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/
Calling Mary the mother of Jesus is sufficient--if the goal is to distinguish her from all other mothers.
What is the purpose of changing it to calling her
THE MOTHER OF GAWWWWWWWD
???
Why is "Mother of Jesus" inadquate, in sufficient?
Inadequate in terms of what?
In sufficient in terms of what?
Why the change?
Sociolinguistically, please explain the change.
Psycholinguistically, please explain the change?
I don't think sociolinguistics or psycholinguistics were among the concerns of the ecumenical councils.
Kindly do not ping me to this thread again. Thanks.
Wrong.. Jesus existed (as son) before he entered his earthly body, as he does now after the cross.. Jesus has always existed.. God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) has always existed..
Long before Adam and Eve even.. Worshiping Jesus earthly body flys in the face of the metaphor of The Body of Christ.. and may even be idolatry.. The Spirit of the Son(Jesus) is (and was) eternal.. As Peter said "Thou are the Christ the son of the living God", was not in reference to the fruit of Marys womb.. but in reference to the Spirit of God..... When Jesus asked Peter "WHO AM I"..
I don't think sociolinguistics or psycholinguistics were among the concerns of the ecumenical councils.
= = =
Hogwash.
They just didn't have those labels, then.
By whatever label, I don't think it was a concern.
AMEN, A-G. You truly have a gift of wisdom!
I think such were serf influencing goals aiding power mongering rather than concerns.
AMEN, Quix. Be careful or you'll be accused of 'talking too loud' again. (Smile)
Unfortunately, that means you still don't have a fair understanding of the Reformed faith. As always, I do not speak for all Protestants, but WE are FULLY bound to scripture (as are other "Bible-believing" Protestant faiths). It just happens to be in an interpretation you disagree with. None of what you describe is what we teach or experience in our worship.
In #6222, I said: "There is no salvation before judgment. ... Only after judgment will we be either saved or condemned; only then will we have a ticket to heaven or hell. ... and while none of us deserve[s] salvation, some will receive it for no other reason that God's incredible mercy."
........... When I answered "Yes," it was to the first part of your statement (re: attaining), and not the latter, as you took it (re: awarding); salvation is awarded, as a crowing recognition of you as someone who has attained the likeness to Christ in God's eyes.
Ah, now we may be getting somewhere. Thanks for the clarification. I had been operating under two generalizations that I thought I had picked up along the way. One is that theosis is "like" what I call salvation. The other is that a very few attain theosis during physical life. I take it now that what I call salvation is more different from theosis than I had thought.
In any event, it appears everyone agrees that theosis is not an earned award.
Ahhhh welll . . .
SHOUT it from the housetops . . .
Thx.
Please pray, am resisting chest infection--a rather hazardous thing for me.
"I take it now that what I call salvation is more different from theosis than I had thought."
Is it what you call "sanctification"? By the way, I asked Blogger about the term "saved" as he uses it; I've yet to hear from him but I'm sure I will. What do you mean by that term? Is it a one time "You're saved" event? What happens after that and finally, you've mentioned the "sinner's prayer". All prayer here on earth is the prayer of sinners, but I suspect you mean something quite specific. Yes?
" Wrong..
You can't say wrong without addressing the logic specifically. Is the Son of man God? The only way to say it is wrong, is to say either: the Son of man is not God, or the Son of man was not a man.
"Jesus existed (as son) before he entered his earthly body"
Jesus did not "enter" a body. Jesus was a man born of woman, just like all other men. Most of the answer to this, I covered here. I do not believe in such things as supernatural spirits. The body is a physical machine that supports the functions of a sentient rational being. The life giving force is in the physics of the machine. The spirit refers to the person, or self that's generated from the capacity of that machine.
"Jesus has always existed. ...The Spirit of the Son(Jesus) is (and was) eternal."
Lets examine some of the words and concepts used here. First is the word eternal. The word eternal refers to time, which is a dimension that measures duration of existence, and sequence of interaction, which can include cause and efffect. Some might say that God is timeless. That's impossible, because the duration of existence would be zero, and there is no meaning to the word eternal at all. In order to exist, a time dimension is essential.
That time does not need to be on the same clock as this world's time. The existence of the clock allows for the concept of eternity to be meaningful and the concept of sequential events in time applies.
Jesus was begotten. That means that the incarnation occurred in time. Regardless of the fact that this world's clock is different than Heaven's, the incarnation was not eternal. Also, God must have decided at some point to create. It's illogical to claim that God eternally decided to create. It's also illogical to say the incarnation was eternal on the same grounds.
What is known is that man is in the image and likeness of God. Symmetry applies, because of the equality and the opposite is true. This applies to capacity only, not on anything generated by that capacity. So, as per the explanation of trinity, given in the above link, the capacity of Jesus, generated those aspects of the Holy Spirit of God, which were solely as a result of human action. Although the values held were the same, the judgments and actions taken, were done as truly human action. The eternal Father, whose spirit was the Holy Spirit, could never do that. Only a human, in truly human condition could do that. Since the Spirit was to be the same as a result of that human action. God's Spirit, the Holy Spirit, was dependent on the actions of Jesus. That is the nature that resulted in the announcement of pride from the Father at Jesus' action and decision to be Baptized.
So, although Jesus occured in time, His was the same eternal Spirit that was the Father's. They are one, but it can not be said, that all of the Holy Spirit was within Jesus during His earthly life, or the additions to the Spirit, that God as man provided, were eternal before God's pondering creation itself. What can also, be said, is that it's the same Holy Spirit, and never contradicted itself. That is eternal.
So, since both the Father and the Son are responsible for that Holy Spirit, Jesus was right to say I Am. Just as man is the right hand man for his soul, so too was Jesus the right hand man of God. It's the spirit that's common to each person of a trinity and each person of that trinity is identified as the same individual. In this case, the individual is identified as God. So, Mary, being the mother of the indivual that is recognized as God incarnate, is the mother of God. To say anything else, would require denial of God's humanity and Gen 1 itself.
I think I'll just leave the alternate universe and wish you well.
I Know you believe that... thats why I said what I said..
Henceforth you cannot say you were not told what I said..
Possibly not the first time(you were told) either..
Also true... Jesus said the Sheep and the Goats MUST be separated..
And thats a Good thing.. and is happening..
It is very late in this thread, and you are going over matters already discussed, and asserting things the Church never taught. Read the Nicene Creed:
. . .And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man. . .
The begetting of the Son refers to His eternal ontological source in the Father, not to the Incarnation, even as the procession of the Spirit from the Father refers to His eternal ontology, not His temporal, economical manifestation in the world.
Some of the Fathers indeed paralleled the eternal begetting of the Word with the Incarnation in formulae like "Begotten of His Father without mother, and of his mother without father," but the primary application of 'begotten' to the Word is, as in the Creed, the eternal begetting from the Father.
Actually, you sell old Ptolemy short.
The model of the earth at the center is simply choosing the frame of reference fixed on a terrestrial observer. It is neither true nor false in that light, but it is the coordinate system you need to, for instance, drive a terrestrial telescope to keep a planet in view.
The frame of reference fixed on the sun gives better coordinates for calculations of planetary motion in that the center of the sun is approximately (to very high accuracy) the center of mass of the solar system. Again it is neither true nor false, just a choice of coordinates.
If you want to drive a terrestrial telescope, you still have to convert from the Copernican coordinates to the Ptolemaic coordinates, the telescope has to follow those little epicycles, after all.
And why we are reminded pf the same thing at every Divine Liturgy to "set aside the cares of life" [the Cherubic Hymn], and every time we sing the Lord's Prayer (the words "Thy will be done...")
Were all of humanity to become like the monastics, all creation would be restored to the pre-Fall state in which God created it
So true, Kolo, so true.
Oh, I must disagree. Ptolemy's system still works! It works precisely because it is a working model. Working models appear "true" because they work. Our mind rejects a notion that something which is not true shall work.
Ptolemy's system, because it works with mathematical certainty, was a strong element is establishing the Old World Order. After all, we use scientific method to "prove" things, and the convincing factor is always a working model.
But Ptolemy's system works because it uses earth as reference and us as observers on earth. Ptolemy's system will not work in particular on Jupiter, but a Ptolemy-like system with new epicycles from a Jovian vista would work in principle.
In addition to being falsely used as a "proof" of a geocentric Old World Order, Ptolemy's example also tells us that science does not discover truth, but only makes "working models." They are neithr true nor false in an absolute sense. They only either work or don't work. :)
Learning from the monastics, we should follow in thier steps to the best of our abilities, always remembering the holy Scripture tell us "for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." [Luke 18:14]
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.