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/
Good luck explaining these posts to Mary's Son during the time of your Private Judgement
But of course. A superstition is a metaphysical belief not supported by observable fact. Sola Scriptura qualifies.
It says "she gave birth to a Son"
She either did or didn't, and that phrase means something. It is not an argument from silence for words to have their normal meanings.
Allowing words to mean whatever one wants is what would be illogical.
The Eternal Second Person of the Trinity, in glory, can still be intimidated by a human woman. And the Mary of Catholic mythology is not a goddess. OK, I got it.
His conception is different because the text says it is different.
His death is the same because the text says he was dead.
His birth was the same because the text says that "she gave birth," and as blue-duncan has so ably pointed out, her bleeding afterward made her unclean.
Now, we either use the text or we throw it out.
He is not separate from His divinity, but He emptied himself of it. Philippians 1, I think.
Not at all. The Levitical law that you quote did not *make* a woman unclean at birth. The Levitical law was for the purpose of purifying what was unclean. In other words, the Law assumes that the woman would be unclean. And in ordinary cases the woman is *indeed* ceremonial unclean in such circumstances. But the law does not say that every birth (whether male or female) of a woman *necessarily* makes her unclean. The law is not ruling out the possibility of a divine miracle that prevent a woman from being made ceremonially unclean upon the birth of a male child. That's where you are making your mistake. You are assuming that the Levitical law in question makes it impossible for God to miraculously prevent a woman from being made ceremonially unclean upon giving birth to a male child. But you are not justified in limiting the omnipotence of God in this way.
-A8
I agree. But the question on the table was whether "Christ's human birth was accomplished exactly like yours and mine was accomplished."
I am aware of the "bait and switch" fallacy xzins, and I generally don't fall for it.
-A8
-A8
We are told that all men sin, and nothing in Scripture, absolutely nothing, exempts Mary from the rest of the human race. She needed as savior as much as you and I.
The latter part of your statement, "or to subsequent sexual activity," points to the reason so many RCs have so much guilt and anger and confusion over God's gift of a healthy, marriage-sanctified sexuality.
This is not what other RCs have argued. Why did Mary need a savior if you assert she was sinless?
Amen.
There is nothing in Scripture that tells us Mary was "immaculate." It's a dangerous fiction.
Blue, you're at the top of your game on this thread. Learned a bit from you here.
While I don't think it can be denied that the early church held to Mary's perpetual virginity, that's just narrative as tradition, Tradition as narrative. It's the story the early Christians held to which probably was influenced by their intense persecution, coupled with near exponential absorption of converts who brought their past gods and goddesses with them. And once the narrative took root, to contradict it was to become an infidel. Most likely because of persecution and the need to stick together.
Men, fallible men, ran the church, decided what was orthodox, what was not. These men had philosophical predilections and blind spots, they had tastes and held to their own aesthetic, had the human disposition to be attracted to power. They were not immune to those things that all men wrestle with.
There will never be a historical search for Mary as there has always been for Jesus because Jesus is the Redeemer. Mary is NOT insignificant, far from it, but her significance is that she is in the upper echelon of those chosen by God among humans to bring His Will to fruition, as were blessed Moses and Abraham and David. Mary's Magnificat is one of the most beautiful prayers ever, harkening to the Psalms.
All the speculation about the Ark, the New Eve, is pure speculation. And it is remarkable that there is no Scriptural reference to her sinlessness, to say nothing of her being the mediatrix of all graces or the neck of the Body of Christ, etc. in any of the Gospels. Surely, if we were meant to invoke her as the ultimate entreaty to her Son, there would be some reference to it. You'd see it in the writings of Sts. Peter and Paul, but all you see in their writings is the preaching of Christ Crucified. The continual running to the Cross.
Herman Sasse wrote a piece back in the 50s concerning the deification of man via Mary and her state of perfection. He writes the following, and the rest is here for those interested.
The veneration of Mary at its very deepest essence, is finally the deification of man. In it man, who can not bear it that God alone, God's Son become man alone, is his Redeemer, thus places himself as his own co-redeemer. What this means and whence it leads is illustrated by the history of one of the most celebrated Marian churches of the west - the pope himself gives us this indication when he includes the temples dedicated to Mary in his proofs from tradition. In the place of an ancient pagan holy place - similarly in Rome the Santa Maria sopra Minerva - was raised in Paris the Cathedral Nostrae Dominae. In it Thomas Aquinas was promoted to Magister. In it the great teachers of scholasticism prayed and preached, who taught that amazing Catholic synthesis of nature and grace, reason and revelation, and human preparation for the reception of grace and divine redemption, that cooperation of the human will with divine grace, for which the Holy Virgin is the great paradigm. Is it an accident that in the same Church of Notre Dame, during the French Revolution, that religion was evidenced which since then has become the sharpest opponent of the Christian faith and a substitute for the faith of their fathers for many millions of men throughout the world: belief in man and his reason. At that time the Temple of Reason was raised up in the old Marian church, and in it was enthroned a not so holy "maiden" of the Parisian opera, as the "Goddess of Reason," and she let herself be marveled at in the speech for the occasion as a "Masterwork of nature." Did this fearful scene perhaps have a deeper meaning? Did it not demonstrate what perverse path man comes to when man is placed beside God, reason next to revelation, nature next to grace. On the day reason ejects revelation from the temple, man places himself on the throne of God and reveals, after he has rejected grace, his true nature. This is all possible in a Marian church. These possibilities lie dormant in the Church of Christ, and become reality when Christianity forgets that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even and angel. Verbum solum habemus. We will hold to the Word of God.
Catholicism, for whatever reason was not able or willing to absorb the venerable and beautiful understanding of human sexuality that the Jewish patriarchs bequeathed us. I finally began reading the Song of Solomon and it is breathtakingly beautiful. Catholicism's view of sexuality and womanhood is more akin to Islam's, with Catholicism's being "off" (to put it kindly), and Islam's being extremely disturbed. IMO, Islam and Catholicism's nexus commences with this and proceeds to the application of it to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Luke 11:27 And it was done, when he had said these things, a woman of the company raised [up] her voice, and said to him, Blessed be the womb that bare thee, and blessed be the teats that thou hast sucked.
28 And he said, But yea blessed be they [And he said, Rather, blessed be they], that hear the word of God, and keep it.
The speculation of the New Ark and the New Eve does not comport with Luke's Scripture, and Luke was Mary's greatest Gospel fan.
By that definition, not only sola Scriptura but other Christian doctrines, as well as those specific to Catholicism or Reformation theology are superstitions. Original sin, the Immaculate Conception, and the the priesthood of the believer are as superstitious as sola Scriptura, For that matter, so are doctrines found in all religions.
Pseudo-Aug., in App. s. 123: He, who by a touch could heal the severed limbs of others, how much more could He, in His own birth, preserve whole that which He found whole? In this parturition, soundness of the Mother’s body was rather strengthened than weakened, and her virginity rather confirmed than lost.
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.