Palm reading is ok in The Nativity?

[foolishmortal]

I can not be that angry at the director and writer for not believing in Mary’s immaculate conception (which should have prevented her from painful childbirth since women after original sin would be punished with Eve’s sin that way because they would have it–although we only have the consequences of it after babtism, right?). Fr. Groeschel as well as our FSSP priest said it is taught that Jesus passed through her like light through a window–how formally taught, I don’t know. It would make sense being Mary didn’t suffer from original sin or its consequences.
Our FSSP priests indicated that Mary and Joseph would have been horrified by the woman reading her palm because fortune telling is strictly against the Bible as trying to tell the future–which, unless God reveals a future event–is something we can’t know or look to. In fact, such a woman would be stoned, I understand. Would it not be scandalous to approve of it in that the less educated in the Faith (or any Christian faith) might think it’s ok because Mary and Joseph smiles at her and the Vatican film people and denominations ok it? I think I read in “The Coming Chastisement” astrology is ok if not for telling the future. Is that right? Were the Magi even astrologers? Maybe there are time-tested patterns for what happens with the stars in certain places. She does kind of have an attitude early in the movie–she should have been constantly humble and meek without our weaknesses.
Zeffarelli’s movie had the birth pains, but that’s all. I think that will do for me.

 

[puzzleannie]

your first question is addressed in AA, most recently posted answer, short version, the Catholic Church has no defined dogma on whether or not Mary suffered labor pains, or the exact nature of the birth process she experienced.

number two, the woman in the movie scene grabbed Mary’s had in the street and made some kind of comment. Now Mary could have reacted in horror, snatched her hand away and had Joseph chastize the woman and chase her away. Or she could have listened politely to an old woman and ignored anything said that went against her personal beliefs, while still behaving in a courteous manner. Which do you think is more in character?

just because the movie depicted the scene, which took all of about 30 seconds, does not imply that either the writers and directors, or the characters, approved of palm reading.

we have several threads on the media forums about this movie, why not jump in there. the discussion is out of place in the scripture forum because it does not reference any particular scripture.

is the “coming chastisement” some official magesterial teaching, V2 document or papal encyclical, because I never heard of it.

 

[foolishmortal]

Actually, fortune telling as an ability pursued by occult means or apart from God’s giving it (and not abusing the gift for fame or other selfish purposes or ungodly agendas, if God could allow it) is in the Bible, or implied by it, and is condemned. I’m not a canon law expert, but I’d say that covers enough

Horror at someone practicing the occult would be a virtue of Mary being the most holy and pure human there ever was. It doesn’t mean she would have scowled at the palm-reader. I think Joseph, terror of deemons, would have defended her by getting her away from the woman as fast as possible. Our modernist views of kindness is not in tune often with true practices of virtue. Our ways are not God’s.

Secondly, after Adam and Eve screwed up, women would have painful childbirth. Mary was of the fallen race of mankind, but she didn’t have orginal sin. I think the intention of the one saying the Church didn’t formally declare she had no labor pains should be known. A Protestant wouldn’t be expected to believe in Mary’s immaculate conception (for that reason, I loked over that part); I cannot accuse a Catholic without proof, but I have my suspicions when Catholics look for loopholes in Catholic teaching to teach untraditional things (esp. in this day and age). Let’s not get fooled into believing secular science can say Jesus probably didn’t pass through Mary as light through a window. When we get our bodies, those in Heaven, at least, are supposed to be able to pass through objects as Christ did at the Ascension. If he could do that then; he could have done that at his birth.

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. Fortune telling is a sin, always
2. Simulated fortune telling within a play is not a sin. Acting a part, is not the same thing as intending to do a thing in reality - that’s why actors who play murderers are not arrested: an play is not reality; so the actions in a play & in reality, are judged to be morally different.

 

[foolishmortal]

Well, Pope Leo 13th woke up from a horrible dream of future attacks on the Church by demons, and not only believed it, but wrote a prayer about it.

Micah 5:2 and other Old Testament writers wrote predictions of Jesus.

St. Niles (something like that), predicted instant comunication across the globe and scuba diving.

Another one (begins with an “M”, was predicting the last Pope.

I don’t believe they were sinners, though their prophesies were not considered 100% to happen (those not in the Bible, anyway) were only private revelations

God needs to be the only one to tell us the future without us trying to do it and the Church needs to examine it if it is worthy of belief, I think. Nowadays, that appears not to be required for private revelations like those of the first one and last 2 mentioned.

Am I wrong here?

The “Coming Chastisement” was the subtitle of a small purple-covered book by Yves DuPont. There are other interesting things about revelations as well such as Church teaching on astrology.

“The Nativity” does have good parts, but Catholics need to know their Faith well in order not to be confused. I think they should stick with the painless birth unless revealed as otherwise, for sure. The ancient Catholics more often then not, and more than now, lived in a more straight-headed time. Even if we were scientifically backwards then, we had revealed and accumulated truth that science can only ptretend to refute by bullying those who disagree. We have all we need in our Church for salvation and that’s more important than being historic-critically correct–even though we are more than modernist scientists because we discovered some and nurtured other sciences and we still have scientists whose Catholic-orthodoxy makes them more correct than their secular and non-Catholic Christian counterparts in controversy…