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 gotta start using preview. S/B:
Not known by logic/reason < is not equal to > Not known
See the answer to question 2. I value my life and control over it.
Why is your life and control over it better than no life and no control over it?
What is this other begetting about?
"The Fathers make a distinction between eternity, which is proper to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and to God alone,
What is their distinction between God's eternity and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit's eternity? "aeon"
This applies to some nebulous claims about emanations from God. The one sided eternity is just that. Of course this discussion involves the concept of time as a persistence of existence. That's the only workable concept of time that can be used here.
"Nor is the Father's person the Holy Spirit. The One God is tripersonal, three hypostases--the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit--one ousia."
My understanding of what a person is and the use of the words spirit and Holy Spirit in scripture, lead me to believe that the spirit represents the person. The person of God is the Holy Spirit. Some think spirit means life giving force, but that doesn't stand up to reality.
Yes, we do believe there was a time when the 2d person of the Trinity had yet to be incarnated.
However, many of us believe that the 2d person of the Trinity made pre-Incarnate appearances.
The word better has no meaning. I said I value my life and sovereignty of will. I am a sentient rational being. I value all that I am and hold.
Our purpose is to get you out of bed by making "choices/decisions based solely on reason/logic."
Q4 is simply asking why you value your "life and control.."
A value statement is saying X is better than its opposite/negation. To make a value statement based on reason logic, requires a reason, a conditional: X is better than not-X because...
Without this because - your reason this has value - your choice is not based on reason/logic.
Q4 is asking for your "because." And, if your choices and decisions are to be based solely on logic/reason, you can't get out of bed without it.
Q4 - Why is your life and control over it better than no life and no control over it?
The reason I value my life and sovereignty of will is that I enjoy all that I am. That is enough.
Surely you don't mean Incarnate Christ?
Q5- Why is what you enjoy better than what you don't enjoy?
No disagreement there.
Thank you redgolum. Perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough: there was a time when the Incarnate Christ was not Incarnate. As the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, He has no beginning and no end. He does have a beginning as the Incarnate 2nd perosn of the Holy trinity.
The enjoyment is a fact, not a conclusion. Also the word better has no place, or meaning here, because I enjoy life and those things I don't enjoy are irrelevant.
Nevertheless, you are making a choice because you value enjoyment. If this choice is to be based solely on reason, you must have a reason why enjoyment has value. Else, it's not a choice based solely on reason.
Now, you may wish to say, "just because it does." In which case, you have an unconditional value statement - which cannot be know by reason alone.
Therefore. your choices made based on this value are not choices made solely on reason.
So.. does enjoyment have value to you because..., or "just because."
That is correct. However, the Divine nature, that which we call God, is eternal, not subject to birth. Therefore, while one can make a case for technical correctness, the title "Mother of God" is as misleading as calling King David the "Father of God" would be, and for the same reason: In Hebraic thought, which is to say Biblical thought, one's parents and ancestors are automatically in a superior place and in authority over you. It doesn't matter if you're nine or ninety, if your parents, grandparents, etc. live, they are in authority over you, and you are bound by Torah to honor and obey them.
Why do you think the Pharisees had no answer when Yeshua asked them why David called the Messiah "Lord" in Mat. 22:43-45? Because they understood that no father should call his son "lord"--rather, the son should address the father thus. Yeshua was using the Psalm to point out that the Messiah pre-existed His father David as a way of backing up His claim to be One with God.
Now, if we simply spoke of Mary being the Mother of Yeshua, God the Son, in the same way that we speak of the Messiah being David's son, there would be no problem. The problem arises when the Catholic uses the title "Mother of God" as justification for the unBiblical practice of going to her with their requests instead of going to God: "If your mother asked you do do something, wouldn't you do it?"
Yes, but I'm not also my mother's Creator and God. And even so, I would be greatly insulted if my friends, whom I loved dearly and whom I had said to ask me for anything, anytime went instead to my mother to try to get her to pressure me into something instead of coming to me.
Miryam bat Heli is God's daughter, not His mother. She walks in obedience to Him, not He to her. After all, she herself called herself God's handmaiden (Gr. doute, literally, His slave; Luke 1:38)--one is not a slave to one's son.
If Osama Bin Laden walked into your living room today and decided to torture and decapitate you, would that be wrong?
Look, you are taking the word out of context. Out of context, you have a point, but we (Orthodox and Catholics) do not see our faith out of context, but in context of the whole life of the Church. Within that context, no one believes that God the Word did not exist. Mary gave birth to a Person who is God even though He is also man. To say that she gave birth to man Jesus is just plain not true.
What was born was holy, as the angel said. The impossible became possible. The pre-existing and eternal God took on Mary's humanity, and became man, was carried for nine months in her womb and was born of a woman as a human Child.
Show me with SCRIPTURE where it is clear that brothers means something other than brothers in the context of Mary.
I'm sorry, but I will take the witness of Scripture itself over the witness of a bunch of 2nd and 3rd sons of European Nobility any day.
When you go to confession, what are the first words out of your mouth to the man you are addressing?
Is he your literal Father? Did your mother have sexual relations with him and sire you?
How about the Pope? Is he your literal father? I doubt that he is (though with the history of Popes, one can never be 100% certain). But, assuming Benedict isn't your literal Father, what is meant by "Holy Father."
Did it take a council getting together to define Father, or "my child", or brother for you (as in Brother Lawrence, etc.,)?
No. Some things are figures of speech whose meaning is obvious. Familial relationships are one of them. Daughter can mean 1)Biological daughter 2)Spiritual daughter.
When looking at Jesus in the full context of Scripture, we find no mention of Jesus ever having been a father.
When looking at the references to Mary however, we see Jesus being called her FIRST born child (by the way, a Jewish man tonight who was quite familiar with Old Testament Scriptures indicated that firstborn DOES indeed indicate her first child among others). He wasn't listed EVER as HER only child. Rather, he was her first born. Next, we see that Jesus is said to have had brothers and sisters who travel with Mary. The boys are named. James, Jude, Joseph and Simon. The brother relationship is reiterated elsewhere outside of the gospels in Pauls letters.
With this in mind, lets go back to our definition. Brother. Does it mean 1)Biological brother 2)Adopted brother 3)Spiritual brother 4)Cousins
Well, Spiritual brother is out because when the presence of his family was made known to Jesus, he contrasted his physical relations with those who followed Him spiritually. THESE are my mother and my brothers and my sisters- not my household relations.
Adopted brother, while possible is not likely There is no indication of Mary and Joseph ever adopting. No first wife is ever mentioned in Scripture for Joseph either. And we do not build doctrine upon what the Bible does NOT say. But, lets hold it, no matter how unlikely for now.
Next we have this idea that they are really cousins. Cousins, huh? Well, there is a word for cousins found in the New Testament. It is Suggenes. The Bible uses is of Elizabeth when Mary comes to visit her. It is also translated Kinsman. But the word here for brothers is Adelphos.
Per the lexicon the meaning of Adelphos is this:
1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
1. his brothers by blood
2. all men
3. apostles
4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
Such seems to rule out mere cousins. Plus, tying them as the Bible does to the person of Mary (who is their travelling companion), it truly does seem that these brothers are of Joseph and mary's household and it is well within the bounds of Scripture to say that these are the biological half-brothers of Jesus. Name a Scripture that contradicts that suggestion?
Upon review, it seems clear that the best understanding of the term brothers within the framework of Scripture is biological half-brothers and sons of Mary and Joseph.
1)Joseph knew her not UNTIL (to say that this doesn't mean sexual relations came after dismisses without warrant a strong possibility for the meaning of the word.
2)Jesus had physical brothers and sisters
3)No mention of adoption by Mary or Joseph is ever mentioned in Scripture (we don't make doctrine on what Scripture doesnt' say or even intimate)
4)Jesus is called Mary's 1stborn Son.
The difference between Jesus' brothers and calling the woman Daughter is this - CONTEXT.
Don't cherry pick Scripture. Look at it in its full context. You may reject our conclusion, but you have to make allowance that the view that Mary and Joseph had children is NOT against Scripture.
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.