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/
Pray tell. How is that? Christ can certainly "stand alone" apart from His mother. It is more important that you know HIM.
Did that burrito come with or without green onions? :)
So, it appears you are even wiling to reject the Bible if it doesn't meeet with your ideology.
This bears repeating. And as you have heard from many others, well done Xzins! :) This sounds pretty "natural" and "usual" to me.
please read the Cathoic Catechism, numbers 396 - 421. I do not think you have an adequate idea of what it is the Catholic Church Teaches
Really Kostas...read the argument for Mary's "going along with the law for show" as it was stated here and tell me that it doesn't imply Mary was deceitful.
I stand corrected. You are right and I agree.
And it was wrapped in fresh spinach!
The New Testament consists of books written by Catholic Men to existing Catholic Churches.
Matt 16:18
Doctrine doesn't "swing with the times." If you think you can prove the Catholic Churfch has changed Doctrine - have at it. Men far more learned than you have tried and failed for centuries.
Your idea of what the Bible is is deficient and your understanding of it woefully wrong.
Begin by telling us your understanding of how the New Testament came into existence.
You even appear to think the Lord designed Scripture so it would invite controversy and disagreements.
BTW, where does your authority come from that allows you to reflexively gainsay protestamt scholars because they do not agree with your personal opinion?
These are educated men..and your theology degree is from what University - and they hold positions of authority as Seminary Professors - and you teach where? - and they beleive they are guided by the Holy Spirit
"Many early Christian sources refer to Jesus as a descendant of David (Matthew 1:1, Mark 10:47-48, Luke 1:32, Romans 1:3, Revelation 22:16), and Jesus seems to have accepted the claim (Matthew 12:22-32, 15:21-28, 21:1-16, Mark 10:46-52, 12:35-37). Since relatives of Jesus were available to and prominent in the early church and since some genealogical records were kept among the Jews of the first century, the early Christian accounts of Jesus’ being a descendant of David seem credible. Some of the earliest Christians had been active in the leadership of Judaism during the early stages of Christianity (Acts 6:7, Philippians 3:4-6), so they probably would have heard of objections to Jesus' Davidic ancestry if there were any. Paul, for example, was active in persecuting the church and surely would have had significant knowledge of the arguments used against Christianity by the earliest opponents of the movement, and he was in contact with Jesus' immediate family. He affirms Jesus' Davidic descent (Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8). How could Jesus' claim to be the Messiah have gotten far among so many people who had the expectation of Davidic descent, and why would He have even thought of Himself as such a Messiah in the first place, if He wasn’t descended from David? As the author of Hebrews indicates, information on Jesus’ background was "evident" to the public (Hebrews 7:14). Raymond Brown referred to Jesus' Davidic descent as accepted by "the majority of scholars" (The Birth Of The Messiah [New York, New York: Doubleday, 1999], p. 505). Craig Keener writes:
"there is little doubt that Jesus’ family historically stemmed from Davidic lineage. All clear early Christian sources attest it (e.g., Rom 1:3); Hegesippus reports a Palestinian tradition in which Roman authorities interrogated Jesus’ brother’s grandsons for Davidic descent (Euseb. H.E. 3.20); Julius Africanus attests Jesus’ relatives claiming Davidic descent (Letter to Aristides); and, probably more significantly, non-Christian Jewish polemicists never bothered to try to refute it (Jeremias 1969: 291). Jesus’ relatives known in the early church seem to have raised no objection to the claim of their family’s background (Brown 1977: 507)….B. Sanh. 43a, bar., may preserve a [non-Christian Jewish] tradition that Jesus was of royal lineage (unless it suggests connections with the Herodian or Roman rulers, or that he was about to take control of the people; both views are unlikely)." (A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 75 and n. 9 on p. 75)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/son-of-david.html
It is stated in the Christian Gospels that Jesus was descended from David and has been Head of his dynastic house since birth, and is thereby the lawful King of Israel. Although Christian faith has it that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and, consequently, has no natural human father, he is nevertheless considered to be a Prince of Judah as though Mary's husband Joseph were in fact his father. According to Jewish law a man is presumed to be the natural father of every child his wife bears, unless the contrary is judicially proved. Alternatively he can unilaterally deny paternity, but not when he has already taken paternal responsibility for the child, such as by naming him.
Additionally, in many ancient cultures, including Israelites, genealogy was not considered the same as paternity. For instance, under the Mosaic law, if a man died without offspring and he had a brother, the brother was legally required to marry the widow and the dead brother was considered the father of their first child (Genesis 38). Under such broader views, Jesus could be the legal son of Joseph, and therefore be from the line of David, without being Joseph's biological son and without being adopted.
Also, the New Testament lists two different genealogies for Jesus, one at the beginning of Matthew and one in Luke 3:23-38. Matthew says "A was the father of B, B was the father of C", etc. Luke, however, uses a word that can mean either "biological son" or "descendant", in the form "C was the son of B, who was the son of A". Matthew shows a lineage from David, father of Solomon and Luke shows a lineage through Nathan, a son of David. A common explanation offered by Christian biblical scholars is that Matthew is stating Joseph's line and Luke is stating Mary's line. Under this interpretation, Jesus would be a biological descendant of David through his mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line
When I look around at Jews I see every day walking to services on Saturday or around downtown, I see a lot of pale skinned people with red and brown hair.
These typical dark-skinned middle easterners are a product of centuries of intermixture of Arabs (meaning people from the Arabian peninsula), African slaves, and actual middle easterners.
If you look at the people in the middle east who have tended to keep themselves apart from the Arab/Muslim intermixture - Lebanese and Egyptian Christians for example, you see pale skinned people who frequently have light hair and eyes. Same thing goes for depictions of them in ancient frescoes and in Egpytian Heiroglyphic scenes. Jews have also tended not to intermix in their exile.
Ps., the Egypt Mary and Joseph hid out in was most likely cosmopolitan Alexandria, which would have had quite a number of Greeks and Romans, in addition to Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Jews. None of these people were renowned for being swarthy at that time.
You have photographs of them?
There are times when my memory serves me right. I think I'll just go home and celebrate this as one of those days.
No doubt. Sin = loss of grace. Grace = God. Thus, sin is a lack of God, not a positively created thing.
Because of their refusal to repent, Adam and Eve were cursed. That curse changed their nature which became succeptible to decay and death
Man's nature was not "changed". Concupiscence is not part of our nature, although it is part of our experience. Our nature was wounded. Otherwise, if sin was part of our nature, then Christ did not become "man". If He became a nature that we are not, then the Fathers would say we were not saved...
Thus the essence of our absence of Grace is not guilt, macula, spot that has to be removed or washed away, but mortality. And we know that baptism does not remove our mortality.
Being baptized infuses the life of Christ within us. Was it there before? No? That is the description of original sin. Life before the Spirit enters into man upon Baptism, at least in the New Covenant. Does the Orthodox teach that man has the Spirit BEFORE baptism? Does the Orthodox teach that man is reborn upon baptism?
Regards
Out of context, of couse. +Ignatius was confronting people who denied Christ's humanity.
That quote doesn't explain why was Mary's pregnancy supernatural and her labor wasn't.
This triumphalism reminds me somewhat of GW Bush's statement "we found WMDs" when the two weather ballon trucks were discovered by our troops in Iraq.
Sola Scriptura does NOT teach that something must be found in the Bible to be true or "good". Rather, it teaches that the sole earthly authority for Christians is the Bible. Therefore, if it is in the Bible, then it is true. If it is not in the Bible, then it might be true or not true. If it contradicts the Bible, then it is definitely NOT true. I fully grant that interpretation of the Bible plays a huge role in how this doctrine is implemented, but my view is that is not the doctrine's fault.
For example, you make the sign of the cross on your chest. This is nowhere in the Bible. However, it also does not contradict the Bible, so it does not violate Sola Scriptura. The same can be said about my altar call. Problems arise in such cases as the Marian doctrines, in which case we assert that there is a direct contradiction in scripture. That is the deal killer, NOT that it is simply an Apostolic belief. I think that if many Apostolics could parse the doctrine down to its barest bones, that many could find "some" sympathy with it.
Clearly, since the doctrine was promulgated by Reformers certain assumptions are made. However, my personal view is that the interpretive assumptions are not proving as to the validity of the doctrine itself. IOW, I would much rather hear an Apostolic say: "All of my truly core beliefs via Apostolic interpretation are found in the Bible, and here's where they are ..." (Sola Scriptura). This is as opposed to: "Many of my core beliefs are found in the Bible, and some other core beliefs are found in extra-scriptural Tradition, and here's where they are...".
This was the main focus of that quote. It was about our Lord and His humanity.
Forest Keeper, would you say that Christ's life was "natural and usual"?
So why isn't in the Bible. Why didn't any of the early Church fathers write about it, or even later with Augustine and Aquinas.
The fact is that Martin Luther invented it in the early 16th Century as a reason to leave the Church. Even he didn't pretend to have Biblical justification of it. He took advantage of the fact that his "audience" was other excommunicated clergy who wouldn't question him and a populace that was generally illiterate and didn't know if it was scriptural or not.
As has been demonstrated ad nauseum on this and other threads, no Marian beliefs contradict the Bible as long as one is open-minded enough to listen to the Church's theology behind these beliefs.
The bottom line is that "sola scriptura" is a recently invented unbiblical belief that the Church has categorically rejected since the theory was first introduced.
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.