I remember the fuss from some Catholic circles about the otherwise-quite-Catholic TV miniseries JESUS OF NAZARETH (directed by Franco Zefferelli) for showing the BVM as having labor pains. It also got flack from Bob Jones fundies for a rumor that the Resurrection appearance was tacked on & was originally intended to end with only an empty tomb but no appearance by the Risen Jesus.
After it aired, most Christian commentors, Catholic & Protty, hailed it as the best Jesus film up to that time (which it pretty much was).
On one board I was on, a Catholic lady said she assumed when she was young that Mary squeezed Jesus out like toothpaste & then she molded Him into baby shape. :eek:
BTW, aspiring catholic orthodox Protty here who devoutly believes in the Virgin Birth, almost totally denies the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity, and leans towards the Assumption and the apparitions of Lourdes, Fatima & perhaps Medjugorje. I also believe in Mary’s intercessory prayer ministry and some slight hyperdulia of her. Totally against the Mediatrix doctrine however.
I’m blowed if I see why this is necessary or logical. Assuming that Jesus needs to be protected from the original sin of his mother, why not give him the anti-sin shield that was given to Mary? It’s a big assumption in the first place, mind you. Jesus, the one unique instance of God incarnate, isn’t tainted by being conceived in a vessel that isn’t sinless; his own pure holiness cancels it out.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we try to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…
Just my opinion on the subject, and I’ve been known to leave top-most Catholic theologians sputtering when I explained it to them. Practicing Catholic here, btw.
I can perfectly well understand referring to someone who is not your biological brother as being your brother. We do that hereabouts the whole time. Aragonese call each other maño, mexicans mano, both derived from hermano (brother). I know many people who introduce each other as cousins or even siblings and, if someone remarks how different they look, proceed to explain that they aren’t biologically related at all: their parents were good friends, they grew up together, they view each other as family.
Since there is a quite good description of the biological relationship between Jesus and the Baptist, I assume that the view held by official Catholic Church doctrine that those “brothers” were of the “real close friends” kind - if there had been biological brothers, there would have been more of a description than we have.
I find it completely unnecesary to indicate that Mary was a virgin during (eeew!) and after Jesus’ birth. But same as a mistranslation (of the latin word “homo” to “man” instead of to “human being” or “person”) led to dick-o-centric theologians arguing whether females had souls, some dick-o-centric theologians insist in reducing the worth of any woman, and therefore of Mary, to one square inch of skin. As if it wasn’t complicated enough to believe that God chose to incarnate Himself into a woman without the aid of a male of the species, you are supposed to believe that God the Father was holding up the intact itty bit of skin with a Finger that had been created for just such a task while His Son came out? There aren’t enough rolleyes…
[prayer]Please God, send us a few more of the theologians who think with their upper head and their heart. Thankee, Nava.[/prayer]
Same, I don’t see that castrating poor Joseph does anything to detract from the wonder of Jesus, whether you believe that the Son of Man was conceived without a man’s assistance or not. Joseph is one of the nicest people in the whole Bible - heck, one of the nciest guys in history. So, you’re nice to your bride when she gets prego without your intervention and the prize is you don’t get to consummate your marriage, ever? Hand me some more rolleyes.
After all, the Catholic Church says a couple isn’t married until they have consummated - so they’re making Mary a single mom? This has to be on a par with not being able to head the Church of England if you or your spouse have been divorced Or that bit where Spanish censors decided to get rid of the infidelity in Mogambo - and by turning the married couple into brother and sister, produced an incest instead. So much more moral!
Just my opinion and all that, but none of those theologians has been able to give me a decent reply yet. And they’re all people I respect very much, eh, this just happens to be a point where I think they’re being silly.
As I understand it, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was necessary not to give Jesus an ‘anti-sin shield’, but to make it possible for her to give total assent to the Incarnation.
in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
-Catechism 490, The Immaculate Conception
Well, we’re all protected from sin through God’s grace, not our own effort. We don’t have the strength to resist sin except through His grace. To say that she was protected from sin by grace would suggest that she didn’t have free will to sin, which she did. She made the effort to turn to Him and follow His will instead of sin and that’s why she’s such a perfect model for human behavior.
Jesus was true God and true man, and as such could have sinned (He was tempted in every way we are yet never sinned). But you could say that His will was so in tune with God’s (since He was God (and yet man)) that He was sinless. I saw an EWTN show once where the priest said Jesus couldn’t have sinned and that seemed to contradict that He was also human with a free will.
You know, that’s really interesting about people thinking that Mary didn’t ‘really’ give birth. I’ve never heard of such a thing before. My church put out a little video several years ago about the Nativity, and it shows a clip of Mary in labor, with a couple of women helping her out. I never knew that it could be something people objected to.
I am so bewildered by this I don’t know where to begin.
What, exactly, do “Protestants” have “wrong”? The fact they they don’t focus on Mary’s perpetual hymen? Or the fact that Mary plays a lesser role in their interpretation of <b>Christ</b>ianity compared to Jesus and God?
And exactly how is Mary “the best feature of Christianity”? Because she is a woman?
By de-emphasizing Mary, they remove the feminine side of the religion and make it that much more male-centric.
Speaking personally for my own self, yes. I need the feminine in my spirituality.
There’s an important difference between Mary’s virgin birth according to Christian doctrine, and the virgin births of other mythologies. In the case of a virgin goddess like Artemis, for example, it doesn’t mean she never has sex. It has nothing to do with the hymen. It means she is not married and therefore not under the control of a male. She is a free, autonomous woman. That’s something Christianity did its best to stamp out. (Come to think of it, the real point of Elizabeth I styling herself the “Virgin Queen” was in the sense of female independence; Dudley may have had her hymen, but that wasn’t the point at all.) By putting the focus on Mary’s hymen, it reinforces the subservience of women to a male power structure. Mary in the Bible, note, did tell her son what to do in the wedding at Cana. Although he sassed her back, he did obey her just the same. Mary’s role in the Bible is kind of sketchy, but clearly she has some woman-power. She just isn’t shown using it much.
For me the best feature of Christianity is how it describes God reaching down to Man - as Man’s flawed nature meant that the best-meaning attempt to reach up to God was doomed to failure - humbling Himself by taking on human flesh and opening the way for humanity to follow Jesus. But for you it doesn’t tick unless you can put a woman at centre stage ordering the Son of God about. :dubious:
Favourite schoolboy quote about Elizabeth R: “Queen Elizabeth was known as the Virgin Queen. As a queen she was a great success.”
All religion is a false, and largely harmful idea. However, there are some people who find comfort in it. Bully for them, that’s great. I just wish it was not pushed on everyone as an all-purpose solution soap. Anyway, getting back on topic, I see no practical differences between the many body of laypeople christians, and largely peaceful pagans.
They both do some kinda’ blood sacrifice, they both pray to multiply gods, (saints, angels), and they both believe in the golden rule.
Now, indeed christianity does have a feminine element, and while I think it is all a bunch of new-age blather, I believe it would be better for people if they reintegrated this whole feminine principle back into religion. Not just healthier because it involves reducing the difference between christianity, and religions they are in conflict with, but it would also get rid of this unhealthy Madonna/Whore Complex I see belonging to many people in reality.
Scott, if you don’t play the game, and think the game is childish and silly to boot, I shouldn’t aspire to make the rules, if I were you. It’s getting r-e-e-e-e-al old. Just sayin’.
Yes, we get it, you don’t like religion. Maybe your second paragraph was vaguely on topic but the first one is just rehashing misinformation. Christians don’t pray to saints and angels, and have only one God. Just IMHO, there’s no reason to keep repeating how evil you believe religion is, you’ve made your point.
::Steve Martin: “Well, excuuuuuuuse me!”:: What follows is:
Now, if I sounded like that, I am afraid people would misunderstand me, and try to debate the idea that Christianity has some bad point with me, not realizing that I already feel that way. Now, considering the number of people who post answers, not seeing to realize they are repeating earlier answers, that seem to be a valid fear.
Trying to figure out how to say this. Here’s a shot: I know it’s through God’s grace that I sometimes resist sinning, and that in spite of that grace I quite often prefer my own will, and so fall into sin. I know that on a few wonderful occasions I have been so completely in love with God, and so obedient to Him, that I am fully able to resist temptation for a considerable period of time- say a day or two. It didn’t take away my free will, but it made me understand how much better remaining in grace was than returning to my destructive self-will. In my fumbing-into-Catholic way, that is how I understand Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
Actually, not really. All she said was, “There is no wine.” The “so do something about it” was implied, but Jesus was a good son (or a son, when he was slow on the uptake previous times, had listened to her weep to Heaven at being a poor widow burdened with a Son who didn’t care if she lived or died). I always love the wedding feast story because in it Jesus comes off at his most human and easiest to relate too, even while He’s performing a miracle.
Hell, yeah, he did! He may be God but that doesn’t make Mom any less scary! I mean, worthy of His respect and obedience. I always add a whiny, “Aw, gee, Ma, do I HAFTA?” to his response. The evangelist was charitable when he left it out but I just KNOW He said it.
I suggest you consider **Malacandra’s **excellent advice to Mr Plaid.
I don’t suppose you’d care too much for someone who came along and told you that the real problem with your religion was that it focused on women too much.
Absolutely! I don’t disagree at all, I just didn’t want it to come across that Mary was “programmed” to not sin, that any choice she had was erased by God creating her without original sin. She and Jesus wouldn’t be very good examples of choosing to follow God’s will if they had had no choice to begin with!
On the personal tip, there’s an OT story about Elijah (I think), where the Lord tells him to wait in his cave and the Lord will be by. He hears a progression of loud, stormy, windy noises but ignores them. When the wind dies down he hears a small whispering noise; he recognizes it and goes out to the entrance of the cave. That’s sometimes how I feel about God’s voice now; we are distracted and deafened by wordly concerns, etc., but if we be silent and really listen we will hear that quiet true voice. That’s what I ws reminded of by your beautiful words above; only sometimes for a day or two do I have the strength and clarity to listen and feel that great love.
A thought to add into the mix here; we are looking at our forebears and the description of virgin birth , whether fact or folktale, through a powerful 20th century filter. The birth experience is very different now in modern society than it has historically been. It was a much more dangerous experience, though there are enough of us here now that it was certainly successful.
Too, the modern understanding of conception, via sperm and ovum, is something not so well understood at a concrete cellular level until rather recently. The basic union of male and female was understood, but not the more intricate mechanics.
I’ve always tended, like Johanna, to feel that the Christian church (not Christ) worked mightily hard to subjugate females. I’m Buddhist, and though tales of Gautama Buddha’s birth also are a Virgin birth story (and his mother died shortly after, to preserve her purity; looks like Mary got a pretty good deal in comparison), Buddhism has corollary feminine deitys in Tara and Kwan Yin, who fill the Virgin Mary role as compassionate protectors. Not to say that Buddhism isn’t male dominated as well as Christianity.
In light of our filter of modern cultural birth/conception understanding, this thought occurs; perhaps Virgin birth was not a slight to women, but a way of elevating what appeared to be a painful, gruesome process. I’m approaching this from the descriptive, interpretive end, and not the factual, miraculous reality position.
This is a brand new thought to me, so perhaps a more clear and educated mind could comment on it. Might be productive, and certainly don’t mind if that thought, if misguided, is summarily dispensed and dismantled, either.
Or that bit where Spanish censors decided to get rid of the infidelity in Mogambo - and by turning the married couple into brother and sister, produced an incest instead. So much more moral!