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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[kosta50]

That recreation was based on general appearance based on a certain number of skulls. But one cannot argue from the general to the specific

I understand and I agree with you. The Jews, however, did not mix much with non-Semites, so chances are that they would still retain Semitic features. Of course, soemone will bring us Queen Sheeba. And the fact is there are albino Africans. Everything is possible.

If Mary looked anything unusual it probably would have been mentioned. I don't think she stood out in the crowd.

Again, all I am saying, is that te Middle East is probably full of actresses whose "archtype" is more likely to have been that of Mary's. To seek out an unrelated race, beuatiful nonetheless, is puzzling.

As for Gibson's Passion, his portrayal was decidedly 19th century Roman Catholic rendition with noted extra-biblical and extra-canonical imagery.

[The_Reader_David]

Arguing on the basis of opinions of a condemned heretic like Origen will not win you many point in this forum. (And if you don't accept the judgement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which condemned him, you might take a look at his highly speculative Scriptural commentaries, and see whether you think his ideas about the pre-existence of the soul are 'Biblical' before you consider him a trustworthy judge or source.)

The Church, East and West, has feasts based on the account of Mary's early life given in the Proto-Evangelium (major feasts in the East), titles St. James, the First Bishop of Jerusalem, "Brother of the Lord", based on its account. Your assertion, based on the judgement of Origen is hardly convincing.

[blue-duncan]

"But Christ the Savior could not violate the physical integrity of His mother,"

The scriptures say that Mary was unclean due to the birth and could not touch any hallowed thing nor enter the synagogue until her 40 days of purification were complete.

Luke 2:22-24, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Lev. 12:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled."

[kosta50]

Christ's human birth was accomplished exactly like yours and mine was accomplished

Hmmm, His "conception" (Incarnation was nothing human and or "natural," so why would His birth be? Would you say that His human death, then, was exactly like the death of all humans?

The Christology which the Fathers carefully guarded against all sorts of heresies, states that there is nothing entirely human about Christ; we cannot separate Him from His divinity any more than we can separate Him form His humanity. Yet He remains unconfused, both God and man, in one Person.

A no point was the Incarnate Christ only human. To claim otherwise is to separate Him from His divinity.

[wmfights]

"Your assertion, based on the judgement of Origen is hardly convincing."

When was Origen condemned as a heretic?

Who condemned Origen?
______________________________________
"The Church, East and West, has feasts based on the account of Mary's early life given in the Proto-Evangelium..."

The fact that your church bases it's practices on a forgery should raise questions for you as a member of that church.

[adiaireton8]

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. Why then was Jesus baptized?

(If you can answer that question, then you can know why it was fitting for Mary to keep the days of purification required by the Law of Moses.)

-A8

[RobbyS]

The Holy Land is famous for being a crossroads of the world. But since you mention "Semites," there are other Semites in the regions besides the Jews. We also have Philistines, and Hittites, and Greeks in the area. The "Arabs," are not really a nationality but related tribes which married with the Syrians and others when they conquered the Fertile Crescent. Maybe their appearance is a fairer representation of first century features than the modern Israelis who very greatly in appearance. Then we have the institution of marriage. Royal harums can produce widely different offspring. Selim "the sot" the Sultan at the time of the Battle of Lepanto was blond-haired and blue-eyed. Solomon's children who numbered in the hundreds, probably varied greatly in appearance.

[The_Reader_David]

Fifth Ecumenical Council.

And as I said, read his stuff. I think you'll agree with the Fathers on this one.

[TAdams8591]

Marking.

[Religion Moderator]

But, as long as some are asked to be discreet in their opinions, then we have a potential problem.

The problem is not with caucus threads or with requests that others posting on an open thread be well behaved. Frankly, the problem is that the mean, the rude, the immature, the proud, the unloving among us are drawn to contentious debates like moths to a light.

But there is no better place for them to be either. Keep on setting a good example for everyone, God will take care of the miracles of changed hearts and minds.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

A no point was the Incarnate Christ only human. To claim otherwise is to separate Him from His divinity.

Well, since no one here is making that claim, you're talking to yourself.

The fact remains Christ was born in the natural way of childbirth of a woman who required a savior just like the rest of us.

[mockingbyrd]

Why does it have to be one or the other? I firmly believe that Mary gave birth the traditional way, while remaining completely virgin in all senses of the word. See, it's God we're talking about here, anything is possible.

In my few discussions about this, I have found that mothers are the most passionate about their belief that Mary did indeed give birth physically, because it is so central to motherhood. But this doesn't mean she didn't stay completely virgin, physically as well. I believe the birth canal functioning as such would not be considered a breech of virginity. It makes perfect sense to me that God would have preserved all physical attributes of virginity as well, namely no tearing of the perineum, nor of the hymen. And I don't have to explain how, because it's God we're talking about.

At some point this becomes a matter of devotion, I believe. I, as a mother, need to feel united to Mary in this way. After all, I take great comfort turning to her in the throws of (undedicated) labor. Others choose to believe that birth occurred as a beam of light passing through her. As long as Mary's perpetual virginity is acknowledged, I see nothing wrong with taking a personal view that helps you the most. It's kind of the same way I view creation. I don't know, nor do I really care how God chose to do it. But I acknowledge that He is the Creator. So too, I don't know how Mary gave birth but I do know she is ever virgin.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Post 283.

[adiaireton8]

I think we agree, as long as we agree that however it happened, (1) Mary remained a virgin in every sense, and (2) the only way (1) could be true is if a miracle occurred.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

See post 286.

-A8

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, I read 286. It makes no sense.

[adiaireton8]

Why was Jesus baptized, if John's baptism was a baptism of repentance?

-A8

[unspun]

I would merely say that Roman Catholics should bear with non RC interpretation of Scripture in films, as non RC Christans have had to be so patient with so many films, up through Gibson's "Passion."

Romans 14 & 15

[Wallace T.]

I believe the actress is of white Australian (and probably of British or Irish ancestry) and Maori descent. Her coloration might be similar to that of many Middle Easterners, but her features, which are a mix of Polynesian and northwest European, would be different from those of a typical Middle Easterner. (There is also the issue of the actress portraying Mary like a modern day spoiled teenager which is disconcerting and totally contrary to anything in the Bible or oral tradition. But I digress.)

Jews are, of course, the lineal descendants of Abraham and Sarah. However, despite the evident genetic linkage with the ancient Middle East, many Jews, including most in the United States, are European in appearance. Many of Israel's leaders have looked as if they would be more at home in Warsaw or Moscow than the Israel of Bible times.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We're discussing Mary's fictitious perpetual virginity and you bring in questions about Jesus and John.

There is no Scriptural evidence for the cult that has grown up around the adoration of Mary. And there is certainly no need to believe Mary's anatomy differed from any other mother, either pre or post delivery.

The miracle is Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection. That is where Christian's should be focusing attention.