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 affirm that Jesus is God
I affirm that Mary is the mother of Jesus
I reject the conclusion that Mary is the mother of God
Riddle me this
1)There is only one God
2)Mary was impregnated by God
3)Mary's Son was God
Does this in turn mean that Mary committed incest?
Of course not.
God doesn't fit into our logic all of the time. You have to make room for the mysterious and unexplainable - all the while affirming the essential doctrines concerning who Christ is.
*************
With regard to your first assertion, is it not both the natural and the supernatural? I think you may want to revisit A-8's argument. It is as perfect a statement addressing the issue as I have seen here.
First put it in the form of a valid argument:
(1) There is only one God
(2) Mary was impregnated by God
(3) Mary's Son was God
Therefore
(4) Mary committed incest.
The problem with this argument is that it is not a *valid* argument (where 'valid' means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true). But the argument I presented in #1926 is valid.
-A8
Firstborn is a Jewish legal term that in no way implies any further children. The other men you speak of were probably cousins who may have been raised by the Holy Family. Still, none of them are called sons of Mary or Joseph. Nobody disputes that James and Jude were brothers. As for Joseph it is completely out of keeping with Judaic tradition to name children after their fathers, this is a distinctly Christian tradition, so this is further evidence that he was not a natural brother to our Lord.
John Wesley was one of the Reformers who extolled the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother, he was not "influenced by his former Catholicism."
When Jesus was missing in the Temple, it is quite clear that His parents went looking for him. There is no mention of siblings. There is no mention of these other people travelling with Mary. When you are charged with the care and upbringing of the Son of God, your relationship is by definition going to be decidedly ABNORMAL.
As far as your other contentions, the Church has never accepted Luther's Sixteenth Century invention of sola scriptura. I am no more bound by Luther's beliefs than I am the tenets of Muhammad.
If M is the mother of P, and P is God, then M is the mother of God. If you deny that that conclusion follows, you are making a fundamental error of reasoning, not understanding the relation of propositions. The first two premises necessarily entail the third. Logic is never violated, just as 1+1 cannot equal 3.
If you think that we cannot use logic to do theology, then give one example of an exception or violation of logic.
-A8
Your argument isn't valid because it assumes (falsely) that Mary Mother of God is the only valid conclusion. It is a false dilemma.
I think I understand what your getting at, but here's where your presentation can lead down the wrong path as far as Orthodox Trinitarianism: "I do believe she was the mother of the human part of Jesus, but not the divine part."
In reading your post, I think I see that you realize this and that there's something amiss in it's form.
I believe it was Kosta who linked to St John Damascene's encyclopedic work on the doctrine. This portion here illuminate and be of use:
http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactiii.html#BOOK_III_CHAPTER_XII
It isn't as simple as that.
1)Other than direct creation, the beginning of every life is conception inside a mother's womb
2)God has no beginning
3)God was not conceived in a mother's womb
God doesn't fit into our logic all of the time.
If M is the mother of P, and P is God, then M is the mother of God. If you deny that that conclusion follows, you are making a fundamental error of reasoning, not understanding the relation of propositions. The first two premises necessarily entail the third. Logic is never violated, just as 1+1 cannot equal 3.
If you think that we cannot use logic to do theology, then give one example of an exception or violation of logic.
John 6 ... where 2 fish and 5 barley loaves ... became many more.
Also 1 (the Father) + 1 (the Son) + 1 (the Holy Ghost) = 1 (God)
It's not all about the numbers (or the words).
So is it improper to say that Jesus is God?
-A8
If Christ is God and Christ has two natures, one fully human and one fully divine, then Mary could only be considered to be the Mother of the Human Nature of God, the Son. To say she is the "Mother of God" implies that she is not only the mother (progenitor) of Christ's physical nature, but also the mother of his divine nature. To say that Mary is the Mother of God is to say that Jesus' human nature standing alone is God, which would then make God a Quaternity instead of a Trinity. You would have God the Father, God the Word, God the Son (human nature of God the Word) and The Holy Spirit.
Since Mary was not the mother of the divine nature of God The Word, she cannot be said to be the Mother of God. She is strictly the Mother of Jesus. That is the way the Bible refers to her. That is good enough for me. I'm sure it is good enough for her.
I do realize the difficulties. But, I accept it as a paradox. It's not a falsehood. It's a paradox.
God-bearer and Mother of God are differently loaded terms
I like the first better than the second but still strongly prefer the Scriptural term, Mary, Mother of Jesus.
God-Bearer does not intimate that Mary gave God a beginning. She didn't.
Mother of God implies she did give God a beginning.
If you use Theotokos, God Bearer, you don't run into the same issue as badly as Mother of God - since it doesn't cast doubt upon Christ's eternal preexistence. Something having a mother does. However, it does put undue emphasis on Mary herself. Mary isn't the issue. She shouldn't be the emphasis. Christology is the issue.
Mary, Mother of Jesus will do just fine. Develop your Christology from whom Jesus is, not Mary.
You have obviously never taken basic logic. My argument is valid because *if* the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. In the science of logic, that is just what we mean by 'valid'. (Conclusions are not valid or invalid; *arguments* are valid or invalid.) If M is the mother of P, and P is God, then M is the mother of God. If those two premises are true, then that conclusion cannot be false. I am not offering any "dilemma", let alone a "false dilemma". I am presenting (in #1926) a valid deductive argument. The only way to refute it is to reject one of the two premises.
-A8
As me a question I haven't already answered.
Where has the Church ever questioned Christ's eternal preexistence?
That's Nestorianism. God *did* have a beginning, not according to His divine nature, but according to His human nature. And God *was conveived* in a mother's womb, not according to His divine nature, but according to His human nature.
There is no middle position between orthodoxy on the one hand, and Nestorianism/Arianism on the other.
-A8
Thank you for the link. I still believe that the church went too far in its giving her the title Mother of God. Mother of Jesus doesn't detract from his divinity at all. Mother of God elevates Mary unduly. Providing his flesh as a human - while not contributing to His deity as a good explanation of what occurred. But the title implies things that are not meant and is quite unfortunate.
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.