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/
Amen. The only sacrifice able to pay the penalty.
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
"One offering...forever."
And yet we have posts on this thread ridiculing "substitutionary atonement" and sentences like "He paid the price."
Very puzzling.
ANNALEX: No, God definitely does not want a sacrifice
KOSTA50: That's blasphemy.
Before coming to these threads I never dreamed the basic nature of salvation was held in such low regard by our RC and EO FRiends. Flabbergasting. We may as well toss out Hebrews and practically ever other book in Scripture if we deny that Christ was the lamb slain for our sins from the foundation of the world who took upon Himself the punishment that was rightfully ours in order to present us blameless before God.
Sadly, it does appear to be a different Gospel.
"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour." -- Ephesians 5:2
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." -- Hebrews 9:25-28"Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:19
12For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is of necessity an alteration of the law [concerning the priesthood] as well.
13For the One of Whom these things are said belonged [not to the priestly line but] to another tribe, no member of which has officiated at the altar.
Hebrews 13:
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them. 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. 15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. 16 But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
How happy I am to see us in agreement! (:
Well sure. I said earlier that I personally did not have a problem with "Theotokos" (especially as opposed to "Christotokos") because I think I have an understanding of how it is being used by the people who are using it. In witnessing, I would not choose to first use the term "mother of God" UNLESS I was also led to go into a whole long explanation of what that meant. That could very well happen someday. In addition, our respective explanations would certainly be different, including the mechanics. We would also disagree on what the title says about Mary. :) However, on the simple point of whether Mary gave birth to the God-man, thereby she was His mother, and if that's what Theotokos means, then "yes".
Anyway, in the same breath I agree with the criticisms of the other Protestants here, in that such a term could very well lead to a wrong impression, especially in witnessing. It really would take a full explanation. But here, in this conversation, among you all, it doesn't bother me, (and of course many of the points have been discussed on this thread). Nobody here thinks that our Lord Jesus took on His divine nature after physical birth.
I do know how that goes indeed. Thank you so much for this inspired sharing on prayer in Christ Jesus, the Head from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God (Col. 2:19), amen.
As far as Kolo's position, I believe the Orthodox has always held there not to be a need for the blood atonement. I think St. Gregory's comments sound reasonable but are contray to scriptures (a few provided by Dr. E). The traditional view of the western church fathers, couched in the aboved article, is that until St. Anselm was to believe that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.
As I state above, this view was never the view of the eastern church as far as I can tell. However it WAS the view of the western church for centuries. The Catholic doctrine moved towards the Orthodox position 500 years ago.
Catholics have abandoned the blood atonement concept favoring a similar Orthodox view (hence the discussions of St. Gregory and Anselm). Protestants, contrary to what the Catholics would like to have us believe, have always believed in the blood atonement. However, in some Protestant circles there is a watering down of this doctrine.
Where you consider it "blasphemous", I consider it essential. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. I didn't see a discussion of this in St. Gregory's writings.
"I think one of the EO on this thread said he meant we would share in his divine essence."
I sincerely doubt that any Orthodox here said we would share the Divine Essence. The Latins, or at least some of them, hold that position. Orthodoxy teaches that theosis is coming into union with the uncreated Divine Energies of God because God allows no union with His Divine Essence, in effect becoming "divinized" but not "deified" or in some manner obliterated by or absorbed into God (the Latins don't believe that we are absorbed into God either so far as I know). cf +Gregory Palamas
Just as a matter of curiosity, what do Protestants think happens to those who have attained theosis?
Wow, this thread is eating me ALIVE!
Thanks for your kind words. I'd amend the above thus:
I would not want to hinder anything Biblical and healthy which brought folks closer to Jesus.
Mind you I LIKE Biblical, and I sure wouldn't advance anything unhealthy. But if I have to set the Bible down to free both arms to embrace Jesus, my choise is clear. Heck, I'll drop my Rosary too!
Actually, Anselm wrote some books. I've even read a couple.
"Anyway, in the same breath I agree with the criticisms of the other Protestants here, in that such a term could very well lead to a wrong impression, especially in witnessing."
How so, FK? The term was "coined" to address a Christological heresy and as such really wrote "finis" to that heresy. Do you suppose that the reason the term causes such consternation among Protestants is that Protestant Christology, so long cut off from that of The Church, has itself become, since the days of Luther and Calvin, distorted, or at least different from that held by The Church and the first reformers?
Good morning, Kolo
Because mother of God is only partially accurate. What is actually being said is "Mother of the Incarnate 2d Person of the Trinity."
"Mother of God" ignores the Trinity.
That's why using it in conversations with non-Christians would add an additional layer of communication problems that it would be best to avoid. Best to say that Mary is mother Jesus the Christ.
FK is exactly correct, because he has carefully pointed out that his concern is communication with a person not steeped in subtle Christian distinctions.
I think you may be mistaking nuance and adumbration for something else.
The Catholicity.com link is the same passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia as is quoted on the New Advent site. I just don't think it says what you say it says.
The full quote, with the part you excerpted underlined and the parts I wnat to stress bolded is:
It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".I would not say that Anselm encapsulates ALL that Atonement is. I would also say that mere blood, even the Blood of our Lord, if it were possible for it to be shed againsst HIs will, would be sufficient. His will, His obedience, His self-sacrifice (and remember that sacraficere literally means "to do a holy thing" - like, say, give "praise and thanksgiving" - it does not intrinsically require losing something or killing something) are all requisite parts of the mystery.
So yeah, if saying that ALL that atonement is is the satisfactory shedding of Christ's Blood is a touchstone for you, I think we fail, not because we say less, but because we insist on more.
Also, just for completeness, The Catholic Encyclopedia, while admirable, isn't necessarily authoritative.
The throne of grace is not necessarily the altar of any Church. I've seen it in stadiums, prison cells, hospital rooms. living rooms and in the street when people come together to pray to thank God, seek His forgiveness, receive blessing and His help for their lives.
God does gives us room to boast and his Word says so:
Romans 5
5Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we* have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have obtained access* to this grace in which we stand; and we* boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God. 3And not only that, but we* also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.* 10For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgement following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification* leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"Good morning, Kolo"
Morning, Padre!
"Mother of God" ignores the Trinity."
With all due respect, I think saying the foregoing betrays either a misunderstanding of, or ignores, The Trinity.
"Trinity is simple unity; it is not merged together - it is three in one. The One three-hypostatical God has the three hypostases perfectly distinct in Himself." +Gregory of Sinai
Ergo, of necessity she is the Theotokos.
But, you go on to say,
"That's why using it in conversations with non-Christians would add an additional layer of communication problems that it would be best to avoid. Best to say that Mary is mother Jesus the Christ.
FK is exactly correct, because he has carefully pointed out that his concern is communication with a person not steeped in subtle Christian distinctions."
Now THAT I can understand, especially the final sentence. I suppose over 5600 posts on this thread alone demonstrates the truth of what you say. Orthodox Christianity, of course, is often found in precisely those "subtle Christian distinctions" which often set the demarcation line between Truth and heresy. So yes, I suppose there is no harm in your proposal to the extent that the hearers are not up on the Trinitarian theology and that once they are, Theotokos is used lest the hearer fall into Nestorianism.
I guess taking things out of context is the best way you have to support this argument that the bread and wine actually are Jesus.
John 6:32-33 "Then Jesus said to them, "most assuredly, I say to you Moses did not give you the bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.""
John 6:35 "And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Clearly Jesus is speaking metaphorically and when he is referring to eating and drinking he is referring to Faith in him and the sacrifice he willingly made on our behalf.
John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread. he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."
Again it is clear Jesus is speaking about FAITH IN HIM. If you want a literal interpretation, we would only have to have communion once and we would live forever. He doesn't say we must eat this bread once a week for the rest of our lives to live. He doesn't say the bread must be touched by a priest with a "magic finger".
It is plain as day. What we must do is have FAITH in JESUS. He will do the rest just as GOD fed the Jews who were fleeing, Jesus will provide.
So his followers were too dumb to see that it was a metaphor? It took 1500 years, give or take, before the metaphorical nature of the discourse was perceived?
If I sound a bit testy it's because of the double bind: If we were to put up the entire discourse and then parse it, that wouldn't be good. But if we don't put up an excerpt which you want to use, then we're taking things out of context.
All sides do this.
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.