Nativity of Christ
15th century
Novgorod school
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/
God wasn't born.
Christ is God. Christ is born to Mary. The icon I just posted shows the Father as well as the Holy Ghost apart from the Son. Clearly no one in 15th century Novgorod would think that the Father was born, and I assure you no one would think that Christ is not God. Now, I understand that Protestant exegesis is lacking here, but again, it is not my problem.
Ann Coulter is a leggy blonde. :)
Not exactly a fair request. Your church persecuted and killed those they referred to as heretics and burned their writings. It's like doing genealogy. I have researched numerous relatives and run into dead ends when it is in a county where the records burned. There are no eye witnesses left to interview and the written record is gone. Add to this that the people writing the history were the ones who destroyed the history and you end up with a difficult if not impossible situation to prove.
Nevertheless, if the 4 solas weren't taught by a single church authority after the apostles - it is still Scriptural. Jesus did not appeal to tradition to prove his case, he appealed to Scripture. Matthew showed how Jesus fulfilled Scripture when writing to the Jews. Paul praised the Bereans for checking him and how he lined up with Scripture.
Sola Fide is easily found. Sola Gratia as well and Solos Christos goes without saying.
I don't care what some man's painting says. I care what Scripture SAYS. God is one. Calling Mary the mother of GOD makes her the mother of the Father and the mother of the Spirit. Mother of Christ is fine, though Scripture calls her mother of Jesus and mother of my Lord. You can not use imprecise language with a term like this. Mother of God is imprecise. Mother of the God-man Jesus Christ might work - but Scripture, as usual, will suffice.
Consider this: It's those outside the Catholic Church (mostly) who say,"This could potentially cause damage." But WE who actually use the phrase in our conversation and devotions are not confused, and as I said, put it forth as almost a defiant assertion of the mind-blowing miracle of the Incarnation.
Jesus was God. Jesus was born of a woman. The mother of Jesus is as much the mother of God as Jesus was God -- no more, but no less. We claim ALL the implications of the Incarnation and celebrate it enthusiastically and confidently. You don't have to join us, but don't begrudge us our joy and gratitude in the condescension of God.
It's so interesting. Everyone says we don't place enough emphasis on faith or on Jesus, and then tells us we are making too much of the Incarnation. We can't win for losing!
As for me and my house, we will worship the Lord, and give thanks for all His gifts. His mind-boggling mercy endures for ever.
You know it's kind of like Amway or Earthlink or one of them. For every person I get to worship Mary I get one free month of grace.
Actually, what is it is that the "is" in "Jesus is God" is not commutative. If I say "Jesus is God, that is not equivalent to "God is Jesus", even though God doesn't come in pieces or parts.
But the very nature of your disagreement is consistent with our assertion that to say "Mother of God" about Mary is a Christological and Trinitarian issue.
"Kolokotronis, on the Erasmus thread you posted something from the Holy Father (or perhaps from then Cardinal Ratzinger) about the Holy Ghost proceeding from the mutual longing between the Father and the Son. You said it was from Deus Caritas Est, but I do not see it there. Do you rememeber what I am talking about?"
I don't remember it as coming from +BXVI but rather from +Gregory Palamas, who, as you may know, His Holiness is both familiar with and fond of quoting. This is likely the passge, which is from his Topics of Natural and Theologic Science (it also explains the idea of "procession" and how we can receive the Spirit "through" the Son:
"The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or 'eros' experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:'I was She who rejoiced together with Him' (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply 'rejoiced' but 'rejoiced together with'. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God's image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it."
"Well, since this is the mother of all omnibus threads, May I wonder 'aloud' if our Orthodox brethren would settle for a compromise along the lines of "through the Son" or "with the Son in a supporting role" or something."
"Procession" and "through" as regards the Spirit are two different concepts and phrased as two separate concepts we could have a theologically correct statement. But that doesn't solve the filioque problem in any fashion since the Spirit "proceeds" only from the Father.
Alex, +Gregory Palamas spoke of the Spirit being the longing (eroV) between the Father, who sends the Spirit to the Son, and vice versa. At this point our theologies are identical. +Palamas then goes one step further (which is what the fathers at Ephesus did), and re-affirms that "as regards his existence, the Spirit proceeds from the Father."
This establishes the sole source and cause principle of Father's Monarchy in the Holy Trinity (lest it be confused with double origin which would be heresy): the Father is the eternal principle source and cause of everything and all, including the Son and the Spirit: the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
As you know the Greek word used specifically means "as from the origin" which does not exist in Latin, so the Latin translation procedere is less specific.
If the Greeks use the term that is equivalent to the Latin procedere they immediately realize the error. But the non-Greeks speakiers don't.
The trinitarian formula cannot be elaborated further than as described in the finalized Creed, which is why the Fathers prohibited any addition or deletion. It would inevitably lead to logical errors of suggesting double, possible multiple origins.
God isn't Jesus????? Wow! Did you tell the Pope that????? I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing it. In fact, he might stop worshipping Mary for 5 minutes just to hear your explanation before he excommunicates you as a heretic (oh, you don't do that so much any more do you ;))
Hey, saying Mary preexisted God should be equally as valid as Mary Mother of God. So, there you have it MARY PREEXISTED GOD and to say anything else is equivalent to Polytheistic Nestoriarianistic heresy! I declare it so by the authority of the council of Ephesus.
"Calling Mary the mother of GOD makes her the mother of the Father and the mother of the Spirit. Mother of Christ is fine, though Scripture calls her mother of Jesus and mother of my Lord. You can not use imprecise language with a term like this. Mother of God is imprecise. Mother of the God-man Jesus Christ might work - but Scripture, as usual, will suffice."
I am astonished! After 4500+ posts, you still say that calling her Theotokos is imprecise?!!!!! As I thought we all agreed, at least those of us Christians who recite the Nicene Creed, unless one can call her Theotokos, one is either a Nestorian or an Arian. I can't tell from your statement if it is your Christology which is deficient or your Trinitarian theology or both.
Keep up Kolo. I'm embracing this view and enthusiastically stating the Mary is pre-existent to God! Should be no problem with that.
As to the other, I don't know how to go further. Yeah, every other mother precedes what she bears. But we're talking about the Incarnation here, so we have to expect some rule stretching.
Jesus is God, Mary bore Jesus, therefore Mary bore God. God the Son is God. Jesus is God the Son. Mary bore God the Son. etc. You say that MUST mean Mary pre-exists God. I say no there's one other thing it COULD mean, that God, who pre-existed Mary, was content to be born of her in the miracle of the Incarnation. And it turns out that that's what most Christians say about the Incarnation. "When thou tookest upon thee to deliver Man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb," and so forth. SO we say that to Call Mary the Mother of God is to say what has "always" been believed about the Incarnation.
I think we've pretty much worn this one out. Neither of us is saying anything new.
Makes logical sense.
Jesus is God. Mary is his mother. Mothers precede that which they bear. Therefore Mary precedes God.
Your theory of a pre-existent Theotokos is unnecessary and frankly heretical, unless of course you belong to one of the sects which was a forerunner of Mohammedanism which held to a belief something like what you have said. But your comment does indicate to me that it is your Trinitarian theology which is deficient. Here's a simple definition to think on:
"Trinity is simple unity; it is not merged together - it is three in one. The One three-hypostatical God has the three hypostases perfectly distinct in Himself." +Gregory of Sinai
Now, tell me why we cannot call Mary the Theotokos unless we say that she pre-exists God?
If Mary is the Mother of God and mothers preexist their offspring then Mary preexists God. I don't see the problem for saying this since I have been accused of Nestorianism for declaring Mary is mother of Jesus.
This also seems logical: If Mary is NOT the Mother of God while she IS the Mother of Jesus, then Jesus is not God.
Your argument depends on the usual being the essential. Certainly no other Mother did not precede what she bore. Ours depends on the copular verb, though in MY construction even that is not used in its usual commutative sense.
Every mother bears what is partially of her own and partially of some other. MAry is no different from other Mothers in that respect. What is different, as we keep on saying, is the other, not her.
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.