Setting the Record Straight on Mary

Catholic Exchange ^ | December 17, 2006 | Fr. Thomas Euteneuer

[NYer]

The new movie that debuted on December 1st, The Nativity Story, has received many positive reviews around the country already and also a fair number of attacks by the standard group of village atheists.

Criticisms notwithstanding, the movie certainly has many redeeming qualities to it including its portrayal of Joseph and the touching scene of Mary's visit to Elizabeth, but at the same time I feel it necessary to correct the record about its presentation of Mary. More to the point, twenty centuries of theological reflection on the Virgin Mary have been effectively glossed over in the movie, and we have been given someone's private interpretation of Mary's role in salvation history which does not match the public record of historical Christianity. The Catholic Church has made it clear from the beginning that we do not understand Jesus as a historical and theological figure without Mary, and so a Nativity story that gets Mary wrong also skews our understanding of Jesus.

First and foremost, any portrayal of Mary as giving birth in pain is simply contrary to the Christian Church's long tradition of Mary as virginal before, during and after birth. In this view, her intact physical integrity during birth was accompanied by a psychic integrity that admitted of no pains during childbirth in any form. That may be a surprise to some, but it is nonetheless the historical Christian view of this event. The movie's portrayal of her childbirth is thus not the Church's mainstream understanding and qualifies as a strictly private interpretation of the event. In fact, the movie had a chance to contrast the painful childbirth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth with the miraculous birth of Jesus to Mary, and it missed the perfect opportunity to provoke a good theological debate!

Biblical Christians should know that there is a Scriptural reason for this doctrine. The virtually unanimous opinion of the Fathers of the Church in the first six centuries was that Mary is the "New Eve," the necessary counterpart to Christ, the New Adam (cf. Rom 5:12-14). Just as the old Eve collaborated in the sin of Adam, so the New Eve, with the New Adam, reverses the original disobedience and undoes the curse brought upon the human race by the first sinners. That same curse also brought about the grim consequence of labor pains for all of Eve's daughters (cf. Gn 3:16), but the New Eve who broke the curse was not subject to its dictates.

Secondly, Mary was not an immature adolescent as she is portrayed in the movie. The director of the movie, Catherine Hardwicke, intended to portray her as such in order to make her more "real" to teens. That is fine as an evangelistic motive, but depicting her in a quasi-feminist tizzy against her father's authority when he addresses the delicate subject of pre-marital relations is simply inaccurate to the historical record and doesn't help kids to take her as a role model.

The immaculate Mary's passions were first and foremost totally consecrated to the Lord and without the slightest disorder in any sense; she is not your typical teen in western society. She is the teen Mother of the Messiah, the perfect role model for all kids and adults alike. Not only would it not have entered the mind of the all-pure Mary to have pre-marital relations, she could not have had a fit of rebellion against her father's legitimate authority that concretized God's will for her. This presentation of Mary is quintessentially Hollywood and reflects neither historical Christianity nor even the biblical evidence. It is also a reflection of the Protestant view that Mary is just another person who happened to follow Jesus.

No, Mary is the Mother of God, perfectly pure in every respect and, even as a teenager dedicated heart, mind, soul and strength to God's plan of salvation. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me as you say" (Lk 1:38).  Let the historical record speak for itself.

[Running On Empty]

We've been there.

[pjr12345]

Too Bad the Bible never thought so, nor did the folks who wrote the Bible, nor did the churches they established. Too bad the Sola-Scriptura is only 489 years old AT BEST.

First, I'm not sure if the Bible actually thinks. But certainly the Apostle Paul did, and gave us warnings to adhere to the Apostle's teachings and against false doctrines. Given the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, his words are certainly applicable to all Scripture.

As to the authority of Scripture... Let's review: There are over 1,000 (one thousand) authentic documents that date back to within 50 years of the resurrection. The documents - originating through at least two very distinct and separate sources - agree with an accuracy of 98%. Where they differ, it is quite minor. Using the references given in the writings of the early Church fathers, we could reassemble the entire new testament from writings penned well before 489 AD.

No set of books in the world has been so scrutinized, reproduced, challenged, and authenticated. Putting it in perspective, there are fewer than 20 copies of Homer's works, none of which date within 500 years of the original writing, and having less than 80% agreement. Yet I have heard no one question authenticity.

The bottom line is that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and the basis for all morality and law. If one doesn't accept this as the foundation, then one is simply a relativist, picking and choosing that which he desires-- making a god in his own image. Or, as it is put in Genesis, "every man doing that which seemed right in his own eyes". Such a person differs little from one who embraces hedonism. Both routes lead to the same eternal end.

[Buggman]

Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself.

Abraham was called God's friend, and served Him dinner once. Was Abraham sinless?

Moses spoke to God face-to-face. Was Moses sinless?

Elijah was taken up to God without death. Was Elijah sinless?

All of the Apostles and other disciples spoke to God, ate with God, and even touched God. Were they sinless?

No. What they all were was covered by the blood of the Lamb by faith so that God reckoned them to be righteous. As was Miryam bat Heli.

[pjr12345]

...But also thank the Church for being inspired by the Holy Spirit for putting together the Bible as we know of today.

Not sure which "Church" you're referring to. Is it the one that grew out of the Church at Rome? You know, the one that Paul wrote to in his Epistle to the Romans?

Wouldn't you agree that the writings of the apostles preceded the organization that eventually grew into the Roman Catholic Church by centuries?

The first complete record of the currently accepted New Testament canon in the order accepted to this day was in 367 AD. It was written by Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria. The Roman Catholics got around to stamping their approval on it during the Council of Trent in 1546.

[Buggman]

There are many proven miracles that Jesus performs through Mary. . . So obviously God does answer prayers through Mary.

Hindus claim miracles through their gods too, so obviously God must endorse the Hindu pantheon.

That, or maybe, just maybe, the Adversary can produce "lying signs and wonders" in the guise of other gods . . . and the Catholic Mary.

Tell me, what is the Biblical test for a prophet or an angelic being claiming to be God? Is it just doing miracles, or is there something else as well?

[Frank Sheed]

I'll get the entire Navarre, FRiend. I have the Sheed already...

;-o)

[Frank Sheed]

I want the "Dies Irae" of Mozart's Requiem wailing away at full orchestral volume with the "Confutatis maledictus" in full strings zinging in the wings.

I beg God to have mercy on this poor old sinner soul. Lord knows, I'll need it...

[Frank Sheed]

[bornacatholic]

J'eva hear of the Abbe Gaume?

I found his 1840's Four Volume Catechism at a used book store in Maine. (It used to be the property of the Redemptorist Fathers in Wash, D.C.)It is AMASING. It's Title?

The Catechism of Perseverance or An Historical, Dogmatical, Moral, Liturgical, Apologetical, Philosophical, and Moral Exposition of Religion, from the Beginning of the World Down To Our Own Days."

They don't write titles like that anymore...

[Frank Sheed]

Rather than be accursed... I suggest we all learn and teach the truth of the Gospel as delivered by the Holy Spirit, through the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles, and as recorded in their God-inspired writings we call the Bible.

The Bible assembled by Luther or the one that preceded his by about 1400 years? You know, the old one I use.

[Frank Sheed]

You had a mother, right? You know, the woman who carried you, fed you through her placenta, gave you oxygen via her lungs, built proteins in her liver which circuated in your blood, sang to you, felt your first move, your first kick and finally delivered you and nursed you.

So did Jesus. Her name was Mary. And you equate what she did with Abraham serving God dinner once?

[Frank Sheed]

Yeah and the Redemptorists don't give Parish Missions like they did in 1970. As my friend says, they could really "bring it."

[pjr12345]

How many times have you served God dinner? Or anyone else for that matter? Compare that to the frequent and common miracle that is birth. I agree... the two can't be equated.

[Frank Sheed]

Mary gave to Christ his humanity! He is a Divine Person who assumed a human nature and was born of a woman. SHE was the woman.

BTW, I am profoundly Pro Life. Good to have another Life FRiend on board. Welcome! Be sure to Freepmail Coleus and sign up for his Life List...

[stfassisi]

""That, or maybe, just maybe, the Adversary can produce "lying signs and wonders" in the guise of other gods . . . and the Catholic Mary.""

Are you actually trying to attribute the healing of the little boy,s miracle at Medjugorje to the works of evil?

This is what the Pharisees attributed Jesus,s miracles and thus they committed unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit.
They were the Theologians of their day they knew perfectly well that the devil cannot make miracles.


Here is the correct definition of a miracle.
Any effect perceptible to the senses produced by God that surpasses the powers of nature.

[nanetteclaret]

***What's amazing to me is the number of people that say they believe solely in scripture, but when you ask them about that "you must eat my body and drink my blood or you have no part in me" thing they say "oh, He didn't really mean that."***

Or the part about "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Jesus didn't really mean that, either.

Or the part about "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." He was just joking about this part, too.

And Paul didn't really mean it when he said: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

Or that James says in the second chapter of his letter that faith without works is dead - three times!?
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

For people who believe that the Lord literally created the earth in six 24-hour days, they certainly don't believe that He literally meant what He said in other parts of Scripture. Either the Scriptures are divinely inspired and they mean what they say, or they don't. Can't have it both ways... It makes no logical sense.

[pjr12345]

Check out this post for edification:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1749884/posts

[trisham]

For people who believe that the Lord literally created the earth in six 24-hour days, they certainly don't believe that He literally meant what He said in other parts of Scripture. Either the Scriptures are divinely inspired and they mean what they say, or they don't. Can't have it both ways... It makes no logical sense.

*************

You're right, which is why we have so many converts to the Church. My mother was one.

[Frank Sheed]

This is a great thread and I read much of it. Ping Coleus in the future. He has a large ping list. You should have gotten far more traffic on that thread than you did.

F