how could a Catholic portray Her as having birth pangs under theological direction from a bishop. This movie should be boycotted just like the Chosen for the same reason.
From the Mass preface, “Mary at the Foot of the Cross II”: “she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.”
@@damianwhite504 The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was established by the Catholic Church. The Trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but it is rooted in Christian faith based on biblical interpretation. The same applies to other Catholic beliefs.
@@damianwhite504 Your question presupposes the doctrine of scriptural sufficiency, which asserts that all doctrines must be derived from scripture alone - a doctrine which ironically is nowhere found in scripture.
@@BP26P Like I said, I couldnt care less. I was baptized catholic 63 years ago and I have had nothing to do with the church, or traditional christianity for last 25 years. I cant see that changing in the near future.
"All generations will call me blessed" if this is not the objective of the film, I won't watch it. She was His most precious gift to us from the Cross! I agree completely with you.
Her *biggest* blessing imaginable was that sin had no appeal to her at all- it completely turned her off to it; beyond that; immunity from original sin's fruits means *nothing at all*.
@chissstardestroyer You are right in that Mary had no sentimental, emotional or carnal attraction to sin at all, and at the same time, like with the original temptation to the Angels and to Jesus in the desert, sin can have a mental attraction that must also be rejected. That's how the rejection of temptation by the Good Angels, Jesus, Mary and Joseph all have great merit in the challenge to their intelligences and free wills and was not a simulation at all. Even for us, the main battle is still in the mind (Romans 12:2).
@@philalcoceli6328 She had no attraction to sin at all, period; and that's the *sole* fruit of her immunity from original sin: the concept of acting up she understood all too well, and guess what: it disgusted her. It was a complete turn-off to that woman. Plus her *integrity* that'd ensue would mean that she, like her Son, wouldn't tolerate any real protections from regular human life- aside from what we'd dub as random human luck of say having a very good immune system. Come to think of it: immune system summarizes pretty well how her resistance to immorality worked: to become fond of any sin; you have to have something in you that it appeals to; and with *that* lady- there was nothing about acting up that was even remotely desireable; because she as a human being understood it all too well! She tended to see right through those scam offers and was repulsed by the concepts... nothing else is really supportable. Now she *was* unusually physically fit; that hike she took early on in her motherhood before she met her Kid; the length of half of Rhode Island or thereabouts in milage; that's not a weak lady physically-speaking; that'd be one fallout: less propensity to the temptation of laziness by far. Any claims of no labor pains or the like really are unsupportable at best.
@@philalcoceli6328 I wouldn't trust Netflix for *anything* today; especially something so serious as her psychology- they've produced some things that really make me question their fitness to even be and act as human beings, and not demon persons; what with sexualizing kids for crying out loud!
The partly covered hair is to lead up to the scene in which their Mary removes her veil and reveals her blue dyed hair. She will then declare she is joining the People's Front of Judea. The producers of course will blame their critics of lacking 'media literacy'. They will smugly say, don't you know that blue has a long artistic history of being associated with Mary.
Based on the fact that even in a mostly wholesome movie Hollywood will be sure to include at least one scene that destroys everything I won’t trust them.
"Not to treat our religion as just one more source of amusement" That perfectly describes my apprehension every time I see Hollywood make another movie about our faith.
Thank you Brian for making this video. Such a great point about holding interesting lies and entertainment over the truth, it’s something that’s been bothering me a lot about the chosen as well.
Totally agree, Brian. Your commentary on the example of The Chosen is a clear and succinct summation of why I prefer not to watch though I think it's very entertaining from the few episodes I've seen.
I agree with you (but I do like the Chosen). I remember the incredible confusion that took place after the book “The DaVinci Code” came out. The Catholic Churches in my town held discussion groups about the book. I loved the book and thought it was clever but at least I had a strong biblical background and never considered it anything but a good story. And that was a book. Movies are so much stronger in our minds like you say, and what we know of our Blessed Mother from scripture is scant so an individual would have to look farther than that if they wanted to know the truth and didn’t understand fully the teaching of the Church.
I’m just hoping they don’t turn her into some sort of girl boss, but I suspect she will tell off her father, Joseph, and Herod all at some point in the movie.
Thanks for your concerns. Can’t agree more. I always assume that any story told by a commercial concern is going to be corrupted by artistic license and the profit motive. Not to mention the fact that there are forces bent on dumbing down the Catholic faith with a una religion goal.
I'm a little suspicious of the film, because I have a worrying feeling Netflix is gonna Netflix and butcher the story completely. But I did like the 'Love will save the world' line, that's nice.
Keep in mind how the writers define and project “love”: brought to you by those who coined the “love is love” mantra for anything-goes sinless selfish sexual satisfaction.
@@cathyj.ploszaj7163I believe "... sinless selfish sexual satisfaction" should read "... sinful selfish sexual satisfaction." I understand that auto-correct can many times turn against us.
@@philalcoceli6328 I was mocking those who hold these ideologies and rationalize that when they call their perversity “love” they assign sinlessness to it - just as they rationalize the anything goes part. However, I appreciate your edit and I trust we are communicating. Thank you! (When it takes this much explanation, I probably do need to re-phrase😂)
Isaiah 66:7 my brother. But yes I was Protestant convert to Catholicism and when I saw the way Our Lady was portrayed by the clothes and then the birth pains I was like NOOOO to this movie.
Funny that a normal catholic guy, not even a priest.. knows way better than that bishop the catholic director was talking to for theological knowledge. You're a smart guy, I'm happy we have you on our side Brian :D
I see your point about the interesting lies, but I do believe they can sometimes lead people to seek the truth of that which they found interesting, even if the truth happens to be less interesting. For instance, my favorite movie, Braveheart, had me curious as to how historically (in)accurate the film was. Turns out, egregiously, is the only descriptor to properly describe how inaccurate it was, though I still love the movie. But it was also interesting to better understand the truth of the circumstances depicted.
For those looking for the reference to read in its context…It’s Isaiah 66:7. The entire chapter is amazing but, thought I’d provide the clarity there. Thanks for the content Brian! Also, at the start of the video, you mentioned Jesus at the Cross giving away His mother to His beloved disciple. In the book of John, Jesus was recorded saying “Behold, your mother.” Not “SON, behold, your mother.” Really not that big of a deal…small errors, but worthy of clarification. Again, great content!
It would be better to avoid attempts to depict our Lady in cinema then to risk creating a false depiction. Personally, I would not dare to try something like this. I don't have any plans to see this movie.
Obviously they tease St John the Baptist when Mary and Elizabeth meet up. Of course we only see the leaping in the womb, upon Mary’s arrival. But it’s not until we move to the reveal at the end of the credits when it cuts abruptly from black screen to John the Baptist in the Jordan river as he recognizes Jesus (who is out of frame) and he says iconically "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" This is a tight shot on JtB’s face as his weather worn mountain man face transforms from a person intently at work to a face of pure relief. We now notice his eyes welling up with tears of joy as the frame tightens up to cut away any background and further focus on the look of a man who knows his time of preparation is over, and the kingdom of heaven will be revealed to him soon. Not a man that lives an uncertain life now or before, but a man fulfilling his destiny for the glory of God. John again recognizes Jesus for the second time and this reunion precedes their reunion in heaven. Scene holds for a few seconds to give us the effect, then cuts back to black.
May I also add that I have never found a movie depicting Joseph as an old man, but rather as a man who falls in love with Mary and actually proposed to marry her out of becoming a husband, rather than as an old relative chosen to protect her virginal vow.
I agree with this video, but I will say, although chosen isn't a perfect portrayal of the story of Christ, it was a major part of bringing me to the faith and making me want to learn about Christianity and read the Bible. Ok you said it doesn't make sense, and I get the reasoning you made but it did infact work for me.
Hey, Brian, another wonderful video. I must offer a minor correction. It is Isaiah 66:7 and not 66:22 that talks of a woman giving birth before she is in labor.
even as a Muslim , i was upset by the mere depiction of Mary may Allah be pleased with her . because we hold her in high regard . we are not allowed to depict prophets in any way and even depicting their companions is incredibly discouraged ; and one of the reasons for that is to preserve respect for them and to close the door on any one attributing to them what they did not do . the fact that christians themselves depict even Jesus - peace be upon him - removes one huge hurdle from the way of those who would lie or even mock him , and even though they can do that with words , a visual depiction is more effective . and if they can do that with him than they can do it with any other . that is one reason why Hollywood dares to depict christian figures in all kinds of manners . another reason is relevance ; christianity is just more relevant to Hollywood and it's audience than any other religion . another huge reason is the level of outrage from christians is just too small to deter , as a matter of fact it mostly draws a net gain of new viewers without harming the producers in any meaningful way . but , we (Muslims) as an example do not tolerate even mere depiction of our highly regarded figures let alone insults . so it becomes too controversial for Hollywood or any one to try . and Allah knows best.
Worst part is that Hollywood knows it would be profitable making a 100% dogmatically correct film. Biblical movies keep being shelved and forgotten because Christians are forced to stick with just a few.
I was pretty much ready to join the Catholic Church, but I can't get past the whole Marian theology. What finally stopped me was hearing Scott Hahn praying on one of his videos. He prayed to God, and then to Jesus, and then said, "And most importantly" before he prayed to Mary. Sorry, but Mary is not "Most important" don't understand how you can say "honoring Mary as the Queen Mother is going to be a prerequisite" for citizenship in heaven when the Word of God says that ""There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" I need to be in Christ Jesus and Him alone as the single prerequisite to entering the kingdom. I would love to be Catholic, but this is a stumbling block and I have encountered pretty much every argument for it over the three years I have studied Catholicism.
There was some context clearly missing from whatever Dr. Scott Hahn said, he would never, ever say that Mary is more important than Jesus. I strongly recommend that you read some of his books on the topic. He’s very clear. “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary” by Dr. Brant Pitre, a good friend of Dr. Hahn’s, is where I would start, though. Adoration is reserved for God. We venerate Mary, but she is not God. Period.
Greg you just don’t understand who she really is Mary defeated the devil, the devil hates her she did what eve did not Study another three years you might get it I’ll pray you understand sooner may God bless you 🙏
I second brant Pitre’s book as a great starting place if you haven’t read it yet! As a previously non Catholic Christian as well, the immaculate conception actually kept me Protestant a bit longer. Now I can see that it is actually another incredible thing God has done to wonder at (among so many, right?) Jesus’s incarnation was not typical and His birth and mother weren’t either. She is the new Eve, our adoption to God the Father is real and Jesus’s mother has been given by God the gift of queen mother and mother to us. As the new Eve and first Christian she points us to our future and, by God’s help and our perseverance, being full of grace from God too. A perfect disciple of God- what we hope for in Heaven! A few long version podcast episodes to consider different things about mother Mary- Shameless popery, brant pitre (Catholic productions), counsel of Trent, jimmy akin, voice of reason, Tim staples, Brian holdsworth of course :), how to be Christian, pints with Aquinas, Keith nester posted a sermon he did on Mary as a Protestant ( worth a listen), St. Paul center/scot Hahn, the Catholic talk show, patristix (a look from an orthodox non Catholic brother), ewtn the Catholic brothers, - I could go on and on. 😉 Obviously scripture, the church fathers and tradition of the Church are huge here, but these long form discussions really help so much. Keep searching and praying and asking questions. Finally receiving God’s mercies through the sacraments, being a part of Jesus’s church in full, the saints’ intercessions as we run our race- being Catholic is such an amazing gift. I hope you can come soon. 🙂
Catholic Bible highlights by Kenny burchard, Dr Mike Schmidt’s Bible in a year podcast/catechism in a year podcast are excellent. Ascension presents/Catholic answers have shorter form discussions too. Ok, I will stop. 😅
I was raised Catholic and have many of the same reservations about Mariy. It is not that I disrespect her role. I've heard all the Catholic apologetics regarding Marian doctrine and remain unconvinced.
I saw the trailer for this show and knew right away this was not the Theotokos I prayer to (and have experienced miracles from). Will not watch! Just like I refused to watch Conclave.
If there's one person you don't want to blaspheme, it's Her. Remind yourself who Her Son is. Read the Book of Revelation. Ask yourself how much forgiveness you keep for those who abuse your own mother. Have a little think while you still have time. Mary is called the "Destroyer of Heresies" due to her role in defending the Church from false teachings. This title was especially emphasized during the Counter-Reformation and is rooted in key historical and doctrinal moments. At the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), Mary was declared Theotokos (Mother of God) to combat the Nestorian heresy, which denied the unity of Christ's divine and human natures (Luke 1:43; CCC 466). Her Immaculate Conception counters Pelagianism, which denied original sin and grace, as defined in Ineffabilis Deus (1854) and supported by Luke 1:28 and CCC 491. Mary's perfect faith and obedience, seen in her "fiat" (Luke 1:38), serve as a model for all Christians (CCC 967). Historically, during the Counter-Reformation, the Church reinforced Marian doctrines to protect orthodoxy from Protestant challenges, with papal documents like Divina Supplicatio (1568) invoking her intercession. Finally, Revelation 12:1 portrays Mary as the "Woman clothed with the sun," symbolizing her victory over heresy and evil.
@@damianwhite504symbolism like that found in revelation can always be interpreted to shed light on the world, imo. Our technology, understanding of the world and lifestyles have changed a lot but deep down we’re still the same humans as our ancestors.
@@Dhavroch It can also be misinterpreted to suit the needs of each person. Believe what you want, really dont care. 'Proof" is in the mind's eye of the believer. I believe none of it can be proven.
In fairness how many people have probably become interested in religion via the divine comedy or paradise lost, it's the same principle of star trek making someone interested in space of jurassic park with dinosaurs. Fiction on a topic can encourage study of the underlying topic as the fiction speaks to the passions which then direct the reason toward a given intrest
I'm not sure the analogy about the wife and lies about her making one attracted to her works. In a similar case, the abstract concept of getting to know the wife would lead to wanting to know more and more. His analogy would make a negative about icons and what they represent as is the common protestant consideration. Why speak to a fake when you can go to the real thing. And while he calls the show of the "The Chosen" out as lying, it feels disingenuous to not take into consideration that the producers are outright honest about the motivations of the show itself. They certainly are not lying. Plus, media is different than human beings on a great many levels. Media does not speak back to you or convey its true meaning. Other people do. The "For Fun's sake" argument made much more sense.
What can I expect? I expect to catch at least 3 rainbow trout while the movie is playing, as I will be doing something actually worthwhile instead of wasting my time and damaging my soul watching it.
Well, we *know* our lady *would've* undergone labor pains; she was way too mature, character-wise, to not be willing, and the sole fruit of the immunity from original sin she had was really seeing what sin *is* and the complete and utter disgust for that that'd have ensued in her life as a direct result!
“If you're going to make a movie about my mother, there had better not be a single hair out of place!” Love it. Seeing how Hollywood loves to disrespect our faith, it really bothered me that a movie about Virgin Mary was being made. Honestly, I won't watch it. I'm tired of all the purposely bad representations
Thing is: the reference to the kingdom, and all that entails; tells me that no Catholic nor follower of His can ever tolerate any such system being in place at all; least of all being *part* of such a Hellish administration as any kingdom really is; especially when you analyze what the types of "marriage" they carried out really were: they were NOT marriages in any sense at all: they were at best corruptions thereof, to the point of all monarchists really are loyal to Hell- and that absolutely includes the saints!
Mary is great, but Mary was not omniscient. Mary did not know why God chose her for this, merely that she was chosen for this. Moreover, Mary does not know all that “this” would entail, merely the rough outlines. And even then, it is not at all clear that she not only understood Christ’s self-prophesy of death and resurrection when no one else did, not only understood the prophesy of death and resurrection from the scriptures when no one else did, but fore-knew this at the moment of fiat-and subsequently told no one. There is simply no reason to believe this except a strange idea that Mary needed to fully know what she was saying yes to-rather saying yes on *faith*. Mary is more greatly honored by acknowledging her human limitations and understanding that she said yes despite them.
@@catholicguy1073 I'm just a Catholic complaining about the *many* people who speak and act like Mary was omniscient, and get all offended at the tiniest real-world example where she might not have known literally everything to know about the matter at hand.
@ I don’t know of any practicing Catholic that think Mary is omniscient. Any ability she has comes from God working through her to fulfill his will as she is his top Saint I think it’s interesting if you have examples that differ from this. I would think most Practicing Catholics would and should correct someone if they claimed she was omniscient
The. Bible is not just a book of stories - it is the foundation of our faith. Jesus said he was born to give testimony to the truth. Modifying the Bible to make it more appealing to contemporary society deviates from the truth of the Bible and should not go unchallenged.
On the point about the chosen. The fact Jonathan Rumie has been under such heavy demonic attack throughout the filming of the show, to me, shows the enemy finds it accurate and effective enough to be pissed about
Hmm... Given that they take such liberties with Genuine Authentic Biblical Truth, I seriously doubt that the Devil is offended at all but more like very glad. Saying that he has been under "demonic attack" seems more like an "oh-wow-look-how-holy-he-is" marketing ploy. "You'll know them by their [obvious] fruits" not by their words.
Wouldn’t it logically follow that if Mary did the will of Christ’s Father in heaven, then she was Christ’s sister according to Mark 12:50? Also if Mary is depicted in Revelation 12, it clearly shows in verse 2 that she cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
No Catholic should ever watch or support a movie that portrays Our Lady having birth pangs. You become complicit in the sins committed against the mother of Our Lord every time you watch or promote that stuff. If the director is Catholic, then we owe it him to offer him fraternal correction. We owe it Our Lady to stand up and defend her. She is our mother.
Believing that Mary had birth pangs is a perfectly allowable belief in Catholic teaching. No Catholic such as yourself should be spreading this misinformation
@ No it is not allowable. It is a dogma of the faith. If you believe that she had birth pangs then you are not Catholic; because you are denying a dogma of the faith. As a Catholic you have to hold and believe in all dogmas of the faith. Stop spreading misinformation about the Church.
@@ao19776 Please cite in the Catechism where this dogma is located, I can assure you that their is none. There are four dogmas about Mary and her not having birth pangs is not one of them I would also recommend you to go to confession for accusing me of not being a Catholic
@ The proclamation of the Immaculate Conception dogma in Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX is a starting place. This is infallible. The catechism is just a teaching tool for the faithful. There many different ones. It doesn’t contain everything and it isn’t infallible.
11:45 "They resorted to appealing to scenes from the life of Jesus that never happened, because they saw it in shows like the Chosen and were convinced it was in the Bible when in fact it wasn't." Quite a statement after spending a majority of the video speaking about unbiblical teachings about Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness.
Right, Apostolic tradition which we have access to via the scriptures. The traditions of the Roman Catholic Church are no more binding than alleged claims of Mosaic tradition cited by the Jewish leadership of Jesus day.
@@kkilb92 A 27-book New Testament is a tradition of that Catholic Church that is binding on all Christians. Or do you believe, like Martin Luther, that Christians can decide for themselves which ancient documents are inspired?
They only do this crap against Christians, especially Catholics. I'd have a tiny bit of respect if they treated other religions the same but the fact that they don't shows their true intentions. EDIT: I had an aunt who had no labor pains. She had 2 children.
Using Our Blessed Mother as “entertainment” at the cost of blaspheming against her such that 1st Saturday reparations are in order is grave sin. Catholics are bound to the Marian dogmas & to take part in mocking them (without bothering to know what they are) starts with the sins of pride & presumption and builds from their. Also, this is far worse than Hollywood: with Joel Osteen as an executive producer on this film is a guarantee to be blatantly blasphemous with intent to mock doctrine & dogma. He definitely preaches his own pop psychology feel-good life coach ideology for fun, profit, and personal popularity.
You forgot Jesus Christ Superstar! 😂 Several other Catholic RUclipsrs have watched the film and strongly advise that no one else watch it. I think that you missed the mark at 12:11-12:55. I don't think that the falsehoods and fiction in Bible-based entertainment fare is inspiring people to read the Bible, but rather just the mere fact that the fare is based on the Bible - they came for the entertainment, and were inspired to learn the truth.
When adapting any kind of literary product dor the screen there will always be an unreducible amount of betray of the source material. For one they all speak fluent English, that doesn't bother us because we accept it as a concession to the accessibility. They all look way to Caucasian to be palestinian, blue eyes were likely not that common, and what about Her perfectly groome eyebrows. I know some of these facts may not be theologically relevant, but they nonetheless shape our imagination about the subject.
I'm sorry, but is it historically proven that women covered their hair completely in those times? I'm pretty sure they wore veils, covered their heads, but it wasn't a law that no hair should ever be seen, like it is in islam. Plus, it's a very common convention for depictions of Mary to show part of her hair despite the veil.
A comment about Mary's perpetual virginity: if she and St. Joseph planned on raising a family, why in the world did she say "... since I know not man"???
Mary had from the time she was able to profess it, said she would never know man. Even today's Jewish scholars will admit that and that her lineage, the Essenes, were and still often are, very chaste people. She did not agree to have sex with him, and after the visit by the angel i doubt he had designs upon her, especially in that way. So ... Your question is simply misplaced.
@@alexanderv7702A normal engaged woman would expect to have children within marriage. For Mary to respond "how can this be?" demonstrates that she didn't expect to have children.
You are most certainly NOT alone in your view that a little poison --falsehood regarding the unchanging teaching of the Church-- is NOT acceptable when portraying the Mother of God. TRUTH MATTERS.
Eh? Where did you hear that nonsense? Yes, they were BETROTHED to be married, but that was still to come. ( As I understand it a betrothal was considered to be almost a marriage, but not quite. )
@@mottledbrain From the Jewish Encyclopedia website: The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law. In the Bible: Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation. The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of the passages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.
As the other commenter said, they were betrothed. Also, marriage at the time was considered completed in consummation so it’s not uncommon to refer to her as unwedded as a way to signify that she was perpetually a virgin
@@Hooklyoften times when the betrothal took place they would sleep together. So when Mary said I know not man it was said in a Jewish way that they were engaging in a celibate marriage
@ not true and misunderstands the Jewish marriage ceremony. The Jewish wedding is performed in 2 parts. About a year apart. After the first one the couple is married and free to have sex. We say “betrothed” bc we don’t have a modern equivalent
I find The Chosen to be _helpful to mediation_ as a _healthy use of imagination._ God created us to have an imagination. We can use it for good, or evil. There are scenes in the series that are definitely in the Gospels. That's discussed in the "Behind the Scenes Roundtable," conducted between the director -- a Protestant who believes in the rapture as occurring before the end of time, and a Protestant clergyman, a Christian Jewish Rabbi, and a Catholic priest. The intent isn't to portray only the biblical scenes, but to reveal Jesus and His disciples as living, breathing human beings (Jesus is also Divine, of course). There are things that happened in between the Gospel passages. Maybe the director and script writers don't match up with your imagination, and they haven't matched with my imagination in everything. But it's a meditation above all. It's like reading the writings of certain visionaries and other meditative Christians. We don't commit sin by reading or watching the imaginative visions of other people's conjecture about Jesus, so long as it remains in the parameter of accepted Christian doctrine. But you don't have to avail yourself of it, either, any more than you have to avail yourself of the writings that came from the Apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The Church acknowledges that at least some of every private revelation is described through the imagination (perception) of the visionary. And that's not bad.
@@catholicguy1073 Tradition is the result of Scripture. Besides, Scripture is the last time God provided revelation to us, and that, too, is Catholic teaching.
Westminster Confession of Faith 1647 Chapter XXV: Of The Church Paragraph VI "There is no other Head of the Church but the LORD JESUS CHRIST: nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be Head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against CHRIST, and all that is called GOD." Matthew 24:4 KJV "And JESUS answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in MY NAME, saying, I am CHRIST; and shall deceive many." Note: Vicar of CHRIST means one who acts for CHRIST or is in the place of CHRIST with the delegated powers thereof. Many popes have come in the Name of CHRIST to fill the one office of the pope. That office being antichrist.
Jesus suffered like us all man born of a woman is of few days and full of troubles. Mary did she suffer like all women. Period pains labour pains. Show any scripture in tanakh of God having a mother.
No is it not everyone’s story to tell. Our Lady is a real person and people don’t have any right to distort her life. It is very disrespectful to disseminate lies about Jesus’ mother and my mother.
Here’s an easy go/no go test for movies about things pertaining to Our Lord and/or other biblical figures: are the director and producer(s) regular worshippers at the TLM or not? If yes, go to the movie. If not, do not go to the movie.
If it’s not being made by Mel Gibson it’s going to be trash.
Mel Gibson is a raving lunatic
Fax
how could a Catholic portray Her as having birth pangs under theological direction from a bishop. This movie should be boycotted just like the Chosen for the same reason.
From the Mass preface, “Mary at the Foot of the Cross II”:
“she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains
in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.”
Where in the bible does it say there was no pains of childbirth? Is that yet another catholic invention...
@@damianwhite504 The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was established by the Catholic Church. The Trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but it is rooted in Christian faith based on biblical interpretation. The same applies to other Catholic beliefs.
@@Leo_fabulator I couldnt care less.
@@damianwhite504 Your question presupposes the doctrine of scriptural sufficiency, which asserts that all doctrines must be derived from scripture alone - a doctrine which ironically is nowhere found in scripture.
@@BP26P Like I said, I couldnt care less. I was baptized catholic 63 years ago and I have had nothing to do with the church, or traditional christianity for last 25 years. I cant see that changing in the near future.
Thank you! Mother Mary is not for entertainment! She is completely inspiring in all TRUTH
"All generations will call me blessed" if this is not the objective of the film, I won't watch it.
She was His most precious gift to us from the Cross! I agree completely with you.
Her *biggest* blessing imaginable was that sin had no appeal to her at all- it completely turned her off to it; beyond that; immunity from original sin's fruits means *nothing at all*.
@chissstardestroyer You are right in that Mary had no sentimental, emotional or carnal attraction to sin at all, and at the same time, like with the original temptation to the Angels and to Jesus in the desert, sin can have a mental attraction that must also be rejected.
That's how the rejection of temptation by the Good Angels, Jesus, Mary and Joseph all have great merit in the challenge to their intelligences and free wills and was not a simulation at all. Even for us, the main battle is still in the mind (Romans 12:2).
@@philalcoceli6328 She had no attraction to sin at all, period; and that's the *sole* fruit of her immunity from original sin: the concept of acting up she understood all too well, and guess what: it disgusted her. It was a complete turn-off to that woman.
Plus her *integrity* that'd ensue would mean that she, like her Son, wouldn't tolerate any real protections from regular human life- aside from what we'd dub as random human luck of say having a very good immune system.
Come to think of it: immune system summarizes pretty well how her resistance to immorality worked: to become fond of any sin; you have to have something in you that it appeals to; and with *that* lady- there was nothing about acting up that was even remotely desireable; because she as a human being understood it all too well! She tended to see right through those scam offers and was repulsed by the concepts... nothing else is really supportable.
Now she *was* unusually physically fit; that hike she took early on in her motherhood before she met her Kid; the length of half of Rhode Island or thereabouts in milage; that's not a weak lady physically-speaking; that'd be one fallout: less propensity to the temptation of laziness by far.
Any claims of no labor pains or the like really are unsupportable at best.
@@philalcoceli6328 I wouldn't trust Netflix for *anything* today; especially something so serious as her psychology- they've produced some things that really make me question their fitness to even be and act as human beings, and not demon persons; what with sexualizing kids for crying out loud!
"Read the book. Don't wait for the movie"
The partly covered hair is to lead up to the scene in which their Mary removes her veil and reveals her blue dyed hair. She will then declare she is joining the People's Front of Judea. The producers of course will blame their critics of lacking 'media literacy'. They will smugly say, don't you know that blue has a long artistic history of being associated with Mary.
I almost spit out my coffee reading that! 😂
Excellent Brian. Thank you for taking the time to go through this for the masses. God bless you
I agree with Mr. Holdsworth 100% that movie as such should be accurate and faithful to the Catholic faith,.
@@GGM20000 The number of people who thought the Da Vinci Code was a documentary demonstrates why accuracy matters in film.
You said thank you so much Brian I cannot have said it better
Brian you’re such a great teacher of the Catholic faith.
Based on the fact that even in a mostly wholesome movie Hollywood will be sure to include at least one scene that destroys everything I won’t trust them.
I think most of us that consider Mary our Mother, are very concerned. Good video. No, great video.
Totally agree. Very suspicious of any religious movies.
I agree wholeheartedly. Well said.
"Not to treat our religion as just one more source of amusement" That perfectly describes my apprehension every time I see Hollywood make another movie about our faith.
I akways enjoy your thoughtful videos. Thank you.
I haven’t watched in a while, but this is spot on, thank you sir!
Spot on. Thank you for the excellent commentary.
Another excellent video! Thank you for your work that leads people to the truth!
Brian: soulmate! I 100% agree.
Excellent! ❤💯🙏🕊
I agree with you the story should be accurate.
Thank you Brian for making this video. Such a great point about holding interesting lies and entertainment over the truth, it’s something that’s been bothering me a lot about the chosen as well.
Totally agree, Brian. Your commentary on the example of The Chosen is a clear and succinct summation of why I prefer not to watch though I think it's very entertaining from the few episodes I've seen.
A different movie coming out shortly..."I Am the Immaculate Conception." That one, I am looking forward to seeing.
I agree with you (but I do like the Chosen). I remember the incredible confusion that took place after the book “The DaVinci Code” came out. The Catholic Churches in my town held discussion groups about the book. I loved the book and thought it was clever but at least I had a strong biblical background and never considered it anything but a good story. And that was a book. Movies are so much stronger in our minds like you say, and what we know of our Blessed Mother from scripture is scant so an individual would have to look farther than that if they wanted to know the truth and didn’t understand fully the teaching of the Church.
I’m just hoping they don’t turn her into some sort of girl boss, but I suspect she will tell off her father, Joseph, and Herod all at some point in the movie.
Thanks for your concerns. Can’t agree more. I always assume that any story told by a commercial concern is going to be corrupted by artistic license and the profit motive. Not to mention the fact that there are forces bent on dumbing down the Catholic faith with a una religion goal.
Just stumbled upon you. I'm subscribed now.
I'm a little suspicious of the film, because I have a worrying feeling Netflix is gonna Netflix and butcher the story completely. But I did like the 'Love will save the world' line, that's nice.
Its okay but its soppussed to be ”feel good christian vibes” ”mushy minds”
Keep in mind how the writers define and project “love”: brought to you by those who coined the “love is love” mantra for anything-goes sinless selfish sexual satisfaction.
@@cathyj.ploszaj7163I believe "... sinless selfish sexual satisfaction" should read "... sinful selfish sexual satisfaction." I understand that auto-correct can many times turn against us.
@@philalcoceli6328 I was mocking those who hold these ideologies and rationalize that when they call their perversity “love” they assign sinlessness to it - just as they rationalize the anything goes part. However, I appreciate your edit and I trust we are communicating. Thank you! (When it takes this much explanation, I probably do need to re-phrase😂)
Hardly the first time a movie has been made out of a fictional story. I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Isaiah 66:7 my brother.
But yes I was Protestant convert to Catholicism and when I saw the way Our Lady was portrayed by the clothes and then the birth pains I was like NOOOO to this movie.
Funny that a normal catholic guy, not even a priest.. knows way better than that bishop the catholic director was talking to for theological knowledge. You're a smart guy, I'm happy we have you on our side Brian :D
I see your point about the interesting lies, but I do believe they can sometimes lead people to seek the truth of that which they found interesting, even if the truth happens to be less interesting. For instance, my favorite movie, Braveheart, had me curious as to how historically (in)accurate the film was. Turns out, egregiously, is the only descriptor to properly describe how inaccurate it was, though I still love the movie. But it was also interesting to better understand the truth of the circumstances depicted.
For those looking for the reference to read in its context…It’s Isaiah 66:7. The entire chapter is amazing but, thought I’d provide the clarity there. Thanks for the content Brian!
Also, at the start of the video, you mentioned Jesus at the Cross giving away His mother to His beloved disciple. In the book of John, Jesus was recorded saying “Behold, your mother.” Not “SON, behold, your mother.”
Really not that big of a deal…small errors, but worthy of clarification. Again, great content!
It would be better to avoid attempts to depict our Lady in cinema then to risk creating a false depiction. Personally, I would not dare to try something like this. I don't have any plans to see this movie.
We need a Hollywood Biblical Cinematic Universe. Look for the End credits scene for John the Baptist reveal!
Obviously they tease St John the Baptist when Mary and Elizabeth meet up. Of course we only see the leaping in the womb, upon Mary’s arrival. But it’s not until we move to the reveal at the end of the credits when it cuts abruptly from black screen to John the Baptist in the Jordan river as he recognizes Jesus (who is out of frame) and he says iconically "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" This is a tight shot on JtB’s face as his weather worn mountain man face transforms from a person intently at work to a face of pure relief. We now notice his eyes welling up with tears of joy as the frame tightens up to cut away any background and further focus on the look of a man who knows his time of preparation is over, and the kingdom of heaven will be revealed to him soon. Not a man that lives an uncertain life now or before, but a man fulfilling his destiny for the glory of God. John again recognizes Jesus for the second time and this reunion precedes their reunion in heaven.
Scene holds for a few seconds to give us the effect, then cuts back to black.
May I also add that I have never found a movie depicting Joseph as an old man, but rather as a man who falls in love with Mary and actually proposed to marry her out of becoming a husband, rather than as an old relative chosen to protect her virginal vow.
I agree with this video, but I will say, although chosen isn't a perfect portrayal of the story of Christ, it was a major part of bringing me to the faith and making me want to learn about Christianity and read the Bible. Ok you said it doesn't make sense, and I get the reasoning you made but it did infact work for me.
I love the nativity story told/witnessed by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. The desertification the birth of Jesus is magnificent.
These are not the infallible teachings of the church.
Hey, Brian, another wonderful video. I must offer a minor correction. It is Isaiah 66:7 and not 66:22 that talks of a woman giving birth before she is in labor.
True words
Accuracy matters because it happened
Brian, according to Wikipedia, Joel Osteen is the executive producer. 'Nuff said. Avoid at all costs. :-)
even as a Muslim , i was upset by the mere depiction of Mary may Allah be pleased with her . because we hold her in high regard .
we are not allowed to depict prophets in any way and even depicting their companions is incredibly discouraged ; and one of the reasons for that is to preserve respect for them and to close the door on any one attributing to them what they did not do . the fact that christians themselves depict even Jesus - peace be upon him - removes one huge hurdle from the way of those who would lie or even mock him , and even though they can do that with words , a visual depiction is more effective . and if they can do that with him than they can do it with any other . that is one reason why Hollywood dares to depict christian figures in all kinds of manners . another reason is relevance ; christianity is just more relevant to Hollywood and it's audience than any other religion . another huge reason is the level of outrage from christians is just too small to deter , as a matter of fact it mostly draws a net gain of new viewers without harming the producers in any meaningful way . but , we (Muslims) as an example do not tolerate even mere depiction of our highly regarded figures let alone insults . so it becomes too controversial for Hollywood or any one to try .
and Allah knows best.
Worst part is that Hollywood knows it would be profitable making a 100% dogmatically correct film. Biblical movies keep being shelved and forgotten because Christians are forced to stick with just a few.
Thank you Brian.
"labor pains" - This is NOT for Catholics !
I was pretty much ready to join the Catholic Church, but I can't get past the whole Marian theology. What finally stopped me was hearing Scott Hahn praying on one of his videos. He prayed to God, and then to Jesus, and then said, "And most importantly" before he prayed to Mary. Sorry, but Mary is not "Most important" don't understand how you can say "honoring Mary as the Queen Mother is going to be a prerequisite" for citizenship in heaven when the Word of God says that ""There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" I need to be in Christ Jesus and Him alone as the single prerequisite to entering the kingdom. I would love to be Catholic, but this is a stumbling block and I have encountered pretty much every argument for it over the three years I have studied Catholicism.
There was some context clearly missing from whatever Dr. Scott Hahn said, he would never, ever say that Mary is more important than Jesus. I strongly recommend that you read some of his books on the topic. He’s very clear.
“Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary” by Dr. Brant Pitre, a good friend of Dr. Hahn’s, is where I would start, though.
Adoration is reserved for God. We venerate Mary, but she is not God. Period.
Greg you just don’t understand who she really is Mary defeated the devil, the devil hates her she did what eve did not Study another three years you might get it I’ll pray you understand sooner may God bless you 🙏
I second brant Pitre’s book as a great starting place if you haven’t read it yet!
As a previously non Catholic Christian as well, the immaculate conception actually kept me Protestant a bit longer. Now I can see that it is actually another incredible thing God has done to wonder at (among so many, right?) Jesus’s incarnation was not typical and His birth and mother weren’t either. She is the new Eve, our adoption to God the Father is real and Jesus’s mother has been given by God the gift of queen mother and mother to us. As the new Eve and first Christian she points us to our future and, by God’s help and our perseverance, being full of grace from God too. A perfect disciple of God- what we hope for in Heaven!
A few long version podcast episodes to consider different things about mother Mary- Shameless popery, brant pitre (Catholic productions), counsel of Trent, jimmy akin, voice of reason, Tim staples, Brian holdsworth of course :), how to be Christian, pints with Aquinas, Keith nester posted a sermon he did on Mary as a Protestant ( worth a listen), St. Paul center/scot Hahn, the Catholic talk show, patristix (a look from an orthodox non Catholic brother), ewtn the Catholic brothers, - I could go on and on. 😉
Obviously scripture, the church fathers and tradition of the Church are huge here, but these long form discussions really help so much.
Keep searching and praying and asking questions. Finally receiving God’s mercies through the sacraments, being a part of Jesus’s church in full, the saints’ intercessions as we run our race- being Catholic is such an amazing gift. I hope you can come soon. 🙂
Catholic Bible highlights by Kenny burchard, Dr Mike Schmidt’s Bible in a year podcast/catechism in a year podcast are excellent. Ascension presents/Catholic answers have shorter form discussions too. Ok, I will stop. 😅
I was raised Catholic and have many of the same reservations about Mariy. It is not that I disrespect her role. I've heard all the Catholic apologetics regarding Marian doctrine and remain unconvinced.
I saw the trailer for this show and knew right away this was not the Theotokos I prayer to (and have experienced miracles from). Will not watch! Just like I refused to watch Conclave.
So if i wrote a holywood picture about the Dalai Lama that the twist was he is Cain and he keeps reincarnating because he's not allowed to move on?
@9:27 this verse is actually found at Isaiah 66.7. Just so you do not have to go looking harder than I did.
If there's one person you don't want to blaspheme, it's Her. Remind yourself who Her Son is. Read the Book of Revelation. Ask yourself how much forgiveness you keep for those who abuse your own mother. Have a little think while you still have time. Mary is called the "Destroyer of Heresies" due to her role in defending the Church from false teachings. This title was especially emphasized during the Counter-Reformation and is rooted in key historical and doctrinal moments. At the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), Mary was declared Theotokos (Mother of God) to combat the Nestorian heresy, which denied the unity of Christ's divine and human natures (Luke 1:43; CCC 466). Her Immaculate Conception counters Pelagianism, which denied original sin and grace, as defined in Ineffabilis Deus (1854) and supported by Luke 1:28 and CCC 491. Mary's perfect faith and obedience, seen in her "fiat" (Luke 1:38), serve as a model for all Christians (CCC 967). Historically, during the Counter-Reformation, the Church reinforced Marian doctrines to protect orthodoxy from Protestant challenges, with papal documents like Divina Supplicatio (1568) invoking her intercession. Finally, Revelation 12:1 portrays Mary as the "Woman clothed with the sun," symbolizing her victory over heresy and evil.
the book of revelation is a collection of metaphors that make very little sense in todays world
@@damianwhite504symbolism like that found in revelation can always be interpreted to shed light on the world, imo. Our technology, understanding of the world and lifestyles have changed a lot but deep down we’re still the same humans as our ancestors.
@@Dhavroch It can also be misinterpreted to suit the needs of each person. Believe what you want, really dont care. 'Proof" is in the mind's eye of the believer. I believe none of it can be proven.
Film based on Bible story should be documentary as much as possibly.
It's a central point of any Christian art. So let's see, friends..
After what they did with Conclave I don’t have high hopes
In fairness how many people have probably become interested in religion via the divine comedy or paradise lost, it's the same principle of star trek making someone interested in space of jurassic park with dinosaurs. Fiction on a topic can encourage study of the underlying topic as the fiction speaks to the passions which then direct the reason toward a given intrest
@brianholdsworth At the risk of picking nits, it's actually Isaiah 66:7, not verse 22 that speaks of no labor pains.
I'm not sure the analogy about the wife and lies about her making one attracted to her works. In a similar case, the abstract concept of getting to know the wife would lead to wanting to know more and more. His analogy would make a negative about icons and what they represent as is the common protestant consideration. Why speak to a fake when you can go to the real thing. And while he calls the show of the "The Chosen" out as lying, it feels disingenuous to not take into consideration that the producers are outright honest about the motivations of the show itself. They certainly are not lying. Plus, media is different than human beings on a great many levels. Media does not speak back to you or convey its true meaning. Other people do. The "For Fun's sake" argument made much more sense.
What can I expect? I expect to catch at least 3 rainbow trout while the movie is playing, as I will be doing something actually worthwhile instead of wasting my time and damaging my soul watching it.
Wow, the strictest possible interpretation for all things optional
Well, we *know* our lady *would've* undergone labor pains; she was way too mature, character-wise, to not be willing, and the sole fruit of the immunity from original sin she had was really seeing what sin *is* and the complete and utter disgust for that that'd have ensued in her life as a direct result!
“If you're going to make a movie about my mother, there had better not be a single hair out of place!” Love it. Seeing how Hollywood loves to disrespect our faith, it really bothered me that a movie about Virgin Mary was being made. Honestly, I won't watch it. I'm tired of all the purposely bad representations
FYI, the first quote as far as i can tell is isaiah 66:7, not 66:22🙂
Doesn’t look promising , I’ll pass.
I wager we will be many 😃
You are going to see it 😅
@IntelligentAtheism Intelligent atheism, an oxymoron 😅
Thing is: the reference to the kingdom, and all that entails; tells me that no Catholic nor follower of His can ever tolerate any such system being in place at all; least of all being *part* of such a Hellish administration as any kingdom really is; especially when you analyze what the types of "marriage" they carried out really were: they were NOT marriages in any sense at all: they were at best corruptions thereof, to the point of all monarchists really are loyal to Hell- and that absolutely includes the saints!
What’s the background song at the outro?
Mary is great, but Mary was not omniscient. Mary did not know why God chose her for this, merely that she was chosen for this. Moreover, Mary does not know all that “this” would entail, merely the rough outlines. And even then, it is not at all clear that she not only understood Christ’s self-prophesy of death and resurrection when no one else did, not only understood the prophesy of death and resurrection from the scriptures when no one else did, but fore-knew this at the moment of fiat-and subsequently told no one. There is simply no reason to believe this except a strange idea that Mary needed to fully know what she was saying yes to-rather saying yes on *faith*. Mary is more greatly honored by acknowledging her human limitations and understanding that she said yes despite them.
Neither Catholics nor Orthodox believe she is omniscient. But thanks for the straw man 🤦
@@catholicguy1073 that is not a strawman, that is a valid point. Most catholics are too bigoted and dogmatic to accept that.
@@catholicguy1073 I'm just a Catholic complaining about the *many* people who speak and act like Mary was omniscient, and get all offended at the tiniest real-world example where she might not have known literally everything to know about the matter at hand.
@ I don’t know of any practicing Catholic that think Mary is omniscient. Any ability she has comes from
God working through her to fulfill his will as she is his top Saint
I think it’s interesting if you have examples that differ from this. I would think most Practicing Catholics would and should correct someone if they claimed she was omniscient
@@jonathanstensbergRemember, omniscience means to know _all_ things, not simply knowing more things than you or me.
The. Bible is not just a book of stories - it is the foundation of our faith. Jesus said he was born to give testimony to the truth. Modifying the Bible to make it more appealing to contemporary society deviates from the truth of the Bible and should not go unchallenged.
✌
The Chosen is a joke.
On the point about the chosen. The fact Jonathan Rumie has been under such heavy demonic attack throughout the filming of the show, to me, shows the enemy finds it accurate and effective enough to be pissed about
Hmm... Given that they take such liberties with Genuine Authentic Biblical Truth, I seriously doubt that the Devil is offended at all but more like very glad. Saying that he has been under "demonic attack" seems more like an "oh-wow-look-how-holy-he-is" marketing ploy. "You'll know them by their [obvious] fruits" not by their words.
Wouldn’t it logically follow that if Mary did the will of Christ’s Father in heaven, then she was Christ’s sister according to Mark 12:50?
Also if Mary is depicted in Revelation 12, it clearly shows in verse 2 that she cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.
You’re right, it needs to be accurate.
No Catholic should ever watch or support a movie that portrays Our Lady having birth pangs. You become complicit in the sins committed against the mother of Our Lord every time you watch or promote that stuff.
If the director is Catholic, then we owe it him to offer him fraternal correction.
We owe it Our Lady to stand up and defend her. She is our mother.
Believing that Mary had birth pangs is a perfectly allowable belief in Catholic teaching.
No Catholic such as yourself should be spreading this misinformation
@ No it is not allowable. It is a dogma of the faith. If you believe that she had birth pangs then you are not Catholic; because you are denying a dogma of the faith. As a Catholic you have to hold and believe in all dogmas of the faith.
Stop spreading misinformation about the Church.
@@ao19776 Please cite in the Catechism where this dogma is located, I can assure you that their is none.
There are four dogmas about Mary and her not having birth pangs is not one of them
I would also recommend you to go to confession for accusing me of not being a Catholic
@ The proclamation of the Immaculate Conception dogma in Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX is a starting place. This is infallible.
The catechism is just a teaching tool for the faithful. There many different ones. It doesn’t contain everything and it isn’t infallible.
@ here’s another source: The Council of Constantnople II, 553, declared Mary “Ever-Virgin.”
11:45 "They resorted to appealing to scenes from the life of Jesus that never happened, because they saw it in shows like the Chosen and were convinced it was in the Bible when in fact it wasn't." Quite a statement after spending a majority of the video speaking about unbiblical teachings about Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness.
I mean, Gabriel did call her full of grace...
Apostolic tradition is a legitimate source of divine revelation, along with Scripture. The writers of The Chosen are not sources of divine revelation.
Right, Apostolic tradition which we have access to via the scriptures. The traditions of the Roman Catholic Church are no more binding than alleged claims of Mosaic tradition cited by the Jewish leadership of Jesus day.
@kkilb92 Like what those Scriptures are? That's not in the Scripture.
@@kkilb92 A 27-book New Testament is a tradition of that Catholic Church that is binding on all Christians. Or do you believe, like Martin Luther, that Christians can decide for themselves which ancient documents are inspired?
They only do this crap against Christians, especially Catholics. I'd have a tiny bit of respect if they treated other religions the same but the fact that they don't shows their true intentions.
EDIT: I had an aunt who had no labor pains. She had 2 children.
Movie name????
Using Our Blessed Mother as “entertainment” at the cost of blaspheming against her such that 1st Saturday reparations are in order is grave sin. Catholics are bound to the Marian dogmas & to take part in mocking them (without bothering to know what they are) starts with the sins of pride & presumption and builds from their. Also, this is far worse than Hollywood: with Joel Osteen as an executive producer on this film is a guarantee to be blatantly blasphemous with intent to mock doctrine & dogma. He definitely preaches his own pop psychology feel-good life coach ideology for fun, profit, and personal popularity.
I wish that people would stop pretending to know things that they don’t know. It’s truly cringe.
You forgot Jesus Christ Superstar! 😂
Several other Catholic RUclipsrs have watched the film and strongly advise that no one else watch it.
I think that you missed the mark at 12:11-12:55. I don't think that the falsehoods and fiction in Bible-based entertainment fare is inspiring people to read the Bible, but rather just the mere fact that the fare is based on the Bible - they came for the entertainment, and were inspired to learn the truth.
You said a Catholic director under the direction of a Bishop portrayed Her as having birth pangs??? What the….?!?! NOBODY WATCH THIS MOVIE it’s trash.
the biggest problem i seen floating around.. which i find hilarious is people are mad that the Actress is Jewish??? umm..
When adapting any kind of literary product dor the screen there will always be an unreducible amount of betray of the source material. For one they all speak fluent English, that doesn't bother us because we accept it as a concession to the accessibility. They all look way to Caucasian to be palestinian, blue eyes were likely not that common, and what about Her perfectly groome eyebrows. I know some of these facts may not be theologically relevant, but they nonetheless shape our imagination about the subject.
Isaiah 66:7*
I'm sorry, but is it historically proven that women covered their hair completely in those times? I'm pretty sure they wore veils, covered their heads, but it wasn't a law that no hair should ever be seen, like it is in islam. Plus, it's a very common convention for depictions of Mary to show part of her hair despite the veil.
A comment about Mary's perpetual virginity: if she and St. Joseph planned on raising a family, why in the world did she say "... since I know not man"???
Please elaborate on your question; as I am perplexed!
Mary had from the time she was able to profess it, said she would never know man. Even today's Jewish scholars will admit that and that her lineage, the Essenes, were and still often are, very chaste people. She did not agree to have sex with him, and after the visit by the angel i doubt he had designs upon her, especially in that way. So ... Your question is simply misplaced.
@mottled...:
Because she and St. Joseph did not plan on raising a family.
They had taken vows of celibacy.
@@alexanderv7702A normal engaged woman would expect to have children within marriage. For Mary to respond "how can this be?" demonstrates that she didn't expect to have children.
You are most certainly NOT alone in your view that a little poison --falsehood regarding the unchanging teaching of the Church-- is NOT acceptable when portraying the Mother of God. TRUTH MATTERS.
A protestant influenced film that will try to play middle ground, at most, its gonna be bad.
You implied Joseph and Mary weren’t married when Christ was conceived but they were
Eh? Where did you hear that nonsense? Yes, they were BETROTHED to be married, but that was still to come. ( As I understand it a betrothal was considered to be almost a marriage, but not quite. )
@@mottledbrain From the Jewish Encyclopedia website:
The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law.
In the Bible:
Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.
The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of the passages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.
As the other commenter said, they were betrothed. Also, marriage at the time was considered completed in consummation so it’s not uncommon to refer to her as unwedded as a way to signify that she was perpetually a virgin
@@Hooklyoften times when the betrothal took place they would sleep together. So when Mary said I know not man it was said in a Jewish way that they were engaging in a celibate marriage
@ not true and misunderstands the Jewish marriage ceremony. The Jewish wedding is performed in 2 parts. About a year apart. After the first one the couple is married and free to have sex. We say “betrothed” bc we don’t have a modern equivalent
I find The Chosen to be _helpful to mediation_ as a _healthy use of imagination._ God created us to have an imagination. We can use it for good, or evil. There are scenes in the series that are definitely in the Gospels. That's discussed in the "Behind the Scenes Roundtable," conducted between the director -- a Protestant who believes in the rapture as occurring before the end of time, and a Protestant clergyman, a Christian Jewish Rabbi, and a Catholic priest. The intent isn't to portray only the biblical scenes, but to reveal Jesus and His disciples as living, breathing human beings (Jesus is also Divine, of course). There are things that happened in between the Gospel passages. Maybe the director and script writers don't match up with your imagination, and they haven't matched with my imagination in everything. But it's a meditation above all. It's like reading the writings of certain visionaries and other meditative Christians. We don't commit sin by reading or watching the imaginative visions of other people's conjecture about Jesus, so long as it remains in the parameter of accepted Christian doctrine. But you don't have to avail yourself of it, either, any more than you have to avail yourself of the writings that came from the Apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The Church acknowledges that at least some of every private revelation is described through the imagination (perception) of the visionary. And that's not bad.
Scripture, not Tradition, is our only resource regarding Mary, so there is no excuse for error.
Why not tradition
Typical sola scriptura
The Scriptures come from tradition 🤦
@@catholicguy1073 Tradition is the result of Scripture. Besides, Scripture is the last time God provided revelation to us, and that, too, is Catholic teaching.
Westminster Confession of Faith 1647 Chapter XXV: Of The Church Paragraph VI
"There is no other Head of the Church but the LORD JESUS CHRIST: nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be Head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against CHRIST, and all that is called GOD."
Matthew 24:4 KJV "And JESUS answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in MY NAME, saying, I am CHRIST; and shall deceive many."
Note: Vicar of CHRIST means one who acts for CHRIST or is in the place of CHRIST with the delegated powers thereof.
Many popes have come in the Name of CHRIST to fill the one office of the pope. That office being antichrist.
Gosh, it's like people are just trying to find things to pick fault with.
Jesus suffered like us all man born of a woman is of few days and full of troubles. Mary did she suffer like all women. Period pains labour pains. Show any scripture in tanakh of God having a mother.
It's EVERYONE's
story to tell but for sure
none should presume
they're telling it well
or even accurately
No is it not everyone’s story to tell.
Our Lady is a real person and people don’t have any right to distort her life.
It is very disrespectful to disseminate lies about Jesus’ mother and my mother.
@@ao19776 so you disbelieve
Jesus died for all and everyone
should learn from Mary?
Did the Blessed Mother menstruate; following the birth of our Lord?
Here’s an easy go/no go test for movies about things pertaining to Our Lord and/or other biblical figures: are the director and producer(s) regular worshippers at the TLM or not? If yes, go to the movie. If not, do not go to the movie.