The Jesus War (New Yorker Piece on Mel Gibson, "The Passion")

The New Yorker ^ | September 15, 2003 | Peter J. Boyer

[Dataman]

No, just moved by it.

[truecompassion]

<<<<>>> yes, but I think it's more of a coming togetehr because both sides see it a a very 'literalist' movie. It follows the Gospels as they are in the Bible, so we can say yes, it is faithful to what is written there, literally speaking. TC

[truecompassion]

a saint who won't make it to heaven though according to what he said.......right? She hasn't converted even living with him? SO..... this means she doesn't believe in his traditionalist beliefs, but doesn't try to convert him to her way and vice versa,
GEE, why can't the the two opposing sides/views on the film, and those who might watch it eventually, be like them and live together in harmony!! LOL!!!
TC

[truecompassion]

Who's they?

[truecompassion]

Who's they?

[Campion]

Hey, he flat out said that his wife won't even make the cut because she isn't a Catholic!

Mel's pretty clearly a better moviemaker than he is a theologian.

I mean, this position of his (technically called "Feeneyism" by Catholics) puts him squarely against such dangerously heretical liberal Catholics as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII.

Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

[Lost Highway]

In the view of historical-Jesus scholars, such differences invalidate the Gospels' strict historicity, and, therefore, any dramatization based literally upon them is deemed ahistorical.

Maybe true, but if all four gospels mirrored each other exactly they would be saying that they had to be a hoax because they are all exactly alike. They already have their opinion they just have to find the "facts" to lead them there.

[Dataman]

Who's they?

The ADL and all those who keep predicting violence.

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.

[DallasMike]

Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

We disagree on much but agree 100% on this.

Gibson sounds like he might be a little tough to live with.

[The Iguana]

Seems odd to boot.

Mel is obviously going far out of his way to court evangelicals on this film. The crass-minded would say that he's just building a customer base for his product; but this is clearly a labor of love for Mel. Is he just proselytizing?

How seriously does he believe that salvation is impossible outside the Church? It would be interesting to see someone explore this with him.

Since the manstream press won't, it might be worthwhile for Crisis or First Things or even New Oxford Review to interview him on the subject.

[Campion]

How seriously does he believe that salvation is impossible outside the Church?

Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church. He's only wrong in assuming he (Mel) knows who's outside the Church and who's inside. :-) Only He (God) knows that for sure.

[The Iguana]

Good point.

Of course, that leaves the question of virtuous folk pre or post-Christ who have never had the chance to hear the Good News...

[Rummyfan]

I've respected Mel since he was the only one at the Academy Awards 3 years ago with the decency to look disgusted and embarrassed as tolerant Hollywood presented award after award to a pro-abortion movie.

Which movie was that?

[The Right Stuff]

Cider House Rules?

[Zack Nguyen]

Do you suppose he is as concerned about anti-German sentiment that might arise from the next holocaust film?

Good point. No, I doubt he gives a rat's pattotie. Southerners, Christians, and I guess Nazis are all pretty much the same in the mind of the left.

[Aestus Veritatis]

Campion wrote:

Mel's pretty clearly a better moviemaker than he is a theologian.

I mean, this position of his (technically called "Feeneyism" by Catholics) puts him squarely against such dangerously heretical liberal Catholics as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII.



To Campion

Your accusation, that Mel is a Feeneyite, is rash. Mel most certainly does not ascribe to Leonard Feeney’s heresy. Neither does his much maligned father, Hutton Gibson, who regularly takes the Feeneyites to task in his newsletter. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” is De fide. The teaching of the Popes that you mention is presented below. Mel’s comments show that he is faithful to Pius IX's declaration: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation." I am concerned about your posting because it indicates confusion about Feeney’s heresy and/or Magisterial teaching on this matter. If you believe the confusion is mine, a sincere reply would be appreciated.

As I have seen it presented by Feeney and its advocates, the Feeneyite heresy insists on sacramental baptism for membership in the Church, as opposed to St. Thomas’ “baptism of desire” and the teaching of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine that catechumens, who die before they attain sacramental baptism, can win salvation on the ground of their faith, their desire for Baptism, and their internal conversion. This was Feeney’s error. Not “outside the Church there is no salvation,” which all Catholics are required to believe.

The following is posted as it is presented in Dr. Ludwig Ott’s, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

“Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation (De fide.)

“In the Caput Firmiter, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved,” (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). D 430. [D = Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma] This was the teaching also of the Union Council of Florence (D 714), and of Popes Innocent III (D 423) and Boniface VIII in the Bull “Unam sanctam” (D 468), Clement VI (D 570 b), Benedict XIV (D 1473), Pius IX (D 1647, 1677), Leo XIII (D 1955), Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporus” (D 2286, 2288). As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord” (D 1647). The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation Cf. D 1677; 796 (votum baptismi).

“The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti), but also a necessity of means (nec. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invicible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same...

"It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well...

"As against the reproach of intolerance a distinction must be made between dogmatic and civil tolerance. The Church rejects the dogmatic tolerance which would concede the same power of justification and the same value to all religion, or to all Christian confessions (Indifferentism); for there is only one truth."

[DallasMike]

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation."

But Vatican II expressly allows for the possibility of salvation -- not only for non-Roman Catholic Christians -- but also for Jews, Muslims, pagans, and even those without an "explicit knowledge of God." (link)

Compare this with Unam Sanctum's "it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." (link)

These two doctrines are in direct contradiction with one another and cannot be reconciled. Gibson must be conflicted with his desire to follow the Roman Catholic Church and his apparent rejection, at least in part, of Vatican II. He understands -- and rightly so -- that the teachings of the Catholic Church since the 14th century or so and Vatican II cannot both be true.

I can't wait to see this movie but these theological sleights-of-hand make me glad to be a Protestant.

[DallasMike]

Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church. He's only wrong in assuming he (Mel) knows who's outside the Church and who's inside. :-) Only He (God) knows that for sure.

Excellent statement.

[AnAmericanMother]

As C.S. Lewis said (or had George MacDonald say) in The Great Divorce, "there is no soul in Hell to whom he did not preach."