I totally agree with you. I have been disturbed about the scene in the trailer of Our Lady in labor with St Joseph running around frantically, looking for shelter. This seemingly Protestant portrayal of Our Lady undermines both Her Perpetual Virginity AND Her Immaculate Conception. Thanks for posting that link! I’m not sure why more Catholics aren’t seeing this serious flaw in the movie!
I`m wary of the site, it lists Mary as Co-redemptrix and the church has not yet named her such.
In fact there is a big debate, going in the other direction.
Don’t get me wrong, I love and honour Our Lady, but Jesus redeemed us, Her FIAT was not a redeeming act.
Hail Mary!
RobinNovember 27, 2006 - 9:08 am
Please do not dismiss the article on the above-mentioned website because you think the author is disqualified because he has personally identified Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix. Though the Church has not proclaimed Her as such, it is not heretical for an individual to do so personally or to try to promote the understanding of this title. That issue aside, I do not think that it disqualifies the information in the article regarding Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity. The issue at hand in this discussion is just that – Her Perpetual Virginity – not her status as Co-Redemptrix. I recommend that others read up on the subject of Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception. The debate on Amy Welborn’s site is also becoming interesting: http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/11/nativity_story_.html
I know that my generation was poorly (if at all!) catechised on this subject. It is up to us to understand our faith and help to form other Catholics on these important issues. Movies such as this just confirm people in their error vs. enlightening them with the truth.
It is plausible that she was in pain, It is pain, that tells a woman she is going to give birth, it is the change in the kind of pain that cues us to birth our children. If Mary suffered pain, how does that even remotely suggest that she lost her virginity physical or otherwise?
I am reminded of the legend of Abigail. She doubted that Mary was still a Virgin after giving birth and went to check for physical proof, her hand shrivelled up.
Whether that legend is true or not, the warning is clear, don’t ‘look’ for proof.
She was a virgin, stayed a virgin, and whether she suffered pain at the birth of our Lord doesn’t change that.
I am going to check the Vatican website, and see what the final decision was back in the middle ages when this was first discussed
AndyNovember 27, 2006 - 12:09 pm
“Though the Church has not proclaimed Her as such, it is not heretical for an individual to do so personally or to try to promote the understanding of this title.”
Come again? It’s ok to proclaim Mary as redeemer of any sort? Mary’s fiat is important, but not divine. Let’s not forget that her Immaculate Conception was the result of JESUS’ grace, not her own.
Well, although I still believe that, if she suffered pain, I would still believe her to be “ever-virgin” apparently the Council of Trent made the following statement:
But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.
Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. ……………. To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.
CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
PART 1: THE CREED
Article III
As an ex-catholic who was never encouraged to read the bible, I encourage all of the catholics to pick up a real bible and read for yourself. You will see that you must join the israel of god if you want to enter through the 12 gates into eternal life with Yeshua (jesus).(See verse below)
Please note all that all the words that follow are God’s word, NOT MAN’S INTERPRETATION!!!
Praise the Lord!
John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days
Matthew 13:55-56 “Is not this the carpenter�s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”
Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.”
Rev.21
[12] And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
[14] And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
RicoDecember 4, 2006 - 10:34 pm
“. . . just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.” St. Pius V – Roman Catechism
Theological opinions and scriptural interpretations notwithstanding, the Church has spoken clearly on this one.
But who can resist giving opinions, so here’s one of mine: Her sufferings were more than any of us can fathom – but they were inflicted by sinners, never by our Lord. If the Church has ever taught otherwise, I stand corrected.
Beatae Mariae semper virginis, pray for us.
MJDecember 8, 2006 - 9:47 pm
Dear Jeffery Ashley
Neither is sola scriptura in the Bible..its a MAN’s TRADITION(mainly Martin Luther’s). Quoting Scripture without any cultural and historical understanding will cause grave misinterpretation.
The passages which you quoted above is an example of the danger of viewing it through the lens of our modern language and culture. in ancient Israel and Hebrew society, the term “brothers” and “sisters” were used to refer to fellow tribe memebers, since in those times, a person’s life and livelihood depended more upon the fate of the tribe. The triblesmen considered themselves to be the descendents of the tribe’s founder.Tribesmen can also refer to close cousins and relatives. In Luke 18:38-43,was Jesus literally the Son of David, or David literally His father?? Was David Jesus’ father’s name, or was it Joseph? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call Jesus Son of Joseph or Son of God, rather than Son of David. But of course, we know that Jesus and David are in the same genealogy(Matt 1:1-16).In Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers.IS it referring to biological brothers or the other apostles?After all, its the word “brothers” used here, NOT fellow disciples. In Acts 1:13-16,its amazing to learn that the brothers of Jesus can amount up to approximately 120 people, and even Peter addressing Jesus’ brothers as his own??In this context, the brothers are clearly seen to be fellow believers/tribesmen, with no blood relations. Thus,the same logic applies in those cases. In the OT, written in a Hebrew context, the use of “brother” is very common in non-blood related relationships.
There is no evidence to show that Mary did have other children, however many that she did not have, such as at the foot of the cross, Jesus placed his mother in the care of his beloved disciple,John…if Jesus did have siblings, it is only appropriate for Him to place Mary in their care.If there were already many people following Jesus on His way to crucifixion,it would be very strange to hear not any single one of his siblings were following too.
“Let nothing disturb you, nothing frighten you, all things are passing, God is unchanging.
Patience gains all; nothing is lacking to those who have God: God alone is sufficient.”
-St. Teresa of Avila
10 comments
Is it really reasonable that Mary had labor pains as Fr.Z think ???
Please read this first
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/perpetual_virginity.html
Kimmy,
I totally agree with you. I have been disturbed about the scene in the trailer of Our Lady in labor with St Joseph running around frantically, looking for shelter. This seemingly Protestant portrayal of Our Lady undermines both Her Perpetual Virginity AND Her Immaculate Conception. Thanks for posting that link! I’m not sure why more Catholics aren’t seeing this serious flaw in the movie!
I`m wary of the site, it lists Mary as Co-redemptrix and the church has not yet named her such.
In fact there is a big debate, going in the other direction.
Don’t get me wrong, I love and honour Our Lady, but Jesus redeemed us, Her FIAT was not a redeeming act.
Hail Mary!
Please do not dismiss the article on the above-mentioned website because you think the author is disqualified because he has personally identified Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix. Though the Church has not proclaimed Her as such, it is not heretical for an individual to do so personally or to try to promote the understanding of this title. That issue aside, I do not think that it disqualifies the information in the article regarding Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity. The issue at hand in this discussion is just that – Her Perpetual Virginity – not her status as Co-Redemptrix. I recommend that others read up on the subject of Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception. The debate on Amy Welborn’s site is also becoming interesting: http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/11/nativity_story_.html
I know that my generation was poorly (if at all!) catechised on this subject. It is up to us to understand our faith and help to form other Catholics on these important issues. Movies such as this just confirm people in their error vs. enlightening them with the truth.
It is plausible that she was in pain, It is pain, that tells a woman she is going to give birth, it is the change in the kind of pain that cues us to birth our children. If Mary suffered pain, how does that even remotely suggest that she lost her virginity physical or otherwise?
I am reminded of the legend of Abigail. She doubted that Mary was still a Virgin after giving birth and went to check for physical proof, her hand shrivelled up.
Whether that legend is true or not, the warning is clear, don’t ‘look’ for proof.
She was a virgin, stayed a virgin, and whether she suffered pain at the birth of our Lord doesn’t change that.
I am going to check the Vatican website, and see what the final decision was back in the middle ages when this was first discussed
“Though the Church has not proclaimed Her as such, it is not heretical for an individual to do so personally or to try to promote the understanding of this title.”
Come again? It’s ok to proclaim Mary as redeemer of any sort? Mary’s fiat is important, but not divine. Let’s not forget that her Immaculate Conception was the result of JESUS’ grace, not her own.
Well, although I still believe that, if she suffered pain, I would still believe her to be “ever-virgin” apparently the Council of Trent made the following statement:
But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.
Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. ……………. To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.
CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
PART 1: THE CREED
Article III
See catholic forum website:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11878&goto=nextoldest
Dear Catholics,
As an ex-catholic who was never encouraged to read the bible, I encourage all of the catholics to pick up a real bible and read for yourself. You will see that you must join the israel of god if you want to enter through the 12 gates into eternal life with Yeshua (jesus).(See verse below)
Please note all that all the words that follow are God’s word, NOT MAN’S INTERPRETATION!!!
Praise the Lord!
John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days
Matthew 13:55-56 “Is not this the carpenter�s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”
Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.”
Rev.21
[12] And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
[14] And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
“. . . just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.” St. Pius V – Roman Catechism
Theological opinions and scriptural interpretations notwithstanding, the Church has spoken clearly on this one.
But who can resist giving opinions, so here’s one of mine: Her sufferings were more than any of us can fathom – but they were inflicted by sinners, never by our Lord. If the Church has ever taught otherwise, I stand corrected.
Beatae Mariae semper virginis, pray for us.
Dear Jeffery Ashley
Neither is sola scriptura in the Bible..its a MAN’s TRADITION(mainly Martin Luther’s). Quoting Scripture without any cultural and historical understanding will cause grave misinterpretation.
The passages which you quoted above is an example of the danger of viewing it through the lens of our modern language and culture. in ancient Israel and Hebrew society, the term “brothers” and “sisters” were used to refer to fellow tribe memebers, since in those times, a person’s life and livelihood depended more upon the fate of the tribe. The triblesmen considered themselves to be the descendents of the tribe’s founder.Tribesmen can also refer to close cousins and relatives. In Luke 18:38-43,was Jesus literally the Son of David, or David literally His father?? Was David Jesus’ father’s name, or was it Joseph? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call Jesus Son of Joseph or Son of God, rather than Son of David. But of course, we know that Jesus and David are in the same genealogy(Matt 1:1-16).In Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brothers.IS it referring to biological brothers or the other apostles?After all, its the word “brothers” used here, NOT fellow disciples. In Acts 1:13-16,its amazing to learn that the brothers of Jesus can amount up to approximately 120 people, and even Peter addressing Jesus’ brothers as his own??In this context, the brothers are clearly seen to be fellow believers/tribesmen, with no blood relations. Thus,the same logic applies in those cases. In the OT, written in a Hebrew context, the use of “brother” is very common in non-blood related relationships.
There is no evidence to show that Mary did have other children, however many that she did not have, such as at the foot of the cross, Jesus placed his mother in the care of his beloved disciple,John…if Jesus did have siblings, it is only appropriate for Him to place Mary in their care.If there were already many people following Jesus on His way to crucifixion,it would be very strange to hear not any single one of his siblings were following too.
For further reading, you can refer to the following web address:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
May God lead you in the journey of faith.
“Let nothing disturb you, nothing frighten you, all things are passing, God is unchanging.
Patience gains all; nothing is lacking to those who have God: God alone is sufficient.”
-St. Teresa of Avila
Comments are closed.