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/
Jesus was not a man?
My faith is in Christ alone. That is the only faith I profess.
To name just a few: Seventh Day Adventists, Church of God, Unification Church, Pentecostals, Unitarian Universalists Christian Fellowship, etc.
None of us are proclaiming Nestorian or Arian views is the problem. You want to label us such, but we are not denying Jesus's unity as God and man. We are just disagreeing with a certain title.
Catholics and Orthodox have elevated Mary above where the Bible places her. They have given her titles of God. I dare say that if those who voted at Ephesus saw what she has become, they would throw out the topic altogether and focus Christological definitions on the titles of Christ Himself rather than on Mary.
If God didn't shield her from it, I'm sure Mary would sob with tears day and night for what is being done in her name.
I will take my chances against what the Catholic or Orthodox churches call heresy any day. I've already been anathematized because I refuse to repent and venerate icons - so why should it matter what I believe concerning views on Mary?
I take my stand on the Word of God - not man's traditions or any council's definitions. God's Word contains the essential truths I need to know. In so far as councils agree with God's Word, I am for them. Where they disagree (uh many of the things past say 400-500 AD) I believe they are following man and not God or worse.
Jesus was not God?
I have never tried to hide my church membership. That was a false accusation. But so far I have not seen any apology, just an excuse.
Nevertheless, your excuse is accepted.
There is no place in the bible where Mary is given the title "Mother of God." Mary is, however, called the "Mother of Jesus."
Therefore, in a biblical sense "Mary the mother of God" is not directly supported.
Theologically, however, I'm willing to understand someone MEANING "the Incarnate, 2d person of the Trinity."
I'm even willing to assume the best about them and that that's what they mean.
It's the willy-nilly lack of graciousness on the part of some who are all to quick to throw out heresy charges against those who do use a biblical expression: "Mary the Mother of Jesus
The bible, of course, is on the side of those who say, "MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS."
- Ac 1:14 - They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
- Joh 19:25 - Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother,
- Mt 1:16 - and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
- Mt 1:18 - This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph,
- Mt 2:11 - On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.
- Mr 6:3 - Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
- Lu 2:34 - Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against,
Wow! You don't know what you are talking about!
From the Seventh Day Adventist's official website:
2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)
From the official Church of God offices website:
In one God eternally existing in three persons; namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
The United Pentecostal Church IS Anti-Trinitarian - but is considered a cult. It is not the Pentecostal church.
The Unification Church isn't even Christian.
Unitarian Universalists are also a cult.
Christian Fellowship isn't even a denomination.
Pentecostals and the Church of God are not non-trinitarian.
You might specify some group that has deviated from these into non-trinitarian areas.
There is such a thing a "Jesus-Only" pentecostals (United Pentecostal, perhaps) who are non-trinitarian.
Both of the major Churches of God are trinitarian: Anderson and Cleveland. (Herbert Armstrong's group 'The Worldwide Church of God' was non-trinitarian.)
Specificity helps.
Those who insist that Mary was only the Mother Jesus (Christotokos), who deny that she is the Mother of our God, who cliam that she gave birth to a man, that Jesus was someone other than God the Word, who deny that she carried the Incarnate God in her womb and brotugh Him forth to the world, teach that which Christianity rejected 1,600 years ago as heresy.
I don't know what you believe or whether you believe at all. Only you do. So, you tell me.
Dear xzins,
"The burden in on the accusers:"
Who are the accuserS?
Even kosta points out that he is merely pointing out what is heresy, not accusing any specific individual of being a heretic.
Mary is the Mother of God.
To deny this is heresy, as taught by the Apostolic Churches. There are some in this thread who seem unwilling to affirm this Christological truth, proclaimed by the Whole, Universal and Ancient Church.
If you don't abide by the teachings of the Apostolic Churches, DON'T SWEAT IT!
As well, at least for Catholics, saying someone is speaking heresy isn't quite the same as calling someone a heretic.
I haven't read every single post herein, so if someone specifically wrote, "You, xzins, are a heretic," well, I missed it. Point it out to me, and I'll give my opinion of the post.
However, if folks have merely said, "To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is heresy," then, heck, I have to agree with that. Sorry.
That doesn't mean that I'm calling anyone who thus denies the truth of this teaching a heretic.
sitetest
If you are referring to Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, This is from their website:
We believe:
The only true God, the almighty Creator of all things,
existing eternally in three persons–
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–full of love and glory.
I wouldn't even consider today's Unitarian universalists Christian at this point. They tend to be a catch all for people wanting religion without the attachment of essential doctrines.
Sitetest
You are playing word games now.
Dear Blogger,
"You are playing word games now."
Nah. I'm just being faithful to the teachings of the Church.
sitetest
Exactly. You don't know, but you throw out "heresy" accusations first and ask for information second.
Great technique. Guaranteed to foster fellowship.
"The teachings of the church say what you are saying is heresy. But hey nobody is accusing you of being a heretic." is not word games?
Okay then, I believe that what sitetest said is dishonest, but nobody is accusing Sitetest of actually being a Dishonest person.
I think they're sort of crystal worshipping, new age wiccans with formerly blue-blood ancestors.
Are you saying that Mary is the Mother of the Father?
There is a guy I work with who is UU. He proclaims to be an Agnostic at best. Yet, he regularly attends UU services.
A lot of feminist Episcopalians have the bent as well. Religion and spirituality trump relationship and the Holy Spirit.
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.