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/
"If common sense is of no use at all in Biblical interpretation, then the whole work is truly fully in code. I don't think you believe that."
No, I don't believe that about the whole work; Revelations, well that's another matter! :) BAC and I were just having some fun with sola scriptura, FK. But common sense will only take you so far when dealing with matters which are outside our understanding let alone even beyond our existence.
Well, the sad fact is the protestant revolutionaries were notorious for falsifying Scripture so as to mask their ideology. If they didn't change scripture, they would easily be identified as Satan's Mini-me's.
Well, brother, we have a huge advantage over our opponents. We belong to a Church. They don't. And apart from the vine, what hope is there?
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved." +Ignatius of Antioch
Anything other than the (eternal) present is inconsistent with transcendental Divinity: "I AM Who I AM." God is Existence itself and that which exists forever always is.
Prayers are sent, and I am very sorry to hear about this.
It is reductionistic to equate human nature with a having a certain set of genes or chromosomes. That is why all this speculation about Jesus's DNA is silly. Jesus took his human nature from Mary. That's all we know. From that, we can deduce nothing about the DNA of Jesus.
I haven't been arguing that Jesus' human nature is dependent on having Mary's DNA. God "COULD" have zapped a baby into Mary's womb with a human nature, but no human blood related to anyone else. I just don't personally think it happened that way for the other reasons stated in the discussion, the lineage requirements, and the fact that it would have been totally unnecessary to do it that way, when a perfectly viable, more genuine option was available. We have seen lots of scripture that tends toward the way my side has described it. I can't think of much that I have seen so far toward the "Immaculate Incubator" theory. Does the Church teach this as dogma? From what you have said, I don't think that can be. So, why not take the view that leans more toward direct scripture?
If by "Immaculate Incubator" you mean the proposition that Mary was merely a gestational device, this is a very grave error.
Am I adequately addressing your point? Or have I missed something?
To some extent, yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. But without the fun part. :) As I said before, the only thing we are told in scriptures about His appearance is that it was nothing out of the ordinary. Therefore I conclude that the male DNA within Him did not make Him to "appear" to be a perfect male "specimen".
I've seen you mention this "demigod" thing a few times, but I don't think I get it. A demigod is not 100% God. No one is saying that. Christ was 100% God. God made Mary's DNA in the first place, so what difference does it make, for these purposes, whether He used Mary's DNA or if He just went into the lab and manufactured some other person's DNA, not related to Mary? OR, is your contention that the blood Jesus spilled was not human blood? Ah, is this it?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. We're on the same page.
Ouch...:)
But then our Catholic friends don't take scripture literally, so why would they take any of the prophecies literally. They are not bound by scripture, they are bound by their catechism. In that sense it is a waste of time to argue doctrine with them. They are "right" because some committee tells them what to think and any deviation is heresy. Scripture is not merely secondary to them, it is irrelevant. There is no need to think. The thinking has been done.
"Ouch...:)"
Well, you asked! :)
No, and I'm fine with what you say here, but in no way does Sola Scriptura tell us to stop there. This is especially true in the case of apparent contradiction. Then interpretation is needed. The weight of other scripture is the first other place I would choose to look, and of course the Holy Spirit is always there to help in this guidance.
FK to Kosta: To some extent, yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. But without the fun part. :)
Thank you FK. You, are telling me that Christ is a "mixture" of divine and human, correct?
As I said before, the only thing we are told in scriptures about His appearance is that it was nothing out of the ordinary
Hmmm. The usual "stuff" but "without the fun part," right?
Therefore I conclude that the male DNA within Him did not make Him to "appear" to be a perfect male "specimen"
Imperfect man?
I've seen you mention this "demigod" thing a few times, but I don't think I get it
That's obvious.
Christ [sic] was 100% God
Was? (P-Marlowe, will you please note the tense here. It seems to be something you are sensitive to.) But, FK, you stated above that after Incarnation He is a "mixture" of divine and human. Are you saying He "was 100% God" until Incarnation but then became a "mixture" of 100% God and 100% human?
God made Mary's DNA in the first place, so what difference does it make, for these purposes, whether He used Mary's DNA or if He just went into the lab and manufactured some other person's DNA, not related to Mary?
I guess He could have used clay too. It's been done before.
OR, is your contention that the blood Jesus spilled was not human blood? Ah, is this it?
So far, what you are telling me is not even close to what Chistiany taught and still teaches. To summarize: you are telling me (1) that Christ is a mixture of divine and human "genes," (2) that Incarnation is perfectly ordinary "stuff" except "without the fun part," (3) that Jesus Christ is not a perfect male "specimen," (4) that Christ was a 100% God and (5) that Mary "DNA" was as good as anyone else's.
And after all that you ask me if it is my "contention that the blood Jesus spilled was not human blood!"
I believe that the concept of essence (nature) is not clear in your theology, FK.
Yeah, but you have to admit it is kind of interesting. :)
Well thanks a lot for the ping when you directly quote and refer to me, and call me unscriptural. I am hurt Kosta. :)
You tell us that you do not know the mechanism. You have been showed many scriptures that tend to support our position. I have not seen any, to this point, arguing against our position from scripture. If you have not already done so, could you show me those?
Kosta, you have to go through verbal gymnastics all over the place. Mary is only "Mother of God" in the sense that she bore God in her womb but she didn't pre-exist Him. Firstborn in the book of Matthew was inserted there and in Luke it only means that He was legally entitled to the rights of the firstborn, not that He had brothers and sisters, which in the New Testament are really Joseph's kids or His cousins. Mary's saying "how can this be since I haven't known a man" is really a pledge of eternal virginity it isn't a simple statement that she was a virgin right then. He knew her not UNTIL doesn't mean that something happened after the UNTIL part. Came together in Matthew 1 doesn't mean that they came together physically as husband and wife, but that they lived together in a custodial relationship. Yada yada.
With all of that in mind, and given the UNCLEAR meaning of anything that is being said with all of your council definitions and such (I asked someone who is a Christian, but is not into theological studies what he gets from the title "Mother of God" and he said that to him that implies that she came BEFORE God- so, no, the title isn't clear)...what harm would it do to make the clarifying statement that prior to the incarnation, God the Word never became flesh, etc., etc., It would be true and there wouldn't be the confusion that has come along with your claim that He has never... He has never is simply not true. There was a point in time where the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, according to the Scripture. If the Scripture is not afraid to say that the Word BECAME flesh, and if they aren't doing the acrobatics that you are doing trying to justify your usage of tense - why not bow to Scripture. It would be a whole lot less confusing and would not detract from the eternal pre-existence of God whatsoever.
The incarnation was a miracle. People are trying to explain it like it is not. It is not difficult to imagine God placing a baby in Mary's womb that is just His own creation without her genetics. It isn't difficult to see that He placed a baby in her womb that contained all of her genetics. What they have trouble seeing and are therefore rejecting is the truth that Mary's genetics fused with the divine equivalent of DNA to the point that Jesus was NOT half man half God; but, rather, He was all man all God 100% of each in one person.
Folks THIS IS A MIRACLE and as the Angel said, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE with God. Jesus had to be 100% human and carry Mary's genetics, otherwise God is a liar and prophecy wasn't fulfilled. He also had to be 100% God. The only difference here from the way births normally happen is that Jesus did not START being God at conception. He brought His Godhood with Him and it was eternally pre-existent to Mary. Somehow, true God, the second peron of the Trinity, FUSED with True man and was yet one unified person.
THIS IS UNEXPLAINABLE in human terms. But, by faith we know that it occurred.
Mary was not an incubator. Mary was the biological mother of Jesus the Christ who contributed her human DNA to his person. He as God ALWAYS existed. Mary did not contribute to His deity. Yet He fused with humanity and became one person. What an amazing God we serve!
It's only an "Ouch" if you believe Ignatius was correct. It's an "Oops" in all other cases.
" It's only an "Ouch" if you believe Ignatius was correct. It's an "Oops" in all other cases"
Indeed! What do you suppose his teacher +John would have done to him if he were wrong? Its likely +John knew of his teachings. But there's no evidence that +John took any action against him. Of course, it was +John who reported of Christ:
"So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."
You suppose that's where +Ignatius might have gotten his idea?
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.