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/
"OK.
I think I may be getting a better grasp of the geography of outrage.
Mary is instant ballistic outrage over even"
Marian insults will get even us normally quiet and self-effacing Orthodoxers enraged! :) As for popes, well, from about 800 generally up to the past four or five, well we'd probably let it pass.
The Fathers play a role only in their consensus, not individually. That to which the Father consented is what the Church considers the correct doctrine.
This was my understanding, and when you all quote the Fathers to me in support of a point I have been assuming that the quote is in agreement with an approved position of the Church. Should I not do that? :)
I believe we usually quote the Fathers on things that are either dogma or doctrine of the Church. I believe we would use the Ecumenical Councils, but not local councils, in the same vain.
Yet, individual Fathers can always say things that are not doctrinal or dogmatic, but are presenting hypotheses (theologoumenna), religious opinions, instead. It is important to state that this is so, lest it be misconstrued as the teaching of the Church.
All Fathers has such opinions. Thsi is best made clear when it comes to such topics as Christian canon. Much disagreement there. St. Gregfory of Nyssa believed in universal salvation (he picked that up from Origen). St. Augustine believed the Jews were descendants of Cain.
Individual clergymen who advanced opinions to the level of doctrine or even dogma were challenged by Ecumenical and local councils. as long as they did not challenge dogma or doctrine, and deferred to the Church, their opinions were simply that, their opinions. One must be careful not to present their opinions as if they were dogma/doctrine.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The focus of our missionary organizations is to reach people groups who have never heard of Jesus before. From your post I can only assume that we would be unwelcome even to visit in communities of your faith overseas.
God said that those who live under the law must do it perfectly to be saved. He said no such thing about those who live by faith. The faith believers live by is what was given to them by God. God chooses to increase it through sanctification, but it is not due to the decision of the believer. I actually do not concern myself with trying to measure my faith as against anyone else's. I just try to follow God's leading. My faith will be what God wants it to be.
Obviously, it's the intent that counts and not perfection. The poor old woman who gives her last two copper coins to the synagogue is giving everything she has to God. A rich Pharisee who tithes 10% of his wealth is not, although his sum may be greater. Who is justified in the eyes of God? We all believe it's the woman for giving everything to God. I am sure both the woman and the Pharisee have faith, but that's not all that is required.
I don't think that God wants us to be in the mindset of trying to "one-up" each other by seeing who gives more. The old woman gave "more", but the Pharisee also did right by giving what God asked of him. Had God decided to move his heart, he would have given more. I do not look down at the Pharisee at all in this example. While I would not use the word "justified" in this example for either one, from the information we have I would not say that the woman deserves more personal credit. God decided to bless her with the higher faith of complete dependence.
Again, pages does not equate to importance! I said this earlier to you when I spoke about Mary... Is the book of Numbers that important to your theology? How about Chronicles, which Jesus NEVER mentions - at least in Scriptures? Yours is a dead-end street. The number of times I quote from the Deuterocanonicals to a PROTESTANT is not an indication of their unimportance. I happen to enjoy Tobit and the book of Wisdom. You might be better served if you took the time to read it, as it is one of the most profound books of the Old Testament. Since I do not claim that they are necessarily all wrong, I would treat them as non-authoritative, which may or may not be persuasive. I think Luther included them in a separate section in his Bible, so they probably can't be all bad. :)
I can quote from them more, if you like. It is a bit more difficult, however - because most Bible software does not include them. Thus, it is a bit harder to call up verses from them that apply to a given situation.
Regards
This is the unbridgeable canyon between the Apostolic Church and Protestant mindset, the way Judaism is separate from Christianity in general. It involves a different interpretation of the Scripture.
The Jews read the same OT and don't see the foreshaddowing of Christ. God gives us faith. What we do with it is a different story. That is up to us. It's a credit. What you do with it, how you use it, spendt is, multiply it, with what intent reflects not what God gives us but what you do with His blessings.
Christ was very clear when He said that a wealthy man will not go to heaven, and when he said that unless your righteousness does not exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you shall not enter the Kingdom.
No you go to places like Romania, Macedonia, Serbia, Russia, Ukraine. and you pretend that they've never heard of God before let alone Christ.
That's an excellent insight, Dr. E. I can see no other reason. It seems to me that Catholicism is dependent on an idea that God chose to transfer great power away from Himself and install it into certain men. In the OT, it appears that God was fully content and up to the job of executing His role as sovereign Himself:
1 Sam 8:6-8 : 6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you.
1 Sam 12:17-19 : 17 Is it not wheat harvest now? I will call upon the Lord to send thunder and rain. And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of the Lord when you asked for a king." 18 Then Samuel called upon the Lord, and that same day the Lord sent thunder and rain. So all the people stood in awe of the Lord and of Samuel. 19 The people all said to Samuel, "Pray to the Lord your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king."
I don't know what has changed such that God now needs help. :)
Like I said before, in my individual mindspace, Wisdom contains a good overview of the Old Testament while prefiguring the New, Ecclesiasticus has a thourough treatment on free will, and Maccabees has prooftexts on prayers for the dead. Others may have something esle. There is a reason Luther the Fraud got rid of these books, and the reason is his theological fantasies.
The idea is wholly scriptural, and we don't need to pretend some books do not exist to prove it. "As my Father has sent me, I send you".
The Bible only leads to an Apostolic faith when read through an Apostolic lens. I have only been talking about an unbiased reading of scripture with no lens. Which of our faiths takes the plain meaning approach more often? It's not even close. The unbiased reader will come much closer to some form of Protestantism. The Solas are clearly scriptural, as our side has painstakingly detailed, but they are a clear threat to the power of men. It is no wonder at all that they need to be erased through the lens.
But since Christ is referred by way of the woman, "your offspring", we have to conclude that while the entire passage speaks to the women generally, it also speaks specifically of Eve (of course) and of Mary.
That would only be possible if "offspring" CANNOT be taken as generically perpetual. The word "seed" (Zera) includes the concept of posterity, so there is no need to include Mary. It is perfectly legitimate to say that Jesus was part of Eve's "seed" as used in the passage. To build Mary in here is purely an act of choice, the text does not logically require it at all. And of course it is a forced choice because it does not flow with the text of the passage.
It is not coincidental that Christ refers to His mother "woman" throughout the scripture.
Yes it is coincidental. :) That was a common, and polite, form of address. This is from what appears to be a Catholic site: CATHTRUTH
The title "woman" contains nothing disrespectful. In trying to penetrate the meaning of the term we must not take for a criterion our own social code but must place ourselves in the circumstances and social customs in which it was used. Now, in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which Jesus spoke, this was the customary and honorable form of address to any woman. The same usage of the term "woman" prevailed among the Greeks; as Aeschylus tells us, even queens were addressed in that way. Augustus is said to have used this title in addressing Cleopatra. In Spain the word "mujer," "woman," is still used as an affectionate form of address. That Jesus did not consider it in any way offensive is evident from the fact that He used it again on the Cross, when He was entrusting His mother to the care and kind offices of St. John: "Woman, behold thy son." Christ also used it in addressing the weeping Magdalene at the tomb: "Woman, why weepest thou?" Surely our Lord would use only the kindest form of address to a woman who was weeping through great love of Him. (emphasis added)
---------------
But since the gospel tells of Him Who crushed the serpent, we gain the meaning not plainly seen. This is rather typical of how a Christian reads the Old Testament in general. It is not a Catholic mariological lense, it is Christian and therefore Catholic lense.
For the reasons already stated, I would agree with you as to Jesus, but not as to Mary.
The notion that the symmetry in question was a mariological invention is not accurate. Veneration of Mary was developed as one outcome of combating the christological heresies of Nestorius, but the symmetry is noticed by the earliest of the Church fathers:
But the noticed symmetry appears to be very invented. In your quote from St. Justin Martyr, the main comparison is made between a woman who heard God's word and disobeyed, and a woman who heard God's word and did not. I find this unremarkable. There are tons of examples of women who knew God's word and obeyed or disobeyed. The only comparison the Bible actually makes is between Adam and Christ. Eve to Mary is invented.
I wouldn't have thought that Mary being the new Eve and co-redemptrix was necessarily tied to her veneration since the Orthodox clearly venerate Mary.
"I wouldn't have thought that Mary being the new Eve and co-redemptrix was necessarily tied to her veneration since the Orthodox clearly venerate Mary."
The idea that Panagia is the "New Eve" is both very patristic and very Orthodox, FK. I don't see that that concept in any way flows from our veneration of her; indeed it might be just the opposite at least to some extent. "Co-redemptrix", however, is neither. That's just heresy.
That "no lens" is a lens, - it is a modernist lens. For example, you consider the "power of men" to stand between you and God, but that is a modern age attitude. It did not exist in the age when knowledge was transmitted through men, rather than through books.
It is perfectly legitimate to say that Jesus was part of Eve's "seed" as used in the passage. To build Mary in here is purely an act of choice, the text does not logically require it at all.
Once again, you are telling me that a reading not including Mary is possible. Indeed it is, and so a reading without Jesus is possible. Still, Jesus had a mother, and so we see both Jesus and His mother in the passage, and so does St. Justin Martyr. You asked, where is Mary in the scripture and I responded where I see her. It is up to you to adopt the interpretation that suits you best among the many, -- this is why you are a Protestant.
"Theotokos, save us" is Orthodox but "co-Redemtrix" is heresy?
Huh? Of course James makes a distinction:
James 2:14, 17 : 14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? ...... 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
---------------
Indeed there is such a thing as claimed but false faith, referred to elsewhere in the scripture, but there is no indication that true faith is not grown from work just as good works grow, in turn, from faith.
True faith can INCREASE through works, but it cannot be FORMED through works. Faith always comes first from God. If faith is formed by works then salvation is earned.
""Theotokos, save us" is Orthodox but "co-Redemtrix" is heresy?"
Of course! :)
I don's see the difference. However, the statement that faith can increase through works puts you in the perimeter allowed by Trent, just barely.
Thanks, I didn't know that about Novak. I'd say you're right.
To build Mary in here is purely an act of choice, the text does not logically require it at all. And of course it is a forced choice because it does not flow with the text of the passage.
= = =
INDEED. QUITE ACCURATE, imho.
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.