Of course she is. Whose child is this?
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/
Despite the recent schism, when Emperor Comnenus called us to save Byzantium from the Muslim we fought four crusades to help the East. Some abandoning.
Then you proceed to describe how it is not complete. Typical Protestant empty spin.
Christ's work is complete. Ours is not. We will be saved or not saved according to our works. This is plain scriptural truth, straight up, no invented scripture and no extrascriptural metaphysics about works being entirely fruit of the spirit.
In 4422 I wanted to describe the interplay of the divine call, the natural knowledge, the capacity for faith, the actual gift of faith, and finally sanctification. How did I do?
If you look that "not happy" in context, he is happy not to feed the Corinthians' thinking of a fragmented church.
What I am looking for with wmFights is a historical theology resembling the thinking of the Reformation, especially on the four Solas. Rebaptism is not a foundational Reformed teaching, is it? Of course there have been various heretical groups all along.
It is wrong to confuse anapabtists with donatists though. The latter rebaptized for a specific reason of the initial baptism thought invalid because of the apostacy of the priest. It was not a reflection of any theology of baptism being an expression of internal rebirth through adult faith, which we find in (ana)baptists.
I know you did, but I am not sure if Forest Keeper agrees with your answer. IF I understood your answer correctly, you do not object to the proper understanding of Mary being the mother of God, but rather to the fact that using it as a title might lead to deification of Mary. With that I do not have a big problem, -- it's a free country. If you think a title might be confusing, well, don't use it.
Pre-consecration epiclesis:I: Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord.
II: Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy,
so that they may become for us
the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
III: And so, Father, we bring you these gifts.
We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
IV: Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord as we celebrate the great mystery which he left us as an everlasting covenant.
Post-consecration epiclesis:
I: Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech. Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.
II: May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.
III: Look with favour on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.
IV: Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church; and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.
Yes. Generally they don't, although in the Epiphany episode the pagan astrologers did just that. Another reason why Romans 3 should not be taken as bearing no exception.
Problem with that view is that all the fundamental doctrines of the Church were fully formed way before Christianity became Rome's state religion, as the patristic evidence shows.
I agree that at times Protestantism resurrects old heresies, donatism especially often. But these heresies were smashed on their merits (donatism was argued against by St. Augustine, the only Church father the Reformers want to hear from). I doubt that you'd find much ideological kinship with any of the old heresies in toto.
Of course she is. Whose child is this?
"Hmmmm..."co-reigning" with who? That implies two."
Only to some in imprecise English. In Greek it means reigning together with.
"Homily 19 on Matthew"
Ah, the Golden-mouthed One! A good patron saint for attorneys, bd. He's mine!
"NONE of them challenged Kosta's earlier statement of the Orthodox view on the subject [of filioque]
Because the distinctions are too subtle to be arguing over on a thread when the basics of faith are questioned. The Catholic Church sanctions the Creed without the filioque also when the flock prefers it that way."
It is way too subtle indeed at one level, and rather dramatically important at another...but its not a subject the Protestants would be in the least interested in, certainly not on this thread. Its too bad that Agreed Statement is so long, because there's a good deal to ponder there but the bandwidth....
Chrysostum is da BOMB!
But what do I know?
The analogy that Damascene has is a tree consisting of a trunk, a branch, and a fruit. The fruit this comes initially from the trunk but through the branch.
Kolokotronis, on the Erasmus thread you posted something from the Holy Father (or perhaps from then Cardinal Ratzinger) about the Holy Ghost proceeding from the mutual longing between the Father and the Son. You said it was from Deus Caritas Est, but I do not see it there. Do you rememeber what I am talking about?
Since I believer that God can not be divided, Mary, mother of God, is too imprecise of a term and does potential damage to the eternal preexistence of Christ as well as the unity of the Trinity. I not only think it is confusing, but think it is wrong to use in that way. Using the precise term (and biblical term) Mary, Mother of Jesus or Mary, mother of my Lord helps one to be precise, lets one base one's Christology on the person of Christ and preserves his unity with the Father and the Spirit as well as His eternal preexistence.
It is true that this may lead to the absurd notion that she pre-exists God, but till the late Reformation no one held to it, and we cannot really be responsible for what Protestants have in their minds.
Then she is also the mother of the Father and the Spirit.
Why? Women give birth to persons. They do not give birth to Trinities.
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.