It aggravates me to no end to hear Catholics contending–still–that she did!

I just had to post this:

” Is it not common law to all women to bring forht in pain? while Mary, as the Angleic Doctor
and with him all the Holy Fathers and Doctors declare, experienced on the contrary an ineffable
joy and unspeakable delight in the birth of her Divine Son.”

” The Burning Bush, which Moses saw on Mount Horeb, wrapt in flames, yet contrary to the laws of
nature not consumed, evidently designs the eminent prerogative of Mary, who became the mother of Jesus,
without the least diminution of her virginal purity…”

“St Bernard, in regard to the same symbol, says: ‘And what can the burning yet unconsumed bush of
Moses mean except Mary, who brought forth without experiencing the pains of travail?’ ”

The above quotes are from: THE LIFE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, By Msgr. Romuald Gentilucci

St. Peter Chrysologus: ” Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conceiving and the Virgin’s
giving birth are just like those of other women? Theirs is of the earth, hers is of heaven,
Hers is by divine power, theirs by human weakness..”

They can be found at http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/8476

Ave Maria!

“It seemed to be saying the more blood is shed the more we are purified. I mean, honestly, such a thing is not possible. Nobody is purifying anybody else. The Church, not knowing how to handle the death of Jesus, this idea had to be presented. It is the ultra-fabrication. This is a corrective to 2,000 years of Christianity. I don’t know what the title will be but the tagline should be something like ‘Getting Jesus Back!???

The “real” Jesus sounds like a real hoot.

This thread is not about The Poem of the Man-God. Take your beef elsewhere.

If you don’t accept the Church’s judgment, I am sorry. It is good enough for AirMaria.

The last post (December 15th, 2006 at 2:21 am) will have to come down. It is too long a piece not to be on the subject.

I mixed it up with Steven D. Greydanus (SDG) et al. on Jimmy Akin’s site. Interesting as far as the movie goes.

There is long, ongoing but tapering discussion on Mark Shea’s blog: Saturday, December 2, 10:37 AM, I’m skeptical that the whole “Mary Suffered No Birth Pangs” thing is an essential element of Catholic faith. A bit of nastiness on the part of my some of my critics.

Also, there is a very long thread of comments (over 1400) on Free Republic’s blog. I have not participated. It seems they are off on a exegetical tangent at this point.

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International has written a piece on the movie and the Virgin Birth. He links to the video.

Finally, I saw an interesting interview of Mel Gibson that seems to confirm my interpretation of Gibson’s artistic rendering of the gospel (see excerpt below). I discussed this in the review, and at some length with Steven Greydanus. He and I essentially agree concerning what Gibson is trying to accomplish. We disagree as to whether Gibson’s approach is really the only adequate way to do it. As I stated to SDG:

And I am grateful for your appreciation. However, at least Gibson’s Mary is consistent with the tradition. Perhaps this is so precisely because, as you say very well, The Passion’s “depiction of the Virgin Mary” is “iconic” and “mystical,” while the film’s character is “visionary” and “poetic.” Conversely, perhaps The Nativity Story fails relative to Mary precisely because it attempts “ordinary narrative psychological character development” of the Immaculate Conception.

Gibson squarely faces the formidable obstacle facing anyone who tries to portray Christ and His Holy Mother in drama. This is only my interpretation of the following interview, but I hope Gibson is the one to do The Life of Christ, precisely because of the attitude he manifests here. Remember, behind it is a Catholic perspective.

HANNITY: I can tell you what people I know that I’ve spoke to want you to do.

GIBSON: What? “The Life of Christ,” right?

HANNITY: How many times do you hear that? GIBSON: A lot. That would be a huge project, and it would be — I’d have to find an access to that. I’d have to think about that. It would have to be absolutely no cheesiness to it. You’d have to absolutely understand it.

HANNITY: Explain that. Go on…

GIBSON: Well, you’re trying to explain things of another realm in this realm and things beyond comprehension. And you would have to find a way to present that, that would enter people, and that they could make some sense of that would hit them emotionally and logically. Very difficult. I mean, it’s the inexplicable sometimes, you know? It’s a very tough, big task.

 

 

Has Mel Gibson seen The Nativity Story, or is he at least aware of the controversy? Perhaps this has goaded him to consider more seriously doing “The Life of Christ.”

Sorry for not moderating the last two comments by Evan and Thom in a more timely manner. Something went wrong with my email alert system. I did not know they were there untill just now. I have changed the commenting settings so that all that is requireed is giving the name and email and it will post automatically. Keep me informed if there are any bad comments.

Ave Maria! Fra Roderic

Thank you for your kind words. Have only seen the trailer for the film, so I can’t really comment.

Yes it is a condemned work and here are a couple of links that discuss it.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/poem_of_the_man.htm
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3365
http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false10.htm

Also

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in answer to questions, again reminded the world that the “Poem” has always been condemned. He went on to say in 1985:

“After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in L’Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that ‘The Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution.”

In 1993 Cardinal Ratzinger said the books cannot be considered supernatural in origin. He said that the best that could be said of them is that they were a badly fictionalized life of Jesus.

Caritas of Birmingham, the American promoters of “The Poem” wrote a pleading letter to Cardinal Ratzinger on July 21, 1992 [more on that later]. Cardinal Ratzinger felt that the bishop of Birmingham, Alabama should answer the letter, and in 1993 Bishop Raymond J. Boland restated that they cannot be considered supernatural in origin.”

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/PoemManGod.html

Thom

Your point on the subject of obedience is very well taken but we’re not children anymore.

The truth is that Father Mitch Pacwa’s article, which simply espouses his own opinion about a book, can never be equated to a restriction of the Catholic Church, even though he is a priest of very good standing.

On the Nativity Story meanwhile, I think the depiction of Mary revealing the secret of the Anunciation to her parents and others is absolutely wrong! The annunciation was God’s secret revealed by the angel only to Mary, to Joseph and to Elizabeth on differrent occasions. Even the high priest Zechariah the husband of Elizabeth knew not!

And if the people of Nazareth knew that secret about Mary as depicted in the film, it’s most likely Herod will know it as well! Do you think Mary would put the Child in grave danger and test God’s providence and protection by PROUDLY telling others (and committing the sin of pride) herself?

I hope following 7 parts the Poem of the Man-God will be made into films as well so we can critique and discuss.
1.) The Hidden Life,
2.) The first year of the Public Life
3.) The second year of the Public Life
4.) The third year of the Public Life
5.) Preparation to the Passion
6.) The Passion
7.) The Glorification
Because, I think the book itself is an excellent read, personally.