Passion movie, Mary & Protestant views

[asquared]

I will post this as a poll if I can figure out how to do it. This question is for all non-Catholics, or those who very recently have joined full communion with the Catholic church, or in the RCIA process now. I already know what Catholics believe. If you saw the movie Passion of the Christ, did its depiction and characterization of Mary change your opinion of her role in Christ’s life and mission, and her role in the Church? Has it caused you to regard her differently? If you would care to share those views I am sure it would greatly add to our dialog.

 

[Cat]

Yes, it changed my views.

I’ve always thought of Mary as a young teenager, only 14 years old.

But in the movie, she was middle-aged.

Then I realized–

She was (supposedly) about 14 when she had Jesus.
He was 33 (approx) when he was crucified.

That meant that at the time of the Passion, Mary was 47 years old.

MY age!

This is what made me cry in the movie.

My last child left for college this year, so I am without my children, as Mary was after Jesus ascended. I realize it’s far from the same, but I’m sure I have at least some of the the same feelings that she did not being able to touch or see her Son anymore on this earth.

So I was able to identify with the Mary in “The Passion” in a way that I have never identified with the young Mother Mary.

I love the Blessed Virgin and love to pray the Rosary and ponder the mysteries of the life of her Son.

But it is very hard for me to overcome over 40 years of teaching that Mary was just another sinful woman that God used in bringing about His redemption plan. (I came into the Catholic Church on April 10, 2004.) At times I still cringe when I see overt devotion to Mary in the Catholic Church. I still automatically think, “Idolatry!”

And I have a hard time with phrases like “Come to Jesus through Mary.” Although I agree intellectually with such phrases, I still stubbornly hold the view that we can go directly to Jesus, that we don’t have to go through anyone. (And I know that Catholics teach this, too.)

I am trying not to worry about all of this or berate myself too much. I know that Mary understands and is merciful and forgiving. I know that Jesus does not hold this against me.

 

[asquared]

I know what you mean, we mothers relate first of all to Mary as a mother like ourselves. I cannot imagine raising kids without her help any more than without the help of my own mother. In fact, it was when my oldest started driving that I began praying the rosary again, the night she was in a car wreck with the other two in the back seat. When I cannot pray, the rosary takes over. One entire summer when my youngest daughter was off God knows where doing what I hope I never find out, I prayed and meditated only and continuously on the 4th Joyful Mystery, The Finding of the Child Jesus when He was Lost in the Temple

 

[MariaG]

Cat,
I know exactly what you mean.

At times I still cringe when I see overt devotion to Mary in the Catholic Church. I still automatically think, “Idolatry!”

I came to the church 5 years ago. I had an intellectual understanding of Mary, but I still cringed too. That view has slowly changed. When I saw the Passion, I finally had a true heart understanding of the honor we give Our Blessed Mother. The closer I get to Our Mother, the closer to Christ!

Hang in there, your heart will catch up with your head. A lot of it is a cultural expression more than anything else. I once asked a Latina women why she kissed statues. (Talk about my my head screaming “idolatry”!) She said that it helps her give a “mental” kiss to Jesus by touching a physical object. I think the Bible shows us the God truly understands our need for physical objects. His healing through relics is one such example.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Andyman1517]

Asquared,

I don’t know what you really mean. Mary isn’t protrayed differently in the movie than in the Bible. Why would anyone’s perception of her change? Protestants are well aware of who Mary is and what she did.

 

[PXseeker]

Actually, I think Mary’s depiction is very consistent with how a Protestant views her: very human. A disciple, a mother torn with grief, remembering her little boy growing up.

No magic acts, no glorious apparations, no co-redemptrix.

A simple, loving Jewish mother who believed what her Son had to tell, what He had to do. Apart from the blood scrubbing scene, which was nonscriptural and fairly puzzling, her depiction was one of the very few good points to come out of what otherwise was a dreadful movie.

John

 

[asquared]

I asked the question because I have heard so much discussion on Christian radio stations, in non-denominational study and prayer groups, and in other forums on the depiction of Mary in the movie, and its effect on viewers. I was interested in the experience of residents of this forum, especially Protestants who are not influenced or prejudiced by our Catholic take on Mary. I have not seen the movie myself, because I avoid violent movies as a matter of taste.

 

[hlgomez]

Hang in there, your heart will catch up with your head. A lot of it is a cultural expression more than anything else. I once asked a Latina women why she kissed statues. (Talk about my my head screaming “idolatry”!) She said that it helps her give a “mental” kiss to Jesus by touching a physical object. I think the Bible shows us the God truly understands our need for physical objects. His healing through relics is one such example.

Maria,

What a beautiful name you have! Your view reminds me of the early Christians who didn’t have the Bible yet to own for themselves. They relied more on the oral preaching of the apostles and their successors. And during that time their was plenty of devoted Christians who have had icons of the Lord and the Blessed Mother and the great Saints of the Church! You can just imagine how they held these sacred objects very dearly to the point that even those who don’t know how to read (like the barbarians) who became Christians were aided by just looking and revering these icons. For them, these icons reminded them of the Lord and of his saints, and eventually lead them to holy lives.

Our separated brothers likes to say that we are idolaters when we kiss icons and pray in front of them. While not ask themselves why they kiss the holy bible and rever it? One may ask; “Is the holy bible a God?” Certainly our separated brothers will have a very sounding “no” for an answer. But why kiss the Bible, and even put our hands in the Bible when we pray? These same acts is also what we do when we rever the sacred icons. It’s also an object, but only that the bible doesn’t have much sense to those who can’t read it (for not everyone knows how to read), but the sacred icons can greatly aid them in their faith. In other words, these icons speaks greatly to those people who don’t know how to read.

Pio

 

[UnworthySoul]

PXseeker:

Actually, I think Mary’s depiction is very consistent with how a Protestant views her: very human. A disciple, a mother torn with grief, remembering her little boy growing up.

No magic acts, no glorious apparations, no co-redemptrix.

A simple, loving Jewish mother who believed what her Son had to tell, what He had to do. Apart from the blood scrubbing scene, which was nonscriptural and fairly puzzling, her depiction was one of the very few good points to come out of what otherwise was a dreadful movie.

John

For what it’s worth, Jewish traditions held that blood was sacred and as the place of the scourging was no Kosher, as it were. Mary’s cleaning of the blood was likely due to Jewish traditions and to the fact that she was helpless as far as doing anything else. Shock probably drove her to it.

As far as the “magic” crack. Please. If you think we believe in magic, you have a thing or two to learn.

 

[PXseeker]

UnworthySoul:

As far as the “magic” crack. Please. If you think we believe in magic, you have a thing or two to learn.

Hmm, that thought never even crossed my mind. I was referring to cinematic tricks “blue screen magic” as it’s called. You seem overly sensitive, putting such a negative spin on an innocent comment.

Anyway, a number of my friends felt the blood mopping scene was fairly pointless. I feel MG inserted it more for the gruesome imagery than anything else.

This movie wasn’t strong on character development, but the image of Mary here is a beautiful one. Many women have commented as to how her portrayal touched them, especially as mothers themselves.

 

[dessy]

hi, my view about the passion of the christ movie and about Mary his mother is her unend love and understand no matter the suituation she always understand.despite the pain she felt for her son during the passion out of love she was able to notice peter’s anguish about his deniar of christ and so she does show her love for non-catholics and protestant alike she never descrimenate.i belief the world at large should embrass her and honor her for that . thanks
dessy. :tiphat:

 

[Sparky]

PXseeker:

Hmm, that thought never even crossed my mind. I was referring to cinematic tricks “blue screen magic” as it’s called. You seem overly sensitive, putting such a negative spin on an innocent comment.

Anyway, a number of my friends felt the blood mopping scene was fairly pointless. I feel MG inserted it more for the gruesome imagery than anything else.

This movie wasn’t strong on character development, but the image of Mary here is a beautiful one. Many women have commented as to how her portrayal touched them, especially as mothers themselves.

I believe that the blood scrubbing scene had specific significance, as everything Mel put in the film did. If you know that he went through the trouble to put it in there…it had to mean something. And it does. Mel left nothing to chance in this film. He thought about everything.

During the sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem, specifically the sin sacrifices, the blood of the animal was held in special vessals, separated from the animal. It was holy, and just as Moses sprinkled the blood from such an animal on the people of Israel to sign a covenant with God, so, too, does Christ’s blood sign a covenant with us.

Mary knew this. She knew his blood was sacred, just as sacred as the blood of the sin sacrifice - for he was the one, true, eternal sacrifce for our sins. Seeing it dashed to the ground and treated so disrespectfully made her react in the only way she knew how.

And…in the church today, if the sacred blood is spilled on the floor of the church, that area must be cleaned with a special cloth of pure linen to show respect for it.

Ah…symbolism. It’s an amazing thing.
–Ann
PS: Mary is special because we realize the she gave her human flesh to Christ. Not only was it his blood on the ground, but also hers because her blood flowed in his veins. Think about it. No wonder she’s so special…

 

[mercygate]

Andyman1517:

Asquared,

I don’t know what you really mean. Mary isn’t protrayed differently in the movie than in the Bible. Why would anyone’s perception of her change? Protestants are well aware of who Mary is and what she did.

Well, Andy, I’ve met a lot of Protestants who so effectively dismiss the role of Mary that they almost do not see her, even in Scripture. Your statement indicates that you’re already on the front edge of the curve! :yup:

 

[Shoshana]

PXseeker:

Anyway, a number of my friends felt the blood mopping scene was fairly pointless. I feel MG inserted it more for the gruesome imagery than anything else.
.

For what it’s worth, Jewish traditions held that blood was sacred and as the place of the scourging was no Kosher, as it were. Mary’s cleaning of the blood was likely due to Jewish traditions and to the fact that she was helpless as far as doing anything else. Shock probably drove her to it.

believe that the blood scrubbing scene had specific significance, as everything Mel put in the film did. If you know that he went through the trouble to put it in there…it had to mean something. And it does. Mel left nothing to chance in this film. He thought about everything.

During the sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem, specifically the sin sacrifices, the blood of the animal was held in special vessals, separated from the animal. It was holy, and just as Moses sprinkled the blood from such an animal on the people of Israel to sign a covenant with God, so, too, does Christ’s blood sign a covenant with us.

Mary knew this. She knew his blood was sacred, just as sacred as the blood of the sin sacrifice - for he was the one, true, eternal sacrifce for our sins. Seeing it dashed to the ground and treated so disrespectfully made her react in the only way she knew how.

St Emmerich saw in her visions that Mary mopped the Precious Blood at different places along the way. It was revealed to Katharine that this was the first Stations of the Cross.
Although I throughly enjoyed the above posts. I disagree that any Jew of the time would’ve touched the Blood especially before the Sabbath. Otherwise there would been great defilement. He would’ve had to offer sacrifice as the law of the day commanded to cleanse himself of impurities.

Blessings,
Shoshana

PS We must remember that the movie was built on St Katherine Emmerich’s book. Mel Gibson utilized a LOT of the revelations so he could portray what truly happened.

Blessings,
Shoshana