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/
We love written scripture and post commentary when it is relevant. If something is so big that it takes up the majority of the thread page then chances are a link will suffice.
Yet that subject matter is not the jist of what Alamo-Girl and I have been concerned about recently. There is an "objective" church, which has a history (i.e., it has a "past.") There is also a (forward-looking) "subjective," or inner church, which is inspired and drawn by the Holy Spirit in "real time," the cultivation of which is of particular interest to my dear sister and me.
FWIW. Don't know whether this makes any sense to you. But there it is anyway.
Thank you so much for writing, annalex!
"I expected that they would as I am seeing a definite distinction in how Catholics view Mary and how Orthodox view her. There are some similarities, but the "veneration" of Catholicism goes much further."
As a general proposition, there is a basic difference between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church on the conception of the Theotokos. Rome says she was preserved from Original Sin. We don't accept the idea of "Original Sin" and thus believe that there was nothing to preserve her from. If she was preserved from the effects of the Sin of Adam, then she wasn't really human and this has implications for the nature of Christ, or so we see it.
In the Western Church there has always been an element which is, to our Orthodox eyes, a bit on the extreme side when it comes to devotions to the Theotokos. Some of this comes from a basic misunderstanding of Roman dogma and doctrine. Some of it, I will assert, is a direct result of Roman dogma and doctrine. On the other hand, don't think for a minute that we don't venerate the Panagia and pray to her daily for her help, we do, in spades. I don;t know of an Orthodox home which doesn't have several icons of her. We just don't speak of Co-Redemptrix or have statues of her with her heart showing. These things are symbolic, but are often misinterpreted by the Latin Rite faithful, I fear.
Kolo, I usually enjoy our discussions. If nothing else you are informative.
However, the gulf between us in faith will probably never be bridged. I don't and won't believe in a works earned salvation.
"It wasn't declared dogma yet was it? Thought that and Papal infallibility were declared such after Marian apparitions in the 1800s"
That was my point. When Luther was sermonizing, there was no Feast of the Immaculate Conception. It was called the "Feast of the Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos by St. Anna" The Latin position would be that the 1800s' dogmatic proclamations on the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibilty were merely papal affirmations of what The Church always and everywhere believed. When they were proclaimed, Rome knew Orthodoxy didn't accept those notions, but at that point in time, Rome was of the opinion that Orthodoxy was not part of The Church whose boundries were co-extensive with the bishops in communion with Rome only.
We believe that Mary was a sinner like all humans. She needed a Savior. A wonderful pious woman, yes. But just a woman.
The idea that she never sinned is repugnant for two reasons 1)Christ is the only person who has ever lived without sin. 2)God would have punished a non-sinner with death. Christ's death does not apply here for he became sin for us. The wages of sin is death. If Mary never sinned, then she was made to pay for sins she never committed - for she died.
"However, the gulf between us in faith will probably never be bridged. I don't and won't believe in a works earned salvation."
But, WF, +Anthony is quite clear that he is rejecting a works based salvation, as do all the Fathers:
"To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions."
Works don't get you into heaven. The Fathers are real clear on that. A similitude to Christ is the key.
The Orthodox definitly beleive Mary needed a savior.
There's hope.
From Wikipedia...
Mary has already been designated by the Church with four holy attributes (as Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus in 431, as ever Virgin in 649, as immaculately conceived by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and as being assumed into heaven body and soul by Pope Pius XII in 1950); this would be the fifth. The proposed dogma would hold that "Mary is Co-Redemptrix (Co-operator in the Redemption) by her unique co-operation with God as the Woman, New Eve, Mother of the living. Assumed into heaven, Mary continues this saving office as Advocate and Mediatrix of all grace by her constant intercession to obtain for all men the gifts of salvation. Mary's role is subordinate to and always dependent upon the essential and chief role of her Son." Some Catholics in the late twentieth century urged Pope John Paul II to infallibly declare Mary Co-Redemptrix, and he actually referred to her as such in a speech in 1985. In the early 1990s Professor Mark Miravalle of the Franciscan University of Steubenville in the United States launched a popular petition to urge Pope John Paul to make such a move. More than six million signatures were gathered from 148 countries, including those of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, 41 other cardinals and 550 bishops. However, such a proposal was also heavily criticised by many Catholics who suggested that only Christ could be a Redeemer and that such an act would drive a wedge in relationships with other apostolic tradition Christian faiths, notably the Eastern Orthodox Church and Anglicanism, neither of whom would accept such a designation. Though both Pope Pius XI in 1935 and Pope John Paul II himself in 1985 did use the word co-redemptrix to refer to Mary, no formal infallible dogma supporting such a designation has been issued, notwithstanding the petition."In the Roman Catholic faith "the Fifth Marian Dogma" refers to a proposed dogmatic recognition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix.
Yet.
I have to run, but "I'll be back". ;-)
It seems odd to credit her as co-redemtrix. Eve was certainly active in the Original sin yet it is held to be ADAM'S sin.
Why would then would the second eve get credited with Christ' own work.
Are you saying this? We Protestants believe that works is EVIDENCE of your faith. But do not save you. Only Christ's atonement saves. And the faith in what He did is how that similitude comes about. If one doesn't have works, it is a reason to be concerned that they are not saved.
"We believe that Mary was a sinner like all humans. She needed a Savior. A wonderful pious woman, yes. But just a woman.
The idea that she never sinned is repugnant for two reasons 1)Christ is the only person who has ever lived without sin. 2)God would have punished a non-sinner with death. Christ's death does not apply here for he became sin for us. The wages of sin is death. If Mary never sinned, then she was made to pay for sins she never committed - for she died."
As I think I have said before, believing that the Theotokos sinned is not some modern Protestant innovation. Sveral of the Fathers, +John Chrysostomos among them, believed that she did. The consensus of the Fathers is, however, otherwise. But that, B, says nothing about her needing a savior. In so saying, you have pointed to what I see as a flaw in the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If indeed the Theotokos did not live with a nature distorted by the Sin of Adam, the effects of which were absolute bondage to death, then indeed it is a fair question to ask for what reason she needed a savior. Orthodoxy believes that she was graced in such a manner as to avoid all sin in her lifetime, but that was because of her perfect response to God's grace. It has absolutely nothing to do with being born with a different nature than you or me and it is that nature, the one we are born with, which necessitated Christ's death and resurrection, as much for her as for us.
But I would also submit that just because someone has works doesn't mean that they are saved. A certain Ex-President or two are really into doing good works. Can't judge for sure if they are saved or not. But, some of their comments/fruits make me wonder.
Why, indeed.
"That said scripture AND the Church Fathers are clear that if one has faith, one evidences that faith in works. 'Faith without works is dead'."
Oh, indeed. Faith will always transform us to an extent, which will lead to conforming ourselves to Christ's image in the way we live. That in turn causes us to focus more on Christ, which leads us to further conformance of our lives with Christ etc, etc. Its like the quotes from +Symeon the New Theologian and +Anthony the Great I posted earlier. One must remember, though, that this conformance is something worked on us; its not like a bribe to God.
he first line should have been italicized... as far as the faith without works is dead i beleive that's from james...
I am pleased to find a full-throated explanation of the Ascension:
However, the physical nature of mankind, which in Christ had resurrected, could not be wholly given over to death and corruption in the one from whom the Lord had received that nature.
Here is that often ignored verse that explains the communion of saints plainly:
we are made "fellow citizens with the saints and those who are of God" (Eph. 2:19).
The glory of the saints:
Some "fathers, teachers and leaders" (Matt. 23:5-10) act for their own glory, for human glory, and in their own name (John 7:18; 12:43; 5:43); and there are others—fathers, teachers, and leaders—who act to the glory of God and in the name of Christ (1 Cor. 4:15; 12:28). These last do not do damage to the glory of God, but they serve only that glory and not themselves, and they are glorified by God Himself with His glory. "Them that glorify Me, I will glorify," (1 Kings [Samuel] 2:30). "Father, the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given them" (John 17:22).Wherefore, "we bless them which endure" and have them "for an example" for ourselves (James 5:10-11). We must "remember them which have the rule" over us and "follow their faith" (Hebrews 13:7). Such are those holy people who are not on earth but who live in the memory of the members of the Church and never will be forgotten because of their service for the salvation of the people.
Why not pray directly to Christ?
The Christian can pray, "My God, save me." But in the prayer, "My God, for the sake of the prayers of Thy saints, save me," there is more sincerity, more humility, a depth of feeling and a complete defence against pride creeping in if the prayer is successful, a firm foundation for spiritual advancement. In this way, prayer to God, addressed via the holy God-pleasers, stands nearer, closer, to God, and it throws a bridge over the abyss that exists between God and sinners, it humbles the soul of the sinner himself and invokes upon him the good pleasure of God. In their humility, true Christians do not hope on their own prayers, but on the prayers of the saints, and thus they do not think anything of themselves, and they do not glory in the strength of their own prayers hut in those of the saints, they account themselves nothing, they flee from conceit, and thus they are saved. For this reason the prayer of the true Christian is always seasoned with hoping on the concurrent intercession before God of the saints, especially of those to whom he turns to underpin and support his prayers.
Finally,
she is actually the Theotokos, as until that time the whole Church had believed, except for the heretics who attempted to name her "Christotokos."Ha.
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.