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/
Your point is valid concerning married couples. It is not valid concerning Mary and Joseph, however.
In Scripture, it is often the seemingly insignificant word that has the most meaning. And at the end of Matthew there is a little greek word "eos" which is translated "until." In this particular case, it is eos ou, which according to the Greek Lexicon, when it is with the neutral relative pronoun ou or otou, it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when);...http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=25&strongs=2193&page=1&flag_full=1
Thus, when one looks at the actual greek, there is not a question that Joseph knew Mary. Rather, the Bible states that he witheld from marital relations with her UNTIL (or up to the time when) Jesus was born. Mat 1:25
Incidentally, it also refers to Jesus as Mary's firstborn (prototokon) son. The implication is that there was also a second born. Since Jesus's brother's and sisters are mentioned in Scripture as well, it is within reason to take this to mean that at least some of these were Mary's biological children (when one accompanies it with Jesus being her firstborn).
Lest it be misunderstood, the sentence in #1359 "+Ignatius was struggling with cults that denied Christ's humanity and he was doing his best to convince them of that" was meant to end with "it" (meaning His humanity). +Ignatius was trying his best to convince those who denied His humanity that He was indeed true God and true man, equally divine and equally human.
"That's wonderful, HD. Then maybe you can explain the differences in LXX and KJV version of Isa 9:6, and 9:8 for starters. Thank you."
Isa. 9:6 is the promise of Messiah and 9:8 is the promise of judgment on Israel because of its arrogance. There are no differences.
On the second thought, let me do it for you, BD: I will even outline in blue and red the words radically differ in meaning and context between LXX and KJV:
KJV: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Now, verse 9.8:
KJV: The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel
You've been warned.
But it is in the Bible, in several places. The most often source quoted is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Of course, Catholics and followers of Sola Scriptura disagree on the interpretation of that passage, and all others in which we assert the doctrine.
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.
One fundamental truth of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict itself, nor can Tradition contradict the Bible. Luther recognized that the RCC had fully broken away from this idea. All Luther did was formalize an idea that was already true.
Church Fathers must have written about the fundamental ideas just described. I doubt that your Tradition says it is fine to contradict the Bible. Luther and the Reformers saw that the RCC had long been doing this, and in fact continue to do so to this day. Sola Scriptura does not say all Tradition is wrong, it says anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.
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 Reformers believe that the level of open mind you are speaking of SO defies logic and reason that the Marian beliefs, and other dogma and doctrine of the RCC actually do contradict the Bible.
And this is what the Greek Orthodox Church has to say about that:
Another objection to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is that the Scriptures use the word “until” or “till” in Matthew 1:25: “. . . and [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.” Whereas in English the word “until” necessarily indicates change after the fact, in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. For instance, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23 and 28:20, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word “until” indicate a necessary change. If it did, then apparently among other things we would be meant to understand that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unhappy date in the future He intends to abandon the Church!
Incidentally, it also refers to Jesus as Mary's firstborn (prototokon) son. The implication is that there was also a second born. Since Jesus's brother's and sisters are mentioned in Scripture as well, it is within reason to take this to mean that at least some of these were Mary's biological children
Okay, let's see what the Greek Church has to say about that:
Another objection might be based on the word “firstborn,” prototokos in Greek. The problem again is that the Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English “firstborn” usually (though, it must be said, not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of prototokos in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a “second-born” Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly “first in all things.” To the contemporary ear, a better translation might indeed be “heir,” which is similarly silent on the subject of other children and carries the same legal and poetic force that is intended by “firstborn.”
You fail to notice that Christ said "Woman behold your son" at the Cross as He gave His Mother to the care of +John. He would have never done that if He had had any blood siblings. Anything else is just plain absurd.
Now you guys can go on an congratulate each other on "irrefutable evidence," a P-Marlow triumphantly observes, to your hearts' content.
Grammar books would tell you that American don't speak and write English correctly, but that's how they speak and write, Blogger. That's the living language that everyone understands, even if it makes "no sense!" People who speak the language define it; not cold grammar books no one follows.
I trust that the Greek Church knows the living liturgical New Testament Greek better than lifeless grammar books, because that's the official language of the Church used at vespers and Divine Liturgies, and has been in an unbroken fashion since Greeks became Christians, fully preserved in its entirety.
If you don't agree with it, as obviously you don't, then state so and move on. (I believe the former part has already been accomplished, so I wonder why the lingering as if that is going to change anything...you know, like eos).
That's not quite right. When used with the genitive of the neuter [not "neutral"] relative pronoun, as it is in Matt 1:25, it is technically an improper preposition of time, not a conjunction.
Thus, when one looks at the actual greek, there is not a question that Joseph knew Mary.
You've never taken any Greek, or you would never have called a neuter pronoun a "neutral" pronoun. The prepositional usage of the term [hews] is ambiguous between (1) up to but not excluding continuation of the action or (2) up to but not after, as I pointed out in #1233. Nothing in Thayer's (or any credible Greek lexicon) shows that it should be taken one way rather than the other in Matt 1:25. Consider how Matthew uses this term in 5:18, where he says, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and eart pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." Jesus is not saying that parts of the Law will be destroyed when everything has been accomplished. Likewise, the usage of this term with the sense that does not exclude continuation of the action can be seen in Matt 10:23; 11:12; 11:23, and many other places.
-A8
Hmmm...good question. Do I get to define "rare"? Can I use it on eBAY?
I'm having a hard time believing that you are actually appealing to this passage to support 'sola scriptura' when just a few weeks ago we should you very clearly that the verse does not in any way teach 'sola scriptura'. It tells us that the Scripture is useful for x, so that [hina] the man of God may be equipped for every good work. It does not say that Scripture alone is sufficient for bringing a man to that state. To read it that way is to take out of it what it does not say, what *no* early church fathers took it to say, what no bishops took it to say, what no early commentators took it to say, for 1500 years!! Let's stop pretending that 2 Tim 3:16 teaches 'sola scriptura'; it doesn't.
One fundamental truth of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict itself, nor can Tradition contradict the Bible. Luther recognized that the RCC had fully broken away from this idea.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that Tradition can contradict the Bible. You're not going to get away with strawmen here.
Luther and the Reformers saw that the RCC had long been doing this, and in fact continue to do so to this day. Sola Scriptura does not say all Tradition is wrong, it says anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.
"Contradicts the Bible" really means "Contradicts [our private interpretation of] the Bible".
The Reformers believe that the level of open mind you are speaking of SO defies logic and reason that the Marian beliefs, and other dogma and doctrine of the RCC actually do contradict the Bible.
No degree of open-mindedness can make x contradict y. If x contradicts y, then no matter how close-minded one is, x still contradicts y. And if x does not contradict y, then no degree of open-mindedness can make x contradict y. Therefore, no degree of open-mindedness makes any of the Catholic doctrines about Mary contradict the Bible.
-A8
You certainly are free to define "rare" and the Postmaster General is free to define "Mail Fraud".
Just make sure you ship it by UPS or Fed Ex.
Absolutely correct and something that I have stated on a number of occasions. Most Protestant churches are nothing more than Catholic Lite. In fact, I would go so far to say that the Catholics are nothing more than errant Orthodox. This all goes back to my statement somewhere here that there are only two views from which to view God; synergism and monergism. Orthodox is the purest form of synergistic belief. Reformed is the purest form of monergistic belief. Every other Christian belief is somewhere on the continuum.
It isn't a surprise to me that you left being a Protestant to become a Catholic because if one is going be true to a synergist belief model, that's the way to head. What surprises me is that you didn't become Orthodox as I considered.
With all due respect, the "depth and richness" of worship isn't found in man made structures, candles and incense, and rituals. The richness is found in relying upon God in a child like faith through His promises found in His word.
You better believe it. Of course. Her womb, as the Tabernacle, contained the Word of God.
This would seem to make Mary herself the equivalent of a holy church, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Shroud, etc. This appears to me to be a bit dehumanizing, since it makes her into more of a "thing" than a person we can relate to. I don't understand it.
And this is precisely the problem my friend. When a angel appeared to John, and John fell on his face to worship, the angel told him to worship God alone. Our focus should be on Him; nothing else.
When the angel appeared to Mary in the Gospel his name for her was "Full of Grace." Nothing more need be said to understand Our Father's feelings for her. We are brothers in Christ Jesus and sons of Mary who is "Full of Grace." Not just having some Grace but "Full of Grace." She is not a Goddess. She is the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And what son would not "Honor his mother and Father?"
But God hears your prayer regardless. In fact, He hears before you even say it.
I'm not sure that can be a blanket statement. It certainly wouldn't work if the prayer was not directed to the Christian God. I understand that the Spirit intercedes for us in prayer, but I can't believe God approves of prayers that could have been made, but never were, because the person chose to go through someone else instead. If I ask my friend to pray for me and he doesn't, then my effort is wasted and the prayer was never sent.
Likewise, I would think that if a prayer is made to someone in hell or purgatory, then it would also be wasted because it was never sent. I would never put my requested prayers from others in the place of my own directly to God. However, I have witnessed some Catholics make a petition to a Saint or to a family member, etc., and it certainly appeared to me that in that person's mind, "it was done". If our God is a jealous God, then I can't see Him approving of that.
"You better believe it. Of course. Her womb, as the Tabernacle, contained the Word of God.
This would seem to make Mary herself the equivalent of a holy church, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Shroud, etc. This appears to me to be a bit dehumanizing, since it makes her into more of a "thing" than a person we can relate to. I don't understand it."
She is compared to more than that, FK. In various services she is compared to the Holy of Holies, the golden candlesticks, incense urns; she is even called a "heifer" and a "butter mountain" in some versions of the Akathist Hymn. Speaking of which, here's a link to one form of the Akathist. Read the introduction so you can tell the difference between references to Christ and others to the Theotokos:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/m_akathist_e.htm
"And this is precisely the problem my friend. When a angel appeared to John, and John fell on his face to worship, the angel told him to worship God alone. Our focus should be on Him; nothing else."
HD, I loved my mother here on earth too, but I didn't worship her. Orthodox and Catholics don't worship the Theotokos.
I said that when Mary gave birth to Jesus it was of a normal type. You disagreed, saying that I wasn't including Catholic "further information", thus implying to me that it was not of a normal type. Then I quoted Ignatius saying that it was of a normal type. Now you are saying that Ignatius agrees with Catholic doctrine. I find myself very puzzled. :) I wouldn't even know what to re-quote from what Ignatius said, to you since it could not have been more crystal clear to me.
I've seen it played out all different ways. In one church I went to the elders gave up their eldership every year for one day. That was the day that the whole congregation "recognized" elders. If a previous elder was not recognized for some reason he was no longer an elder. Obviously everyone had one vote. In a different church of the same denomination the elders thought their appointment was for life and were not at all willing to give it up. In Baptist churches it is a single Pastor and he stays as long as he and the congregation are happy with each other. The bible gives us a lot of liberty in this in that it doesn't give us exact instructions.
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.