Skip to comments.
Setting the Record Straight on Mary
Catholic Exchange ^
| December 17, 2006
| Fr. Thomas Euteneuer
Posted on 12/19/2006 7:08:21 AM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: bvm; catholic; christmas; marian; thenativity; thenativitystory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,141-1,149 next last
To: adiaireton8
Who is your bishop?Fascinating question. I must remember this for the future, FRiend!
241
posted on
12/20/2006 7:01:58 PM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)
To: Frank Sheed
Notice, it went unanswered. He/she does not even know who her bishop is, let alone being in full communion with him.
-A8
242
posted on
12/20/2006 7:03:51 PM PST
by
adiaireton8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
To: adiaireton8
Check #239. I love the final chapters of Sheed but this point is one of which I am truly fond.
Frank
243
posted on
12/20/2006 7:08:27 PM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)
To: Frank Sheed; adiaireton8; trisham; nanetteclaret
Notice most particularly how in all this Our Lord, about to leave the earth, is conferring upon Peter His own special titles. Christ is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and He makes Peter the foundation. Christ is the key-bearer--"He bears the key of David so that none may shut when He opens, none open when He shuts" (Rev 3:7)--and He makes Peter the key-bearer. A truly profound observation. One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peters primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christs earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.
The Primacy of Peter
244
posted on
12/20/2006 7:45:52 PM PST
by
NYer
(Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
To: NYer
Simon Peters primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christs earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament.The Apostle Paul is mentioned more than that.....but if you are limiting it to the original eleven....and Matthias... that's something else.
To: Diego1618
The Apostle Paul is mentioned more than that. Source?
246
posted on
12/20/2006 8:06:59 PM PST
by
NYer
(Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
To: adiaireton8; Frank Sheed
The time has come for me to end this exchange.
When the search for truth becomes less important than scoring points, then the risk of continuation for the sake of self-aggrandizement becomes far too great.
I am grateful for the pointers and encouragement I've received (particularly from Frank Sheed). I offer my encouragement and support for the causes and concerns that we share!
To: nanetteclaret
Read all of John Chapter 6.
Jesus preformed a miracle where thousands were fed bread. He then went away from the crowd. The crowd followed him, but not because they sought Christ as teacher or Savior, not because they knew he was the Christ, but because they wanted to get their stomachs full of bread.
Read the rebuke of Christ to them
John 6:25-26 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
It was then He began to teach that they were looking for a miracle that would fill their stomachs ( as did the nation of Israel in the desert) and not for His presence or teaching. They only wanted their temporal needs met.
John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jesus laid out that salvation was by FAITH, and that Faith was a work of the Father Then then decided to put Christ to a test ...Give us PROOF. It was THEY that brought up the manna (bread) Not Christ.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Jesus clarified where salvation comes from;
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
He was pointing out that the "bread from heaven " that kept their fathers only gave them physical life.. HE on the other hand was sent from the Father to give them eternal spiritual life.
They did not "get it" they were looking for REAL bread to give them physical life as had happened in the desert, they were looking for tangible bread like manna, just as they were looking for an earthly savior not a divine salvation.
John 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Jesus then patiently explained to them that His flesh is life for the world.. His crucified body was what was going to bring eternal life, not a temporal one.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you,That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The entire message is on salvation by faith through believeing, not a message of salvation through physically eating. The listeners did not get it , they were hung up on another point.
John 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Notice the focus of the crowd was not on Him being the BREAD or eating Him but that He said he came down from heaven ( a claim of divinity )
John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Notice that physical eating is temporary. The Jews in the wilderness ate and they all died.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 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.
Now, if the diciples took actual bites out of Jesus, why aren't they still alive (physically)? Jesus here declares that the manna was a TYPE of Christ.. The manna gave physical life, His flesh is for the eternal life of men.
John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
53 Then 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.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This 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.
Notice the clear language, "NOT as your fathers did eat." How did their fathers eat? By putting the manna in their mouth and chewing. That is not how we "eat" the Bread from Heaven. We "eat" this bread by believing.
Keep in mind that He had already taught at some length that He that believed on Him would be saved. He has already taught that the man that is taught by the Father comes to him and are saved. So to interpret this as other than a metaphor of being saved by His soon to be broken body and his shed blood, is just terribly twisted.
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
If they were offended at that, he was saying wait until you hear the rest..
John 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
They did not like hearing that salvation had to be given them and much like the manna in the desert, it was totally a gift of the Father. They could not do anything on their own to earn it, they only had access to it by faith ( remember the Jews could only gather enough manna for the one days meals, and for 2 days on the day before the sabbath, they had to have faith in God to provide what was necessary for their life) . The idea that salvation was all of God and not found in law keeping was blasphemy to the law oriented Jews that felt their salvation was based on their will, their law keeping etc..
To make an attempt to make this a teaching on the Lords supper misses the mark. Christ was still alive and in His flesh and he was, by your reckoning , telling them to do something they could not do because the Lords Supper had not been instituted yet,it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental. This was clearly a metaphorical teaching to Jews looking for a Physical savior like Moses, and for physical bread to meet their physical hunger. Jesus always used symbols that the Jews understood to make spiritual points.
Sincerely
To: Frank Sheed
Christ did not leave His followers free at their discretion to form their own groups if it seemed good to them, or to remain isolated if it seemed good to them. He banded them into a flock, a society, a Church.***********
Excellent point.
249
posted on
12/21/2006 3:11:52 AM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: Diego1618
Thank You --- I didn't know all of this. More pieces of the puzzle fall into place, as the RCC balloon of perpetual virginity continues to deflate.
This from Matthew 1:25: "And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son, and he called his name Jesus."
And Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes ...".
These two authors are writing years after her second, third, fourth, and fifth born sons have grown up. If Jesus was her only child, the word "first-born" would not have been necessary in those passages.
Those authors and those inspired words couldn't be any more clear, except, of course, to those flying those balloons of Mariology with all those strings attached. I know they don't believe in Sola Scriptura, but I'm beginning to realize that they don't believe in Any Scriptura either.
250
posted on
12/21/2006 4:35:49 AM PST
by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: NYer; Diego1618
Try this for a source from an honest Catholic scholar, Richard P. McBrien in
Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St Peter to Benedict XVI:
"Although Catholic Tradition, beginning in the late second and third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop. . . He often shared his position of prominence with James and John . . . However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the Church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the "fact" is usually taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others." [Harper, S.F. 2005, pp 25,29]
All those wonderful things the magisterium says about Peter's primacy over the other twelve, that primacy must have been executed on behalf of the Jewish Church in Jerusalem where he must have left those famous keys.
251
posted on
12/21/2006 5:34:42 AM PST
by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: ScubieNuc
You've taken an awful lot of bandwidth to explain something that is very simple. When a person believes, as I do, that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus in Holy Communion, His words in the 6th chapter of John make perfect sense and there is no need to explain anything. The words stand alone and speak for themselves as written.
252
posted on
12/21/2006 5:44:06 AM PST
by
nanetteclaret
(Our Lady's Hat Society)
To: NYer
Source?Young's analytical Concordance to the Bible.
To: adiaireton8; Frank Sheed; pjr12345
He/she does not even know who her bishop is, let alone being in full communion with him. He/she surely does know and so does anyone who understands Holy Scripture:
"For you were as sheep going astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." [1 Peter 2:25]
Is that your Bishop too or are you still sheep going astray????
254
posted on
12/21/2006 7:01:07 AM PST
by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: pjr12345
I extend my very best wishes for a Happy and Holy Christmas, FRiend. Let us celebrate the Nativity of Our Savious in Joy!
Francis
255
posted on
12/21/2006 7:19:36 AM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)
To: Uncle Chip; Frank Sheed; pjr12345
"For you were as sheep going astray, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." [1 Peter 2:25] Is that your Bishop too or are you still sheep going astray???? Those have Christ for their Bishop who are under the authority of the rightful bishop in their diocese. Otherwise there could be no such thing as "sheep without a shepherd". Nor would Protestants even attempt to imitate bishops with "pastors".
Chip, does your church have a pastor? If so, does that mean that Christ is not your pastor? (The word 'pastor' just means shepherd.)
-A8
256
posted on
12/21/2006 7:24:09 AM PST
by
adiaireton8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
To: Uncle Chip
Uncle Chip, I love comic books and pancakes! My grandson also has wax vampire teeth!
257
posted on
12/21/2006 7:25:21 AM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)
To: adiaireton8
#257 is more erudite an explanation, FRiend.
258
posted on
12/21/2006 7:26:59 AM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)
To: adiaireton8
Imagine checking a concordance for pancakes, comic books and vampire teeth. Gonna be a long wait...
259
posted on
12/21/2006 7:30:46 AM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)
To: Uncle Chip; Diego1618
Try this for a source from an honest Catholic scholar, Richard P. McBrien Honest scholar? Hardly. McBrien depicts Christ as if he did not always know who he was. McBrien is a well known catholic dissenter, bordering on a heretic. But you go right ahead and take his word.
there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop ..
On the contrary, there is much evidence that Peter was in Rome. To cite one example, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peters successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 5468), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.
260
posted on
12/21/2006 7:32:49 AM PST
by
NYer
(Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,141-1,149 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson