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/
Oh, you're too harsh on them. I'd take it as Nestorianism, rather than Arianism.
They weren't physically eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood physically when Jesus said "This is..." It was symbolic then
In John 6 Christ indeed describes a future gift of His body, without giving them anything to eat at that time. But that does not make it symbolic; His crucifixion also happened in the future relative tot he discourse and that was not symbolic. They take it correctly as a prediction of eating His body in the physical sense, get appalled and leave. He does not correct their impression, but rather reinforces it with several amens, the "food indeed" and the choice of the verb as "trogo", literally "gnaw", at one point.
Christ offered one sacrifice for sin and there remains no more
That is correct (check Hebrews). This one and only sacrifice occurs every mass though.
works do not save you
This is extrascriptural spin. Read James 2.
If I were a Catholic but did not participate in mass, ever. I didn't like the thought of eating Christ's body and drinking his blood. What would become of my soul when I died?
Your soul would then be in great peril because you would have wilfully rejected Christ:
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
, and violated His commandment:
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
You are in the same peril, incidentally, whether you consider yourself Catholic or not, because the commendment comes from Christ Himself and not from the Catholic Church.
Unlike "kecharitomene" these expressions describe the grace itself, not our condition in relation to the grace, and not the time at which we received it. It is however accurate to say that for those of us who reach sainthood the condition is similar to the condition of Our Lady which she, but not we, enjoyed since conception.
The English word "assumed" does not find its way into any legitimate English Translation of the Scriptures in regard to the incarnation.
In the manner in which it was being used by some of our Catholic and Orthodox posters, (i.e., disputing the direct descendant genetic links between David and Christ), the word "assume" in regard to the manner in which the Word was made Flesh expresses the idea that Christ was not really a human being in the same sense as we are, that he was not genetically linked to Adam and Abraham and David, that somehow he would not have DNA like the rest of us, etc. IOW he was merely assuming a human condition, much as a criminal would use an assumed name. In that sense the use of the word "assume" would not work in a Christological sense.
Christ was Mary's child in the same way that you are your mother's child. To deny that is to deny the prophecies of his birth.
I had a seminary course in Augustine, and in spite of his brilliance and fantastic contributions (probably in the top 5 of intellects in the history of the Church...along with St. Paul and Aquinus) he also carted a lot of his neo-Platonism into the Church...which has been nursing it ever since.
The whole concept that Jesus birth MUST itself have miraculously not broken his mother's hymen--keeping her a perpetual virgin afterwards (also an extra-biblical idea...why?) seems to me just points to some men who had serious issues with normal human sexuality--particularly in women.
In fact is in Augustine's day, one raging issue was whether in order to be a true Christian at all celibacy was required. The other side of the issue said it was a silly requirment--that celibate Christians were no more holy than married ones...(actually arguing from the same bible verses used by Protestants on this issue today).
St. Augustine split the difference, saying that while celibates led a higher life, it was perfectly fine for baptized Christians to marry and have families (good thing--or had the extremist side won, Christianity may have died out in a generation or two). The division though of saying celibate Christians have a greater degree of spirituality led eventually to the requirement in all orders of priests for celibacy. More than a practical requirement for some missions (which seems perfectly reasonable to me--and follows the reasoning of the Apostle Paul) Augustine made it a spiritual issue, something scripture never hints at.
Augustine also went on to speculate that the reason orginal sin was passed on to ones children was that the sexual act, even in married people, invariably involved "concupiscence" ("lust") and hence conception occurred during sin....
As to why it was desirable that Mary's virginity be preserved AFTER Jesus' birth, I really do not understand; but I think it has more to do with Pagan notions of spirituality (untainted by the body...) than any serious true tradition. So strong is this idea that virtually all the first generation Protestant reformers held to it--in spite of silence (or even contradiction) by the bible.
Reading from 1600 years later vantage point, it seems clear to me that many of the Fathers (along with tens of thousands of regular Christians of that day) brought with them, in addition to their brilliance and education, a legacy of pagan dualist philosophy, which had serious problems with the God-created goodness of the physical body.
Christianity is still struggling with that legacy today--in both Roman and Protestant circles.
FK to Kosta: To some extent, yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. But without the fun part. :)
Thank you FK. You, are telling me that Christ is a "mixture" of divine and human, correct?
You have to tell me what "mixture" means. I think that if a DNA test was done on Jesus it would have proved that Mary was His genetic mother. If correct, that could have been accomplished by God in one of two ways. Either God could have completely manufactured a duplicate copy of Mary's DNA and injected it into Jesus before inserting the surrogate baby into Mary. Or, it could have happened just as my side has been telling you.
We have probably all seen the "Omen" movies and know what happened when they analyzed Damien's blood. Do you think this is some holy version of that? :)
As we all agree, though for apparently different reasons, Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man at the time of His birth.
FK: As I said before, the only thing we are told in scriptures about His appearance is that it was nothing out of the ordinary.
Hmmm. The usual "stuff" but "without the fun part," right?
Not really sure what you mean. We all agree on whether He took a wife, etc. Do you think His appearance was out of the ordinary?
FK: Therefore I conclude that the male DNA within Him did not make Him to "appear" to be a perfect male "specimen".
Imperfect man?
Yes, physically, if perfection is defined as being the tallest, strongest, fastest, being perfectly symmetrical, etc. As I said before, His physical appearance (and I therefore infer outward physical attributes) blended in with everyone else's as far as we can tell from scripture. Therefore, his left eye might have been a millimeter lower than His right, etc. That kind of thing. Would that diminish Him, in your opinion?
Was? (P-Marlowe, will you please note the tense here. It seems to be something you are sensitive to.) But, FK, you stated above that after Incarnation He is a "mixture" of divine and human. Are you saying He "was 100% God" until Incarnation but then became a "mixture" of 100% God and 100% human?
You well know that I wasn't paying any attention to the "tense" that became relevant in LATER posts. Before the Incarnation, the Word was 100% God. After the Incarnation, the Word was 100% God and 100% man. The Word BECAME flesh.
To summarize: you are telling me (1) that Christ is a mixture of divine and human "genes," (2) that Incarnation is perfectly ordinary "stuff" except "without the fun part," (3) that Jesus Christ is not a perfect male "specimen," (4) that Christ was a 100% God and (5) that Mary's "DNA" was as good as anyone else's.
(1) Yes, Jesus had Mary's DNA within Him from Mary herself. (2) No, the work of the Holy Spirit was wholly supernatural. Once completed, the pregnancy proceeded normally. (3) Yes, as I defined "perfect" earlier. (4) already addressed. (5) Mary's DNA was exactly what God wanted it to be for the purpose of mothering Jesus Christ. He created it.
And after all that you ask me if it is my "contention that the blood Jesus spilled was not human blood!"
Yes, do you have an answer? I really have no idea what you will say. :)
Ephesians 1:6 uses the same word in a different tense. It is the perfect Passive Participle - a verb describing something that was done to Mary not a noun describing what she was.
The Perfect Passive Participle
The perfect passive participle is the 4th principal part of a transitive verb. Perfect passive participles can usually be translated into English with the -ed ending: dux captus = the captured leader ( = the leader having been captured)
Thus, translating this Mary, thou art highly favored is well with in grammatical rules. "Full of Grace" is not. Filled with grace would be.
Ephesians 1:6 is also passive though a different form of the same verb(and the ONLY time it is found in Scripture. Charis is not the immediate root of what Mary was called. Charitow was). Ephesians is translated "made accepted" or grace freely bestowed on us.
In both cases, the subject is the recipient of something that God is giving. It is not a statement of what they are but what has been done to them. Mary was given unmerited favor (Grace) and made accepted to carry the Messiah. She was blessed among women because of this. None of this implies she was without sin. We have been made accepted by the grace freely bestowed on us by God.
Same verb. Two different tenses. Same basic meaning.
Mary had no pain, because she did not have original sin like the rest of us.
Sure, they were right in recognizing what God's Church had already identified, for the most part, as the Canon. God leads Christians of all faiths. I do not need to hold that the Fathers were wrong about everything for my beliefs to stand. :) Further, I am sure that some of their extra-scriptural beliefs were just fine, too. Really. Those things that were in scripture they were very right about. However, I think they were wrong about Mary because many of those things appear to contradict scripture.
The scriptures, i.e. the Apostles, gave her none of the kind of attention that came later. I can't explain this. Had the Apostles recognized her like the later writers did, in ANY real sense, then I would be fine with venerating her like you do. But for some unknown reason it never worked out like that. I can't explain why those who actually knew her and walked with her relatively ignored her in their writings, yet those who came later and never knew her thought she was the greatest human who ever lived outside of Jesus. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Somewhere, "perhaps" it was Joe (but I'm not positive so apologies if they are due, Joe :), I was given the argument that, as I remember, Mary got no ink because she and her absolutely incredibly amazing story was simply a given among the people. Everyone knew about her so nothing needed to be said in scripture. I can't accept this because, for one thing, Luke tells us specifically how important he thought it was to write things down (Luke 1:3-4), and he even gave Mary much of the precious little ink she got. For another thing, if it was true then that same argument could simply be used for all extra-scriptural beliefs, but we know that can't be right, especially in this company. IOW, any RC could say for example that all believers already knew that the pope was the ultimate authority, and that's why this does not appear in the Bible.
I mention this because (going way back to the middle of the L&E thread) it has been the ONLY direct attempt at all (to my memory) from any RC or Orthodox to answer my question about why Mary got no ink in the scriptures. I find it inescapable that the pedestal she has been placed upon was only built later, after the Apostles were all gone. The Apostles knew the facts better than their successors, and yet how did they "treat" her in scriptures?
Are you forgetting someone?
BTW-I was wondering if this meant Mary had imputed righteousness?
That's perfect Dr. E. Thanks for the reinforcement.
Sure, here's one from the KJV:
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Is there an interpretation that says that only the OT words of the Lord are pure, but His NT words needed purifying by the Church? I hope not. Although I would say that Christ validated OT and NT scripture, He inarguably validated OT scripture. If so, then we know that all the words of the Lord will be preserved.
Obviously, God showed great interest in planting the seeds of His Church and was interested in it growing. He knew a time would come for a text to be assembled. If anyone thinks He left that to chance, or to the (hopefully) good decisions of men, then God was rolling the dice. It seems much more likely to me that He ensured the results of the Canonization from the very beginning to the end. If He DID roll the dice, then we DO have the Church to thank for them making all the final decisions and making it all official, etc. If, however, God really was in full control, then we really only have Him to thank.
And yet where is this "rule" today? We are castigated at every turn for having a million zillion denominations, and that is because we have no centralized authority. We are told that is our weakness. We are told the only way to God is to have a firm rule under men. Yet, we don't have it. Who really does have this desire to rule? The RCs do to the highest degree, and the Orthodox to a lesser degree. However, you have it to a much greater degree than we do. I know you believe that your leaders are justified in the power they wield, but my main point is that "ruling" isn't really what we're all about. We get pounded all the time by you guys because of that. :)
If by "positive" evidence you mean "scriptural evidence," then you are correct.
There is no scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. They are pure speculation from centuries later.
Not so.
Peter himself called Paul's writings "scripture."
Jesus Himself said that others would find Him through the testimony of the Apostles.
There is no denying the immediate level of inspiration that accompanied the writings, dictations, and authorizations of these Apostles.
And I'm still wondering if the movie is any good.
I think we look silly.
Thank you for all of the quotes from the Fathers. I agree with everything I think I understand (maybe 90% :) I'll elaborate more on what I'm getting at in my response to Kosta.
The problem I see with this argument is with the fundamental disagreements that arise in the Church. For example, take the fillique of the Nicene Creed. Orthodox and Catholics both have different interpretations. If the Church had the capability to recognize Truth, wouldn't one side or the other recognize their error?
"Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people"
My original autographed Scofield KJV with original notes in Aramaic updated through the various councils and thoroughly re-annointed at the last Council of Aaaragh says he was "full of faith and power". Now I could be wrong since some of the scribes were still finishing the lager when they were translating but his eminence P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*), may his name be forever feared among the infidels, has sworn to us at the time we purchased it from him, with a 30 day money back guaranty,that this is a complete and accurate translation handed down by oral tradition from the Home of the Bewildered through many generations.
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.