Here's a link to my church's website. You are invited anytime. 
I thought everyone in the forum knew what church I go to.
BTW what the heck was that supposed to mean anyway?
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/
I will read them. But you see the problems the emphasis on Mary causes.
Why not just call her mother of Jesus and then develop the Christology from the person of Christ rather than stemming from Mary?
Mother of the incarnate Christ I think solves the issue since it does show his preexistence as God without negating the fact that he was God when Mary gave birth to him.
They give her titles that belong to Christ. They elevate her to just below deity. She was a woman. A humble, pious woman. She was also a sinner. She doesn't give sinners Mercy. Christ does. She isn't our mediator, Christ is. She isn't our advocate, Christ is.
What the "Church" has "infallibly" taught is heresy.
1. The recorded speech of one of them to the other tends to be coached in lofty terms: "I must decrease for He must increase"; "so it becometh us to fulfill all justice". This precluded "brother" as an affectionate term.
2. The expansive use of "brother" is common when several relatives are addressed collectively. When just one person is addressed, a more precise term, such as "cousin" would be typically used.
3. John was renowned in his own right, while James a.o. were only known in relation to Jesus.
Dear Blogger,
In the Catholic Church, heretics come and go.
However, the difference in the Catholic Church is that there is an actual living Magisterium that can define just what is orthodox, what is heterodox, what is heresy, and what is uncertain in any event.
Protestants claim that the Bible is their Magisterium, and that's nice. But whose interpretation is the actual one is the question. There are folks who call themselves "Bible Christians" who can fairly well recite the Nicene Creed without cringing too much, and there are folks who have no problem throwing over part or all of the same Creed, in defiance of the Ecumenical Councils.
For those herein who would recite the Nicene Creed, but refuse to Mary the title "Mother of God," yet regard as beyond the Pale those who would deny, say, the Trinity, why is that you folks get to throw out Ecumenical Councils but the anti-Trinitarians don't?
On any given topic, one can approximately determine the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and determine whether some belief stated or held is: 1) in agreement with the official teaching; 2) in disagreement with the official teaching; 3) a little too fuzzily-defined to tell or; 4) determine that the official teaching is one of liberty of belief (at least within certain parameters). There is a standard against which to judge whether or not a belief is Catholic.
On the other hand, there are folks who call themselves Christians, who say they believe in the Bible, who do not even believe in the Trinity. They quote the Bible to make their arguments. Under what authority do you dispute them, other than to make your own arguments from the very same Bible?
sitetest
Dear Blogger,
As I said, I'm uninterested in what folks think about other titles of Mary who refuse to acknowledge the teaching of the Whole and Universal Church:
Mary is the Mother of God.
There is no basis to try to explain what these titles mean without the acceptance of the first premise. Individuals who read the other titles without first accepting that Mary is the Mother of God may very well fall into error, and think that the other titles elevate Mary to a status that she does not actually have. That error stems from the first, the refusal to acknowledge the truth as proclaimed by the entire Church:
Mary is the Mother of God.
sitetest
That's not how it works among Protestants, since there are as many interpretations as there ae members, and since there is no concensus that must be followed.
So, your comparison is invalid, imo.
As far as continuously being in a state of fragmentation - that is NOT a basic and elementary fact, though you would like it to be. Some denominations are quite stable
True, but the number of splinter groups is growing without any sign of slowing down. There are currently over 33,000 registered "denominations" outside of the Catholic, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestant Churches, and growing.
Yes, they have variety within; but the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, & Lutherans (and others), have existed since at least the 1700s, many quite earlier
Most of them were actually 19th century offshoots. The original ones are Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Calvinism. Anglican Church, which was founded by Henry VIII, was essentially Catholic (except for recognizing the Pope as the head of the Church) until Lutheranism, when it accepted certain Protestant beliefs.
Catholic and Orthodox teachings go back to the earliest days of Christianity and follow the same path for the first 1,000 years as an undivided Church. Orthodox Divine Liturgy is 1,600 years old. What's your point?
Here's a link to my church's website. You are invited anytime.
I thought everyone in the forum knew what church I go to.
BTW what the heck was that supposed to mean anyway?
I'll try posting more icons for your sake.
My original reference was, of course, tongue in cheek and referred to the fact that the Holy Scripture is written so that we hear it rather than read it, or as you put it "look at it". "Hear+word" yields a dosen references in the New Testament, "read+word" yields none.
blessed are they who hear the word of God (Lk 11:28)
As I remarked on the Erasmus thread, and to your delight, most of the scripture I heard at Mass before I read it. This is the Catholic way.
Baptists are traced at least back to the 1600s. Anabaptists lived during Luther's time though their theology varied. Mennonites have a strong kinship with Baptists as well. Methodism was an offshoot of anglicanism in the 1700s through the Wesleys. Likely a strong puritan kinship there as well. Beyond that, Protestant beliefs can be seen stretching throughout history. While Catholicism was by far the majority belief from the 300s forward, they weren't the only game in town. Unfortunately, they had a tendency to burn other people's writings so some of the beliefs of other groups such as the Petrobrussians, Waldensians, Lombards, etc., are lost. We may have some pronouncement against them by the Catholic church. But, like Anabaptists, they may be far more diverse in actual belief system than current historical knowledge may allow.
There was also that little matter of the Eastern/Western church split that shows a state of fragmentation which continues to this day.
So were you actually calling me a heretic? You didn't "so state". Seems to me you simply implied it. Well, if I'm a heretic in your eyes, then you should just come right out and say so.
The whole problem with "titles" for Mary is that none of them are scriptural. She was the blessed virgin who gave birth to Jesus Christ. When you start giving her "titles" you start making implications about her which simply are not true.
Biblically she is "Mary the Mother of Jesus". That should be sufficient. However it seems that anyone who so states is considered a heretic or somehow considered to be denying the divinity of Christ. What a crock. These people will turn over any rock in their hunt for heretics.
It is "gotcha" when someone tosses heresy charges at someone just because they're specific regarding the relationship of the Son to Mary.
I have no problem with "Mary the Mother of God" provided the person is honest about meaning the Incarnate, 2d Person of the Trinity.
They demonstrate their honesty by assuming the best about someone who calls Mary the mother of Jesus. It makes no sense to assume a person doesn't believe in the Trinity and to immediately begin throwing the word "heresy" around.
In those cases, it makes as much sense to assume that the accuser does not believe that the Father is divine.
I don't know what different Protestant groups believe unless they tell me. So, their posts may keep me guessing as to whether I am dealing with trinitarian, creedal or non-Trinitarian, non-vredal Christians or if I am dealing with some other groups.
This is true.
And many of these titles are out and out heretical themselves. Such is the irony.
And if it makes sense to accuse a well-intentioned person with heresy just because they say "Mary is the mother of Jesus." then it makes sense to charge that accuser with heresy for denying the divinity of the Father.
People who want to play games with the broadness of the word "God" in a Trinitarian system are themselves open to those same charges using that same method.
My advice to them is to grow up and assume the best about Christian brothers and sisters until it's proven otherwise.
You are right. Anabaptists were persecuted by Lutherans and Catholics. But they did not make up the "mainstream" Reformed group. I am not sure how Baptists became so prominent in America, but in the historical sence, they were not among the major three.
There are no true protestant groups that are not Trinitarian. Cults like the Jehovah's witnesses are not trinitarian. The Mormons are not trinitarian in any orthodox sense of the word (they are more polytheists). On essentials, true Protestants are fairly unified (i.e., salvation by Grace through faith alone, the incarnation, the virgin birth, the doctrine of the trinity).
Dear xzins,
"I have no problem with 'Mary the Mother of God' provided the person is honest about meaning the Incarnate, 2d Person of the Trinity."
That's nice. I'm glad that you can agree to this unanimous teaching of the Whole, Universal and Ancient Church.
"They demonstrate their honesty by assuming the best about someone who calls Mary the mother of Jesus. It makes no sense to assume a person doesn't believe in the Trinity and to immediately begin throwing the word 'heresy' around."
I don't completely agree.
Calling Mary the Mother of Jesus, and then refraining from calling her the Mother of God reminds Apostolic Christians of heretics from long ago. We remember a little bit of our history. We remember that the heresies that resulted from this failure were painful and difficult to eradicate. We remember that these were some of the worst heresies with which the Church had to deal. Some of us actually remember that it is from these heresies that the horror of Islam actually arose.
The failure to identify Mary as the Mother of God helped produce a flawed and defective Christology that helped produce Islam.
For us Apostolic Christians, this is a serious business.
These things are in our mind when we hear, "Mary is the Mother of Jesus," and then don't hear, "Mary is the Mother of God."
"In those cases, it makes as much sense to assume that the accuser does not believe that the Father is divine."
For us, in that that was never in question, that doesn't make as much sense.
The connections we make are conditioned by what we know, learn, and remember.
For devout Catholics and Orthodox, it is difficult for us to hear certain phrases and not think certain things.
And it isn't unreasonable.
sitetest
They grew most as a frontier religion. Roger Williams, of course, built the first Baptist church in America in Rhode Island. This was in the 1600s.
I would expect those who have been, educated, familiarized, an trained in theology, as chaplains are certainly, to know that definition, and not presume by semantic gymnastics that it is anything but what the definition says.
I couldn't care less what anyone believes. I do know what is outside of the Church teaching, and that which is outside the Church teaching (such as that Mary gave birth to a man) is by definition heresy. Nestorianism and Arianism were condemned as such and those who propose the theology of Arius and Nestor are teaching heresy, by definition.
It's not personal. I didn't make up the rules and I didn't vote at the Council of Ephesus. But anyone who has issues with the Title Mary Mother of God needs to read the proceedings of that Council, imo.
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.