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/
Then why do you keep saying she is the Mother of the Father?
You do believe the Father is God, don't you?
Neither I nor the Church has ever said that Mary is the Mother of the Father.
You do believe the Father is God, don't you?
Most definitely.
-A8
I do not argue that the "prototokos" is an invalid or late insertion. Apparently Kosta was under such impression.
Nor do I argue that it means anything but "first born".
The point is that it applies even to a single child because it has a dynastic meaning, placinf Jesus in the line of King David.
You cannot draw conclusions about existence of other siblings form the fact the Christ is validly described as the "prototokos". To do so is to violate the cultural, historical, and unltimatley theological context in which the word is used by St. Matthew.
I have never denied that the Father is God.
-A8
When the debate is about the Greek language, when someone fluent in modern Greek who also is well-read in patristic Greek speaks, yeah, pretty much the debate does end.
And the context is one in which you have people called the brother of the Lord, brothers and sisters of the Lord who hang around with Mary, and Jesus called "firstborn."
And yes, Thayer does say that it gets the force of a conjunction in his lexicon when used with ou.
Yes you did. You said Mary is the Mother of God. And then you said that she's not the mother of the Father.
Therefore, you don't believe that the Father is God.
That's a non sequitur.
-A8
Actually, it makes some sense.
Jesus=God
The Father=God
There is one God
Jesus and the Father are God
One God
Mary is the Mother of God
Hence, Mary is the mother of the Father
or Mary is NOT the Mother of God
Hardly.
Why do you deny that the Father is God?
If you say that Mary is the Mother of God, then you are saying that Mary is the Mother of the Father.
-A8
I don't deny that the Father is God.
If you say that Mary is the Mother of God, then you are saying that Mary is the Mother of the Father.
No. That's a non sequitur. There are three hypostases in God. To be the mother of God does not entail that one is the mother of all three hypostases.
-A8
There are several facts. Jesus is God. God the Father is God also. Jesus is One with the Father. There is only one God. Jesus' mother is called the Mother of God since she gave birth to God. Since Jesus is One with God the Father, and since there is only one God. Mary must be the mother of the Father as well as God can not be separated but is one.
How can you be a mother of part of something? Diana was mother to David's happy self, but not his sad self. God is not divided.
I, of course, am referring not the King himself but to the KJV.
My big beef with King James translation is "most favored one" for "kecharitomene" in Luke 1 and "elder for "presbyteros". Both are highly questionable and just happen to obfuscate the two significant elements of Catholicism. Yes, NIV is pretty bad.
Regarding "presbyteros", like you mention later, the word "priest" derives from it, and functionally the references are to Christian priests at least in some contexts; certainly in 1 Timothy 4:14 where the reference is to Timothy's ordination.
It is true that in a vacuum "elder" would be a good translation. But KJV does not exist in a vacuum. Then and now, Christian churches have priests; till the Reformation it would not occur to anyone to translate it as "elder". It is as if someone wanted to erase the references to the "president" in the US constitution and started referring to that word as "chairman" instead, or perhaps "front-sitter". While "president" derives from "chair" or from "to sit in front", it has an established meaning that is all-important in American politics.
You still haven't laid it out in the form of an argument. Here you go:
(1) Jesus is God
(2) The Father is God
(3) Jesus and the Father are one.
(4) There is only one God
(5) Mary is Jesus's mother.
(6) Mary is the mother of God.
Therefore,
(7) Mary is the mother of the Father. [from (2), (4),(6)]
But the conclusion does not follow. That is because there are three Persons in God. Mary is the mother of God because she is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. She is not the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And yet, because the Second Person of the Trinity is God, and because Mary is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, it is nevertheless true that Mary is therefore the mother of God.
-A8
The three Persons of the divine Trinity are not *parts*. The divine nature is not composite.
-A8
Uh, til the reformation, there wasn't a word for elder.
However, I do beg to differ on the translation. Presbuteros is used for an older person. Old man. Old woman. So, ELDER, is the natural translation. It isn't questionable to translated it as Elder. Nor, knowing the origin of the word Priest can that be 100% ruled out. However, it isn't likely that the best meaning is Priest since the KJV and others refer to priests frequently in the OT and NT, and a different word is used to describe them. High priests. A kingdom of Priests. ect., Different word.
You do deny that the Father is God.
You said that Mary is the Mother of God. Then you deny that Mary is the Mother of the Father. Therefore, you must believe that the Father is not God.
Is it possible to better communicate who you think she is the mother of?
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.