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 can answer it
Please do. And while you are at it, please also explain how can God fill the whole universe, know what everyone thinks, will think, or thought, from before all times and other attributes of ineffable, unlimited, eternal God. I didn't volunteer, I simply asked that you don't ask what you yourself can't answe. Because I don't believe you. Get it? To EXPLAIN: to make plain or clear; render understandable or intelligible, to make known in detail.
For if you do, and I don't believe you, you will be the first human who has "explained" God in His nature.
The nature of Deity is incomprehensible. Adam and Eve thorught otherwise. They believed that if they get a little knoweldge of good and evil they will know what is good and what is evil, and "be just like gods."
No, it would be saying that God the Word Incarnate did not.
What do you mean by the "Mother of God"?
I mean to be clear about the fundamental tenets of our faith. Who Jesus is is inherently connected with who Mary is and their relationship defines the Incarnation.
By "Mother of God," I mean that Jesus was God Incarnate, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father - Who by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary.
" IF Jesus was Jude's brother through Mary, Jude would CERTAINLY call himself Jesus' brother, not James"
Incredible, Paul calls James, Jesus' brother, but that's not good enough since he's referred to as Jesus' brother and not referred to as "Mary's son" but now Jude can't be Jesus' brother since he is referred to as James' brother, not and not referred to as Jesus' brother.
Thank you for your answer. It was EXACTLY what I was looking for here.
My question was "Why do you believe in the doctrine of the trinity?" I further asked A8, in non-theological terms to explain the doctrine. You see, the reason I wanted non-theological terms is because anyone can copy down some formula set up by some council someplace long ago. But it doesn't explain why you believe it nor can it explain the truly unexplainable such as God's nature.
The correct answer I believe for all Christians is that we accept by faith the doctrine of trinity. If there is One and only one God and there are three persons called God in Scripture, then we accept by faith the biblical doctrine of the trinity. In the same way, if Jesus is 100% fully man and 100% fully God and yet only one person – then you accept by faith the biblical doctrine of the person of Christ. Neither can be satisfactorily explained in their mechanics, for some things are simply unknowable to human beings. Yet, this doesn't make them any less true.
Likewise, Jesus is one person of the Godhead. In his incarnation, he took on a nature that became completely unified with His Godhood to where he became 100% God and 100% Man. As God, he had no mother. He had no beginning so he could not have had a mother – as God. As man, he had a mother. Her name was Mary.
In just the same way that Jesus can be 100% God and 100% Man and still be one person (not two) – in this same way, Mary could be mother of Christ’s humanity, while still not negating his eternal preexistence as God. The incarnation was when God became a man yet still remained God. He was, is and is to come forever God. But, through Mary’s womb and the Holy Spirit’s power, He also became 100% man – all in one. He was a God-Man. This is a mystery to us, but we believe it because it is Scriptural.
Was the person that Mary gave birth to God? Absolutely. Was Mary the mother of God. No because she would have to be the mother of the Father and the Spirit as well since God is inseparably one. She was mother to the God-Man, Jesus Christ, and provided humanity for Him. She did not contribute even an ounce to his Divinity since he was already divine, was as divine as He ever would be or ever will be.
Mary was the mother of Jesus – just as the Bible says. If you say that calling her the mother of Jesus is heresy because it is somehow denying the divinity of Jesus – then you are saying that the Bible itself is heretical for it would be denying his divinity by calling Him that very name.
Mary, Mother of Jesus and blessed among women. That’s as far as Scripture goes and that is far as I go. To do anything else would truly be opening up Pandora’s box of heresies as can be seen with the development of Mariology in the church.
adiaireton8, see my post 1924.
(1) Mary is the mother of a person
(2) This person is God
Therefore, it necessarilly follows that
(3) Mary is the mother of God.
In order to reject that conclusion, you have to reject one of the two premises. Which do you deny?
-A8
But just what is that faith and how is its teaching accurately transmitted? You gave it a go in your post.
Respectfully, it has some problems there; and, I think it was done better by the Church fathers and the Councils and the creed.
A large part of the purpose of the Apostolic Church is to accurately transmit the faith through the centuries. You said earlier, I believe, that your church is non-credal and that "Most folks don't have a basic 'trinitarian understanding.'" Perhaps the two are related along with the lack of teaching in the fundamentals of Chrisitan Orthodoxy?
What relevance did Christ's status as a condemned criminal have in comparison to His status as Lord, in terms of the authority He exercised in tasking John with Mary's care?
Of course, +John made no claims. Jesus informed him of what his free will would be. :) That's what the scripture says.
Where does Jewish Law say that the other children would have "made a claim" AGAINST a widowed mother who was already provided for? (And what would Roman law have to do with this?) Note that your scenario presumes that the children would have fought the decree of Jesus. Why would they have done that, Jesus was the oldest?
What do you mean by "witnesses"? While Mary was of course not male, she was the matriarch, and she was the only believer. I think her own testimony in front of her children, who all RAN (or never showed up at all), would have counted for something. It was only HER life. :) Mary was at the cross and suffered greatly. Would you have questioned her witness as to what our Lord said while nailed and dying on a cross, while you were hiding? I don't think they would have questioned their mother either. :)
Perfect. I don't think it could be more clear.
-A8
False dilemma
1)Not all Persons have mothers (Adam had no mother)
2)Persons who have mothers also have beginnings
3)God has no beginning
4)God can not have a mother
5)Jesus is God
6)Jesus is a Human
7)As God, Jesus had no beginning
8) As God, Jesus had no mother
9) As Man, Jesus had a beginning
10)As Man, Jesus had a mother
11)Such a mystery is an unexplainable paradox in Scripture, just as the mystery of the trinity is.
It is not a dilemma; it is a deductive argument. If Mary is the mother of P, and P is God, then it necessarily follows that Mary is the mother of God. The only way to avoid that conclusion is to reject one (or both) of the two premises. Which premise do you reject?
-A8
Her Child was dying for all mankind on the Cross. There is no mention in the Bible of her having any other children. Church teaching has always held that she had no other children. The preeminent Protestant Reformers all agreed that she had no other children. Brother of Jesus DOES NOT mean son of Mary, if you believe otherwise that is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean you are correct.
No I mustn't.
Unlike Nestorius, I believe that God the Son is one person 100% God and 100% Man, melded into 1. How he can be so is a mystery, but He is.
Unlike Arius, I believe Jesus is fully God as well as being fully man.
Unlike most of the Mary "venerators" on this thread, I am humble enough to know that I can not explain certain mysteries - including the incarnation. I will choose to accept what Scripture calls Mary and that is mother of Jesus.
If calling Mary Mother of Jesus is heresy - then your argument is with the Holy Spirit, not myself.
-A8
Jesus was her firstborn Son according to Matthew and Luke. James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon were His brothers according to the Gospels. James was his brother according to Paul. Jude was James' brother according to Jude.
The "preeminent Protestant Reformers" were wrong on this one and were influenced by their former Catholicism. The Bible mentions no other wives for Joseph. The Bible doesn't mention that Joseph had children by any other wives. Jesus's brothers and sisters travelled with Mary. They were her children. She was with his brothers in the upper room. She was with his brothers and sisters when they went to look for him. She knew not Joseph until Jesus was born, but then they were a normal married couple enjoying what God has ordained as holy in the context of marriage.
Sorry. But we will not make Mary into being anything more that Scripture portrays her as and I don't care what "the Church" said. Where the Church contradicts Scripture (and you really really have to twist and turn to make this into anything other than a contradiction) rejection of the Church's saying must be in order.
I'm sorry. I didn't know that computers came in braile. I already answered your question. Check for the bump marks later on in the thread.
***********
It is indeed. Surely you're up to the task, Blogger.
God does not live within the confines of our logic. By those standards one would say:
1)Prior to modern medical technology, all pregnant women were non-virgins
2)Mary was a pregnant woman
3)Therefore, she was not a virgin
You are dealing with the supernatural, not the natural. It doesn't fit into the nice neat little package A8 is trying to make it fit into.
-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.