the Father dies. The claim that the Father suffered on the cross is the heresy of "patripassionism", or the heresy of Sabellianism.
-A8
The fact that the Second Person of the Trinity pre-existed Mary (and in fact created her) is perfectly compatible with her being the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. The Person that came from her womb was the Second Person of the Trinity. Yes He pre-existed her and created her. But nevertheless, He came forth from her womb. And hence it is true that she is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. Moreover, since the Second Person of the Trinity is God, it therefore follows that she is the mother of God.
To call her mother of God implies that God had a beginning -
Only to ignorant and untrained ears.
-A8
No matter which side we take in this debate, I think it should be clear that with the Incarnation, who Mary and who Jesus is become inherently entwined.
We are late to this debate, it's been going on since the beginning of our faith. And we shouldn't pretend that we don't need to concern ourselves with what Nestor or Arius said or taught centuries ago. Because heresy, like Orthodoxy is renewed or rejected with each generation.
We can take different sides, however, I think we cannot say the debate and the doctrine is not important or that its history is of no value to us today.
Your and xzins's idea of Trinity is not mainstream Christian (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant).
If you are non-trinitarian then we are wasting the bandwidth. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of the Holy Trinity, you may wish to consult St. John of Damascus on this issue (Book I).
She gave birth to Incarnate God the Word.
Oops:
Nestor S/B Nestorius
Oh come on! :) While proofreading I specifically inserted "for example" about a rich mother. Of course Jesus was not financially wealthy, although the Protoevangelium has Mary's parents being VERY wealthy. Doesn't it seem strange to you that they hoarded their wealth against their beloved daughter? :) Jesus took care of Mary's needs, as the oldest. Once He gave the task to John, the burden was lifted from Jesus' (possibly unbelieving) blood siblings, according to the passage you cited.
Did you notice that only John noted he was the one loved? Do you think his ego was a mite unrestrained? I am just saying...
Well, John was so humble that he never actually named himself as THAT person. Most of the rest of us have had to deduce that. Quester asks a fair question. Does your portrayal above sound like Apostle material in terms of what made it into scripture?
"Technically" she was only the "mother of our Lord" in the sense that she bore the Messiah. Mary was in much of a need of a Savior as anyone else (Luk 1:47). Contrary to Catholic doctrine, she was not unstained from sin. ALL have sinned and fallen short of God.
Thanks for your reply. Am I correct in reading: Mary was 'only the mother of our Lord' as she is not the mother of God Incarnate? Would it be correct to say you are differentiating between giving birth to Christ and giving birth to True God, God Incarnate - and that Mary is more aptly the "Mother of Christ"?
Is this an accurate stating of your view?
No. She is not the "Mother of Christ" bearing the "Messiah". Scripture states that she was the mother of our "Lord". Christ also stated, "Who is my mother...these are my mother...who do the will of God." illustrating the same level of notoriety with Mary as with any woman.
Please note the following:
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.