PDA

View Full Version : Gibson’s Passion and Mary “Co-redemptrix”


D.R.R.
March 19th 2004, 09:50 PM
This was a real eye-catching thread title, eh?

It was through Mary that the Redeemer entered the world...D.R.R.


Gibson’s Passion and Mary “Co-redemptrix”

Dr. Mark Miravalle
Professor of Theology and Mariology
Franciscan University of Steubenville

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a recent interview with Mel Gibson, Christianity Today referred to Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic who “likes the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary Co-Redemptrix.” There’s another well-known Catholic who also calls the Mother of Jesus the Co-Redemptrix: His name is Pope John Paul II. He has done so on six occasions during his post Vatican II pontificate.

What does the Co-Redemptrix title mean? From the Catholic perspective, it refers to Mary’s unique human participation with Jesus (and entirely subordinate to her divine Son) in the historic work of saving humanity from sin. Jesus is the only Redeemer, in the sense that he alone as the one divine mediator between God and man could redeem or “buy back” the human family from the bonds of Satan and sin. But God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature.

In light of her Immaculate Conception in which she was conceived without original sin through the foreseen merits of her Son, Mary is the sinless virgin Mother in total “enmity” or opposition with Satan, who becomes the ideal human partner with Jesus in the salvation of the human race. Early Christian writers called her the “New Eve,” who together with Jesus, the “New Adam,” accomplished the work of salvation for all the fallen children of the original Adam and Eve.

Mel Gibson has given the world its most powerful cinematic portrayal of the Mother of Jesus precisely as the Co-Redemptrix in his blockbuster film, The Passion of the Christ.

From early in the film it is clear that Mary alone has a special participation in Jesus’ saving mission. As the soldiers of the Sanhedrin bring Jesus in to stand trial before Caiaphas, Jesus looks at Mary from across the courtyard and Mary says softly, “It has begun, Lord ... so be it.” The Mother knows that the mission of human redemption has begun. She offers her sorrowful “so be it” to this mission to accompany her joyful “so be it” at the announcement of the angel Gabriel which first brought the Redeemer into the world.

Throughout the film, it is only Jesus and Mary who see their mutual adversary Satan, in his androgenized form. During the way of the cross, Mary slides her way through the crowd to accompany her tortured Son carrying his cross when she spots Satan as he parallels her movements on the other side of the crowd. She recognizes her antagonist, looks at him for a moment, and then refixes her gaze on her suffering Son.

Earlier, Satan appears during the scourging of Jesus carrying a demonic child, which conveys the Old Testament Genesis prophecy of the battle between the “woman” and her “seed” (Jesus Christ), and the serpent (Satan) and his “seed” or offspring of evil. After the scourging, Mary is inspired to soak up the blood of the Savior, splattered throughout the area of the pillar, with linens. She alone knows that each drop of this divine blood is supernaturally redemptive.

Many times during the savage process of the passion (for example, at the scourging, during the way of the cross, at Calvary), it is the glance of his Mother that gives Jesus the human support that strengthens him to proceed to the next stage of suffering. After one fall on the Via Dolorosa, Mary crawls next to her mutilated Son and reassures him: “I’m here.” Jesus regains some focus and replies to her concerning the mission: “See Mother, I make all things new.”

It is not Jesus alone, but all the disciples (Peter, John, the Magdalene), who call Mary, “Mother.” On Calvary, Mary receives from Jesus her designation as universal Mother.

As Jesus, who is affixed to the cross, is being raised up from the ground, Mary, whose hands clutched the rocky ground as her sons’ hands were nailed to the cross, rises from her kneeling position in proportion to her Son’s being raised on the cross. She then stands upright as her Son is now upright on the gibbet.

After some time, Mary approaches the cross with John, the beloved disciple. She kisses Jesus’ bloodied foot, and pleads for permission to die with him at this climactic moment of redemption: “Flesh of my flesh, Heart of my heart, my Son. Let me die with you!” Jesus responds to his mother and to John: “Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.” As the fruit of her sufferings with Jesus, Mary becomes the spiritual mother of all beloved disciples, and of all humanity redeemed at Calvary.

In The Passion of the Christ, Gibson has accomplished a Marian feat no pastor or theologian could achieve in the same way. He has given the world through its most popular visual medium a portrayal of a real human Mother, whose heart is inseparably united to her Son’s heart. This Mother’s heart is pierced to its very depths as she spiritually shares in the brutal immolation of her innocent Son. Hers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her Son for the same heavenly purpose: to buy back the human race from sin.

Mary Co-Redemptrix has been given her first international film debut in a supporting role, and it’s a hit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

Amazing Rando
March 20th 2004, 02:11 PM
Interesting article.... But this is still one of my biggest stumbling blocks to understanding Catholicism. Where do you get the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin? I really don't see any biblical reason to think that she was any more special as a person than Mary Magdalene, for example. Yes, God chose her as the vessel to bear the Redeemer through, but that doesn't seem to give her the extra special, cosmic significance that most Catholics I know give to her.

D.R.R.
March 20th 2004, 04:18 PM
Interesting article.... But this is still one of my biggest stumbling blocks to understanding Catholicism. Where do you get the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin? I really don't see any biblical reason to think that she was any more special as a person than Mary Magdalene, for example. Yes, God chose her as the vessel to bear the Redeemer through, but that doesn't seem to give her the extra special, cosmic significance that most Catholics I know give to her.

First of all, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary was sinless because of her own willpower but because of the grace of God. God SAVED her by preserving her from sin, which is why she needed a Savior like the rest of mankind.

Secondly, Luke 1:35 reads: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

'This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for "overshadow" ("episkiasei") was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God's Presence (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.

'Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches this (e.g., Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14). God's Presence imparts and requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies (where the Ark and God's Special Presence were) only once a year, under threat of death if God's instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as "Spouse"), and God the Father (as "Daughter of Zion"), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as we all will be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in heaven (Rev 21:27). Seen in this light, the Immaculate Conception, though still technically a deduction from the Bible, is a very biblical doctrine indeed.'

(Dave Armstrong, BIBLICAL OVERVIEW: THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ153.HTM)

dizzle
March 20th 2004, 06:22 PM
Sorry don't buy it. Esp in that article the significance given to the fact that the disciples called her Mother. In that culture it was and still is commplace to called the honored woman of a group "Mother" and does nto mean that she has supernatural status. I guess only Mel can answer what his intentions are rather than us reading into every step. I am sure using the same process above I could find all kinds of allegedly evil messages slipped in. This case is simple. What did Mel intend? Most feel he intended no such thing. If he did, he is grossly mistaken, but that does not detract fromthe film from what I have heard (I will not see it) it is about CHRIST not about Mary. It bothers me that half of the church makes an idol of Israel and the other half of Mary. Christ shares the title of Redeemer alone. We should not rob him of that.

D.R.R.
March 20th 2004, 06:39 PM
Sorry don't buy it.

Oh you can bet I will... :smile:

Esp in that article the significance given to the fact that the disciples called her Mother. In that culture it was and still is commplace to called the honored woman of a group "Mother" and does nto mean that she has supernatural status. I guess only Mel can answer what his intentions are rather than us reading into every step. I am sure using the same process above I could find all kinds of allegedly evil messages slipped in. This case is simple. What did Mel intend? Most feel he intended no such thing. If he did, he is grossly mistaken, but that does not detract fromthe film from what I have heard (I will not see it) it is about CHRIST not about Mary. It bothers me that half of the church makes an idol of Israel and the other half of Mary. Christ shares the title of Redeemer alone. We should not rob him of that.


We do not make Mary an idol; we honor her, just a child honors his mother. Are you saying we should not honor Mary? She was God's own mother, and Christ loves and honors her more than any of us can.

The Catholic Church robs Christ of nothing. As the article I posted reads:

"Jesus is the only Redeemer, in the sense that he alone as the one divine mediator between God and man could redeem or “buy back” the human family from the bonds of Satan and sin. But God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature."

Remember, it was through Mary's "yes" to God that the Redeemer entered the world.

Jude3b
March 22nd 2004, 03:45 AM
Roman Catholicism asserts that Mary never sinned and, hence, was redeemed (saved) from the moment of her birth: The doctrine is not taught in God's Word.

The Bible identifies Jesus as the sinless One, not Mary (2 Corinthians 5:21). Aside from the Lord Jesus, the Bible is quite clear that nobody else has ever been sinless (Romans 3:23, Romans 3:10, 12). None of these verses say "all have sinned except Mary." (see Gal. 3:22)

dizzle
March 22nd 2004, 08:41 AM
Seeing how Jude spammed and this thread is buried.



We do not make Mary an idol; we honor her, just a child honors his mother. Are you saying we should not honor Mary? She was God's own mother, and Christ loves and honors her more than any of us can.

Christ loves and honors all of us. Mary is NOT your mother. So your analogy falls flat. Forgive me if this is really polemical, but I see all this Mary stuff as fulfilling a heathenish need in us to have an Earth Mother. The Bible does not give us a Mother, it gives as a Father and Brother. This fixation on another creature to exalt her in the House of God is not meet.


The Catholic Church robs Christ of nothing. As the article I posted reads:

You are not paying attention unfortunately. IF Christ is the SOLE redeemer (and He is) - can not you see to call anyone else REDEEMER (ugh!) robs him of the exclusivity of His role?


"Jesus is the only Redeemer, in the sense that he alone as the one divine mediator between God and man could redeem or “buy back” the human family from the bonds of Satan and sin. But God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature."

The Bible does not teach this. The Bible teaches that the sole Redeemer is Christ. Everyone in God's redemptive plan has a unique role.

Remember, it was t
hrough Mary's "yes" to God that the Redeemer entered the world.

And God could have chosen others. That "yes" does not make us have to accord to Mary this special station in devotion. The "yes" we should focus on is CHRIST'S YES.

Now all this being said, the leadership here can attest I am not anti-Catholic by any means, but this whole Mary fixation would be one thing I am vehement against, it robs Christ and is creature-worship IMHO, no matter what we call it to try to deny that.

Solly
March 22nd 2004, 09:23 AM
Mel Gibson has given the world its most powerful cinematic portrayal of the Mother of Jesus precisely as the Co-Redemptrix in his blockbuster film, The Passion of the Christ.

Fortunately, it is to the scriptures we go, not to the fantasies of later writers. Jesus called his disciples his mother and brethren, while his natural mother stood outside. FW Faber, a catholic writer, was known for taking OT prophecies of Jesus and applying them to Mary. If she was so important, then she would have more than a walk on part, however instructive that much is for us - and I know, I have preached on the annunciation. The RCC must persuade us to ignore the clear indications of scripture that Mary was never addressed as such, never played any such role - and the film King of Kings tried the same thing too - but she passed from the scene of history without comment.


Evangelicals have been fooled into thinking this film is a great evangelical tool that is so-o-o-o faithful to scripture, and yet it was not based on scripture, and focuses on the physical sufferings of Christ just as much RCC mystical and ascetical literature and practice did, and perhaps still does in some quarters. I see nothing in this presentation than I see in the Shia muslims flagellating themselves recently, or in hindus doing the same.