Posted on 02/27/2004 8:06:42 PM PST by Weirdad
Certainly it is far better to seek one's allegiance to God through a thousand laboriously learned technicalities of a "proper biblical faith," than to place one's simple salvational trust in the person of Jesus Christ. (irony)
I have not seen the movie but it does seem that it is a very Catholic movie. Movies themselves are in some ways "Catholic" compared to the teaching devices used by Protestants.
I come from a 1950's "mixed marriage." My Dad is Catholic and my Mother is Presbyterian. The Catholics in the neighborhood thought I was weird because I attended public school, and the public school kids thought I was weird because I was Catholic. (Little did they know that I'm just weird, period.) And on top of that we were the only Republicans in the family and the entire neighborhood. That was really weird in northeast Ohio! I took my faith seriously and was an alter boy and was confirmed in the Catholic Church. Moreover, my second cousin is a Roman Catholic Cardinal in the Vatican who has been in charge of "The Propagation of the Faith" worldwide. However, I our home never had a Bible to read until my senior year in public high school when my English teacher made her students buy King James Bibles to read 'as literature' to supplement other books.
Despite the Catholic upbringing, I always liked attending church more with my mother because it was a thoughtful atmosphere where I could learn more about God. It fit me.
My senior year in college I read the Bible myself, and have never been back to the Catholic Church--not because I do not think that it is Christian--IT IS--but because it simply does not fit ME in these modern times when we all are well educated as only the Priests were in the past. Symbols and statues and rote are no longer necessary for most of us to come to understand God, and they often get in the way. Today we can read His word for ourselves and understand complex exposition.
So I found Jesus in the Catholic Church, but personally needed more. The Latin masses I attended in my youth did not equip me to live well or to explain God to others.
So with that background I now very often DEFEND the Catholic Church against Protestants who do not understand it, but I also love and appreciate and participate (in a 'Bible Church') in the Protestant movement that God sent to steer his people.
Most Freepers understand that a solid diet of nothing but television is educationally bad for our society because it wastes time and displaces reading and education of other types. Eventually the viewers become unable to maintain attention long enough to function at all in any type of non-entertaining setting. By the same token, the author's point that most Christians are better off reading and listening to inspired preaching is well taken and should serve as a reminder to Protestant Christians that there is a lot more to what we believe than what it portrayed in this movie.
However, the Catholic Church with its symbolism and ceremony has truly brought many people to Jesus, people who might have no motivation to investigate a dryer presentation of Christ. God brings people to Himself in many ways. Therefore despite the movie's Catholic flavor which can be problematic to some protestants, I hope that this film is very successful in doing helping many unsaved people to discover and accept Jesus. Many evangelical Christians have the sane view and truly as 'unspun' alluded to via his (or her) quote, we Christians should NOT impede those who, like Mel Gibson, are helping spread the goodness of Christ. However, it is good for us to examine carefully the modalities that we use to teach each other, like this film, so that we can be sure that we avoid pitfalls and side effects that might not be obvious at first. That is why I thought this article was interesting--a lot of it is 'right on' for Protestants who also need reminders of the basic of their faith, especially is those reminders are used for their own edification and not to divide Christians; but the article it is at odds with some Catholics and with Protestants who have not carefully thought about the movie. And the reliance on non-Biblical material is good to know about.
Ronzo: I'm not apologizing for post. I'm not that thin-skinned about discussing issues here, and I do not think anyone else is either. It's one Protestant view on the movie. I did not post it to advertise the view, nor to divide, but to promote discussion, and it's done that. Catholic and Protestant Christians need to understand each other and this movie is obviously a meeting ground.
My political posts never seem to get any comments. Maybe I should stick to religion! Thanks for all the thoughtful comments above. I still have not decided whether to go to the movie, but I think the DVD idea may be a winner.
Weirdad
I couldn't agree more...and I am not Catholic. Sheesh, what next? First they try to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians with all the accusations of anti-Semitism. Then they try to keep "decent" people from seeing this movie because it's "pornographically violent". They even threw the race card on the table a few days ago. Did you know there are no minorities in the film...gasp! Now they're going to try to drive a wedge between Catholics and Protestants?? What a joke. At least the controversies have exposed some of the wolves who masquerade in sheep's clothing, like Andrew Webb.
As if there were no heresy in the ranks of the evangelicals...after all, we are the keepers of the TRUTH, are we not? All other non-evangelical denominations must bow down at OUR alter of truth, because we are the ONLY ONES WHO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE! No one else, just us! They're all heretics, those so-called "Christians." Don't know their scripture from a hole-in-the-wall.
It crap like this from you and the knucklehead that wrote this article that sets back the cause of Christ 2,000 years.
By the way, since you have set yourself up as the judge and jury of what is truly "evangelical" and what is "heresy," why don't you flatter all of us with your credentials for your pontifications? Please, I'm really interested in knowing on what you base your authority...or who imparted it to you...
Rather than giving an intellectualized answer I'll just say: Yeah, Right!
When asked by Pilate what is truth, Jesus said nothing. I wish the author of this had followed his example. How much more human suffering could have been avoided if there were fewer like these who claimed exclusive communion with God and knowledge of the Truth?
Quote from Article: "There is, he stressed, "a lot of power in these dead languages."
There is: REAL and HOLY POWER in The HEBREW Language.
After Thousands of YEARS...HEBREW IS ALIVE...Not Dead!
HEBREW...IS THE ONLY Langauage that YESHUA/Jesus The Messiah Spoke to HIS Heavenly Father, his People, his Disciples and his Earthly parents.
The usage of ARAMAIC in this film, is a direct attempt to once again Remove the JEWISHNESS of The GOSPEL.
Replacement and Revisionist "Theologians" rearing their UGLY - Scripturally Ignorant heads again.
Thanks for your reply. If I'm not mistaken, there are some theological differences in the definition of idolatry (more studied people on FR can answer that, I'm sure).
How about expecting Moses to look like Charlton Heston!
No I think all of us have a responsibility to understand this is one man's view of the gospel's and then how he reads the last hours of Christ accordingly. And to actually show the suffering that our Lord went through for us and the brutality of Crucifixion and pain he bore for us all!
And as Chris Weinkopf of the Daily News says in his review "The Passion of the Christ" tramples on all the rules and hypocrisies of political correctness. It says there is a God, and it names Him!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.