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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[mockingbyrd]

1)Of course
2)miraculous is the only way.

That's the beauty of this. No matter what exactly happened, it as a beautiful miracle, one that people still marvel 2000 years later.

[Thoramir]

I haven't seen this movie and I'm not familiar with the actress, but I'm half American Indian (The rest is Irish, Scottish, and German) and I've had people tell me I look Jewish and even Russian. Ironically, only members of my own tribe tend to recognise me as an Indian based on my own appearance, and even then only some of them noticed it right away. So I would suggest half-whatever really say much about one's appearance.

On a more important note, I think I'll avoid this one. While I could probably let some of the other theological issues slide the idea of St. Mary "with attitude" is a little much for me.

[kosta50]

The [sic] fact remains [?!] Christ was born in the natural way of childbirth of a woman who required a savior just like the rest of us

Is that a "fact?" Is there a biblical verse that says Christ was born in a "natural" way?

[bornacatholic]

Excellent advice, brother. Well said and indisputable and it describes exactly the point I have arrived at.

Heretofor, my efforts betray a too close kinsmanship with Pelagius :)

[kosta50]

The miracle is Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection. That is where Christian's should be focusing attention

And the Incarnation is not a miracle? Is there anything about Christ that we should not focus on?

[bornacatholic]

Thanks for all the wonderful work you have done on this thread. You have done well faithful servant. And the reality you are being mocked for explicating Christian Doctrine about Mary is a sure sign you are favored by God.

God Bless. Your reward in Heaven will be great. Keep up your good work. You have a real gift

[kosta50]

However, despite the evident genetic linkage with the ancient Middle East, many Jews, including most in the United States, are European in appearance. Many of Israel's leaders have looked as if they would be more at home in Warsaw or Moscow than the Israel of Bible times

Of course they do. Don't forget that a very large East European Jewish community comes from Khazars who are not Semitic but Caucasian. Then there are the Spanish Jews and the Ethiopian Jews with their own genetic lineage.

But we are talking about a girl who was came from a village in the heart of Israel, where little if any of the global gene pool mixing took place. If she looked anything out of the oridnary some mention would have been made.

Portraying her as a spoiled teenager is only insult to injury that completes the false impression that somehow people were always "just like us" and ethnically mixed and indistinct as we would like them to be.

[kosta50]

I'm half American Indian (The rest is Irish, Scottish, and German) and I've had people tell me I look Jewish and even Russian. Ironically, only members of my own tribe tend to recognise me as an Indian based on my own appearance, and even then only some

Societies were a lot more ethnically and culturally distinct 2,000 years ago then today. Today it is absurd to speak of any pure race, except maybe for some isolated tribes, and even then it is a sretch.

But that doesn't mean we don't know what the Israelites looked like 2,000 years ago. Mary was born in a village in the heart of Israel not subject to too many ethnic upheavals. I seriously doubt there were many blond and blue-eyed memebrs of her community. If she looked anything out of the oridnary it would have been noticed. We therefore must assume that she looked like an oridnary Israeli girl in that time and place.

Mary was most certainly not a teenager with an attitude. Such distorition is an attempt to make Mary more "acceptable" to our current faddish mindset so that we can "relate" to her.

[HarleyD]

Most excellent post and point. Let me know if you ever get a response.

[blue-duncan]

Jesus was sinless and did not need the baptism of repentance but submitted to baptism out of obedience to the law. Mary was impure due to the blood of birth and needed the purification rite physically and spiritually. The two obediences are not the same.

[Forest Keeper]

The scriptures say that Mary was unclean due to the birth and could not touch any hallowed thing nor enter the synagogue until her 40 days of purification were complete.

Luke 2:22-24, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Yes indeed. In addition, this scripture directly contradicts the opening words of the Protoevangelium of James:

1. In the records of the twelve tribes of Israel was Joachim, a man rich exceedingly; and he brought his offerings double, saying: There shall be of my superabundance to all the people, and there shall be the offering for my forgiveness to the Lord for a propitiation for me.

The passage in Luke speaks of turtledoves or pigeons, a poor man's sacrifice according to:

Lev. 12:7c-8 : " 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "

How strange that if Mary's father was so rich, that she was so poor right after marriage. It seems odd to me that if we are to accept the Protoevangelium as the source of so many Marian doctrines, that the opening words of the document so categorically contradict scripture.

[adiaireton8]

We're discussing Mary's fictitious perpetual virginity and you bring in questions about Jesus and John.

Recall that Jesus was asked (Matt 21:23) "By what authority are you doing these things?" and He replied by asking a question about John the Baptist. Is it wrong to imitate my Lord? Jesus's baptism is highly relevant to understanding properly Mary's purification.

There is no Scriptural evidence for the cult that has grown up around the adoration of Mary.

First, there is no Scriptural evidence for the cult that grew up around 'sola scriptura', called Protestantism. So why are you one? Second, Catholics do not *adore* Mary in the technical sense of 'adore', for adoration is reserved for God alone.

And there is certainly no need to believe Mary's anatomy differed from any other mother, either pre or post delivery.

If Christ corrupts or injures the physical integrity of Mary, there are serious theological implications regarding the relation between grace and nature. That is part of the reason why the Fifth Ecumenical Council declared Mary "ever-virgin".

Perhaps you didn't see the irony of saying, "The miracle is Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection. That is where Christian's should be focusing attention" and following it immediately with a picture of a book about Mary.

-A8

[Iscool]

You will have to find, as Campion points out, an actual biblical refreences that says "Mary's sons" in order to definitively draw a conclusion that she did in fact have other children of her own.

Uh huh...Sure...I also didn't find a verse that says Mary did not take the subway to and from the Synagogue...Does that mean~~~~???

Hey, God says stay away from that 'Queen of Heaven' stuff, stay away from worshipping goddesses, don't eat those little cookies, etc...Stay away from a religion that has priests wearing long robes...Stay away from that religion that forbids marriage...Do not even build graven images, let alone pray to them...God told Peter to let us know that Apostles don't allow people to bow in front of them...God warned us about religions that corrupt the word of God...

You don't have to be a mental giant to see that God warned us about Your religion...

[kosta50]

Mary was impure due to the blood of birth and needed the purification rite physically and spiritually

Mary could not claim to have delivered a child and tell the Jewish priests that His brith was miraculous. Therefore, as far as the world was concerned, she had an "ordinary child" born "naturally," which would make her "impure" for 40 days.

The fact is that the early Church, and her contemporaries (i.e. +Ignatius) considered her to be the immaculate Mother of God.

[wmfights]

"Fifth Ecumenical Council."
____________________________

When did this council meet?

[kosta50]

You don't have to be a mental giant to see that God warned us about Your religion...

Obviosuly you have an axe to grind. Since you can't prove that Jesus' brothers were Mary's biological children, you are now unloading a whole bunch of prejudices as a substitute.

I have nothing more to say to you.

[wmfights]

"...Christ was born in the natural way of childbirth..."
____________________________

Isn't this impossible IF we are to believe that Mary's hymen remained intact after Jesus was born? Isn't this also a part of the argument about her perpetual virginity (her hymen remained unbroken)? If true than it could not be a natural birth of a physical body.

[murphE]

In my experience as a Protestant, the motivation was due in part to a prideful egalitarianism; it is comforting to believe that no other human (besides the God-man) was any holier than I am, since all our righteousness is as filthy rags ("used toilet paper", as my pentecostal pastor used to say). So Mary couldn't be any holier than us. We can hide the pridefulness of the egalitarianism behind our desire to give all the glory to Christ.

Interesting. As a Catholic I always suspected this was part of the reasoning behind the attacks on Our Lady. I always got the impression that most Protestants believe that all saints are equal in heaven too.

[wmfights]

"Is that a "fact?" Is there a biblical verse that says Christ was born in a "natural" way?"
________________________________

If it was not a physical body than what was nailed to the cross?

[blue-duncan]

"The fact is that the early Church, and her contemporaries (i.e. +Ignatius) considered her to be the immaculate Mother of God."

Luke,the physician, the writer of the gospel did not consider her the "immaculate Mother of God." She had to go through the purification rites just like every other mother in Israel because, Lev. 12: 2"..If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child...". Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;". There isn't any question that she was impure according to the law; not virtually impure, actually impure, no matter what the Church said after.