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.

[bornacatholic]

Amen, brother.

The Dies Irae has been the occasion of conversions...

I 'spose it would be too much to expect Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina to write a Missae Layman Bornacatholic but I really do deserve one..:)

[bornacatholic]

Some think it simply means "consecrated for the prophetic office"

Ecclus 49:9...For they treated him evil, who was consecrated a prophet from his mother's womb, to overthrow, and pluck up, and destroy, and to build again, and renew.

Similiar to what happened to John the Baptist in the womb...

However, let us say your erudition and exegesis are right, what is to prevent you from building a Shrine to him...

If I was a Carpenter...

[ScubieNuc]

You need to study context.

I find it ironic that you accept literal canabalism by the diciples instead of symbolism. Then you see symbolism in Peter being called a rock and not Jesus saying that Peter should lie down so that the other diciples can start building a church on top of him. You recognize symbolism too, but only when it fits with your Roman traditionalism.

How about this verse....

John 7:37, 38 ¶ In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Is that literal water flowing out of believers belly's or is that symbolic?

All your examples are easily understood when you understand the entire context surrounding the verses.

Sincerely

[Uncle Chip]

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.

And neither can you. Do you believe that the Lord literally created the earth in six 24-hour days as inspired Scripture clearly states?

Do you believe that Mary had children after Jesus as inspired Scripture clearly states, and that they are named in Matthew 13:55 as inspired Scripture clearly states?

And that man does not live by bread alone [even that blessed bread served in the churches], but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, as inspired Scripture clearly states?

Can't have it both ways... It makes no logical sense.

[stfassisi]

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

Dear Friend,Clearly you can see that the glory goes to God alone,re-read this statement on my post #88

Mary has told the seers: "I cannot heal; only God can. I need your prayers and sacrifices to help me."

[ichabod1]

While granting that Jesus is mentioned a lot more, Mary is mentioned 54 times, not "about 10."

[ichabod1]

And I think we all know what the kids were calling it in those days when Ruth "uncovered his feet."

[nanetteclaret]

Dear prj12345:

Thank you for your kind reply.

I was actually brought up Presbyterian and eventually converted to the Catholic Church precisely for the opposite reason. I absolutely believe the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and had done many, many Bible studies, but there were still many passages in Scripture which did not make any sense at all until I studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it all finally fell into place as a cohesive whole.

The reason I picked those Scripture verses is because I already know what Protestants, and particularly Presbyterians, think of them. They are never discussed, or if they are, they are explained away as meaning something different from the clear words as written. There are many other examples besides these.

I am very sorry that you did not have your questions answered satisfactorily. Perhaps you were not able to find a priest who was willing to find the time to help you. I have found Scott Hahn's books and programs to be very helpful. He is a former Presbyterian minister, now a Catholic professor, author, and speaker. He has had a continuing series of programs on EWTN which explain in detail the Biblical basis for Catholic doctines in general and Catholic Sacraments in particular. As a former Presbyterian minister, he had several degrees in Scripture and Theology, and uses that to very good advantage in explaining the Scriptural basis for Catholic doctrine. As a former Protestant he is able to explain for Protestants the Catholic faith. He "speaks their language."

Also very helpful is Marcus Grodi, also a former Presbyterian minister, who now has a live call-in show on EWTN called "The Journey Home," in which he has as his guests former Protestants and lapsed Catholics who explain why they came or returned to the Church. Callers can call in to ask the guests questions about their journey. You can find Scott Hahn's and Marcus Grodi's books at the EWTN Religious Catalogue website, as well as many other books about or by people who have converted or returned.

I guess what I am saying is that the answers are out there. I will be happy to help you find the resources to answer all your questions and help you make sense of it. You don't mention your age, but the tools today are very different from what was available 30-40 years ago. For one thing, there have been so many Protestants who have converted and who have written their conversion stories, as well as former Protestants who have written apologetics books, that there is a huge amount of information which would not have been available before the Internet age. I will pray that you will try again and that you will be successful this time.

nan c

[Always Right]

While granting that Jesus is mentioned a lot more, Mary is mentioned 54 times, not "about 10."

My concordance only shows about 20 "Mary" and only half of those are referring to the Virgin Mary.

[ichabod1]

I'd say that Abraham taking Isaac to the mountain and being willing to sacrifice him to the Lord was more significant than serving the strangers dinner. Besides, I thought the strangers were Angels, not the Lord Himself.

[ichabod1]

Holy Uncle Chip, pray for us.

[nanetteclaret]

Re: God creating earth in six 24-hour days. He's God - it's possible.

Re: Jesus' brothers. The original Aramaic had no word for "brothers" as we know it. The word was used for "kinsman." They were possibly cousins or step-sons (Joseph's children from a previous marriage.) The Bible does NOT clearly state that Mary had other children. In fact, if she had, why did Jesus, when he was hanging on the cross, tell John that he was now Mary's son and that Mary was his mother and that from that day forth he took her into her home? If Mary had had other children, she would have been living with them, not John.

Re: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus is the Word. He is God. He is also the Living Bread. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:51

[ichabod1]

Well, I don't know what to tell you about that. I'm using Blue Letter Bible .org. You're right about some of the verses referring to Mary & Martha and others Mary Magdelena.

[ichabod1]

I just noticed that in Acts 12:12 there is a reference to Peter going to the house of Mary, Mother of John after getting sprung from Herod's prison by an angel. But I suppose that's all symbolic too. ;0)

[nanetteclaret]

***I find it ironic that you accept literal canabalism by the diciples instead of symbolism.***

Jesus did mean it literally: From the 6th Chapter of John:

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Jesus did not call them back and tell them that He was only speaking symbolically or that they had misunderstood. He further emphasised that His flesh was real food. The Greek word used for "eat" means "munch" or "gnaw." Very graphic. He was very emphatic about it:

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

He also compares Himself to the manna which the Israelites ate in the wilderness:

48I am that bread of life.
49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

[pjr12345]

If, as you say, you believe the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, then what is the need for all these extra-biblical texts? Isn't it better to let the Word speak directly to you? If you have questions as to the meaning of a particular passage, a search through the rest of the Scripture easily clarifies any doctrine, and puts everything in context.

For example, the "Peter is the rock" verse. Looking at the original Greek helps to understand that there are two different words used in this sentence that are translated to mean rock, (a) the word used to refer to Peter is better translated as "stone" or "pebble", and (b) the other word connotes a much larger rock, or even boulder. Essentially, Jesus is calling Peter (or better yet, Peter's statement) a chip off the old block.

Now I realize that you've probably heard this before, and already reject it. So let's look at Peter's place in the early Church. If the Lord meant him to be the first pope, then surely his leadership position would be apparent in his writings and in Acts.

If you study the Scripture thusly, you will see that Peter is certainly an important evangelist in the early Church, but he was NOT the de facto leader. In fact, you will find no centralized structure with a leadership of men. Quite the opposite, the writer of Hebrews explains clearly the there is no further need for an earthly priesthood. We have one High Priest in Heaven, Jesus Christ.

Please read Acts 15, about The Council at Jerusalem. You will see that it was James, not Peter, who offered the final verdict which the elders accepted. Given that the cradle of the Church was Jerusalem, if Peter were "pope" wouldn't he have issued a ruling?

In Galatians 2, you'll read Paul describing how the Gospel to the uncircumcised was entrusted to him, just as to the circumcised was to Peter.

Also in Galations2, you'll read that Paul rebuked Peter over a matter of doctrine. If Peter were a "pope", how could he have erred in doctrinal issues? Also, who would dare to withstand him.

There's more... but I have to go.

[stfassisi]

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

If people were healed,they were healed by God-the healing's were NOT attributed to a particular ministry.
God grants miracles through our prayer and petitions.
Miracles are God,s.They are outside nature,s order and so are not to be accomplished by anyone who is himself a part of that natural order.
If an angel ever has a part in the performance of a miracle,that part is a purely instrumental one played as humbly as the part of a brush in the hand of an artist

Dear Brother,The truth is-that if we pray for miracles we should expect them.The biggest mistake we Christians sometime make is we set limits on God,s goodness.
There are far greater miracles then physical miracles ,here are some examples......
from http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_001.htm

In general a miracle is any effect perceptible by the senses, produced by God which surpasses the powers of nature. Immediately we must explain that there are three levels of natural laws that God can surpass and thus perform a miracle. There are the physical laws of visible nature. Thus the sudden healing of a fatal disease surpasses needless to say the powers of human physical nature. Indeed surpasses the powers of all physical nature. Walking on water is naturally impossible. The raising of a dead human being back to life exceeds all created power, and no one but God with His omnipotence can raise a dead person back to life. And just for the record, physical miracles are the lowest level of miraculous phenomena.

On a higher level than physical miracles is the performance of what the Church calls moral miracles. A moral miracle exceeds the powers of the human will in the practice of superhuman moral virtue. For which the Church has coined the term "heroic moral virtue". This in fact is one of the norms used by the Church in her assessment of authentic sanctity. The lives of saints like Francis of Assisi and Thomas More. The deaths of martyrs like St. Agnes and Maria Goretti. These are witnesses to the miraculous power that Christ has given to His most beloved followers over the centuries. In other words, every canonized saint is a moral miracle. And today's world needs (what a safe statement) men and women and even children who are practicing what the Church calls heroic virtue.

Finally, still on the different levels of miraculous phenomena there are intellectual miracles in which God enlightens the human mind beyond all natural capacity for acquiring knowledge. The most obvious witnesses to this highest level in the time of Christ were (Shall I say it?) the dense thick-headed Apostles. God had to enlighten them, and this is part of our faith - miraculously. However, over the centuries Christ has continued performing these miracles of the intellect. In a St. Augustine of Hippo, and in a St. Therese of Avila, or in a Catherine of Siena. These testify to the power of Christ, the Incarnate Truth, can produce among human beings who believe that He is indeed the Living God in human form.

[nanetteclaret]

Obvoiusly the Word did not speak directly to you or you wouldn't have had so many questions that you couldn't get answered by the priests you asked. That is why I recommended the books I did, because you said you didn't understand.

The problem with "letting the Word speak directly to you," is that you are capable of getting the wrong message. You, as a human being, can make a mistake. In fact, you are making a mistake right now by interpreting the Scriptures yourself. The Catholic Church cannot make a mistake, because Jesus said that He would give the Holy Spirit to the Church, to lead it into all Truth.

Besides, as a Protestant, which part are you going to be in agreement with? The Baptists, the Church of Christ, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Pentecostals, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, etc., etc.? For every Scripture verse you pick out, each one of those denominations will have a different opinion and each will claim that they have the "truth." They can't all be right!

Plus the fact that Jesus prayed, in His High Priestly Prayer, that "we all be one." He does not want us to be divided, but to be unified. The 30,000 different denominations (and growing) surely must break His heart.

[Uncle Chip]

Re: God creating earth in six 24-hour days. He's God - it's possible.

But you're not sure, even though Scripture clearly states it.

Re: Jesus' brothers. The original Aramaic had no word for "brothers" as we know it.

What original Aramaic? Check the inscription on the cross for the languages spoken around Jerusalem: Latin, Hebrew, and Greek and the original Greek used the word "adelphos" meaning "blood brothers".

They were possibly cousins or step-sons (Joseph's children from a previous marriage.)

If that is the case then they were not related to Jesus in any way --- not brothers, not cousins, not kinsmen, not relatives at all. And they would also have been older, so were they there in the stable in Bethlehem? Where were they when the magi stopped by? Did they travel with them to Egypt? Were they staying with the ex-wife for the weekend?

The Bible does NOT clearly state that Mary had other children.

If Jesus had brothers and sisters, as Scripture states, they had to be Mary's children, because she was the only parent whose DNA they shared.

In fact, if she had, why did Jesus, when he was hanging on the cross, tell John that he was now Mary's son and that Mary was his mother and that from that day forth he took her into her home? If Mary had had other children, she would have been living with them, not John.

Looking after the surviving parent was the responsibility of the oldest son, and Jesus is taking care of his responsibilities to the bitter end, and not passing them on in absentia to a younger sibling who may not have been prepared to accept that responsibility.

Re: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus is the Word. He is God. He is also the Living Bread. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:51

So you interpret this passage literally, but the passages regarding the brothers of Jesus as the children of Mary figuratively? How do you know when to interpret literally and when to interpret figuratively?

[OLD REGGIE]

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?

I am not aware of Paul ever writing to a "Church" at Rome.

Is it possible you mean the Church which grew out of the Church or Churches Paul wrote to at Corinth, Galatia, Philip'pia, Colos'sae, or the Church of the Thessalonians?