Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Belfast Telegraph ^ | 19 March 2004 | Alf McCreary

[presidio9]

THE controversial Mel Gibson film 'The Passion of the Christ' has been dismissed by the Evangelical Protestant Society as a 'Catholic' interpretation of events which "does not present the Gospel".

Wallace Thompson, secretary of the Evangelical Protestant Society, said the film displayed "an un-Biblical fixation on Mary, the mother of Jesus. None of this should surprise us, for both Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel, who plays the part of Christ, are enthusiastic devotees of the traditional teachings of the Church of Rome."

He further claims that Mel Gibson "belongs to an ultra-conservative Catholic group which does not recognise the reforms of Vatican II, and celebrates Mass in Latin".

Mr Thompson says that "this malign influence of Rome ought to cause all evangelical Protestants to reject The Passion of the Christ" and refuse to be swayed by the subtleties of the alleged arguments in favour of it.

Sadly, however, it will be welcomed and praised by many who ought to know better."

Mr Thompson also says that the film is "extremely violent", and that "anyone who watches it will be shaken and possibly terrified by its graphic and bloody scenes."

[Petronski]

And Jesus isn't bread and wine that you may eat God's son at service.

You have called Christ a liar.

[Petronski]

Fact is, when I stated the ya'lls salvation doctrine everybody clammed up - because there is no defense when the truth is put out

More extravagant and self-serving lies.

[Petronski]

Not parceled out in bits and pieces at a time as though people were supposed to be beggers grateful to your clergy for what they get.

You are drowning in your own bilious hate.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Quite all right. Here is some more.

In the 1994 Catholic Almanac on page 158 there is "the list of men who claimed or exercised the papal office in an uncanonical manner." These men tried to substitute themselves for the true Pope, and usurp that office, so to speak. The Catholic church denies the papal authority of the men on that list because they attempted a substitute (false) claim on the Papacy. That list is a list of ANTI-POPES! So the word anti can clearly mean a substitute for something.

Antichrist then, 'could' be correctly interpreted then, as someone who substitutes himself for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, just as an antipope substituted himself into the office of the Papacy.

"Vicar of Christ . . . Title used almost exclusively of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter and, therefore, the one in the Church who particularly takes the place of Christ; but used also of bishops in general and even of priests. First used by the Roman Synod of A.D. 495 to refer to Pope Gelasius; more commonly in Roman curial usage to refer to the Bishop of Rome during the pontificate of Pope Eugene III (1145-1153). Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) asserted explicitly that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ; further defined at the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Greeks (1439) and Vatican Council I in Pastor Aerternus (1870). The Second Vatican Council, in Lumen Gentium , n.27, calls bishops in general "vicars and legates of Christ." All bishops are vicars of Christ for their local churches in their ministerial functions as priest, prophet, and king, as the Pope is for the universal church; the title further denotes they exercise their authority in the Church not by delegation from any other person, but from Christ Himself."

Source: Catholic Dictionary, Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Editor, published by Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, 1993, pp. 484-485.

Now look up the word vicarious in almost any common dictionary. From Webster's New World Dictionary, Simon & Shuster, 1979

vi-car-i-ous adj. L. vicis, a change 1. taking the place of another 2. delegated 3. done or undergone by one person in place of another 4.felt as if one were actually taking part in another's experiences (a vicarious thrill)

vicar n. L. vicis, a change 1.a deputy 2. Anglican Ch. a parish priest who receives a stipend instead of the tithes 3. Protestant Episcopal Ch. a minister in charge of one chapel in a parish 4. R.C.Ch. a church officer acting as deputy of a bishop

A Vicar General is defined in the 1994 Catholic Almanac on page 330 as "a priest or bishop appointed by the bishop of a diocese to serve as his deputy, with ordinary executive power, in the administration of the diocese." So a vicar serves in the place of (substituting for) the bishop, and assumes his power of office for certain duties.

So the Papal title of VICAR OF CHRIST which in Latin is VICARIUS CHRISTI, means a 'substitute for Christ', which is synonymous with AntiChrist.

[Petronski]

Oooh, a Chick Tract. I hope you got copyright permissions.

[Petronski]

The fun never ends. Nothing quenches their hate.

[onyx]

The fun never ends. Nothing quenches their hate.




BUMP.
Pity.

[Havoc]

The religion you describe here is unrecognizable. Which is it supposed to be?

Really? LOL. Well let's take a walk and see if you can recognize it after I quote your church council.

"Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death." (Vatican 2, Vol. 1, p. 63)

"The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed." (Vol. 1, p. 64)

"Following in Christ's steps, those who believe in him have always tried to help one another along the path which leads to the heavenly Father, through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation .... They have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others. They were convinced that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God who is the Father of mercies. This is the very ancient dogma called the Communion of Saints." (Vol. 1, pp. 65 and 66)

..This is in stark contrast to Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"

But there is more from Hebrews that ought to really open some Catholic eyes..

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

[23] [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

[24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

[25] Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

[26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

[28] So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

It says here that Christ doesn't offer himself often but rather ONCE. Back to your Council. "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church's help when, as minister of Redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints." (Vol. 1, p. 75)

Ther's your treasury of grace being discussed.

I might add that the debate I discussed earlier deals with this and Matatics goes further than what I said. If people want some real eye openers it's all there.

Still having a hard time recognizing your own doctrines? Or do we need to post more? That Vat II link is a real eye opener, huh. Probably a real good memory jogger too.

Scripture says we have eternal life, not that it is doled out to us from a treasury of Grace put back by people expiating their own sin and dumping the leftovers of their good works en banc for the church to pass out and cover what it says Christ didn't finish. Yes I know you'll say the work on the Cross is done. Your church just says that and then dogmatizes these things you see, thus preaching one thing and putting on a public face to keep up appearances. Matatics, as I've said, is more damning than this. And even worse, I've heard Hunt's other debates wherein he debates someone who says that Christ didn't pay for our salvation on the cross in full. All those debates are on WinMX. If you like, I'll listen and tell you the name of the one it is. But I'm sure you'll tell us Rome doesn't teach that either or maybe you'll fail to recognize that too.. who knows.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Not from a Chick tract, sorry.

ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)

Session 23—26 March 1436

[On the election of the supreme pontiff]

During this time let the cardinals reflect and seriously ponder how much merit or loss to themselves, how much fruit or damage to the Christian people, how much good or evil, they will be causing by their choice of a pontiff. There is nothing, indeed, by which they can more merit the grace or the wrath of our lord Jesus Christ than when they are setting his vicar over his sheep, which he loved so much as to suffer the torments of the cross and to die for them.

[On the profession of the supreme pontiff] The holy synod decrees that the person elected as pope is obliged to express his consent to the election in the manner stated below. It is fitting that this consent should be made to the cardinals, if the person elected is present in the curia, or to one of the cardinals or someone mandated by them if he is not present there, in the presence of a notary and at least ten persons. After he has been informed of the election, he is bound to act within a day of the demand. If he does not do so, his election is annulled and the cardinals must proceed in the Lord's name to another election. But if he expresses his consent, as stated above, the cardinals shall straightaway make due obeisance to him as supreme pontiff. Once the obeisance has been made by the cardinals, nobody has any right to challenge his pontificate.

Oh, and I looked the words vicarious and vicar up in my own dictionary.

You might try researching things, it really isn't that difficult. But, yes, its easier for you cast aspersions upon me, rather than refute my post. ;)

[Petronski]

I've already logged four hours on WinMX trying to download the first debate you mentioned...apparently nonesuch exists (broadband here).


And I'll take Matatics over anybody you have any day of the week....he survived Calvinism, he can take all comers.

[Havoc]

Lies, no. Check the decrees of Same are part of Church law even though they were documented fraud. It is your teaching that the Eucharist forgives sin. Paul on the other hand states, and I quote 1 Corinthians 11:29 "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." Even ya'lls hero SD has adimitted that eating unworthily means to partake while in Sin. That would be on the Christian Chronicles threads. Lies, not hardly.

[Havoc]

Exchange with b-chan. Sorry. I think you need to bridle that thing instead of using it for constant false accusation. Or do you need more documentation?

[ET(end tyranny)]

At the left is a sculpture by Gian Lorenzo Bernini decorating the tomb of Pope Alexander VII. At the four corners surrounding the enthroned Pope, are the four virtues, Charity, Prudence, Justice and Truth. Charity is on the front left side and "La Verita", which means "The Truth" is on the right front side.  On the right is a close up of "La Verita".  Notice that the woman is embracing a 'sun-burst'.  Clicking on the large image will take you to an art gallery where you can click on the image and zoom for a closer look.

Pagan Babylon worshipped the sun as a deity, and pagan Rome also worshipped the sun. Nothing like embracing the SUN god, eh? And some thought Constantine did away with Sun worship around 320 A.D. Ha! LOL

[Havoc]

No, I'm just stating the facts and backing them up with quotation from your own councils. If I had the transcript of the Hunt debate, I'd further back it up with statements from Matatics; but, I'm sure you can all download and listen for yourselves and cringe at the testimony from him.

[Havoc]

Thank you again kind sir. You are a wonder to behold :) LOL

[Petronski]

It is your teaching that the Eucharist forgives sin.

Liar! You pretend to know Catholicism, but in the end, you are just a shabby liar.

Do you know you can find the Cathechism of the Catholic Church online, through Google?

I believe you do, but choose not to access it, because it would conflate your bombast into the black stench of lies whence it flows.

[Petronski]

Specifically, where is the 'sun worship' in this sculpture? Where is there any call to 'worship' at all? Take your time.

[Havoc]

I've already logged four hours on WinMX trying to download the first debate you mentioned...apparently nonesuch exists (broadband here).

Broadband here too. Got it in 3 minutes. And I just did a search, there is at least one person with it online right now. I querried him and he's been there since I downloaded it from him several hours ago.

[Petronski]

I'm sure you can all download and listen for yourselves and cringe at the testimony from him.

You continue to repeat this, yet as I have said, the debate you cite does not come up on WinMX, despite you claims.

[Havoc]

That is just priceless. Bowing "we're not worthy" lol. But you're a hateful and bile filled man for saying it, you know that don't you... ;)