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/
FL: "Do we really have to redefine our terms because some people don't know enough to figure such things out correctly? Political correctness run amok!"
X: "The 2d is an effort to communicate precisely. The first is an effort to speak in code, to intentionally be confusing, or to be misunderstanding of the Trinity. Mary was not the mother of the Father. The Father is just as likely to be called God in our Trinitarian system as is the Son."
It seems to me, Padre, that FL has hit the nail on the head. Why would it be necessary to change the Christologic term "Theotokos" because some Christians today don't understand or have a deficient knowledge of Christian Trinitarianism? After all, most Christians accept the dogmas of the Council of Ephesus and have for nearly 1700 years. Doesn't the fact that it sounds "odd", or one might feel compelled to assert that to say "Theotokos" is either to speak in code or evidence an intent to confuse or finally to misunderstand the Trinity actually point to a deficient preaching on the part of the pastors of those Christians that they haven't explained what Christians mean by the Trinity? Perhaps some solid preaching of the Creed is in order. The problem lies not with the Holy Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, but rather with modern catechetical methods.
X: "Do you think Mary is the Mother of the Father?"
Padre, why would anyone who understands that God is "Ο ΩΝ" or who prays the Creed then believe that the Theotokos is the mother of God the Father?
FK's use of the term "Mother of Christ" as explained by him is not heretical. The fact remains, however, that it was just that term which expressed the Nestorian heresy, a heresy which arose out of a deficient understanding of the Trinity. Given the fact that there appears to be a fear (for whatever reason) that the use of the Council term Theotokos is code or misleading, isn't it therefore very dangerous, in this age of people who don't understand Christian Trinitarianism, to revert back to old heretical formulas?
Simple logic, my friend.
If there is only one God and the Father is God and Mary is the Mother of God, then Mary is the Mother of the Father.
Wouldn't our consideration of our Lord Savior Christ Jesus returning for a millenial reign reinforce Judaism, while at the same time profess and manifest Christ Jesus?
As to how they differ from the heretics of Core/Korah and hias followers is unclear. In fact, there have been not a few posts in here which read as though they were lifted directly from Core/Korah...especially the explicit rejection of authority
Numbers 16 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?
*A you well know,..
Hebrews 13..teaches the authority Core/Korah and his followers rebelled against, still exists in the New Covenant...
Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, 8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines...Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you
*BTW, whatever happened to Core and his authority-rejecting followers?
I think I've found the hymn that explains this knotty theological conumdrum.
www.ziplo.com/grandpa.htm
Wow! Thanks for the heads up! I fell asleep (It's the one way you know I used to be a clergyman: I still fall asleep Sunday afternoons -- religiously) during the Bears Saints game and had other fish to fry during the next game, so I missed it all. Yep, let's have an ecumenical agreement to root for the Colts.
And if they were double-checking the LXX, it wasn't "good enough" for them in the sense that you feel it is good enough
There is no evidence whatsoever that they were "double-checking." The fact remains that they used LXX in all but six times when quoting from the OT.
That means that even by his count, that 56% of the time there is no difference for the NT authors to choose between--and hence no indication of preference
That really means that the disagreement between the LXX and MT is a whopping 44% for whatever reason.
The LXX probably does still "win," but the fact that the Apostles did correct it indicates that they were continually checking it against the Hebrew original and deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to use the default Greek translation of their day or render their own translation
First, it's not a "fact" that they were "continually checking it against the Hebrew original..." because there is no such evidence anywhere.
Second, regardless of the size of the "gap," the very existence of the gap tells us that the existing copies of the Scripture, even in Apostoles' times, were not faultless, but diverged (as is the case with the NT) due to various sources of corruption.
The size of that gap matters, but the indisputable fact is that the Apostles used LXX predominantly, whether its text agreed or disagreed with the MT, with notable half-a-dozen exceptions to the contrary.
Can someone remind me why this is such a screaming issue?
Of course, referring that, ah, hymn to the doctrine of the Trinity ... well, let's just say I hear thunder and am taking cover. Where exactly do you live?
;)
The last time I said this, Blogger "laughed me to scorn", but I've taken my antidepressants and can handle it, I think. I may sniffle a little.
I propose: The copula in Trinitarian language is not commutative. That is to say that the statement "Jesus is God" does not imply the statement, "God is Jesus", and similarly to say "The Father is God" does not imply "God is the Father". This ain't geometry.
Another way to say this is that in the scheme I laid out before, to wit:
But if the undivided Church goes with Theotokos, I'm sure not going to argue.
If one figures the Bible alone is the source for salvation (which borders on idolotry of the Bible) then one must assume that only an uncorrupt version of the Bible can advise on an uncorrupt path to salvation.
Conversly if one beleives that teh church Christ gave the keys to bind and loose is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Christ promised to send and thereefore can clarify the truth to correct human errors it becomes somewhat irrelevant.
"I don't even have to go to the link."
See, that there is the problem with us moderns. We are so overly familiar with the words to the old hymns that we just mouth them without mining the lesson of the experience that some poor soul anguished over when writing about them under the influence of the spirits.
I believe in clear translation and interpretation.
Clarity is best achieved by precision.
Mother of God is not precise.
I know you can imagine instances when the lack of precision in language would lead to legal difficulties.
For my part, though, I think we've pretty well beat this horse to death. I'll stick with the expression: "Mother of Jesus the Christ." It is precise, and is not open to trinitarian nitpicking.
Thanks for the comment . . . evidently it was too much to benefit very many . . . perhaps particularly those most . . . edifiable? by such ponderings? LOL.
I would guess that many still don't have a clue what I was trying to accomplish. But it has to be experienced to be well felt, well understood, I think.
It seems to me . . . that
IF
there were NO DIFFERENCE, NO BENEFIT, NO ACHIEVABLE UPSMANSHIP INVOLVED
IN
the "MOTHER OF GOD" label,
IT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN USED.
Mother of Jesus would have been sufficient and that would have been the end of it.
But the deification/near deification of Mary REQUIRES 100's of bits and pieces here and there . . .
here a pebble there a pebble . . . constructing her worshipfulness/adorationfulness/supreme-worthiness . . .
her God-like pedestal
and the MOTHER OF GOD one is a pretty big pebble toward that end.
1. If it's no different than MOTHER OF JESUS--USE MOTHER OF JESUS. If there's NO difference, why brook the least chance of offending God and others?
2. IF it IS different--what's the DIFFERENT PURPOSE IT FULFILLS, IF IT'S NOT AN IDOLATROUS ONE? The only plausible difference is an idolatrous one!
3. Subtle to not so subtle propaganda/subliminal mind control is at work in the MOTHER OF GOD label. And it is not just Mary that is being elevated to the God-like stratosphere.
IT IS PARTICULARLY AND PRIMARILY ALL THE HANGERS ON IN THE BUREAUCRATIC EDIFICE CONCOCTING THE NONSENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEIR elevation and fattened coffers therefrom are paramount in the whole thing.
MARY herself knows better and has to be as revolted at the whole mucky bag of nonsense as anyone can be.
If one figures the Bible alone is the source for salvation (which borders on idolotry of the Bible) then one must assume that only an uncorrupt version of the Bible can advise on an uncorrupt path to salvation.
Not so fast hotshot.
That ASSUMES, PRESUMES that
1. all the contradictory encyclicals, pontifications, assumptions, inferences, extrapolations of the bureaucracy over the many centuries have all been an illusion and that everything from the bureaucracy has been 100% in agreement, flawless and 100% essential in support of; facilitative of; allowing for, fostering, yielding salvation to the serfs.
ROTFLOL! GUFFAWS TO THE MAX!
It's difficult to believe ANY RC person hereon REALLY believes THAT! But that's essentially what was postulated in the post I'm responding to.
2. --that God is unable or unwilling or it just doesn't work for essentials of the Scriptural truths about establishing a Salvation relationship with God that can be well transmitted millions of ways--even with any various dozens? of flaws in different versions of the text.
ROTFLOL! GUFFAWS TO THE MAX!
Millions of believers the world over for 2,000 years have proven that to be a silly notion.
3. Those who call on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved.
4. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
5. Confess with your mouth; believe in your heart and be saved.
6. Believe and be baptised unto salvation.
7. SEEK THE LORD and you shall find Him.
Terribly complicated, all those. Better run to the bureaucracy's many halled library to figure out what such simple truths mean. Better get all the bureaucratic interpreters to pontificate for endless hours so we don't misconstrue:
COME UNTO ME ALL YOU THAT LABOR AND ARE HEAVY LADEN!
COME UNTO ME LITTLE CHILDREN.
LOL with tears.
Of all the types of translation errors that can be made, missing one of the names or titles of God is most disturbing to me. In this case, “God is the Rock.” In Hebrew, tzur - the Septuagint translation drops that term and uses something like God or Mighty One.
But Peter and Paul both evidently knew the name, i.e. that God is the Rock:
For who [is] God, save the LORD? and who [is] a rock, save our God? – 2 Sam 22:32
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: - Matt 7:4
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4
Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. – 1 Peter 2:7-8
The title itself illuminates the following passage, i.e. God is the Rock!:
The idea of subordinating God to categories of human logic is responsible for much mischief. Whether it's Origen's neoplatonism, John Italus trying to give rational explanations for the Eucharist, scholasticism with its 'created grace', or 'sola scriptura' which is never as advertised, but represents the replacement of Holy Tradition with a rationalistic human tradition as the context in which the Scriptures are read, inisiting that God fits into our created logical frameworks leads to hersies.
Jesus is God, the Son: Mary gave birth to Him: Mary is the Mother of God.
Only one Person of the Trinity is Incarnate: only the Son has a mother according to the flesh: Mary is not the mother of the Father or the Spirit.
Keep logic, which is the deep structure of created binary distinction, none of which are applicable to God, in its proper place.
My position all along has been that Mary is a very humble servant of God - as is Peter, Paul, Moses, Abraham and so on. And for that reason I believe she would be uncomfortable with some of the honor given to her, e.g. Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, etc. Of a Truth, she is the "Blessed Mother of the Incarnate Word" - but going further, I believe makes her uncomfortable.
Likewise, I cannot imagine Peter being comfortable with a title like His Holiness. He and Paul both were brought to their knees to serve Christ.
I feel the same about Moses and Abraham who were highly exalted by the Jews, I cannot imagine either of them being comfortable with all that attention.
In fact, if they were all right here participating on this forum – I would see each of them – Mary, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul – saying pretty much the same words the angel said here in Revelation:
Worship God!
Maranatha, Jesus!
Buggman: It doesn't come from Paul either, if one interprets his letters by his life. It comes from people misreading Paul because they haven't done their homework in the Tanakh and the Gospel accounts first
Christ did not teach abandoning the Law, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. That's where the disagreement between +Paul and the Apostles who knew Christ personally arose. To them, +Pauline gospel (he called it 'my gospel') rang foreign to what they remembered from Christ's teachings.
More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?
Anti-judaizing elements in Christian movmeents appear relatively early (Didache, Epistle of Barnabas), calling the Jews "hypocrites," and claiming that the Jews were never in covenant with God. The latter (from the Epistle of Barnabas) disappeared from the Christian Bibles after the 4th century. But, as you observed earlier, the anti-judaizing rants of Christian leaders continued well into the fifth century (+John Chrysostom).
There is no other author of post-Pentecost Christianity other than +Paul. The Church in Jerusalem died out. We know next to nothing about its practices other than that it was very much like a synagogue and allegedly did not use the Eucharist.
It [the idea that Christianity is not Judaism] comes from people misreading Paul because they haven't done their homework in the Tanakh and the Gospel accounts first
How so? When +Paul preached 'his gospel' the Gospels were not written yet. From 44 until his death in the mid 60's of the first century, +Paul pretty much interpreted Christ's message to the Hellenized Jews and Gentiles without Gospels.
Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. – Rev 22:19
Other than that, I have nothing to say - because all of these people - whether Christian or Jew - who venerate these fellowservants by all appearances themselves do it out of love and humility.
= = =
Excellent points as usual. Thanks.
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.