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.

[nanetteclaret]

Eve said "no" to God and Mary said "yes." That is why she is called the New Eve. By saying "no" to God, Eve caused sin to enter the world. By saying "yes" Mary opened the way for Jesus and salvation to come into the world.

[pjr12345]

He also referred to himself as the good shepherd, the light, and the door. One must understand the use of analogy and symbolism.

If one desires a Scriptural refutation of the odd Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, one needs go no further than Hebrews 10:11-14

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

I'll leave the rebuttal to the rest your mistaken, non-contextual assertions to others, or another time. Save it to say that God expects us to adapt our understanding to align with the truth of His revelation, not twist the Word to support our man-made philosophies.

[Frank Sheed]

Hi! The old denizens have disappeared for a while...

[Salvation]

Thanks so much. We all offer our little bit. Merry Christmas!

[HarleyD]

However, Mary didn't have to wait to be saved until after she was born.

Jeremiah was saved before he was born as well. I don't see grand cathedrals dedicated to him.

[Uncle Chip]

Eve said "no" to God and Mary said "yes."

Show me chapter and verse where Eve said "NO" to God. It is not in the Bible.

What Eve did do was to misinterpret the word of God, disobey it, and then persuade Adam to do likewise, and that is just what the promoters of this Mariolatry have done and are doing.

[nanetteclaret]

In your post 113 you wrote: "Learn the Truth for yourself! It's all there in God's Word."

You can't possibly mean that because you can't explain the following passages:

Matthew 16:17-19
John 20:21-23
John 6
I Corinthians 11:23-29
James 2:14-26

And you don't have a clue about the "odd Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation." I would suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what transubstantiation actually is, before you try to refute it with Scripture and "twist the Word to support our man-made philosophies," since the Catechism is written based on Scripture, explained by Scripture, and supported by Scripture.

[nanetteclaret]

What do you think disobeying is? The Lord God told her not to eat of the fruit and she said "No, I don't want to do what you say - I'm going to eat it anyway." She may not have actually said the word "no," but her actions did. She chose herself over God. Mary chose God over herself.

[nanetteclaret]

Time for Mother Angelica Live Classics! Gotta go... later ....

[P-Marlowe]

Again, concerning healing Mary has told the seers: ...

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (Deuteronomy 18:10-11 KJV)

[pjr12345]

Actually, I was raised Roman Catholic, attended 12 years of parochial school where I attended mass nearly everyday, and served as an altar boy. Additionally, I took it upon myself to fully understand quite a lot of Catholic doctrine.

It was when I started reading the Bible, accepting it as the fundamental moral authority (and that not blindly, mind you) that I discovered volumes of discrepancies between Biblical Christianity and Romanism. I spent much time with more than one trained priest attempting to find some way to reconcile the differences. It is an impossible task.

We all have to choose our ultimate authority. I chose God and His Scriptural revelation. Those who attempt to accept Church doctrine AND the Bible either have little understanding of one and/or the other, OR they are intentionally skirting the irreconcilable differences. (This goes for ANY Church, not just the Roman Catholic one).

As to your passages, I am willing to take some time in the coming days to address them if you wish. However, I would like to know, in advance, if you are willing to accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, above all other competing, would be, moral authorities. If you're willing to accept the Bible as the final authority, I'd be pleased to commit my time to addressing these verses. What d'ya say?!

[Suzy Quzy]

Thanks.

[stfassisi]

Explain how the scripture you list pertains to a miracle?

Are you saying that the healing of the little Boy is the work of evil?

[afraidfortherepublic]

we don't pray to them or venerate/reverence/worship them.

We don't worship the Saints. When we address them in prayer, we ask for their intercession (help) in presenting our requests to the Father, much as you might ask your mother, father, sister, or best friend to speak on your behalf to someone more powerful than you. Welearn from the lives of the Saints because all of them lived and suffered in this world they provide a tangible example for us.

[Buggman]

No. She was truly blessed above all women with the honor of giving birth to the Messiah Yeshua, Immanuel. However, the point is clear that sinlessness is not a requirement for physical interaction with God.

[Buggman]

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

If the glory for it goes to Mary instead of God alone, yes.

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isa. 42:8)

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deu. 13:1-3)

[P-Marlowe]

Would you say that the healings that are attributable to the ministries of Ernest Angely, Katheryn Kuhlman, and Oral Roberts were of God?

How about the healings that are attributed to Hindu mystics?

If someone said they saw Mary driving a Silver Thunderbird on PCH, would you believe them?

[NYer]

Time for Mother Angelica Live Classics! Gotta go... later ....

ROFL!!! God bless Mother Angelica!!

She is truly a living saint. The day she dies, there will be a massive roar encircling the world, proclaiming this defiant nun - a saint! Where would we be today without this feisty bride of Christ.

[monkfan]

"BTW, not everybody has them. I didn't, and I'm not particularly holy."

That's what all holy people say. Ha! You're outed! ;)

[Diva]

we don't pray to them or venerate/reverence/worship them.

We don't worship them either.