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/
Ah! Cavarnos does not describe that. It is true that the icon of Nativity has many optional parts.
Cavarnos does point out that the washing of bandages is important and is a signal that the birth was a natural act, and not a theophany out of the air. The prevalent Catholic and I trust Orthodox view is that the birth took place naturally, however, the hymen remained intact miraculously, and the pains were spared her.
I have never seen Satan depicted as an old sweet-looking man. Have you? Cavarnos explains that Satan is to be depicted unclearly, for example with the face smudged or too dark to see detail. The Ladder of Divine ascent is one with many devils, and they are depicted like naked humans, dark and with tails. Likewise is the Satan sometimes depicted in the Descent to Hades. But we digress.
Whew. Sorry I misread you.
I never said we believe that she sinned. She was born fully human, like any one of us, with fallen human nature that desires (i.e. has propensity) to sin.
But we hold that she never did sin, not because she was somehow superhuman, but because she was bale to love God more completely than others. Which is why God, in his foreknowledge, chose her, as the suitable immaculate vessel, and a blameless Mother of God.
Because our nature is mortal, as a result of ancestral sin of Adam and Eve, Mary died like any other human being, even if she did not sin. Her nature was still mortal.
The assumption is Catholic teaching, therefore, it is consistent
Not really, not Roman Catholic. As far as we can go back into Orthodoxy, the East always mantained that she died and was assumed into heaven on the third day. The Catholic Church did not make it a dogma until 1950.
That is not taught and is not even a prevalent belief.
I now understand why Pius XII felt it necessary to proclaim ex-cathdra that Mary was assumed into heaven. If she were born without sin and did not herself sin, then she could not die. Hence since they have proclaimed the fact of her sinless birth and sinless life, how could they acknowledge that she was capable of dying?
Your observation makes sense. In fact, this is the same logic by which all the justified souls go to heaven -- because they are pure. However, the usually cited reason why Pius XII elevated the teaching about the Assumption into dogma is to remind us, after half-century of wars, that our destination is, nevertheless, heaven.
No.
Prior to his stepping on one too many toes, he was very critical of some Bishops, he was held in high enough esteem to teach at the Christian school in Alexandria and asked to preach at numerous churches. The point I was making was as early as 200AD the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity was not accepted fact.
How then are these teachings supported in the RCC?
Amen!
Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass. Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: Fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word" -- Psalms 148:3-8"Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
This does not alter the fact that "adelphos" can be used both expansively and narrowly, and in fact unless the parents are identified, we'll never know by the deisgnation "adelphos" alone if broad kinship, spiritual fellowship, or commonality of parents is referred to.
We also don't teach that Our Lady was superhuman. Immaculate Conception (celebrated today!) means that the same condition we gain at baptism -- freedom from original sin, -- she gained at her conception.
" unless the parents are identified, we'll never know by the deisgnation "adelphos" alone if broad kinship,"
So we don't know whether Andrew and Peter were brothers or whether Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha?
Nowhere does Calvin affirm the noxious belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary which states Mary was herself conceived without sin and did not suffer from Original Sin; the non-birth birth of Jesus Christ whereby Jesus did not disturb Mary's physical virginity; or the Assumption of Mary which dares to say another human being other than Christ rose bodily into heaven -- all concoctions of fanciful mischief and damning error.
I agree that there has been a lot of debate regarding the Assumption. However, as YOUR POST CLEARLY PROVES, the Assumption was discussed at least fifteen centuries BEFORE it was defined. So, why do you continue to act as if it was somehow "invented" in 1950?
There are numerous places that indicate she was not a perpetual virgin. Catholics (and a few early Protestants like Luther and Calvin) give weak arguments. There is this verse:
Then, of course there is all the times Jesus' brothers are mentioned, such as:
Then there is the time Paul referred to "the Lord's brothers" (1 Corth 9:5). Or when both Paul and Jude mentions James to be "the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:19 and Jude 1:1) but this also is some relative.
These are a few of about 10-20 various examples that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Most are explained away as the meaning is really cousin or, as in Matthew's case, it doesn't mean what it says. It's somewhat similar to b-d example of the sacrifice that was presented by Mary and Joseph about opening up the womb. Some people just ignore it.
Protestants would argue that some of the sources of Catholic tradition were not under Jesus' inspiration. I'm sure a survey of papal history would find most if not all Catholics agreeing that not everyone speaking for the church was doing so under the inspiration of the Spirit. Others, while they may have been Godly men, also taught things (such as Limbo) which have later been discounted by the Pope.
Scripture's message has been constant.
Where Catholic doctrine seems to veer away from Scripture, or where some apparition somewhere causes Catholics to develop a particular doctrine or practice than those found in Scripture, Protestants will differ.
Protestants will also see Catholicism as essentially a religion based on faith PLUS works for salvation. Protestants will say faith alone. SOLA FIDE, SOLA GRATIA. SOLOS CHRISTOS. SOLA SCRIPTURA. Thats the essential definition of Protestantism. Take away the SOLA part of these concepts and add church membership, baptismal regeneration, and a few other things and you have Catholicism.
Well, you have a point. I'm looking for a picture of Peter on my burrito to sell on E-Bay for $15,000 and I'm certainly not an idolater. ;O)
Heresy has been an ongoing threat to Christianity from the beginning.
And the deification of the female is a blasphemy spawned by one of two errors -- by either a profound and deep misogyny, or by the corrupted worship of the female in dominance over the male.
Take your pick. They're both cursed.
The extra-biblical beliefs about Mary are truly amazing.
Thanks for bringing this one to the forefront.
Ignatius is probably the earliest to deal with the virgin birth outside of scripture, and especially since he is a disciple of the Apostle John, one would think his understanding worthy of note. So close was he to the 1st era of the church (lived from about the 60's AD to about 120 AD) that spurious letters between Ignatius and Mary appeared. He was martyred in Rome. See Chapter 10 of Letter to Trallians
But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, He became man in appearance [only], that He did not in reality take unto Him a body, that He died in appearance [merely], and did not in very deed suffer, then for what reason am I now in bonds, and long to be exposed to72 the wild beasts? In such a case, I die in vain, and am guilty of falsehood73 against the cross of the Lord. Then also does the prophet in vain declare, "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn over themselves as over one beloved."74 These men, therefore, are not less unbelievers than were those that crucified Him. But as for me, I do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality. For that which is false is quite abhorrent to the truth. Mary then did truly conceive a body which had God inhabiting it. And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man. He was carried in the womb, even as we are, for the usual period of time; and was really born, as we also are; and was in reality nourished with milk, and partook of common meat and drink, even as we do. And when He had lived among men for thirty years, He was baptized by John, really and not in appearance; and when He had preached the Gospel three years, and done signs and wonders, He who was Himself the Judge was judged by the Jews, falsely so called, and by Pilate the governor; was scourged, was smitten on the cheek, was spit upon; He wore a crown of thorns and a purple robe; He was condemned: He was crucified in reality, and not in appearance, not in imagination, not in deceit. He really died, and was buried, and rose from the dead, even as He prayed in a certain place, saying, "But do Thou, O Lord, raise me up again, and I shall recompense them."75 And the Father, who always hears Him,76 answered and said, "Arise, O God, and judge the earth; for Thou shall receive all the heathen for Thine inheritance."77 The Father, therefore, who raised Him up, will also raise us up through Him, apart from whom no one will attain to true life. For says He, "I am the life; he that believeth in me, even though he die, shall live: and every one that liveth and believeth in me, even though he die, shall live for ever."78 Do ye therefore flee from these ungodly heresies; for they are the inventions of the devil, that serpent who was the author of evil, and who by means of the woman deceived Adam, the father of our race.
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.