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/
Elizabeth referring to Mary as the mother of their Lord, i.e., their King, does not contradict the fact that their Lord was also their God any more than the Messianic title "the Son of David" does. To paraphrase John the Baptist, He who came from her is greater than her because He preceded her. Again, the Messiah is both the Root and the Branch of David, and it is being the Root which makes Him greater than all of His ancestors and puts them under the obligation to obey Him.
"Mother of God," on the other hand, suggests that Mary pre-existed the Eternal One and that He is bound by His own Law to honor and obey her--which would make her greater than God. Obviously, that's heresy.
What happens if, try as you might, you are convinced the church is wrong. In this case the apparitions that the RCC says are Mary. If you are convinced by Scripture that these apparitions are not Mary does your differing viewpoint affect your salvation?
*For some of us, that is the only way we can approach God. That is why He reveales Himself SOOOOOOOOOOOO slowly. His Divine Nature suddenly and fuly exposed would have blown their minds, literally. In fact, it would have killed them.
Wisdom ....For while all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her course, Thy almighty word leapt down from heaven from thy royal throne, as a fierce conqueror into the midst of the land of destruction.
* Not an Advent Passes without me reading this in Wisdom. I think it romantic, sweet, fearsome, foreboding,and awesome. My God..The Incarnation. Think of it...
And, then Midnight Mass arrives and I hear the History of the world read...
Awesome, The lightness and joy in one's heart dispels all doubt. Then, I couldn't care less what anyone says about Jesus. Because, my Faith is about Jesus, the Divine Man, My Lord and Saviour, and all interst in theological treatises recedes into mists..
I am trying out a new approach to scripture :)
Any predictions when this will end? I would think an infinite number of persons could be added to the Divine Nature, right?
BTW, God does not change anymore than Triangles change and add another side and yet still remain Triangles.
"A) Activated pleasure centers do not a logical motivator make."Congratulations, you have made it to the level of Crustacea.
They sure can be.
I said I get up, because I value life…
And I asked in Q6: Why is life better than no life?
Do you assume this, accept it based on authority, accept it without examination or do you have reason/logic for it.
Please remember your initial assertion: You base all you choices and decisions solely on logic/reason - especially the important ones. What is the logic that supports this one?
Logic is a process, not a philosophy.
Your stated philososophy (above) is called rationalism. We're demonstrating that you cannot, or thus far will not, apply it to your life.
I understand that "my Lord" may or may not, in your mind, refer to "my God", but if motherhood conferred authority to order the son around, as you claimed in 2,577, then Elisabeth acknowledged that authority, and it is in the scripture.
I don't see how the scripture can say anything about marian apparitions (except, theoretically speaking, the one to St. James). However, if, hypothetically, I find a disagreement between parts of what the Church teaches, for example, a contradiction between the scripture and some other part of the General Revelation, then I will conclude that I do not understand the teaching in question. If however, I had stubbornly refused to acknowldege my limitation and insist on my own interpretation of the revelation, then I indeed would have committed a grave sin which absent absolution would lead to my eternal damnation.
"A madman is not someone who has lost his reason. A madman is someone who has lost everything but his reason."
-G. K. Chesterton
No. The person of God is embodied in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not undergo changes in foundation, or principle. The Holy spirit is alive and handles things as they occur. The incarnation was an event
The concept of the Trinty and trinity in general is contained in scripture. The Fathers didn't have a large set of knowledge to know and understand trinity, personhood, the nature of the world, and what it means "to procede". They were presented with the apparent contradiction of Jesus claiming to be God and the fact that there is only one God. They gave their best explaination which is lacking and nebulous. I didn't contradict it. God is God and man is made in the image and likeness of God.
" Any predictions when this will end? I would think an infinite number of persons could be added to the Divine Nature, right?"
The Jews asked the same question. They identify the Holy Spirit as the person of God.
" BTW, God does not change anymore than Triangles change and add another side and yet still remain Triangles."
The analogy is NG. If you have something specific to address from what I said, go right ahead.
Perhaps I should identify the sin by name, it is the cardinal sin of pride and a violation of the First Commandment.
The superstition of Sola Scriptura leads to that sin often.
I hate to sound like a stick in the mud but it's one thing to understand the things that are of God; it's quite another fashioning a God in a particular image. Man is prone to do the second. Even when trembling before the fiery Mount Sinai and being fed with God's sustaining food day after day, the Israelites still fashioned a golden calf with Aaron's (who should have know better) assistance and called it the god who led them out of Egypt.
Man and his beliefs of God's holy nature is corrupt even with Him standing before us. It is our duty to seek and understand the true nature of God. I see nothing in the Old Testament of God asking the people to pray to the dead or petitioning a future "Queen of Heaven". To me this all represents shaky theology that is dubious at best.
If you cannot approach God except through lambs, flowery pictures, and little children running around laughing, you may wish to reconsider your belief structure. God is a holy and fierce (yes) God who jealously protects, guides and direct His chosen. God may or may not in His wisdom deliver us from the fiery furnace, but that does not mean that we should cease to worship Him. We are, after all, simply passing through on the road to greater good. It is our duty and should be our love to pray to and serve our Lord Jesus-not Mary. May we pray that He grants to us the courage to remain steadfast and true.
Find that assertion and post it!
" I asked in Q6: Why is life better than no life?"
There is nothing with when you're dead. There is everything when one is alive. Again, I value life, because I enjoy it. That's the logic.
Re" Logic is a process, not a philosophy.
"Your stated philososophy (above) is called rationalism."
No it's not and I never stated my philosophy.
" We're demonstrating that you cannot, or thus far will not, apply it to your life."
You've demonstating nothing.
No the logic is bad when it is bad logic - when it violates the rules of logic - period.
"People who always kill their young are good; Sally always kills her young; Sally is good." contains no flaw in logic.
"Congratulations, you have made it to the level of Crustacea."
Whatever.
I shall address your points in order from easiest to most difficult.
The aeon, as the Fathers use the term is not an emanation from God, but a feature of His creation: spiritual or noetic beings, the angels and Man are intended to be permanent. Unlike Him, they have a beginning, like Him, but unlike other created things, trees, rocks, even animals, they have no end.
I think you have failed to divide my sentence correctly, the distinction is between the eternity of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God, and the aeon of created spiritual (or more properly noetic) beings.
Your understanding of personhood is not congruent with that shared by the Father, who equated the Latin 'persona' with the Greek 'hypostasis', if you see only the personhood of the Spirit, and do not see the Father and the Son as likewise persons.
Finally, you ask what is the 'other' (I presume) eternal begetting of the Son from the Father. To paraphrase St. Gregory the Theologian, tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and what the procession of the Spirit from the Father, and I shall answer, and we will both be struck with madness for prying into the secrets of God.
"Are all your choices and decisions based solely on logic/reason?"Almost always and if they're important, yes.
It's incomplete logic. To be completely logical, you have to continue: "What I enjoy has value because..."
Unless you accept the value of enjoyment without any reason or logic.
"God is a holy and fierce (yes) God who jealously protects, guides and direct His chosen."
Yup, left a throne in heaven to be born in a manger. The jealous fierce God you speak of must have been off somewhere else on the day of the Nativity.
"The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive. He does not compel. He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice. If we would know the Holy Spirit we need to examine ourselves in the light of the Gospel teaching, to detect any other presence which may prevent the Holy Spirit from entering into our souls. We must not wait for God to force Himself on us without our consent. God respects and does not constrain man. It is amazing how God humbles Himself before us. He loves us with a tender love, not haughtily, not with condescension. And when we open our hearts to Him we are overwhelmed by the conviction that He is indeed our Father. The soul then worships in love." Archimandrite Sophrony
I don't know who you are referring to as Father. My understanding of personhood is scientific. I don't use non-scientific terms such as personna and hypostasis. In scientific terms personhood is represented by the abstract self=spirit=person as non-contextual and generalized. The context includes the machinery that supports the functions of self, or spirit. With God, the human body supported the functions of spirit in this world and the body of the Father, which corresponds to the human soul, supports the functions of spirit in Heaven. The body is simply context. The person is the spirit. That is the scientific picture of trinity.
"To paraphrase St. Gregory the Theologian, tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and what the procession of the Spirit from the Father, and I shall answer, and we will both be struck with madness for prying into the secrets of God."
Unbeggottenness means that the being had no beginning. The procession of the Spirit is God communicating and acting as a being.
I'll take your use of the term aeon as you've used it.
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.