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/
And I will ask you one more time for a biblical verse that says children of Mary. The bible is clear that there is only one Person who is identified as the Child of Mary.
"Augustine's opinion is not dogma. That was the work of a Latin synod(The Council of Carthage, which dealt with the issue of grace in a slightly different manner."
I know, but its influence on the Western Church approaches that of dogma, as I said earlier.
"To be sure, Augustine's view largely prevailed, until the time of Aquinas, but thereafter the semi-Pelagian view--which is closer to the Eastern view, and whose prime champion earlier was St. John Cassian--was the doctrine that Luther and Calvin encountered and rejected."
Yup, though its interesting to note that +Thomas Aquinas rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception. And certainly +John Cassian's views were rather like what was called Semi-Pelagianism, but all +John did was reiterate what the Eastern Fathers had always said about grace and man's response to that grace. Pelagianism, of whatever stripe, was never much of a problem in the East because it never gained a foothold there, unlike most other ancient heresies.
"As for the Immaculate Conception, it only stresses the superabundance of the graces given to Mary. If we think of Mary as the second eve, then what we have is a person whose will is not overpowered so that she cannot sin , but who chooses, despite the temptations of the world, to remain true."
Well, here's a problem. The eastern Church never taught that one individual received a "superabundance" of grace, more grace than the person next to her. On the contrary, Father after Father taught the contrary, that there is no divine discrimination at all and God's grace falls on all equally. Its our response to or cooperation with that grace which makes the difference. Your formulation of the IM dogma points to the "semi-monergist" theology of the Latin Church, doubtless a reaction to Pelagianism and maybe Manicheanism, contrasted with the synergism of the Eastern Church. The Latin Church does indeed refer to the Theotokos as the Second Eve, as does the East. It is an ancient Cappodocian/Syrian type and an excellent one in my opinion, a concept which adds greatly to our understanding of the Incarnation within God's plan for the theosis of all creation. It is also a major source of the "Co-Redemptrix" idea, though most people who use that term use it wrong and understand it in a heretical way. As another Freeper commented on this thread, its a term which causes more trouble than good. In the East, however, when the Cappodocians came up with the Second Eve type and to this day, a superabundance of grace being provided to Panagia simply isn't part of the idea.
"That grace given to Mary at her origin has removed that corruption and so strengthened she is able to do the will of God."
But Robby, the OT is filled with righteous people who did the will of God without a superabundance of grace. What they couldn't do, and what Panagia on her own couldn't do, was become like God. Creation needed Christ for that. "God became man so that men might become "gods"." as +Athanasius the Great taught. Until the Incarnation, all mankind, including Panagia were in bondage to Death. But when Christ descended to the place of the dead, he shattered the fetters of Death, restoring life to those in the tombs. Thus, the result of Panagia's response to God's grace was life, not just for her but potentially for all of us. The First Eve had the same potentiality before the Fall, when she was not subject to the results of sin, but failed. The Second Eve didn't fail and because of her Son, she attained eternal life.
"How do we say, "Yes," to Jesus? Ask Mary. She is the first Christian."
Agreed 1000%! :)
See, I told you we weren't nice people...especially the women!
"She is really a practicing Orthodox. She was dabbling in neo-paganism last time I talked to her."
Well, Mother always said scratch a Greek and you'll find a little pagan inside yelling "Let me out! Let me out!" Like I said, God gave us The Church because we really, really need it!
There are ways, grasshopper, to train these mountain witches, even the ones about whom we say "Σταζει μυτη της φαρμακι!" Poison drips from her nose! Stick with me, kid and I might be able to teach you, though it is hard for white guys to accomplish this task! :)
"The only reference to "immaculate conception" I could find was the "9th ode the Irmos" of the first week of Great Lent. I was unable to find the actual ode itself, but I am willing to bet that the term "immaculate conception" here refers to the Annunciation, and not Mary's own conception by her parents."
I just looked through the 9th Odes for the first week of Great Lent and couldn't find those words. I wonder if its just a bad, Westernized translation. On the other hand, I seem to remember the term "immaculate conception" from Great Lent though I can't say where it might be.
I think you know I meant "She is not really..." ;-) Otherwise, that was a pretty funny commentary. :)
You just lost the argument
William of Ware (WOW) gave us the explanation (and that is from memory. I hope I am right )
Matthew's Aramaic authorship is only held by a minority of scholars. It was likely written in Greek as well.
As to your citing of a few Protestant "Scholars", sorry, the argument fails. We do not base our doctrine upon the words of men (like many Catholics do), but the words of Scripture. We may disagree on some aspects; but, the Lord designed it that way. It's called "iron sharpening iron." Regarding the identification of Peter with the Rock, besides that one verse, where do you see it. Show me Bible. Not man's opinions. Where is Peter named as head of the church? Where is he in Rome? Where does ANYONE proclaim his Primacy or Rome's Primacy for that matter?
Rome's claim to Primacy came late. The forgery "The Donation of Constantine" tried to undergird the claim. People bought it. Some of those who sat in seat of Pope were rather notorious. Doctrine in Catholicism sways with the times. Stick to the Bible. Not an organization. It doesn't change, even when Catholics and Protestants do.
It also may be overreaching to say ALL Catholics are agreed.
Note this prominent Catholic's agreement with who most Biblically informed Protestants will say is the Rock:
On this rock therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built." - Augustine, "On the Gospel of John," Tractate 12435.
Peter was not singled out as the leader of the Church in these verses. The context of Scripture does not show that he ever was the Prime leader of the church. When Jesus spoke to Peter, he spoke to him directly. The "upon this rock" comment is in the 3rd person and intimates not a person but a thing - namely the confession of who the true Rock, Christ, is. In other words, Peter, you are a steadfast and bold man to have said such a thing, and on this very thing (not on YOU) I will build my church.
Incidentally, referring to my argument as same old Protestant arguments doesn't refute them. It just makes the statement that you have heard it before.
Prove, with Scripture, what you say and we can talk more.
-A8
Rubbish! You can't come up with a verse, can you?
FWIW, other than James, "the brother of Jesus", the Apostles did not stay at any church they helped start as Bishops. IOW, the Apostles were missionaries.
You are correct. You see this with Peter when Paul visits him at Jerusalem, and then suddenly Peter is travelling to Antioch and so on. Peter writes his gospel to various churches he has been in contact with along the way who are undergoing persecution.
Yes. But in that quote, he does not say that Peter is the Rock. In the quote I gave from Augustine, Peter is NOT the Rock. Christ is the Rock, and Peter's confession was key - not Peter himself.
I looked through the service in English translated from the Slavonic Menaion, and none of the hymns were there that Petrosius mentions (in any recognizable form), except for the one that talks of her as "most pure" -- where the Slavonic is translated simply as "pure," although I don't know what Slavonic word was being translated.
Not that it matters -- we refer to her as "most pure" in many English translations (often for the same word that is translated as "immaculate" by some -- a word meaning "without spot or stain.") We do believe that she was without spot or stain because of her morally guiltless life. At what point the Theotokos reached a state of theosis such that it was impossible for her sin I don't know. We don't speculate on such things. But in general, we consider that one's final state isn't set until the moment of one's death.
Also, with regard to the word "today" in the hymnology that Petrosius emphasizes -- this is an Orthodox hymnological convention. We always speak of a feast in the present tense -- always as "today." So the use of "today" has little meaning in trying to establish what the Orthodox believe happened at the moment of the conception of the Theotokos.
-A8
So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven," he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falls not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, "On this rock will I build my Church," because Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 16:16-19 On this rock, therefore, He said, which you have confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; 1 Corinthians 10:4 and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 3:11 The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. This Church, accordingly, which Peter represented, so long as it lives amidst evil, by loving and following Christ is delivered from evil. But its following is the closer in those who contend even unto death for the truth . . . . For the whole body of the saints, therefore, inseparably belonging to the body of Christ, and for their safe pilotage through the present tempestuous life, did Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that binds and looses sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead. which are to be yet beheld in that kingdom face to face, but meanwhile till the Lord's coming are only to be seen in a mirror and in a riddle; but the Lord has Himself diffused this very gospel through the whole world, that every one of His own may drink thereat according to his own individual capacity.
I was just observing.
"Rubbish! You can't come up with a verse, can you?"
It is more important to be identified as Jesus' brothers than Mary's sons. She was a minor player compared to God becoming flesh. The Father could have chosen any woman to be Jesus mother just like He could have caused the stones to cry out. He is the potter all humanity is clay molded by Him to fulfil His purposes.
True, but to establish your point that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, it is *essential* that they be identified as Mary's sons, since "brother" could mean half-brother.
-A8
A8 to BD: True, but to establish your point that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, it is *essential* that they be identified as Mary's sons, since "brother" could mean half-brother
My point exactly, A8. Thank you.
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.