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/
A normal birth is simply the culmination of the initial incarnation that was Mary becoming pregnant. There is no logical justification for a miraculous birth. In fact, it shows that the virgin pregnancy was not needed and simply an arbitrary happening.
No, the conception and Incarnation were supernatural, miraculous events. The reuslting pregnancy was a miracle. It does not follow any logic to claim that His birth must have been "natural." At which point did His existence in Mary cease to be a miracle and just an "ordinary" event to warrant an ordinary" Birth?
Insofar as she trusted in God her Savior, but not because of any inherent righteousness in and of herself. ALL of our righteousness is as filthy rags before God.
God's righteousness was imputed to Abraham because of Abraham's faith in God's promises. Just showing you the righteousness was of faith and not of works because of the works of the law no man should be justified.
I believe the standard translation for the word heresy is "wrong belief". Also, the standard translation for orthodoxy is "right belief". Thus, all you are doing is trying to control the language. The reality from our Scriptural perspective is you are the heretics and we are the orthodox. ;-)
Language games are their specialty
Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix, Advocate all have no equality with Christ.
Mother of God doesn't really mean one who gave God his beginning.
Firstborn really means legally entitled to inheritance, not first in the succession of others.
Brother means cousin.
Until means didn't do it.
Has Webster turned over yet?
Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and Joseph was dead when the ministry began. So it would be easy to cast aspersions on his lineage.
Some Protestants think that the Lukan genealogy is of Mary. The Fathers are unified that this is not the case.
Neither Jew nor Greek would have considered a female lineage to be valid.
How do you know Joseph was dead? Scripture doesn't say he died. Maybe he was assumed into Heaven.
I of course am being facetious.
Yes, it does. The vigin conception Is what makes it a virgin birth. The virgin conception is given in scripture. without any such similar evidence, the birth as a "light through a window" is pure invention.
"At which point did His existence in Mary cease to be a miracle and just an "ordinary" event to warrant an ordinary" Birth?"
That would be when a viable diploid egg was present.
"If you announce that this council has an open bar, you might find a pronounced increase in interest from Catholics of Irish descent! :-)"
For that great suggestion you can be part of the "Neener Council of Aaaargh" for a day. You don't have to renounce any prior affiliations or memberships and you can even choose tha annual GRPL/Neener Mud wrestling picnic day that is held every other year. If we had a list I'd run it by the others but we are kind of an ad hoc council. Just last meeting only one of us showed up but he passed some serious anathemae (that's Latin to make you feel at home)but we still don't know who was anathematized so we are just going along as if nothing happened.
He's spinning so fast he's out of his coffin and headed toward the center of the Earth.
I know most of the RC's on this thread are pretty knowledgeable. However, if you ask the average RC what Immaculate Conception means they will tell you it is about Jesus being sinless. A great example of how when the language is corrupted heresy creeps in.
I will give the RCs on this thread credit. They seem to know what their church teaches and even know SOME scripture. Most RCs I know can't quote John 3:16 much less tell you anything past Jesus is God and we have to do a bunch of stuff at church or we go to purgatory.
Worded a little differently. Roman Catholics sure know their heresies! 8oD
I had been warning you that you were skating very close to adopting Nestorius's position back when you were advocating 'Mother of Christ' instead of 'Mother of God'. That's part of why I was insisting you find and read the acta of the Third Ecumenical Council. The others noticed, too. (I like to joke that we Orthodox are issued an 'I Spy Book of Heresies' at chrismation, so we can recognize them easily even in modern guises.)
While you're at it, the acta of the Fifth,would be good to read, too, since that council formalized as a doctrine the long tradition that Mary remained a virgin, 'before, during and after' giving birth to Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as well as condemning Theodore of Mopsuestia (Nestorius' mentor), and certain writings of Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria and a letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris (though not condemning Theodoret or Ibas themselves for heresy.
The apostles told their disciples who told their disciples who....
This is what Christian tradition is: oral histories of the parts that weren't felt to be central enough to be in the Gospels.
You are free not to believe these oral histories. But to assume that because something that isn't in the Bible is untrue runs counter to logic.
Misfire on the text entry. You get the idea.
I read what the objection to Nestorius's view was, and it does not apply to me. Jesus was indeed Christ. He was the only person of the Trinity that was Christ. Therefore, Mother of Christ sounded less confusing to me than Mother of God (which includes all 3 persons of the trinity theorhetically- but the way the council defined it, I understand does not). Jesus was not a "God-bearer" as I believe Nestorius believed. He was God.
Mary's child was God and Human. But she didn't give him His divinity (which I understand is not the claim) and He preceded her (eternally). Beyond that, I really do not wish to explain it again other than to say, Jesus was by nature fully God and fully Man in Union in one person. That is not Nestorianism.
The Holy Fathers (as an Orthodox Christian, for me that includes a whole lot more folk than the Bishops of Rome) point out that one can fall off of the Royal Road on the right side as well as the left.
That the demons have led some astray by inducing them to pass beyond the honor and veneration properly due to the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and vainly name her 'Co-Redemptrix' or more foolish still declare her to be God, is not an argument to leave the path of truth on the opposite side by dismissing the judgements of the Holy Ecumenical Councils that calling her Theotokos, not Christotokos, is necessary to the defense of a sound understanding of the unity of Christ's person (on which equally with His full humanity and full divinity our salvation depends), or that she was and is virgin.
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.