'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

His deperture was not a prerequisite. The Holy Spirit had come all along.

True, but not in the sense that He came on Shavuot (Pentecost): Previously, the Spirit came on certain individuals for a time and for a set purpose, e.g. the prophets; after Shavuot, He comes to permanently dwell in the hearts of all who believe.

In any case, there is no denying that the NT record is clear that the Spirit came in some particularly strong sense after Yeshua departed from the world; ergo, there is a distinction between the two, even as they remain echad (one).

I have no idea what this means. Disembodied?

Dis = Not, Embodied = With a Body. Are you saying that the Spirit took a body (the Son), then shucked it in Heaven to return to live in our hearts?

The distinguishing characteristic of the Son is His flesh, the incarnation, the happening where God became man. W/o that, there is no Son and therefore no Trinity.

"The Son of God" is but one of His titles, and you are reading too much into it without taking into account His other titles, like the Word (Isa. 55:11, John 1:1), the Arm of God (Isa. 40:10), the Angel of YHVH (Exo. 3:2, Zec. 12:8, etc.), and the Glory, visible manifestation of God (Ezk. 10). He is the Person through whom God creates and interacts with His creation, as the Holy Spirit/Breath is that which gives life.

Your thesis seems to be that God was either a monad or a duality (Father and Spirit) until the Incarnation, when He became a Trinity. This is simply not supported by Scripture.

It is the Holy Spirit of the Father that became flesh and dwelt among us.

So you keep claiming. However, this falls apart for several reasons:

First, the Spirit descended on Yeshua as distinctly separate from Him at His Baptism (Mat. 3:16), so your thesis would require us to believe that Yeshua was just another man, and not the Son of God, for the first thirty years of His life. The birth narratives make it clear that this is not the case, and this would destroy your theory that Mary is responsible for the Trinity in either case.

Second, all three members of the Trinity are represented distinctly in Rev. 4-5, where in your model the Sevenfold Spirit should have been in the Lamb, not represented separately.

Third, you are suggesting that the Son was merely a shell, a husk that the Spirit animated. The Gnostics played with a similar idea for several centuries; there was a reason they had to come up with their own pseudo-scriptures instead of being able to substantiate it from the canonical Bible.

You don't know what a trinity is. You'll have to learn what it is before you can understand it.

You've not said a thing that might enlighten me, nor have you proven that Father, Son, and Spirit did not all pre-exist the Incarnation. Simply repeating yourself does not constitute a rational argument.

Explain trinity.

Just as a human is made up of many parts and yet is one being, so is God made up of three distinct parts, and is yet echad. The classical formula, going back to Yeshua's Great Commission, is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, it is equally valid to refer to the members of the Trinity as the Will, Word, and Breath.

The Father is the Will of God, and while the Son and the Spirit are ontologically One with the Father, they are nevertheless subordinate in role: "Then answered Yeshua and said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise'" (John 5:19), and "'Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear (i.e., from the Father), that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come'" (16:13).

The Son is also the Word of God, and was long before His Incarnation. The Word is God's action part, for it is by His Word that He brings all things into being ("Then God said, 'Let there be . . .'"); thus, we also see Him being described in the Tanakh as God's strong right arm. Moreover, the Son is the part of God which physically manifests in the world of Men; in the Tanakh, He manifests as the Angel of YHVH, while in the NT, He manifests as the Son of Man. While the nature of the manifestation has changed for the express purpose of giving us a Kinsman-Redeemer into that of the Son of Man.

The Spirit is the Breath of God (Ruach and Pneuma both mean "Breath" more than they do our modern idea of "Spirit"), that by which He gives life (Gen. 2:7, Job 33:4, John 6:63). Because Yeshua has atoned for our sins, making us clean before God, the Spirit can enter in and dwell with us, giving us eternal life. Part of that new life, a downpayment on the immortality to come, are the gifts that the Spirit gives us for the express purpose of edifying and bringing life to the Ekklesia, the Church. And He gives inspiration (i.e., prophecy) and direction.

All three purposes--Will, Manifestation/Action, and Life-giving Direction--are present even before the Incarnation.

Now, this is of course hardly a comprehensive discussion of the nature of the Trinity, because I'm not interested in writing a whole book. But it's a suitable overview.

Adam named Eve. As I said, Eve is the great, however many times grandmother of Mary, who was the Mother of God.

Yet before Mary was the mother of the Messiah, God was her Father. And so too is Yeshua both the Root and the Branch of David (Rev. 22:16); the Second Adam, like the first, came before the Second Eve (if that title is appropriate to Mary; I personally don't think so, but I'll go with it for the sake of this discussion), even though He was her son in regards to His flesh.

Mary is the Mother of God. She is the Mother that gave birth to God and facilited the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. God is the Father of all the living, w/o exception. That includes His incarnation, the beginning of His Trinity.

Again, simply repeating your tautologies does not constitute a logical argument. If you can't do better than that, this conversation is over. Have a nice evening.

"The dogma of the Holy Trinity( Catholic )

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

Yes, but this is rather incomplete.

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

Still incomplete and the functionality assigned here resembles modality.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

Still incomplete and circular.

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . .92

These are each and together as a whole lacking in substantive explanation. No one can know what a trinity is from these statements. There is really no mystery as to what a trinity is. The person of all three is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is all the sentience, rational capacity, knowledge understanding, wisdom and holds the entirety of responsibility for decision and action of the Person of God. The Father is the being whose body supports the Spirit of God in Heaven. The Son is the being whose body supported the Spirit of God here. It is the Holy Spirit the is the person of God. The Father and Son are the ones whose essence of Person is the Holy Spirit.

Notice the Father had to teach the Son and all was not given to Him. The Son learned from the Father and built His own Spirit as man, to be identical to the Father's. As far as the incarnation goes, the body is simply a physical machine that supports the functions of spirit in this world. The same goes for the soul as a physical machine that provides for the functions of Spirit in the next world.

Re: The Nicene creed from 325, 381 holds that the incarnation was before creation. No. None of the councils or creeds or fathers ever said such a thing.

"First Council of Nicea (325)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

First Council of Constantinople (381)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"

Re: " The Father's person is the Holy Spirit.

" That's heresy, either a form of Sabellianism or Monarchianism."

No. I am precise in my use of terms and spirit represents the person of the being. There is no modalism in whst I said.

"you show no openness to the possibility that you are wrong.

You've provided no logical explanation of what a trinity is to be open to. The list of Catholic doctrine regarding the Trinity is a very poor explanation and contains ethereal words that dilute the matter and weight it down with mystery. I am not a mystic.

"Instead, you presume that 2000 years of the Holy Spirit guiding the Magisterium in the unfolding of the deposit of faith entrusted to them by the Apostles is something to be tossed aside in favor of your novel, heretical and unsubstantiated speculation on the nature of God."

The key words is that the Holy Spirit acts as a guide. The Holy Spirit does not sit on the councils. Men do. It is presumptuous to think that only those men that sit on the councils are privy to the Holy Spirit and knowledge of reality. They are not. What they do is up to them and will be based on their own reasoning and analysis.

If I want to know God, I will learn from Him. After all, He did come in person to teach who He was and what He was about. If what the Magisterium says is true, it will be born out by the evidence. What I can say for sure is that the Holy Spirit made sure the evidence and the word of God in the Gospels remained safe and protected. That is His Word. The word of the councils is their word to be compared with God's word.

"novel, heretical and unsubstantiated speculation on the nature of God."

What I said was not speculation and is backed by evidence. If you had a problem with the truth of what I said, you could address it rationally and with evidence. Appeals to authority don't fly here, especially when the authority clearly doesn't know and understand the concepts involved.

The first Canon of the Council of Orange refuted their very first reference of Ezekiel 18. Most took Genesis as a literal happening and focused on disobedience to authority, instead of on the fundamental theft attempted in the parable. With considerable hand waiving they attempted to teach that God's very creation was altered from what it was. The alteration was done by men, not by God, and it was done in the name of the Holy Spirit.

I don't really care if those men call me a heretic. If there was any substance to what they say, they provide the evidence and a rational picture. They most often don't. They simply point, cry heretic and pound the table.

It's been my observation that various councils that claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit were at odds with each other over the determination of truth. There's only one unique truth in the matter, so at least one of the councils must be wrong. The Holy Spirit simply guides. He does not act through men on His own.

Re: The person of all three is the Holy Spirit.

Apparently you're unaware of what person hood is and how the function of sentient, rational capacity exists in the world. I don't find that amazing, because most don't care to know. That is OK. I do care to know and I do care to know the truth about it and all things to the extent that I'm able. Waht's also apparent is that what the councils stamped as truth and unchangable does not conflict with what I said in essence. The matter is one of ignorance on the part of the councils regarding reality and a failure to acknowledge the possibility that they might err.

"May the light of Christ shine upon you, and enlighten you."

Thanks. I wish the same for you and all.

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.