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/
Excellent find from Ignatius. To deny the full humanity of Christ while giving a certain divinity to a creature such as Mary is heretical.
78 Do ye therefore flee from these ungodly heresies; for they are the inventions of the devil, that serpent who was the author of evil, and who by means of the woman deceived Adam, the father of our race.
Amen.
See Dajjal's posts # 676 & 687 above.
It is the prevailing opinion. The dogmatic teaching is silent on most of it, except to say that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine and that Our Lady was perpeturally virgin, and the Mother of God.
No, strictly speaking we don't know that from scripture alone, unless there is a passage somewhere in the scripture(?) that lists their parents.
There IS NO CATHOLIC TEACHING that even implies that our Lord was not fully human and fully God.
Great post!
I think he would have gone into much greater detail about the birth process if there was something miraculous about that. Just as the Apostles would have gone into detail about it. They knew Mary. I think it might have come up in conversation.
Ooooooohhhhh...excellent quote.
The Church is comprised of fallible men, we agree. Only few of what has been taught by them has been elevated to the status of dogma.
Scripture's message has been constant
The text has been constant, except Luther hacked off some books and also some laughable translations are offered as dispositive. The interpretation of the text has varied greatly and continues to vary among the Protestants.
Protestants will say faith alone. SOLA FIDE, SOLA GRATIA. SOLOS CHRISTOS. SOLA SCRIPTURA. Thats the essential definition of Protestantism.
I know, and none of it was the teaching of the Church for 15 centuries. Most of it also contradicts scripture mo matter how you interpret it. Read for example James 2 and get back to me on Sola Fide. Or show me where Sola Scriptura is in the scripture.
*Was Mary the Mother of God?
As to going through Mary to find Jesus, that probably stems from the unbiblical Catholic teaching that she is our Mediator.
618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men".
1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."
This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512
970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source
The Bible says that there is ONE mediator between God and men and that is Jesus.
*Yes. We Catholics were correct when we wrote the New Testament and we are correct still. Jesus did not create a Church to write some books and let each individual reader decide for himslelf what the words in those books meant. He established a Church as the Pilar and Ground of Truth, If the Church He established could teach error now, what makes youthink the very same Church was unerring in writing and Canonising Holy Writ?
Protestants do admire Mary. She was a holy innocent young lady when the Holy Spirit came upon her. She loved the Lord, and she is definately a good role model for Catholic and Protestant alike. However, NOWHERE in Scripture are we ever told to pray to her, to hold her up as anything other than a woman blessed by God. She sinned (she called God her Savior. If she hadn't sinned, she wouldn't need a Savior). She was rebuked by the Savior at times. And, ultimately, she turned to her own Son and faded into the background - in SCRIPTURE.
*We Catholics teach Mary never sinned. Mary was saved prior to her conception.
The Catholic Church has developed a doctrine of Mary - OFTEN as a result of a "vision" of Mary.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
`Herein is the difference between Catholics and Protestants.
5` The BIBLE is our ultimate authority for doctrine for Protestants. For Catholics it is the Bible PLUS something else - all held up with equal validity.
*Bible, Tradition, Magisterium of the Church. And, if we hadn't written the New Testament, you wouldn't have one.
We can not, as Protestants, embrace the Catholic teaching concerning Mary. Some of it is purely unbiblical (such as the praying to Mary, the story surrounding her birth, her assumption into heaven etc.,). But we do love and admire her.
*Well, people change once they learn the real facts about what we teach.
If the Movie shows her as something other than a humble young woman, it is my personal opinion that such a view is probably not the way it was. The God of Eternity reached out and used her to be His vehicle for becoming a man. If someone can't admire her for that fact alone something is wrong with them.
*I recognise a GTO as a vehicle. I honor Mary As Theotokos
Why then would RC's be upset with the movie because it showed Mary going through birth pains? If I understand you, the RCC does not teach as dogma that Mary felt no pain. Is the RCC not correcting its congregants for some reason?
You use psychobabble to point to a heresy?
But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
-- John 20:30-31
The Gospels exist to lead man to Salvation through Christ. Everything else is extraneous; however, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, it simply means that knowledge of it wasn't deemed necessary for OUR Salvation.
The inherent fallacy of sola scriptura (at least to my way of thinking) is the notion that if something isn't mentioned in the Bible, then it isn't true. Yes, everything in scripture is true, but that doesn't mean that everything not in there is false.
You are correct, the movie on that point does not contradict the dogmata of the Church. It does, however, go against the prevailing opinion, including highly esteemed doctors of the Church such as Aquinas.
At the same time, the movie has received positive review by the Vatican, and my priest recommended it. It does not mean everything in the movie is as Rome would have wished, simply that it is a good movie to watch and reflect upon.
Geez, I just can't imagine why a hierarchal structure wouldn't teach that salvation is not dependent on them.
I've always wanted to know why the Protestants think the warning in 2Peter 3:15-16 doesn't apply to them.
Prior to the invention of the printing press, Bibles were extremely rare and only affordable to the wealthiest of people. They all had to be written buy hand, it was not just a matter of going out and buying one. Because there were so few books, most people didn't bother to learn how to read. (To put it in more contemporary terms, most of us don't know how to fly planes; but if you could buy a plane for $25000, a lot more of us would learn.)
So, based upon the FACT that reading the Bible and using it as the sole rule of faith WASN'T EVEN POSSIBLE for fifteen centuries. I HAVE TO ASK WHY OUR LORD WOULD DEVISE A METHOD OF SALVATION THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEARLY EVERY PERSON.
Jesus says,
John 10:35 - the Scripture cannot be broken--Paul says,
2Ti 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Jesus sets the rule:
1. Scripture cannot be broken.
2. Scripture is directly to us from God.
3. It is to be used for doctrine (teaching)
Tradition is not mentioned as being directly from God, nor is it claimed to be FULL of use for teaching.
I can't know your heart, but you really should think about what we mean when we say Sola Scriptura. The belief is often misstated for the purpose of ridicule. The best example of it is the Bereans and the high esteem they were held in because they adherred to it.
(2) it doesn't say. The scripture on many occasions identifies the human authors. It says "inspired". Other than that, we agree. So why did Luther lied about Romans 3:28 and threw away the scripture he did not like?
Tradition is not mentioned as being directly from God
True, but neither is the scripture, as I noted. It is mentioned right alongside the scripture in 2 Thessalonians 2:14, as well as in 2 Timothy preceding the passage you cite.
This is yet another in an unending progression of threads about Catholicism that is hijacked by Protestants who want to ridicule Catholics saying two thousand years of Catholic teaching is wrong.
And yet I am unfamiliar with any Protestant threads being hijacked by Catholics ridiculing Protestantism's Sixteenth Century theological inventions.
If any of us were to go onto a Jewish thread and tell the Jews that they were damned for not accepting Christ, we would be banned from Free Republic. So, forgive me if I am simply uninterested in "thinking about what Protestants" mean when they talk about theories that the Catholic Church holds to be heretical.
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.