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/
Short answer: the respect in which God is one is not the respect in which He is three. He is one in being (contra polytheism), but three in hypostasis (contra Sabellianism).
-A8
James is called the Lord's Brother. Jude is James' brother.
It is not strange at all. It follows the pattern of humility that James took. James is called the Lord's brother, but doesn't call himself the Lord's Brother. Look at the introductions to the two books. Same pattern with Jude.
James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
Jude 1:1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:
Nice theological answer, but not what I'm looking for. I'm looking at A8 and asking A8 to explain the mechanics of how God can be three and yet is one. Don't use the big theological terms. Just explain it in "plain English."
Yeah. This is exactly the impression I am getting. I am still a couple days behind the conversation, but this is all I have so far. I really hope there is something more.
-A8
-A8
I know the terms. I have a theological education. But I'm asking you as a person to explain it. Should be pretty simple if it is so clear. Why do you believe that God is 3 in one? How do you KNOW this to be true?
I am in the process of answering right now.
Moreover, James declares himself a "slave" of Jesus Christ, but makes no mention of being His brother or about being a son of the Blessed Mother. Jude also says he is a slave and the brother of James.
The Lord NEVER violated Judaic law. On the Cross, He entrusted His Mother to John, had there been brothers this would have violated the law.
Which law?
The people surrounding Jesus feared for their lives. They ran and abandoned Christ. They thought they would be next. I believe James, Jude, Simon, Joseph and others all abandoned Christ in His time of need. Peter certainly did. All the Apostles ran. Mary did not run. John was there. Mary was alone at the foot of the cross and her other children were in hiding. Jesus entrusted Mary to the one who did not abandon him. Jesus saw those who followed him as his true mother and brothers and sisters. He gave John the responsibility of caring for Mary. John was Christ's brother in spirit. The others were as of yet unconverted.
Are you going to answer my question in "plain English". It is not that I didn't understand your earlier answer. I just want to read in your own words an explanation of the trinity without the theological jargon. Why do you, A8, believe in the trinity?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, His disciples abandoned Him.
His close relatives (cousins) never believed Him, but they didn't abandon Him because they were never with Him. NOWHERE does it say that Mary's "other children" were hiding, because there weren't any.
Nothing you say indicates that Jesus had any brothers or else Mary would have been entrusted to them.
Should we not remember Mary for her faith?
She was meant to be remembered as the one who gave birth to our Incarnated Lord and Savior, to be the bearer of God, Christ, our Lord and God. It is an awesome task that she was given. Being faithful is not all of it.
When you above refer to "unholy things" I can only assume you mean the proposition that Joseph "USED" her as a sex object and baby-making factory
Yes you do assume a lot. If she had other children, most of them were "unholy," and even if James and Jude were saints, are they on the par of our Lord? Your sense of "holiness" beffudels me.
Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 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.
Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
Acts 1:12-14
12Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk[a] from the city. 13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
The Catholic/Orthodox never said He was God because of Mary! Your reasoning is off the target, imo.
God the Word was God before He was Incarnate, after He was Incarnate and after He was born. Mary carried the Incarnate God in her womb and gave birth to God the Incarnate Word Who was named Jesus. That makes her the God-bearer (Theotokos), the Mother of God.
Don't ask questions you can't answer yourself.
That's all well and good, but Jews of the time were identified as "son of" not brother of. There is no doubt in my mind that these others were close to the Lord growing up, it is very possible that they were raised by the Holy Family and were referred to as brothers. But the fact still remains that they are not identified as the children of Mary because that is untrue. If they were, Jesus would not have had the option of leaving His Mother in the care of John.
**********
LOL!
I can answer it. A8 so far hasn't done so. And I wasn't speaking with you on this matter Kosta50. But since you butted in, wanna venture a try? Why do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
Well stated, thanks for your answer.
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.