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/
Ok. Does Jesus have "no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity"?
That is only because you insist on taking the word 'assume' in a way that kosta is not using it.
-A8
"I think in the theophanies, he put on flesh. He truly was appearing as a human being, but it wasn't a difference in nature. It was, for lack of a better word, a costume. Yet, He wrestled with Jacob and ate with Abraham. He was a human in these appearances, though His person did not change in that He was ultimately God. The Hebrew indicates that He was a man during these times, though the effect was that it was a mere temporary manifestation."
Exactly. Very good.
"I had mine done the Thursday before Chrstmas so I would not be tempted to over eat. He just took out the sutures. Hope all turns out alright."
All is well so far. Just a cyst. 'Course, the last time I had one removed my head swelled up to the size of a basketball (some would say that's a permanent state, swell-headedness that is, but I think that's terribly unfair:)!)so we'll see what happens.
The word "assume" carries with it the connotation of "not really". He did not simply "assume" flesh (as he did in the Theophanies), he became flesh (a permanent condition).
He was and is and evermore shall be "flesh". If he were not "flesh" he could not have died and then be resurrected. Flesh is not something he merely "put on" like a costume, it is something he became.
kostas statement that: "God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity" connots that "God the word" is not flesh, that G"od the Word" has no shape and He has no humanity," i.e., he has shed his fleshly "costume."
Kosta's statement is in the present tense, which means that as we speak "God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity." In other words "he is not risen, he has returned to normal."
Do you agree with that?
That might explain why you are balking at it. Historically, it did not carry that connotation; nor does it in my mind. No one is claiming that Christ merely put on flesh "like a costume". He put on flesh via a hypostatic union.
I think kosta's statement, in its original context was referring to the Logos with the human nature abstracted away. Taken out of that context, the statement is obviously false, as kosta would agree. But kosta is trying to avoid another error, that the Logos was eternally enfleshed. So what he means, if I am understanding him correctly, is that apart from the incarnation, the Logos has no flesh, no shape, no humanity. Don't trip up over his use of the present tense verb. He is not intending to speak of the temporal now, but of a timeless truth concerning the divine nature of the Second Person of the Trinity.
-A8
That looks like a mixture of Greek and Arabic letters.
OK, What is the Name now?
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12 KJV)
In a nutshell, without knowing it, you have framed St. Justin Popovich's Orthodox critique of protestantism. By your words, you show that you are your own pope. St. Justin pointed out the protestantism is not the negation of papism, but it's universalization. Instead of one infallible pope in Rome, there are millions, in Berlin, London, New York, . . . The Slavophile lay theologian Khomiakov made a similar point a century earlier.
That is not what he was speaking of. He was speaking of "God the Word" in the present tense.
Are you saying that Jesus Christ is not "God the Word"?
Why don't you just let kosta speak for himself. So far he has not attempted to modify his statement as you have. He is sticking by his statement and you are defending him by modifying his statement.
Do you agree with the statement: "God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity."??
Yes or no.
Sorry... It looks like a mixutre of Greek and Roman letters.
Greetings to you too. :)
Nope, all Greek, omicron omega nu.
Of course, Christ, the Existing-One (to translate the Greek, or its Hebrew equivalent YHVH) into English, is the same person as Jesus Christ. Quarrelling about folks who have, at one place, expressed sound Christology, confessing Christ to be one person in two natures, at once fully human and fully divine, at another making a linguistic distinction when speaking of Him before His Incarnation by using only phrases and words which refer to His divine nature is a bit odd and not very fruitful.
The fundamental private prayer in Orthodox Christian spirituality is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." (Though shorter versions are also used, including even the simple repetition of the name "Jesus").
I'm not stopping him from speaking for himself. I'm trying to answer the questions you asked me.
-A8
I am NOT denying it, Blogger. I would never deny it. Jesus is the Incarnate God the Word, fully God and fully human, begotten of the Father before all ages, true God of true God, begotten, not made, ineffable, limitless, eternal, immaterial, Who for our salvation came down from the heavens and became Incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit using the flesh of Mary and took on human nature, distinctly from His divine nature, without change, confusion or mixing, and become (hu)man, and was born of Vigrin Mary, and was given the name Jesus (as we say it) according to the Scripture.
I think you mean: יהוה
"Sorry... It looks like a mixutre of Greek and Roman letters."
Actually, they are all Greek letters, omicron, omega, ni. It really doesn^t translate into English, but some have said that the nearest we can get to naming the Word with something which describes Him is this Greek phrase. The best translation is probably something along the lines of The Being Who created Being, or perhaps, That which created Existence. The implications of this for understanding especially the pre-Incarnation Logos are staggering because what it says is that before Existence was, the Logos was. This is the basis for the Cappadocian statement "I believe in God; God does not exist!" My point in posting this name, which by the way is on virtually every well written icon of Christ, is that it points up the truth of Kosta's comment about the pre-Incarnation Logos and to a greater extent the futility of any of us trying to understand the nature of the pre-Incarnation Logos except to feebly describe the Logos by saying what it was not.
It was originally given in Hebrew not Greek. So it is proper to translate it from Hebrew directly into English and not from Hebrew to Greek to English.
My point in posting this name, which by the way is on virtually every well written icon of Christ, is that it points up the truth of Kosta's comment about the pre-Incarnation Logos and to a greater extent the futility of any of us trying to understand the nature of the pre-Incarnation Logos except to feebly describe the Logos by saying what it was not.
Kosta was not talking about the pre-incarnation Logos. His statement referred to "God the Word" in the present tense.
Now, do you agree with his statement or not?
A8, you read my statement correctly. Thank you.
The Greek translates it beautifully, or so I am told by the rabbi. English? Nope.
"Kosta was not talking about the pre-incarnation Logos. His statement referred to "God the Word" in the present tense."
God the Word was born of the Father before all ages. The "present tense" has no meaning when speaking of God except when speaking in historical, human terms. And prior to the Incarnation the Word was neither σαρκωθέντα or ενανθρωπήσαντα. He "was" and "is" Ο ΩΝ. Now you with your Western 500 year old reaction to Rome theology may not understand that, but I can assure you Kosta does.
"Now, do you agree with his statement or not?"
I still agree with his statement. I suspect you don't understand what he said.
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.