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/
This is your opinion. I have mine.
Regarding James and Joseph (or Joses) we have a coincidence of three names, including their mother Mary Cleopas. Again, this is your personal interpretation of the scripture, not the scripture itself.
Dr. Eckleburg quoted them in response to Marlowe's statement "There is no scriptural basis for the contention that Mary was born without original sin. There are plenty of verses to the contrary" (3212). Apparently Dr. Eckleburg thinks that the verses indicating that Mary had a large extended family somehow point to her sinning. These verses may be interpreted as Mary being mother of other children beside Jesus, but for the life of me I do not understand where they point to any sin in her.
True. I am at a loss as to what Wmfights is talking about as well.
What is your source for that?
In Acts and in the Epistles we see plenty of hierarchy. The dietary restrictions are lifted, for example, by the Jerusalem council inspired by St. Peter's vision -- no input form the "congregation" was sought. St. Paul likewise sounds quite autocratic, for example, in his letters to Corinthians whom he reminds of his power as Apostle of Christ and threatens with his rod:
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach every where in every church. 18 As if I would not come to you, so some are puffed up. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will: and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power. 21 What will you? shall I come to you with a rod; or in charity, and in the spirit of meekness?(1 Cor 4)
It would stand to reason that missionary activity somewhat preceded the episcopal duties, as one needs to have converts before there is a church for him to oversee. However, St. Ignatius of Antioch, active in late 1c, possibly early 2c, leaves no doubt as to the hierarchical nature of the Church:
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.
And with regard to mariophobia of some late Protestants, this prophecy comes to mind:
when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: 14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.(Apocalypse 12)
"pleres charis" indeed is mentioned several times, but "kecharitomenos/e" is a word formation uniquely describing Mary in the New Testament. The criticism that "gratia plena" perhaps should not be used for both epithets is valid, but certainly the milquetoast "most favored" is no better, if only because it hides the aorist which is theologically significant. If anything, when describing a temporal bestowal of grace rather than a preexisting fullness of grace, "gratia plena" should not have been used.
The root is "grace", "charis". Various word formations are numerous in the New Testament. Only one person is described as "kecharitomenos", and that is Mary (St. Stephen, in contrast, is described by the same author St. Luke as "pleres charis", not "kecharitomenos"). Two things here are significant: that her fullness of grace is in the past relative to the speaker, and that it is the same "charis", grace, that St. Paul extensively writes about, not some theologically insignificant "favor".
You left out "in His humanity." That is crucial. God accomplishes things with one divine will, not three wills. Christ, on the other hand, has a divine will which is the same as the Father's, and a human will, which is in perfect obedience
The Athanasian Creed spells it out clearly as well: "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood." That is: inferior only in His humanity.
You did not differentiate. You simply stated the Son "does as the Father wishes." That statement is one of subordination, and obedience. There is no difference between the will of the Father (Wisdom) and the Logos (Word) and the Spirit of God. They are of one will, and one nature.
[formatting caused the last part to be dropped when I posted]
Doing as the Father wishes does not imply that there is any difference in will. It is a matter of order. Just as the Spirit testifies of the Son. This doesn't indicate that the Spirit is inferior in any way to the Father or Son. It is just His role. Jesus will return as King of kings and Lord of lords to get His bride, the Church, at a time the Father determines. Again, there is no difference in will here. Just a difference in operation. Each member of the Trinity has a certain operation which is a unified outpouring of their will as the one God. The Spirit is doing His work in the life of believers and points to the Son. The Son addresses people to the Father. It is an order, not a suborder. And, yes, their divine will is exactly the same.
As a side note, it is interesting how the Second Coming of Christ paralels the Jewish wedding ceremony. A groom is espoused to the bride and goes away for a time to prepare a place for her with the promise that He will come again. When the father determines the time is right, the groom then returns for His bride.
The word is Charitou which derives from Charis but is only found in two forms in Scripture.
Once refering to Mary in Luke and once referring to Christians in Ephesians.
The understanding of what is grace is far different between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox. We look at grace as "God's riches at Christ's expense." "Unmerited favor". It isn't a power someone is filled with. It is a blessing which is bestowed and is far from theologically insignificant. It is the reason we are saved. Grace. God poured His grace upon us having mercy on those who did not deserve mercy and because of Christ saving those undeserving of salvation.
The woman is Israel, not Mary.
Which incidentally underscores the latent Israelophobia I see in some of the posts here and papal pronouncements elsewhere.
Dr. Eckleburg,
Is this a fair characterization of what you were pointing to - that Mary's having other children somehow constituted her sinning or is there a misunderstanding here?
James and Joseph and Miriam were perhaps the most common names in Israel. Not a personal interpretation, just a statement of fact.
Jesus' had brothers and sisters and the brothers were named James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. Again, the names (including Yeshua incidentally) were common.
[From chap. 2:] He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. (emphasis added)
This could probably fairly be taken either way, but the highlighted words struck me as distinguishing between the real thing, OR a facsimile of the real thing. I think that if Jesus was the "real thing", He would have to have real human DNA inside Him.
[From chap. 3:] (14) You know what happens when a portrait that has been painted on a panel becomes obliterated through external stains. The artist does not throw away the panel, but the subject of the portrait has to come and sit for it again, and then the likeness is re-drawn on the same material. Even so was it with the All-holy Son of God. He, the Image of the Father, came and dwelt in our midst, in order that He might renew mankind made after Himself, and seek out His lost sheep ...
It's the same material. I fully agree, it's not fake material, it's the real thing.
[Id.:] (16) When, then, the minds of men had fallen finally to the level of sensible things, the Word submitted to appear in a body, in order that He, as Man, might center their senses on Himself, and convince them through His human acts that He Himself is not man only but also God, the Word and Wisdom of the true God.(emphasis added)
Now we're in business! :) If I am following all of this, this is the same way I meant it, although of course I didn't say it as well as +Athanasius.
[Id.:] (17) ... As with the whole, so also is it with the part. Existing in a human body, to which He Himself gives life, He is still Source of life to all the universe, present in every part of it, yet outside the whole; and He is revealed both through the works of His body and through His activity in the world.
I am definitely starting to warm up to this guy. :)
[Id.:] ... as Man He was living a human life, and as Word He was sustaining the life of the universe, and as Son He was in constant union with the Father. Not even His birth from a virgin, therefore, changed Him in any way, nor was He defiled by being in the body.
Yes, yes, yes. :)
[Id:] (18) You must understand, therefore, that when writers on this sacred theme speak of Him as eating and drinking and being born, they mean that the body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper to its nature; while God the Word, Who was united with it, was at the same time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as not man only but God. Those acts are rightly said to be His acts, because the body which did them did indeed belong to Him and none other; moreover, it was right that they should be thus attributed to Him as Man, in order to show that His body was a real one and not merely an appearance. (emphasis added)
We are most absolutely on a roll. :)
[Id.:] From such ordinary acts as being born and taking food, He was recognized as being actually present in the body; but by the extraordinary acts which He did through the body He proved Himself to be the Son of God.(emphasis added)
Anything from the peanut gallery on this one? :)
[Id.:] To speak authoritatively to evil spirits, for instance, and to drive them out, is not human but divine; and who could see-Him curing all the diseases to which mankind is prone, and still deem Him mere man and not also God? (emphasis added)
I'm going to wind up posting this whole book to illustrate my agreement with what he is saying. :) From what I can tell after reading it all, clearly the money chapter for this conversation is chapter 3. [There are others on point such as chap. 7, (48-49)]. Of course, I would respectfully disagree with the normal stuff you would expect me to disagree with, such as in chapter 4 [24], when he says that God did not arrange the manner of the death of Christ, etc. However, I was very pleased at how few these honest disagreements occurred. :) Overall, this is a terrific read. Thank you so much for recommending it to me (twice). LOL!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
annalex-"What is your source for that?"
My understanding is that wmfights (and I) believe that the church was ruled by bishops who, on occasion, would come together to resolve disputes. While there appears to be some order, no one voted for leadership. Contrary to what is often portray, the first Council in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts was not lead by Peter but by James. I believe you'll find the Orthodox don't cotton to a "one infallible" Pope.
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.