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/
My, My!
I'm gone for one week......
What? You all managed not to worship Mary, and your Traditional Marion beliefs are firmly believed because it is all Tradition, right? OTOH, I do have an impression that the Orthodox put scripture a notch higher than extra-scriptural material. Is that correct? If so, then the same cannot be said of Catholicism. If I'm still on track, then what you "could" be saying is that the Marian doctrines were relegated to extra-scriptural Tradition because that doesn't carry as much weight as scripture, therefore the "threat" of misunderstanding (worship of Mary) is less. How am I doing? :)
If "not so good", then all (or any) of the Marian doctrines could have easily been included by the scriptural authors, with specific provisos against worship of Mary. It just seems odd to me that many, many "lesser" women in the Bible got tons more ink than Mary ever did. From the authors' points of view, why not be proud of her place in humanity and tell about it? I promise I would have bought it, I would have bought all of it. :)
Christ is a Mystery that is not ours to "understand." If we believe in Christ, we believe that nothing about Him is "natural" or "usual," whether it is his seedless Incarnation, His miraculous Birth, or His death.
But you are making SPECIFIC conclusions about this mystery. If you told me that the Orthodox position was that you had no idea whether Mary was ever-virgin after giving birth, or whether Christ passed through the birth canal normally or not, then your above would match. But you have gone beyond the mystery, and taken a position on these issues.
BTW, if nothing about Christ was "natural" or "usual", then ... um ... what would you say about his bodily functions? How did that work exactly? :)
Given what we do know of her, we could safely say that her womb became the Tabernacle, and I seriously doubt that any of the apostles or fathers would have ever thought of it being violated after Christ's Birth.
Violated? Where is the violation? She was married. --- Her womb became the Tabernacle? The Tabernacle was a holy place of worship. Is that what Mary's womb became? :)
It was a busy weekend and I missed a lot. Er...do I really want to go back and read about this??? ;O)
I am talking about the primary usage of the word adelphoi, brethren.
Any other usage is NOT the primary usage.
They drew the distinction and demonstrated that they could draw the distinction. The word kindred (suggenes) is translated "cousin."
Luke 14:12 And he said also to him who did call him, `When thou mayest make a dinner or a supper, be not calling thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kindred, nor rich neighbours, lest they may also call thee again, and a recompense may come to thee; These lists demonstrate that words are being distinguished from one another. There is a distinction between a man's brothers and his "kindred, blood relatives, kinfolk, cousins." IN SHORT, the Protestant position MUST be admitted to be entirely tenable, and those who reject fellowship based on this difference are being dishonest with other Christians."
Lu 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
Mt 13:55 - Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
Mt 12:46 - While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.
Mt 12:49 - And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! This is a very interesting passage in that Jesus intentionally distinguishes between these "fellowship brothers" and the "brothers associated with Mary."
Mr 6:3 - Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" And they were offended at Him.
Ping to #1025
They are still not identified as children of Mary. They might have been Joseph's from a prior marriage. They might have been cousins whose parents died and were raised as siblings. We don't know. What we do know is that never are their parents identified. Neither James nor Jude identify themselves as a brother of the Lord.
Why was Mary entrusted to John on the Cross? This would have been highly insulting to any siblings and quite probably illegal under Mosaic law.
We discussed that, did we not?
In the case of a saint, the Church tells us that he is hearing our prayer in heaven. In the case of someone not canonized, we pray for their intercession assuming that they are in heaven. If they are in fact not there, the prayer has no effect, that is all. Likewise, in the case of a prayer for a dead person, it is only effective if the person is in purgatory; if he is in heaven or hell, the prayer has no effect on them. It still has an effect on us, as a charitable effort, albeit fruitless.
Indeed we did. In fact, I was thinking of you when I wrote the question, AND, I am happy to report that your answer now is exactly as I remembered your answer back then. :) I was simply asking the same question of another Catholic, whom I do not know like I know you. :)
I certainly have no problem with prayers that turn out to be "fruitless in fact", e.g. asking the Lord to heal my friend who is sick, but then my friend dies. In that case, at least I can be certain that the Lord heard my prayer and then acted according to His will. However, I do have a "problem" with a prayer that might not even be an actual prayer to God, in that it never "gets through". Since you could take the exact same petition directly to God, I see that as a needless risk of "wasted" prayer time that otherwise rightfully belongs to the Lord.
I have already mentioned that they could be:
1. Mary's own children.
2. Children of Joseph by another marriage. However, my guts tell me that it had to be a marriage AFTER Joseph married Mary. Otherwise, Jesus would not be the firstborn son in the Davidic line and heir to the throne. Primo-geniture was not always practiced in the passing of the kingship, but it was the standard.
3. Friends/associates who are identified by the word of affection, "brother."
4. Cousins. This is not a common usage of the word adelphoi, but I guess it does take place. Can you give me any other additional clear example in the bible for when "adelphoi" is translated "cousin?"
My contention is that, of the various usages, the word "brother" to translate "adelphoi" is the most likely. After all, it is the direct translation and common intent of the word.
Scripture and tradition are both fairly silent as to what happened with Joseph. However, there is no real doubt that he was dead when Christ's ministry began. There is no mention anywhere or any tradition to indicate that Mary might have remarried.
As far as your idea about firstborn status in the Davidic line, there has always been one glaring "peculiarity" and that is that Jesus had no biological relation to Joseph.
The fact remains that there is no scripture or any other early writings that indicate that Mary had other children. Perpetual virginity was never questioned by any of the chief reformers, in fact they emphasized it. For that matter, perpetual virginity does not interfere with Protestantism's main arguments with Catholic teaching.
I think it is two different words. "You are a pebble, on a stone I shall build my church". The stone being general confession of who He is. That is an interpretation that actually matches the rest of the bible. The idea of Peter being the "head of the church" can't be supported anywhere else.
You need to look at Rom. 16:21. Paul uses suggenes to refer to his relatives just like Luke did in referring to Elizabeth as Mary's cousin, not adelphos, and in verse 23 he uses adelphos to refer to a fellow member (a brother, not my brother)of the church. You can't prove that Jesus brothers were not Mary's children except by dogma.
However, you can't prove they were Mary's children by ANYTHING.
I think we can make a stronger case based on the available scriptural testimony.
In a court of law, a neutral jury would rule in favor of our position that Jesus likely had siblings, and that Mary & Joseph were the likely parents.
"He had built His Church on the foundation that was this man [St. Peter]."
Looks like the foundation was the promise to Israel ingrafted by faith, not any man except Christ Jesus.
Rom. 11:24, "For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?"
So many metaphors, so many theories.
Alex, you bring up a very important concept. The Orthodox Church, as you know, does not teach the "original sin" passed on to generations since Adam and Eve as guilt that has to be removed, but as a consequence of fallen human nature, made susceptible to sin, namely our mortality.
Thus, we Orthodox understand your argument as saying that Mary's susceptibility to sin was removed, as someone's susceptibility to catch a flu is removed by vaccinations. She was therefore made "immune" to sin and therefore could, by this act of God bestowed only to her as far as we know, to resists sin. Which would make her ontologically, as Koloktoronis said, different from the rest of us.
By the same reasoning, Mary, would have been made conceived immortal just as Eve was and her own death would suggest that she was not immaculate. Some Catholics firmly believe that she did not die, although I think the Latin Church remains officially silent on that issue.
The Orthodox, of course, teach that she died, since our mortality cannot be removed by baptism in this lifetime even if we are sinless.
The Orthodox Church, furthermore, teaches that Baptism is adoption into the Body of Christ, the Church. The baptized are sacramentally given a new life (a chance to be saved conditionally), by following Christ in the steps and teachings that are deposited in and uninterruptedly maintained by the living Church.
The Church does not guarantee our salvation. It only states that our chances of being saved are the greater because, relying on our nature alone, it is very unlikely that we will cleave to God, although we don't discount that with God everything is possible.
Someone might observe that the Orthodox recite in the Nicene Creed that baptism is for forgiveness of sins.
Baptism is forgiveness of sins actually committed. Obviously, a newborn infant hasn't (and couldn't have" consciously committed any sins, so this clearly does not apply to them, nor is there any inherited "guilt" in them.
Baptism is rebirth, as the prayer of the Orthodox Baptismal Service indicates by this silent prayer of the priest (obviously for females it is "her" instead of "him")
BTW, the infant, like the adults, is always upright (resurrected) during the actual baptism.
As can be seen, from the Orthodox point of view, the conceptual baptism hypothesized by the Latins in the case of our Most Holy Theotokos does not remove any "original sin."
Clearly, the Augustinian concept of "guilt" expressed in the "original sin" as understood by the West, is the very foundation of the dogma of Immaculate Conception. The Catholic Church, therefore, must make up its mind what the "original sin" entails: it is actual guilt, spot, macula, that is removed by Baptism, or is it a consequence of the original sin of our ancestral parents, expressed as corruptible human nature, prone to and attracted by sin, which, like a disease left unattended, will kill us.
I am afraid that bridging this gap is next to impossible, for it would require the West either to change its entire mindset drowned in Augustinian senseless error of "guilt" by birth.
I am not sure of the tradition of that, esp. considering the New Eve concept. If one plays it out, it naturally leads to Mary being created without sin, as the original Adam and Eve were. St. Augustine, the one whom the Orthodox continually blame for the idea of original sin (which goes further back, to even Tertullian) HIMSELF stated that he excluded Mary from such consideration when he discussed that ALL men were under this original cloud...
Catholic theology doesn't consider us "guilty" of anything in regards to original sin. I agree with your definition - we are LACKING something, and this is a result of original sin. Sin is a lacking of God's presence - so we can define this "original sin" as sin. But it is not personal sin per sec.
In that sense, Mary was no different than any one of us. She stands out from the rest of us because she – more than anyone else – known to us chose to trust God and put Him first in everything.
Adam and Eve were ALSO born "differently" than us, but they ALSO chose to sin. Being born without original sin doesn't mean one cannot fall into sin, as our first parents have shown. Thus, Mary IS no different than us in that sense.
By seeing her as no different than any of one us, she gives us hope that we too can follow in her steps, even imperfectly. Immaculate Conception takes away that hope, as none of us are filled with Grace at the moment of our conception. Immaculate Conception makes Eve a strager to humanity, rather than our role model; it makes her someone endowed with the strength and purity to resits evil that makind lost with the from grace.
Again, you'll have to explain that leap of logic, because Adam and Eve were ALSO born in a state of union with God - and they sinned... It doesn't follow that being born pure will mean one will remain pure. The doctrine also includes that Mary REMAINED pure - but we both agree that she didn't sin. The area of concern is whether she was BORN pure.
I never did like comparing Christ Jesus to "second Adam" and Mary to "second Eve," as the comparison is somewhat troubling to me, but – as you point out – that's the comparison the Church Fathers used.
The obvious objection is based on the fact that Adam and Eve were husband and wife and not Son and Mother. The second one is that Adam was not divne and human.
Ah, brother. But Mary IS the Church, spiritually speaking! And what does Scripture call the Church? The Bride of Christ! And doesn't the Fathers also refer to the birth of this Church as coming from the side of the Second Adam at the crucifixion? The flow of blood and water from His "sleeping" side formed our Lady, the Church, just as the woman Eve was formed from the sleeping side of the first Adam, as St. Ambrose said (I paraphrase!)
Thus, we see in the Song of Songs a reference not only to the Church (as the Bride), but also to Mary. In Revelation 12, we see both Mary and the Church. The woman of Genesis 3:15 is Mary and the Church. It is quite clear that Mary and the Church are interrelated. Not only is she our pioneer, leading the way into heaven and pointing out our own destiny, but she, like the Church, is our spiritual mother. She is our spiritual mother when Christ gave her to the "beloved disciple". And in the same way, the Church gives birth to us - through baptism - and continues to nurture us - through the Word and Sacraments. Mary and the Church are inextricably linked and there is no reason to NOT continue the idea that Mary is the New Eve.
If Mary's flesh was no different than Eve's pre-fall flesh, Christ's human nature would still be capable of sinning, for the pre-fall Eve also had a potential to sin and in fact did sin.
No analogy is perfect. The question is often placed "could Christ have sinned"? The devil certainly thought He could, otherwise, He wouldn't have tempted Him. I am not so sure if it was impossible. It depends on the "linkage" between the human and divine will. Now, we do know that Mary, Adam, and Eve did not have a divine will to oversee the human will. Thus, the point cannot be made that "because Jesus could not sin, then Mary could not sin." If this was indeed true, it would be for different reasons. And as such, this must be the case, because Christ did NOT require a savior, while the Church proclaims that Mary DID. Thus, the analogy cannot be perfectly maintained throughout. However, the Church has taught from the beginning that Mary is the New Eve because of her relationship with Eve and Christ.
That in itself is somewhat torubling, Jo, because self-willed death is what the Church abhorrs. Now we can all argue that Christ "had" to die, whether He willed it or not, because it was necessary for the fulfilment of God's plan, etc. I wll leave that for another thread.
I don't see Christ's death as suicide.
I don't see why Mary would have to suffer in her childbirth, especially if she was, as you believe, a pre-fall Eve, and therefore free form the curse of painful childbearing.
Then you believe that Mary did not die?
Regards
I do think that the Book of Acts spells out Jesus' words that He would use Peter to get the Church started. The Acts can be divided into 2 sections: (1) Peter, (2) Paul.
After Paul's death history tells us that Peter again became more active.
However, just because Peter was the point man in getting the church started it does not follow that he started the Roman Catholic Church. That's an unsupportable leap of logic.
In an American court, based on western notions and cultural limitations, very possibly.
But if the jury were educated on the meaning of the word "brother" and "sister" in the cultural context of the Middle East and chronological reality of Jesus' time, and reminded that there is no mention of "Mary's children" as there is unequivocal mention of "Mary' Son," the jury may not be so predisposed.
You are assuming, but you have no proof.
There is a mention of "Mary's son" because of the need for genealogical purity of the Messiah. With Jesus' brothers, the relationship is with the important one, Jesus.
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.