Mary of Nazareth Ignatius Press version

[ventriloquist]

Hello,

I had a question regarding the movie Mary of Nazareth from the Ignatius Press. The movie is coming to a theater near mine and its a bit expensive. So I wanted to make sure I am really going to see an accurately Catholic depiction of Mary and Jesus.

I am aware that the original cut of the movie (Italian version 200 minutes long) had issues with it. I was wondering if the following issues are still in this Ignatius press cut.

1. Do they show the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as intending to consummate their marriage before the angel appeared to B.V. Mary? Or is their talk of consummating their marriage even afterward between B.V. Mary and St. Joseph?
2. Is B.V.Mary shown or suggested as having doubts?

I have only read about and seen parts of the netflix version. So I also have the following questions about the movie in general.

1. Do they show St. Joseph as being alive when Jesus starts his ministry? Or do they show him pass away with B. V. Mary and Jesus at his side? Also, do they show St. Joseph as going crazy after hearing that the B.V. Mary is pregnant? I am asking because I hold the St. Thomas Aquinas’ view of St. Joseph as already knowing the pregnancy to be fully from the Holy Spirit.

I know the Ignatius Press version has received many endorsements and have read the ones listed on their website. But none of them mentioned if it was doctrinally accurate in its content in so far as the movie touched upon such subjects. So I just wanted to make sure.

EDIT:

1. There is a stoning scene in the netflix version at the beginning that I remember. Is that scene included?

 

[pianistclare]

Hello,

I had a question regarding the movie Mary of Nazareth from the Ignatius Press. The movie is coming to a theater near mine and its a bit expensive. So I wanted to make sure I am really going to see an accurately Catholic depiction of Mary and Jesus.

I am aware that the original cut of the movie (Italian version 200 minutes long) had issues with it. I was wondering if the following issues are still in this Ignatius press cut.

1. Do they show the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as intending to consummate their marriage before the angel appeared to B.V. Mary? Or is their talk of consummating their marriage even afterward between B.V. Mary and St. Joseph?
2. Is B.V.Mary shown or suggested as having doubts?

I have only read about and seen parts of the netflix version. So I also have the following questions about the movie in general.

1. Do they show St. Joseph as being alive when Jesus starts his ministry? Or do they show him pass away with B. V. Mary and Jesus at his side? Also, do they show St. Joseph as going crazy after hearing that the B.V. Mary is pregnant? I am asking because I hold the St. Thomas Aquinas’ view of St. Joseph as already knowing the pregnancy to be fully from the Holy Spirit.

I know the Ignatius Press version has received many endorsements and have read the ones listed on their website. But none of them mentioned if it was doctrinally accurate in its content in so far as the movie touched upon such subjects. So I just wanted to make sure.

EDIT:

1. There is a stoning scene in the netflix version at the beginning that I remember. Is that scene included?

I am very interested in seeing this movie. Have not yet. Had to giggle about the “spoiler” affect…
But for what it’s worth…make a note of those who are already “endorsing” it. I find that when people bother to put their name to something so commercial, they think hard and long about it. If the movie is orthodox, than you will see those folks putting their name and reputation out there.

 

[ventriloquist]

I am very interested in seeing this movie. Have not yet. Had to giggle about the “spoiler” affect…
But for what it’s worth…make a note of those who are already “endorsing” it. I find that when people bother to put their name to something so commercial, they think hard and long about it. If the movie is orthodox, than you will see those folks putting their name and reputation out there.

Sorry about the spoilers but I would think (and hope) almost everyone knows the story

I guess you are right. Its just that I have not heard any of the names in the list of endorsements. But some of them do seem to hold high rank in their respective communities. So it must be credible. Something for me to think about I guess. Thank you for your reply.

 

[pianistclare]

Sorry about the spoilers but I would think (and hope) almost everyone knows the story

I guess you are right. Its just that I have not heard any of the names in the list of endorsements. But some of them do seem to hold high rank in their respective communities. So it must be credible. Something for me to think about I guess. Thank you for your reply.

You can google their names. If they have blogs, read a few of their articles. That will tell you where their theology lies…
Peace!
pianist

 

[svid2]

Pax Christi!

Not to belittle your concerns, but perhaps to assuage them, I wonder if these are matters doctrinal/Scriptural, or traditional. A little artistic freedom is expected and allowed. Did our Lord really converse with Pilate in Latin? In The Passion of the Christ He did.

God bless.

 

[ventriloquist]

Pax Christi!

Not to belittle your concerns, but perhaps to assuage them, I wonder if these are matters doctrinal/Scriptural, or traditional. A little artistic freedom is expected and allowed. Did our Lord really converse with Pilate in Latin? In The Passion of the Christ He did.

God bless.

Well, it is Sacred Tradition but not merely traditional I would think.

Like in Scripture, B.V. Mary’s decision for perpetual virginity is considered to be implied when she inquired of the angel of can this be. But the netflix cut shows as if B.V. Mary and Joseph were indeed going to consummate. That makes me uncomfortable (granted they do maintain the perpetual virginity in the movie from the clips I saw for there weren’t other children). But overall it feels like the movie undermined some of the scriptural evidence that exists for the perpetual virginity.

Then the wedding scene which I saw parts of indicates that the people seemed to shun the wedding for B.V. Mary was already pregnant at the time of “marriage”. That makes it seem like God wanted to introduce needless scandal to the Holy Family. But B.V. Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation according to Scripture. All marital rites were present in their marriage so they should not feel surprised if B.V. Mary is pregnant at the time they were having the Jewish feast of heading to their new home. This one is maybe me being picky I admit for having some artistic license with that scene doesn’t do too much damage perhaps.

But on the B.V. Mary having doubts, that I find is doctrinally incorrect and just undermines the gifts of the Immaculate Conception. Also it makes B.V. Mary seem like someone who just didn’t know where all of this was heading. That is contradiction to writings in Sacred Tradition (and even tradition).

As for the stoning scene, I dislike it if its portrayed negatively for that was indeed God’s law. So even St. Joseph as a just man would have had an obligation to expose B. V. Mary. Which is another reason why I do not like the St. Joseph suspicion theory and prefer the St. Aquinas/Origen version of the interpretation. But that can be said to be tradition I guess.

To me this is not the same as Passion of Christ using the wrong language.

 

[Arandur]

I just saw this movie earlier today. Quite good, generally, with some truly excellent scenes in particular. As usual, there is room for nitpicking, and even nitpicking aside, overall (for acting, dialogue, story pacing, message) I’d give it a 4 out of 5.

To your questions (you may have had them answered or seen the movie since this OP, but I know others haven’t seen it yet and may be reading):

1. No talk of consummating before. They are a little more physically close than I would have expected for the time (touching, but no kissing) prior to their betrothal, and Joseph asks Mary to marry him (essentially) twice, rather than sealing the deal with her father first. There is sort of an open question after the wedding, back in their house, about consummating, but it doesn’t undermine her perpetual virginity, just doesn’t clearly state it (I suppose leaving people who reject that doctrine to not be “upset” by it). We never see them kiss or in any state of indecent dress throughout the entire movie.
2. I do not think she was shown as having doubts at all. Joseph is shown as not knowing about the conception beforehand and having a hard time with it, but also not accusing her directly of being with another man (though it is perhaps implied that he was worried about that). He gets more upset than I’d like to see, but not “crazy” really, just a man not knowing what to think and struggling with the emotional impact. Again, a lot left for audience interpretation, I think, but not contradicting doctrine. In this–and in general in Mary’s powerful faith, JOY, and peace, it is far superior to the depiction in the Nativity Story.
3. I was surprised at the choice to have St. Joseph alive into some time in the “middle” of Jesus’ ministry. Maybe to have a reason to keep him on the scene more, show more interaction between him and Mary, and perhaps to explain why they only showed excerpts of Jesus’s ministry (it was rushed even so in the time allotted) rather than assuming that Mary was following him around for the whole of it (which she probably was). So having Joseph alive kept her at home.

That said, the final scenes of St. Joseph were very touching and brilliant, for me personally. As a father to two young children, I found his words and his interaction with Mary and Jesus powerful and deeply moving, and a wonderful witness for true fatherhood and manhood today, and the value of honest work and traditional families. It was actually the highlight of the movie for me and still brings me to tears thinking about it.

1. The stoning scene is related to Mary Magdalene, not our Mother (unlike in the Nativity Story). Joseph isn’t involved.

That makes it seem like God wanted to introduce needless scandal to the Holy Family. But B.V. Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation according to Scripture. All marital rites were present in their marriage so they should not feel surprised if B.V. Mary is pregnant at the time they were having the Jewish feast of heading to their new home.

I’d like to hear more about that. I think that is still uncertain. What I understood was that most likely Mary was bound to Joseph, and it wouldn’t have been a huge surprise, but still improper for her to turn up pregnant–that the decision of what to do was really left up to him because of the legal arrangements, and that she wouldn’t have been subject to stoning unless he had accused her of adultery.

In Scripture, the angel does say, “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife” after she has already conceived, so I don’t think the situation was completely licit for her to have conceived by intercourse. I do think there was some scandal involved, though not as much as many make it out to be (for above-stated reasons–not entirely unusual, but not entirely proper, either). I think that’s one of the reasons that Jesus’s genealogy explicitly lists some of the scandalous women in the Line of David, to address some people’s concerns about what they may have heard about Mary.

 

[Arandur]

A little bit of additional commentary on my part:
I’m still waiting for a movie that has the courage to discard “popular” notions of Joseph as a young man looking for a “normal” marriage with Mary, small families, etc.

From Scripture and tradition, it is more likely that Joseph was at least in his thirties (I assumed the same age as Jesus when he entered his ministry–30-33), either a consecrated virgin himself (possibly an Essene) or a widower, perhaps even with children of his own.

Films often say they try to break new ground, but this hasn’t even been tried, to my knowledge, and it’s disappointing.

If you go the first route (consecrated virgin), you could portray a bit of what we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and let Joseph be associated with a group like the Essenes, taking Mary in when she comes of age more as Husband-Guardian than expecting to raise a family.

Mary could be a temple virgin, and recognized as such–I was excited when, in the movie, she was sent off to the Temple to protect her, because I thought that’s where they were going with it, but while it may have been lightly implied, it seems that’s not what they intended given later situations regarding the betrothal and so forth. But the only way to explain Mary’s response to Gabriel (“How can this be, since I know not man”) is if she was always planning to be a virgin, even after knowing that she was betrothed to Joseph, because otherwise the news would have been totally unsurprising–of course she would be getting pregnant, if she were any other Jewish girl getting married and being expected to carry on the family! She wasn’t stupid! And most people in her time probably thought that the Messiah was going to be born through a natural union of man and woman in the line of David anyway!

So, sadly missed opportunity.

Alternatively, I’d also like to see Joseph portrayed as a widower (the other option), again taking Mary in as a Husband-Guardian, but already having children and thus not needing to bring up more. Then the only question remaining is whether you have those other children include boys. The problem there being that if he did have boys, presumably Jesus’s half-brothers would be more prominent, and should have been charged with caring for Mary rather than John. And yet a lack of boys would mean that Joseph would have wanted to still have more children in an attempt to raise up a male heir.

Also, as another nitpick (not really meaningful, but still hoping for a portrayal of this in the future), could we please see some large families? Mary was probably not an only child!

Still, I did like the movie very much and it is worth seeing. Just wanted to express some sadness at missed opportunities.

 

[pianistclare]

A little bit of additional commentary on my part:
I’m still waiting for a movie that has the courage to discard “popular” notions of Joseph as a young man looking for a “normal” marriage with Mary, small families, etc.

From Scripture and tradition, it is more likely that Joseph was at least in his thirties (I assumed the same age as Jesus when he entered his ministry–30-33), either a consecrated virgin himself (possibly an Essene) or a widower, perhaps even with children of his own.

Films often say they try to break new ground, but this hasn’t even been tried, to my knowledge, and it’s disappointing.

If you go the first route (consecrated virgin), you could portray a bit of what we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and let Joseph be associated with a group like the Essenes, taking Mary in when she comes of age more as Husband-Guardian than expecting to raise a family.

Mary could be a temple virgin, and recognized as such–I was excited when, in the movie, she was sent off to the Temple to protect her, because I thought that’s where they were going with it, but while it may have been lightly implied, it seems that’s not what they intended given later situations regarding the betrothal and so forth. But the only way to explain Mary’s response to Gabriel (“How can this be, since I know not man”) is if she was always planning to be a virgin, even after knowing that she was betrothed to Joseph, because otherwise the news would have been totally unsurprising–of course she would be getting pregnant, if she were any other Jewish girl getting married and being expected to carry on the family! She wasn’t stupid! And most people in her time probably thought that the Messiah was going to be born through a natural union of man and woman in the line of David anyway!

So, sadly missed opportunity.

Alternatively, I’d also like to see Joseph portrayed as a widower (the other option), again taking Mary in as a Husband-Guardian, but already having children and thus not needing to bring up more. Then the only question remaining is whether you have those other children include boys. The problem there being that if he did have boys, presumably Jesus’s half-brothers would be more prominent, and should have been charged with caring for Mary rather than John. And yet a lack of boys would mean that Joseph would have wanted to still have more children in an attempt to raise up a male heir.

Also, as another nitpick (not really meaningful, but still hoping for a portrayal of this in the future), could we please see some large families? Mary was probably not an only child!

Still, I did like the movie very much and it is worth seeing. Just wanted to express some sadness at missed opportunities.

I’m with you on most of this post…I agree with the idea that Joseph and Mary both were consecrated, each with the idea that they would live as brother and sister, as a perpetual offering to God. But I believe that Catholic Tradition has it that Mary was indeed an only child. Her mother Anne, had her very late in life, and after much prayer for a child. That’s why St. Anne is the patron of those trying to conceive.
I was taught that the church hold that Mary was an only child.
Peace! thank you fro the synopsis. I am anxious to see the movie.
pianist

 

[Arandur]

I’m with you on most of this post…I agree with the idea that Joseph and Mary both were consecrated, each with the idea that they would live as brother and sister, as a perpetual offering to God. But I believe that Catholic Tradition has it that Mary was indeed an only child. Her mother Anne, had her very late in life, and after much prayer for a child. That’s why St. Anne is the patron of those trying to conceive.
I was taught that the church hold that Mary was an only child.
Peace! thank you fro the synopsis. I am anxious to see the movie.
pianist

Oh. Well thanks for the correction. I’d like to look into that, because that would change much for me.

 

[Arandur]

You know, another interesting thing in that movie was the birth of Christ: Mary is shown in labor, but (thankfully) not screaming or in distress, but in peace. And when Joseph goes off to get some water, by the time he gets back, Jesus has been born and Mary is lying beside him. That and a bit more to the scene lends itself to the interpretation I’ve heard that Jesus was born like “light passing through a lens” or something like that, to explain how Mary’s virginity is physically kept intact.

Now, I don’t think that interpretation is doctrine, and I would certainly have preferred to have Joseph at her side, and have shown a longer, though still peaceful birth. But it was an interesting choice. For those not familiar with the idea, however, the scene might be kind of strange, even humorous or jarring.

 

[ventriloquist]

I just saw this movie earlier today. Quite good, generally, with some truly excellent scenes in particular. As usual, there is room for nitpicking, and even nitpicking aside, overall (for acting, dialogue, story pacing, message) I’d give it a 4 out of 5.

To your questions (you may have had them answered or seen the movie since this OP, but I know others haven’t seen it yet and may be reading)
…

1. The stoning scene is related to Mary Magdalene, not our Mother (unlike in the Nativity Story). Joseph isn’t involved.

Thank you for your reply even after all this time! There is a separate stoning scene in the Netflix version (uncut). Well then again, the Netflix version has a lot of garbage and the Ignatius Press seems to have done a good edit of it.

I’d like to hear more about that. I think that is still uncertain. …

…I do think there was some scandal involved, though not as much as many make it out to be …Jesus’s genealogy

In Jewish custom, Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were already married. They had the marital rights of any married couple. This is why the whole situation should not be morally scandalizing from public perspective. God never intended Mary to be a sign of moral scandal. There is no such thing as “engagement” in the modern sense of the word in Jewish custom. You can find more about it here

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/when-were-joseph-and-mary-married

On the St. Joseph and the Angel, the tradition held by the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas is that St. Joseph feared the task he was given as many other prophets in history of Israel did when God called upon them. After all, it would seem like a daunting task to be the caretaker of the Son of God and his Mother.

In fact, the theory that St. Joseph was going to leave the Blessed Mother because he suspected her of adultery causes lot of difficulties. You can find more information here

salvationhistory.com/blog/was_joseph_really_suspicious_of_marys_pregnancy/

On the matter of genealogy, I am not sure that reading is helpful. Because at the end of the day, the Gospel writer does want to attribute the birth of Jesus to a Virgin Birth. So the idea of showing the scandalizing characters from Israel’s history to say “even if Jesus was born out of some illicit relation, he is still the son of God” does not seem like a legitimate motive the writer would have. I am aware though that this view is held by even the likes of Dr. Scott Hahn in particular who seems to adopt it. But I am not sure it makes a lot of sense.

Even if we do adopt the view though, one could argue that St. Joseph might have at times denied his natural fatherhood of Christ for he knew the true nature of it. This may have been misunderstood by some leading to suspicion of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One could then say that the genealogy addresses suspicion that stems from that rather than an obvious scandal arising from an unmarried woman being pregnant.

In any case, the whole idea of “engagement” is an error so not sure it matters.

The problem for me is that the movie took some liberties on these issues which I find for personal reasons a little off-putting. Also, while I appreciate the edit, it should be said that most people end up watching the Netflix cut (which has a lot more garbage and errors) after hearing about the movie. So I am not so sure about the prudence of it all. It is like cutting up those scandalous movies in the 80’s regarding Christ because the cinematography and other things were excellent. It would make a good movie in that regard but it will always draw attention to the original which was scandalizing.

But, for better or for worse, the edit was made.

 

[Arandur]

Very interesting, thank you!

Do you have anything with more detail about marital rights prior to cohabitation, and just what the difference was ritually at the time of cohabitation?

And also, do you have anything with more detail or explaining other likely precedents for Mary and Joseph each being avowed celibates?

I understand that the latter is tradition, but haven’t seen it backed up well in sources or showing other examples. I looked up some info on the Essenes again, but while they might have been influenced by the Essenes, those groups don’t quite seem to fit…their celibates didn’t marry at all, it seems, and some of their other beliefs are suspect–daily ritual washing, rejecting the books of Moses and calling the Jews “oathbreakers…”

So while the Essenes might demonstrated that vows of celibacy were contemporary, it would be best to have some other examples of it, as well, particularly in mainstream Judaism or (best yet) among Galileans.

 

[pianistclare]

Very interesting, thank you!

Do you have anything with more detail about marital rights prior to cohabitation, and just what the difference was ritually at the time of cohabitation?

And also, do you have anything with more detail or explaining other likely precedents for Mary and Joseph each being avowed celibates?

I understand that the latter is tradition, but haven’t seen it backed up well in sources or showing other examples. I looked up some info on the Essenes again, but while they might have been influenced by the Essenes, those groups don’t quite seem to fit…their celibates didn’t marry at all, it seems, and some of their other beliefs are suspect–daily ritual washing, rejecting the books of Moses and calling the Jews “oathbreakers…”

So while the Essenes might demonstrated that vows of celibacy were contemporary, it would be best to have some other examples of it, as well, particularly in mainstream Judaism or (best yet) among Galileans.

You might be seeking something more, but this is a lovely article. catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Presentation%20of%20Mary%2002.html
God bless!

 

[ventriloquist]

Very interesting, thank you!

Glad if anything in it was of use!

Do you have anything with more detail about marital rights prior to cohabitation, and just what the difference was ritually at the time of cohabitation?

I think this analysis might be of use in this regard:-

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7535

The key idea here is that there is no difference on the marital status that depends on whether the couple are living together in a home. After the first ceremony, they are fully married with full rights.

Something also cited in the article is Bl. John Paul II’s teaching in this regard:-

“According to Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages: first the legal or true marriage was celebrated, and then, only after a certain period of time, the husband brought the wife into his own house. Thus before he lived with Mary, Joseph was already her ‘husband’” (“Redemptoris Custos” no.18)

One of the things that disturbed me about this whole thing is how none of the “expert” reviewers seem to have caught this point while watching the movie. Or perhaps they simply thought to completely forget it. In the movie, it goes to a great length to show that the Blessed Virgin Mary was in a scandalous situation (in the wedding dance scene). I was very uncomfortable watching it in the Netflix cut and that is the first thing that came to mind when hearing Ignatius Press picked this movie up. Some research showed they kept the scene in and none of the clergy who saw the movie seem to say anything about it.

Now I know I am possibly being unfair and perhaps I should see it as a positive that at least something somewhat faithful to Catholic teaching is being made at all in our times. This I do acknowledge and is why I said my “dislike” for the movie was for “personal reasons”. But I hope you can better appreciate where I am coming from after reading the above article.

And also, do you have anything with more detail or explaining other likely precedents for Mary and Joseph each being avowed celibates?

I understand that the latter is tradition, but haven’t seen it backed up well in sources or showing other examples. I looked up some info on the Essenes again, but while they might have been influenced by the Essenes, those groups don’t quite seem to fit…their celibates didn’t marry at all, it seems, and some of their other beliefs are suspect–daily ritual washing, rejecting the books of Moses and calling the Jews “oathbreakers…”

So while the Essenes might demonstrated that vows of celibacy were contemporary, it would be best to have some other examples of it, as well, particularly in mainstream Judaism or (best yet) among Galileans.

There is a good discussion in this regard from a Scriptural point of view for the evidence of Temple Virgins.

taylormarshall.com/2011/12/did-jewish-temple-virgins-exist-and-was.html

 

[ventriloquist]

Arandur,

Another reference (courtesy one of the of late Dr. Warren Carroll’s citations) that you might find interesting in regards to the Perpetual Virginity is Manuel Miguéns, Virgin Birth: An Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence, pp. 77-82.

 

[Arandur]

Wonderful! After reading those sources, I’m thoroughly convinced now that Joseph and Mary were wholly married (including with rights to the marriage bed) prior to the conception of Jesus, and thus no significant scandal was introduced with the appearance of Mary’s pregnancy.

What verifies the truth of this (the two-part marriage system of the Jews of the time, with the first avowed betrothal-espousement being complete, and the only thing required later for final completion as the taking into the husband’s home) to me is the following:

This understanding is what most perfectly and beautifully explains God’s relationship to His Chosen People, and even more, Christ’s relationship with His Church!
For how else was Israel an adulterer had it not been espoused to God?
More than that, how can Christ’s Church be his Bride, united to him in this world to the point of an intimate physical consummation through the Eucharist, if we are not espoused to him fully through the New Covenant in his precious Blood?
While at the same time, awaiting our Lord’s return for him to take us up into his home, the “place he has prepared for us?”

This understanding of Jewish marriage seems to me now to be absolutely essential to understanding the marriage relationship between Christ and his Church, and the nature of our union with him now while yet awaiting his Second Coming. It’s perfect!

Of course, it also well explains almost every detail of Scripture and Tradition. Particularly that no law was even broken in the eyes of the Jews of the time, who would not know of or have a hard time accepting an account of Christ’s virginal birth so early in his life. Of course, we have no evidence in Scripture that the community thought there was a scandal with regards to Mary and Joseph, as you say.

What I would still like more evidence for are the following:

1. That Mary was an only child–this is a very minor detail in comparison, and I can readily accept the tradition that St. Anne and St. Joachim had trouble conceiving and, eventually, when Mary was conceived, were so grateful that they offered her back up in service as a Temple Virgin. It would be nice to have further evidence to help explain this tradition to others.
2. More precedents or examples that make it more clear to others (I accept it fully) that Mary and Joseph had vowed celibacy. The Essense provide a contemporary example of this, but I have explained problems with that, and why I don’t think they could have been part of the Essene community (though it is possible that other communities had celibates). But it would be helpful to find other contemporary examples of this, with couples entering celibate marriages (which seems likely just on the basis that women needed legal “masters” and protectors at the time, primarily and perhaps only provided for by having a husband).

I don’t think the evidence of Temple Virgins is sufficient, because it seems clear that while that practice existed, service ended at 14 years of age, freeing the girls up for marriage, without (from what I’ve seen) any necessity for them remaining celibate in marriage afterwards. So Mary being a Temple Virgin would not sufficiently prove her vow for perpetual celibacy.

I agree that her reply to Gabriel should be sufficient evidence of this (and that Joseph must have been on board with it, given they had entered their marriage before that point), but it would be very helpful to provide additional evidence for those resistant to this idea.

BTW, I recall now having read the Suspicion Theory vs. the Humility Theory for St. Joseph’s contemplation of divorce. I am much more convinced of the Humility Theory, but I don’t think there is necessarily a problem with people believing that he may also have had nagging doubts (suspicion) tempt him up until the time of his own angelic visitation. But his primary motivation I think was humility; that he accepted that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that he was unworthy of being so near something so holy, and of being Christ’s foster father–plenty of reason for a humble fear. Kind of a, “if this is true, and I believe it is, then it’s too much for me, I’m not worthy…if it’s not true, which is very doubtful given what I know of Mary and our circumstances, I can’t bear it either.”

Either way, I’m very sympathetic to my hero and role model, St. Joseph.

 

[ventriloquist]

Wonderful! After reading those sources, I’m thoroughly convinced now that Joseph and Mary were wholly married (including with rights to the marriage bed) prior to the conception of Jesus, and thus no significant scandal was introduced with the appearance of Mary’s pregnancy…

What I would still like more evidence for are the following:

1. That Mary was an only child–this is a very minor detail in comparison, and I can readily accept the tradition that St. Anne and St. Joachim had trouble conceiving and, eventually, when Mary was conceived, were so grateful that they offered her back up in service as a Temple Virgin. It would be nice to have further evidence to help explain this tradition to others.
2. More precedents or examples that make it more clear to others (I accept it fully) that Mary and Joseph had vowed celibacy. The Essense provide a contemporary example of this, but I have explained problems with that, and why I don’t think they could have been part of the Essene community (though it is possible that other communities had celibates). But it would be helpful to find other contemporary examples of this, with couples entering celibate marriages (which seems likely just on the basis that women needed legal “masters” and protectors at the time, primarily and perhaps only provided for by having a husband).

…

BTW, I recall now having read the Suspicion Theory vs. the Humility Theory for St. Joseph’s contemplation of divorce. I am much more convinced of the Humility Theory, but I don’t think there is necessarily a problem with people believing that he may also have had nagging doubts (suspicion) tempt him up until the time of his own angelic visitation. But his primary motivation I think was humility; that he accepted that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that he was unworthy of being so near something so holy, and of being Christ’s foster father–plenty of reason for a humble fear. Kind of a, “if this is true, and I believe it is, then it’s too much for me, I’m not worthy…if it’s not true, which is very doubtful given what I know of Mary and our circumstances, I can’t bear it either.”

Either way, I’m very sympathetic to my hero and role model, St. Joseph.

Interesting thoughts and good to hear that you are convinced on some points!

On the issue of a precedent for the Blessed Virgin Mary’s vow of virginity I think there is perhaps something we should avoid doing by accident. That accident would be to presume that her choice and state were not unique. Perhaps it was unique due to her chosen position. Maybe it was made clear to those around her (parents or priests that served at the temple through another angelic revelation or some other method) that she was to be given in a marriage, remain in her vows and her husband was to have more of a caretaker role. So perhaps the case is really unique and her husband was chosen with much care by those who arranged the marriage. The visions of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich speak of a similar view (through her visions are obviously not “history”).

(Something about Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich and her visions related to the Blessed Virgin Mary

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606783.htm
)

In that sense, it is perhaps best to concentrate on the Scriptural text for that point rather than history. For even if we prove historical precedent, there would remain a question of whether the Blessed Virgin Mary chose this path for herself or not.

In terms of proving from Scripture, there is a book cited by Dr. Warren Carroll in one his texts as providing a good case and handling objections. The book is “The Virgin Birth: An Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence” by Manuel Miguens and pages pertaining to this as pp. 77-82. So perhaps it is worth a look if you can find the text at a local library or a cheap copy. I personally haven’t read the book. One of the things in it seems to be a discussion of the Greek and how the word used is that which indicates permanence in her state rather than a temporary one. If you are already familiar with this sort of argumentation, it might of even less help for you. But since I haven’t read the book, I cannot comment for sure.

What I can say is that apart from the Qumran and Essene communities, Dr. Carroll who is a historian does say in his book “Founding of Christendom” that there is no evidence of such celibacy (from what I remember).

On the matter of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the only child, I can only think of the Protoevangelium of James which has some parts that can be dated to living memory of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. But it is tricky to use because different parts have different dating. Dr. Carroll again indicates that the parts mentioning the parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary are indeed from around 160 AD which is within or sufficiently close to the living memory. But on the rest of the passage on her having problems with conceiving and so forth, I am not sure that too is also part of that early date. It seems possible it is so but apart from convincing the seeking Catholic, I think it probably won’t be of help for you to convince anyone else.

On the suspicion vs. humility, I too am on the side of the humility theory (if that was not obvious already ).

 

[Mark121359]

EWTN’s Johnnette Benkovic is someone who I really respect. She saw this movie and raved about it. Here’s what she said;

Friends, I have been privileged to be part of the team to preview the upcoming film “Mary of Nazareth.” From beginning to end, this breathtakingly beautiful movie had me riveted. It has the power to do for the life and story of Our Blessed Mother what the “Passion of the Christ” did for the story of Jesus’s passion. As the ending credits rolled across the screen, I was held in prayer and gratitude both for the life of Mary but also for the gifted artists and creators of this epic film. I am happy to give it my unabbreviated endorsement. As Catholic Christians, we need to show our support for well made movies that uphold our values and positively portray the realities which we hold dear. I strongly encourage you to support this movie. Go and take your family and friends with you!
womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=24404

Also, on the link provided it lists others who endorse this film including their comments. Among them; Fr. Donald Calloway, Fr. Michael Gaitley, Donna-Marie Cooper O’Boyle, EWTN, Fr. Andrew Apostoli, CFR and others. It seems to me that this would be a darn good film to see!

Peace, Mark

 

[ventriloquist]

EWTN’s Johnnette Benkovic is someone who I really respect. She saw this movie and raved about it. Here’s what she said;

Also, on the link provided it lists others who endorse this film including their comments. Among them; Fr. Donald Calloway, Fr. Michael Gaitley, Donna-Marie Cooper O’Boyle, EWTN, Fr. Andrew Apostoli, CFR and others. It seems to me that this would be a darn good film to see!

Peace, Mark

It would seem that way, yes. But it seems that these men and women missed the rather glaring error of portraying the Blessed Virgin Mary’s conception of Jesus being before marriage (which I discussed with Arandur in prior posts on this thread). It was not subtle but waved in the faces and yet there is no mention of this.

My only guess is that Christian movies are so hard to find that the standards of expectation have just gone down (or forced to be reduced) and the expert viewers had just chosen to ignore it.

So if you are picky about matters of the faith being precisely handled and portrayed, you might not enjoy it. But if you are willing to overlook somethings, it might not be so bad.