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/
READ SLOWLY AND MAYBE YOU'LL GET IT. I SAID HE WASN'T 33 WHEN HE DIED. I DIDN'T SAY HE DIDN'T DIE. GOT IT?
And the same situation applies to the statement that Mary never had other childrem. IT IS NOT in scripture.
Is it so difficult to see that the Holy Family may have had close relatives (perhaps even raised in their home) who would have been called the Lord's brothers? When you read Luke Chapter 2 do you find any indication of siblings?
You are wrong.
Could they have been adoptive brothers?
Can you cite a single person called "son/daughter of Mary or Joseph" aside from the Lord in scripture? (And by the way, this is a simple YES or NO question.)
I am not wrong. Look up the Greek. I did. Adopted brothers and sisters. Hmmmmm. Interesting possibility. Wasn't aware Mary and Joseph ran an orphanage. Maybe they were baby brokers.
And as far as being a son or daughter of Mary or Joseph, no I can't find that phrase. So I guess that means that they were neither and were part of Francis Crick's Panspermia theory. They were seeded here by Space Aliens.
You really are impossible!
So, your contention is that it would be totally impossible that the Holy Family might have taken in relatives' children who were orphaned? And I am not saying that this is the case, it is more likely that they were cousins who grew up with Jesus. The point is the notion that the Virgin Mary had other children was NEVER mentioned prior to a few hundred years ago.
As an aside, one problem that will always exist with the Gospels is the fact that although they were written in Greek, the words our Lord spoke were in Aramaic. And Aramaic DOESN'T HAVE A WORD FOR COUSIN.
The notion that she was sinless didn't come about until the 300s. But hey, whatever you want to think. Ignore the meaning in the Greek. Ignore common sense. March on your way little sheep. Just be aware, the wolf has a mean bite.
Oh, and before you say it, Irenaeus didn't say she was sinless. He said she was a virgin - which she was. Just not perpetually so.
Have you read Matthew 25? Does it apply to you? Please tell me by what convoluted theory you believe that ANYONE'S soul is in peril because they refuse to succumb to the Protestant notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary had more than one child?
OK, that makes much more sense. I was just thrown by the side-by-side portrayal. :)
The second sentence refers to her role in the Incarnation of the Word, without which there would have been no salvation. Its really as simple as that. The other quoted line means the same thing.
That is exactly what I thought and hoped you would say. Thank you. :) This is consistent with other examples we have discussed before. I hope you don't get sick of me asking about them as they come up. :)
Again, where does the Bible say she had other children.
You cannot even meet your own standards of sola scriptura.
I think we will not make any further progress until you understand the Catholic position. I was a devout Protestant for almost four decades, and received my M.Div. from a Presbyterian seminary, so I think I can say that I understand the Protestant perspective. But as a Protestant, I did not understand the Catholic point of view. The Catholic point of view is *completely* different from the Protestant point of view. It is like those drawings where you can see either a rabbit or a duck, or a young woman or an old woman. It seems to me that you do not understand the Catholic point of view, and until you do so, we are just going to be talking past each other, disagreeing about matters that don't deal with the fundamental/foundational differences. I recommend that you read some books on the Catholic perspective, and then rejoin the conversation, and then at least perhaps you will understand where we're coming from, and *what* are the fundamental/foundational differences that distiguish the Catholic and Protestant points of view.
First, I recommend reading the Fathers. Here are some good books:
The Teachings of the Church Fathers by Willis
The History of the Church by Eusebius
The Faith of the Early Fathers (three volumes) by Jurgens
Patrology by Quasetens
Early Christian Fathers by Richardson
Second, read about the ecumenical Councils. I recommend:
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils by Davis The General Councils by Bellito
The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger
The Christian Faith by Dupuis
Third, read some general works on the Catholic Faith. I recommend:
The Faith of Our Fathers by Gibbons
The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic by Whitehead
Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition)
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott
An Essay on the Development of Doctrine by Newman
Fourth, I recommend reading about the Catholic view of Scripture. I recommend:
Not by Scripture Alone by Sungenis
Making Senses out of Scripture by Shea
Where we got the Bible by Graham
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Armstrong
Fifth, read about the Catholic understanding of Tradition. I recommend:
By What Authority? by Shea
Tradition and Traditions by Congar [a bit pricey]
The Meaning of Tradition by Congar [more affordable]
When you have read that, then let's talk.
-A8
As I am sure someone already remarked, confusion is NOT to say so. She is a mother to the Whole Person of Christ, -- it is not possible to be a mother of a nature alone. No, she did not pre-exist Christ and she ios not divine; she is however the Mother of God -- see Ephesus.
"The Faith of Our Fathers" by Cardinal Gibbons is by far the best book ever written on Catholic apologetics. Cardinal Newman's "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" is also wonderful, but it is written in such a "scholarly" fashion that I think most people would it overwhelming.
A8.
I believe that I DO understand the Catholic position and hold both an MDiv from a fully accredited Seminary and a M.A. in History (with an emphasis on Medieval studies) from a secular University.
I also am aware that the Catholic point of view is completely different than that of the Protestants. What seems to you, concerning what I understand, may simply be your misunderstanding of my trying to draw out the implications of Catholicism's belief system.
I am Protestant. I will always be Protestant - so "further progress" as you MAY define it may not be possible.
I too am frustrated with these conversations because I have been accused of believing that which I don't believe (everything from denying the divinity of Jesus Christ to denying the Trinity). While I am being lectured about "understanding the Catholic point of view" it seems very little effort is being made to understand what I am saying. Instead, I'm finding out that "firstborn doesn't mean firstborn" "brother doesn't mean brother" "Mother doesn't imply that one gave a person a beginning" "until CAN't mean that anything happend afterwards" and is doesn't mean is.
No allowance is given for even the POSSIBILITY that these Greek words could mean what they normally mean - why? Because a council declared something contrary to the normal meaning. In other words, Tradition supercedes any normal meaning within the words of Scripture. This is a dangerous thing.
You are right though. We likely will not come to any agreement. I take Scripture and apply it to my life within its Scriptural context. Catholics take Scripture as interpreted through the eyes of the Church hierarchy and make anyone who disagrees with them anathema (at least they did until Vatican II).
Sorry, I know that the Holy Spirit resides in me. I have the necessary understanding of principles of biblical interpretation to look at Scripture in a learned fashion. I do not see anything resembling the Roman Catholic hierarchy in scripture.
Protokos
-A8
LOL! Good day A8.
"I hope you don't get sick of me asking about them as they come up. :)"
Not at all; ask away! :)
Firstborn means quite simply the first child born. If the mother were to die in childbirth, this child would still be the firstborn. Your contention is meaningless.
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.