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/
So where's the violation of logic? It is not law of logic that one thing cannot become many things. You started off as one cell; now you are many cells. And logic was never violated.
Also 1 (the Father) + 1 (the Son) + 1 (the Holy Ghost) = 1 (God)
This is no violation of logic because, as I explained earlier in this thread, the respect in which God is one is not the respect in which He is three. If our theology really did say that God is one and three in the same respect and at the same time, then that would be violation of logic.
-A8
That's Nestorianism.
-A8
Mary is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. There are not two persons in Jesus. The one person in Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, and that is the Person of whom Mary is the mother.
-A8
I never said that it did. Calling Mary God's mother, however implies such.
God is 3 in 1. Mary would have to be the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if she were the mother of God.
Mothers give their children beginnings. She would have had to give God a beginning and therefore he wouldnt' be God. UNLESS - there is another agency working here.
By not differentiating amongst the persons of the trinity, a whole lot of confusion is thrown into the mix. If people would just call her mother of Jesus like the Bible does, the confusion disappears.
Jesus IS God. Mary is His Mother. But she is not the mother of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. And God is not 3 independent parts, but one. So, calling her Mary mother of Jesus is the most proper way to refer to her.
-A8
Thanks very much for your reply. And it is very refreshing to have a Protestant appeal to the transcendent.
As for the "loaded" Mother of God, perhaps it will help to think of God in this context as a more generic descriptive like we use "man."
I agree that Christology is the issue, but, as I've said too often on this thread, Christology and Mariology are inextricably linked. The Incarnation/Word became flesh/Born of a virgin..
This is very important in the whole. I wish I could get this across properly. That the Word became flesh, born, begotten.. This is important in salvation history. And it differentiates between God inspiring or filling an existing man, it differs from God appearing fully formed as a man/shell, it differs from God appearing as to Moses..
These differences are important to the whole of our faith, up and down, past, present future, within us/outside us..
The Incarnation is a fulcrum point, if you'll allow, for the history of man and his relationship to God, to who man is, and who God is. If the fulcrum is off only slightly, then the whole becomes unbalanced and the endpoint leaves the whole.
This is what we see in the history of heresy and what will occur again and again if we are not properly careful in the formation and transmission of faith.
Now as to possible confusion. This can and does occur. But if a true statement - particularly such an important true statement - is confused by some, then it does not follow that it should be avoided or changed.
It does follow that more is needed to know the Truth. And it is our responsibility to know and follow and pass this along as well as we possibly can.
thanks very much for your reply and consideration and forgiveness of typos...
This notion treats each of the Divine Persons of the Trinity as *parts* of God. But the *Persons* of the Divine Trinity are not parts of God. Each of the three Persons is God, not a part of God. That is why the line in the Athanasian Creed reads, "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God."
No wonder you are having a hard time with "mother of God". First get your understanding of the Trinity straightened out, and "mother of God" will be no problem.
-A8
I have no problems calling her Mary mother of Jesus. Nor do I deny even for a second that Jesus is God. She gave him a beginning though in his humanity even though he was eternally preexistant as God.
It isn't Nestorianism. I don't see it as two separate natures, but a unity within Christ which is a paradox.
Ya know, A8. It really is okay to say sometimes "I can't fully explain everything about God." He won't hold it against you.
By faith I believe
1)In the trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit, eternally preexistant 3 persons and yet one
2)Jesus, as the Son of God, fully God and fully Man - who Was and Is and Is to Come. Creator. Redeemer. Sustainer. Keeper. Advocate. Mediator. Friend.
3)The virgin birth, by the Holy Spirit God through the virgin named Mary (or Miriam in the Hebrew), became a man and His name was Jesus (Jehovah Is Salvation) and Immanuel (God with Us).
And a whole bunch of other things that aren't pertinent to this particular discussion
This is Mary the mother of The Father?
No, Mary is not the mother of the Father.
-A8
I've got my understanding of the Trinity "straigtened out". You seem to have a problem with it by saying Mary is mother of God but only applying that to the 2nd person of the trinity. It is you doing the division of God, not myself.
That's the heresy of Sabellianism.
-A8
Is Mary the mother of Christ's divine nature?
Did Christ's divine nature come into being at the incarnation?
Was the Trinity in place before the Incarnation or did the Trinity come into existence at the birth of Christ?
Then you are dividing God up into separate parts. If she is mother of God, the she is mother of all of God. God isn't divisible.
So why are you being a Sabellian?
-A8
Absolutely not. I'm not dividing God up into parts at all.
If she is mother of God, the she is mother of all of God.
Yes, but not the mother of all three Persons.
-A8
I'm not. When you say that if Mary is the Mother of God, then she must be the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit, then you are being a Sabellian.
-A8
You are dividing God.
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.