'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

John 1:1 says that Jesus is God, just as Jesus said in John 10:30. Now God's incarnation had a beginning. It was when Jesus was born. That event is also the beginning of the Trinity.

It says that the Word was both God and with God and goes on in v. 14 to speak of the pre-existent Word becoming flesh, i.e., incarnating into the world as a human being. Ergo, Yeshua pre-existed His incarnation.

Indeed, He pops up quite often in the Tanakh (the OT) if one knows where to look: As the Angel (Messenger) of YHVH.

If Yeshua pre-existed His incarnation (as both Isa. 11:1 and Mic. 5:2 attest), then too the Trinity pre-existed Mary. And if Yeshua is the Root of Jesse as well as the Branch of David, then He is Mary's Father as well as her Son (cf. Isa. 9:6). And just as David, who was Yeshua's (fore-)father still called Him Lord (Psa. 110:1, Mat. 22:44f) because Yeshua was his Creator, so does Mary call Him Lord and God.

The Trinity, comprised of Father, Son, and Spirit, of Will, Word, and Breath, pre-existed everything else, including Miryam bat Heli. Miryam had the great honor of bearing God-With-Us into the world, but He created her--she did not create Him.

" It says that the Word was both God and with God and goes on in v. 14 to speak of the pre-existent Word becoming flesh"

The Word is the Holy Spirit. The flesh supports the functions of spirit, just as the soul does outside this world. Before the flesh, there was no trinity.

" If Yeshua pre-existed His incarnation (as both Isa. 11:1 and Mic. 5:2 attest), then too the Trinity pre-existed Mary.

Lets see...

Isaiah 11:1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

There's no posibility of preexisting flesh here. It says' "will come from the stump of Jesse". That's means in the future.

Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "

Jesus, born in Bethlehem said in John 10:30, I and the Father are one." That means He is the father and the commonality is the Holy Spirit. As in Isaiah, it says, "will come". Until the coming, there is no trinity.

" The Trinity, comprised of Father, Son, and Spirit, of Will, Word, and Breath, pre-existed everything else"

This is a simple statement. You need to explain it. These things aren't axiomatic and there's no mystery involved here. The distinguishing characteristic of the Son is His body that supported the functions of spirit. In particular, His Spirit was the Holy Spirit. Before the flesh existed, there was no Son. There was only the person of the Father, the Holy Spirit.

"she did not create Him."

As per prior post above, Eve is the mother of all the living. Gen provides for no exceptions. Eve is the great however many times grandmother of Mary, the Mother of God. It takes 2 of the living to create. In the case of Jesus, the flesh, it was God and God's Mother Mary.

The Word is the Holy Spirit.

Wrong again, but nice try. Yeshua speaks of His departure being a prerequisite for the delivery of the Spirit in John 15:26: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." Are you suggesting that post-Resurrection the Messiah Yeshua became disembodied again?

You seem to have been pulled into a peculiar kind of modalism.

There's no posibility of preexisting flesh here.

A most curious block you seem to have stumbled over: You are obsessed with Yeshua's flesh, as if that were all the Son is. Why should it be so confusing to you that a member of the Trinity should pre-exist His incarnation as a Man?

It says' "will come from the stump of Jesse". That's means in the future.

It says that the Branch of Jesse shall also come from Jesse's root. In Hebrew idiom, one's descendants are referred to as one's roots, while one's progenitor is called one's root. (Sha'ul [Paul] uses this same idiom in Rom. 11.) Therefore, the prophecy is saying that the Messiah would be David's descendant, but also his "ancestor"--which is to say his pre-existant Creator.

How is it that you don't even know the basics of Messianic prophecy?

Jesus, born in Bethlehem said in John 10:30, I and the Father are one."

Indeed, being God or in any way a part of God He could claim nothing else: "Hear O Israel, YHVH your God, YHVH is One."

But that just proves my point, of course. Yeshua, the Word and Son of God, pre-existed His Incarnation; therefore, the Trinity pre-exists Miryam.

Until the coming, there is no trinity.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Your "logic" is sloppy.

This is a simple statement. You need to explain it.

The statement is simple enough that it should not need explanation. Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Christ, pre-existed His incarnation as a human being, as did the Father, and as did the Spirit. Since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all pre-existed the Incarnation, the Trinitarian whole comprised of these Persons likewise pre-existed the Son entering the world in the flesh.

The distinguishing characteristic of the Son is His body that supported the functions of spirit.

Even before the Incarnation, the Son had some manner of body, but it was not a human body. As I said before, Yeshua is called the Angel of YHVH, the Angel of the LORD, in the Tanakh. Who ate with Abraham? Who talked face-to-face with Moses? God, in the Person of the Word.

Besides, the Baptism makes it clear that the Son and the Spirit are not the same, nor is the Son merely a container for the Spirit. Yeshua was the Son of God for thirty years before the Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.

The significance of the Incarnation is not simply that God materialized into the physical universe. He's done that in various forms since the beginning. No, the significance is that He became a human being, born into the world of a woman, fully identified with us in every way so that He could be our Kinsman-Redeemer (read the book of Ruth for the type) and our High Priest:

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb. 4:14-16, NKJV)

Only by becoming fully identified with Man in every way could God redeem us in His economy of justice and mercy. Therefore His Word, who had previously been known as the Angel of the LORD, was born into the world as a human being, so that He could be our Kinsman-Redeemer.

Again, this is all the basics of the basics when it comes to the Trinity. How do you not know it?

As per prior post above, Eve is the mother of all the living.

Except Adam, and except the Living God. Tell me, if Mary is the Second Eve, did she not come from the Second Adam as the first Eve came from the first Adam? And did not both come from God, who is the Second Adam?

It is truly amazing that you are so devoted to your worship of a mortal woman that you would steal God's proper glory and give it to her. It is not enough for you that the Bible rightly calls her blessed above all women for the privilege of giving birth to the Messiah Yeshua. No, you want to make her greater than God Himself!

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.