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/
Firstborn is evidence. You have nothing Scripturally to say she didn't.
I don't believe you can separate the three members of the Trinity from being one God. I affirm the line from the Athanasian Creed. But my point is that you have to be very very careful about throwing the term "God" around and I don't believe you should go beyond what Scripture itself expresses. I believe the church was wrong to give Mary the title. It brings confusion. Their explanation is fair enough - though her exaltation beyond Scripture's guidance is not.
This matter of what to call the Most Holy Theotokos, who is a heretic and who isn't, was settled by The Church over 1600 years ago. It seems to me that since most of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus are online, perhaps everyone should read them. Here's a link:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ii.html
Just keep clicking "next" and you'll find all you need to know and then some. Accepting it or rejecting it is of course up to you individually.
Now as for heresy and heretics, well, The Church has pronounced its anathema through +Cyril at that Council thusly:
"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema."
Now you can split all the hairs you want. The Church has seen them split before and likely more than you can think of. Unless you can accept the foregoing formulation without qualification, The Church declares you a heretic, cut off from The Church and as such there is nothing She can do for you until you repent. You are classed with Arius, Nestorius and a whole host of others. Likely the anathema of The Church will not bother you. You don't accept The Church (or the pronouncements of the 7 Ecumenical Councils) as we Orthodox and Catholics (and some Lutherans) define it. The Pope of the "Elder See at Rome" has declared that your communities are not properly churches but rather are "ecclesial communities" in great measure because of this. You don't accept that either and I am sure it causes you no lack of sleep. But there it is. Arguing with Catholics or Orthodox and/or some Lutherans about this is a total waste of time and bandwidth on both sides. The simple fact of the matter is that most Protestant Christology and Trinitarian theology has been and is branded heresy by The Church. That isn't going to change and I doubt any of you will.
To my Lutheran, Catholic and Orthodox brethren, these threads offer us an opportunity to become educated on what Protestants and others believe (for which I am very grateful) and vice versa, but after awhile, when heresy as defined by the Councils rears its head, it becomes a mistake to continue. Remember these words of +John Chrysostomos in his 6th Homily on Titus:
"By Contentions," he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue?
How then does he elsewhere say, "If God peradventure will give them repentance" (2 Tim. ii.25); but here, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself"? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, "being condemned of himself"? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned."
The Church can not call cursed what Christ has blessed. Sorry. My hope is in Christ Jesus Himself, not the church.
What scriptural reference do you have to that?
Thank you. We have stated what we believe and how we see things. I think there is really nothing much more producitve that we can say to each other, FK.
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Underworld is probably a misnomer. I'll leave it at Paradise.
Given your description, what part did Mary play?
"I can't envision her as half Maori, either."
So, I take it, you would insist that any actress who plays the BVM must be Jewish, right?
That pretty much eliminates Mary from just about every church Nativity Play or pageant I've ever seen in any Catholic church or school I've ever been to. I've been to TONS of those, since I and all my kids went to Catholic school. I don't think I've ever seen a Jewish girl play Mary.
Last year I went to a school play where the Mary was a sweet-looking young African American girl. It was very touching.
I haven't seen the movie & I don't know if I will, but I think the race of the actress is not an issue.
The beauty of the gospel is that it is universally inspirational.
( I am the happy owner of an original painting by the Benedictine painter, Fr. John Giuliani, showing St. Joseph as a young Native American in a Navajo chief's blanket. I never gaze at it without feeling impelled to contemplate the mystery & glory of my faith.)
"We have no evidence that Mary had other kids."
"Scripture alone does not speak definitively on the subject."
"James was NOT Jesus' blood brother..."
Let's see if there is a problem with the conclusion from the two proposotions.
Ah, it must be that tradition thing again. Tell you what, I'll stick with the common sense understanding of brother as used by Mark, Luke, John and Paul and tangentially by Jude. You use whatever you want.
"Yes."
The doctrine of Holy Trinity was coined together by the Church fathers to combat heresies of Arius, Nestor, etc.The doctrine of Holy trinity is not in the Bible, but it's based on our faith in the Bible.
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
Obviously your church doesn't teach anything about the Divine Economy of our salvation and how the Hypostases act separately yet in harmony.
God does reveal Himself to us as three separate Persons, and these separate Divine Persons act and accomplish different steps in our salvation.
By your logic Christ never left. But He said He would, and that in His stead He would sent the Holy Spirit to watch over us. That's not "possible" in your theology because God is "inseparably one."
You really believe, in the most base way, that Mary served Joseph after she gave birth to Christ.
I believe that Mary loved Joseph, her husband ... who had stood by her faithfully.
The Doctrine of the Trinity IS taught in Scripture, but there isn't a single verse you can go to. You have to take Scripture in its entire context and you get there.
I am aware of the "Divine Economy" of salvation and the roles of the Godhead. I think we've worn the Mary Mother of God thing to death. She is the mother of Jesus per the Bible and that's where I stand.
Jesus is God. God is Omnipresent. Jesus is Omnipresent. He by his very nature is not bound by our elements of space and time.
Jesus is God. God is Omnipresent. Jesus is Omnipresent. He by his very nature is not bound by our elements of space and time
The Bible says He left and that He will return. He also left the Holy Spirit in His stead. Are you saying the Bible says otherwise or do you just like to counter anything I say?
Can't do the unity of Scripture thing unless there is a single interpreter who can reconcile the diversity of its expressions. That interpreter is not you or men, and I certainly don't believe your teaching is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that this common sense was lacking until very recently?
"Doesn't it strike you as odd that this common sense was lacking until very recently?"
It was lacking only in "The Church".
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.