Posted on 03/19/2004 9:59:58 AM PST by 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."
Tough call. ET is more of a paranoid, while Havoc (PBUH) swings more to the delusions of grandeur.
Fury - I'm not sure where the word "anti-pope" is used in the Catholic Almanac. It depends on the context used as to how the prefix "anti" is construed. But using the New American Dictionary, "anti-" does not have a possible meaning of "substitute":
anti- or ant- pref. 1a. Opposite: antimere. b. Opposing; against: antiapartheid. c. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid. d. Destroying: anti-aircraft. 2a. Inverse: antilogarithm. b. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.
"Anti-." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th Ed. 2000.
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.
Fury - It starts out with a presumption that is not proven - that Bishop of Rome substitutes for Christ. Let us address this further.
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
Fury - In reviewing the Lewis & Short latin dictionary, vicarius, an adjective (vicarius-a-um) has several meanings:
the supplies the place of a person or thing;
substituted;
delegated;
vicarious
The noun vicarius -ii , a 2nd declension noun, masculine, means:
a substitute, deputy, proxy, a locum tenans, viceregent, vicar
And another noun vicaria -ae, a 1st declension noun, feminine, means:
a female under-slave, the post of deputy of the praefectus praetorio
All from Lewis, Charles, and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary.1st ed.Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1879.
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.
Fury - I believe it's inaccurate to claim that that Vicar of Christ means "substitute for Christ", because, as demonstrated above for vicarius-a-um and closely related words, there are several meanings, depending on the context of the phrase. It would be akin to saying that if someone refers to a "man" as gay, it means he is homosexual, when the speaker really meant the man is gay as in happy, cheerful.
You confuse the sacrifice with the partaking of Communion. It is the sacrifice upon the altar from which the graces of Christ's Crucifixion flow into the world. These graces are what heals the world and brings about our salvation. They all come from the Cross, through the Eucharist into the world.
So it doesn't say, as you believe, that taking communion forgives sin. It says that the action of the Eucharist on the altar, the giving of oblation, the One Perfect Oblation to the Father provides blessings into the world, provides grace for all. And this grace leads us into the patterns of behavior, strengthens us to live without sin. And sources the other sacraments, like Confession.
I don't expect you to understand this larger idea, I've given up on that a long time ago. But it would not be to much to ask that you undertand at least that there is somethign here larger than your abilty to understand it.
Of course, you will just say "semantics" or some such ploy in order to avoid acknowledging that we believe something more complex than you can conceive of.
SD
Yes. And this also isn't what you claim, that Communion removes our sin. You are simply in over your head. Which is sad for someone who claim 14 years of study.
Then again, language doesn't seem to be your thing. As was noted a subordinate clause is attached to the sentence. Which modifys the meaning beyond your simplistic attempts to throw confusion about.
"...by disposing us to perform acts of love and contrition" means something. Really.
Acts of love and contrition, underdone in God's grace, can remit our venial sins. Partaking in Commmunion can push us forward to do such things. But it is no magic elixir that removes our sin without any faith or action on our own part.
SD
Q. 896. Has the Holy Eucharist any other effect? A. The Holy Eucharist remits venial sins by disposing us to perform acts of love and contrition. It preserves us from mortal sin by exciting us to greater fervor and strengthening us against temptation.
Unfortunately, I believe Havoc is misrepresenting the Holy Eucharist. The above does not say that partaking of the Eucharist provides a "get out of sin card". I believe it means, based on Scripture, that partaking of the Eucharist is something one can do to help strengthen the soul against temptation. It's not the only thing one can do - I reject those who receive the Euchraist and do nothing more - and there is indeed more to do.
Sounds like something I read on a Salada tea bag.
(Now, we will be accused of the occultic practice of "reading tea leaves.")
SD
I would say for sake of argument, that she is physically dead and spiritually alive. Ecclesiastes deals with that distinction and states that both the spiritually living and the spiritually dead share a common destiny that is an evil to both, that they must bodily die and after that can have nothing more to do EVER in the things that go on under the sun. Period. End of statement. If they can't have anything to do with what happens here on earth, that would include our mumblings and carrying on. They can't get involved. Which literally means you could talk to Mary till you literally fall over dead and the only thing you will have accomplished is to have spent that whole time sinning against God by trying to communicate with the dead. You literally will have sinned endlessly and gotten nowhere in the doing.
To use Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 as a text prohibiting prayers to the saints is fallacious exegesis, since Ecclesiastes 9 is not speaking to the question of prayers, but of the general destiny of all men, death.
This is especially significant since, in the Old Testament, the soul of anyone who died, whether believer or unbeliever, did not go to heaven, since no one was allowed in heaven, except for Elijah and possibly Enoch and Moses, until Christ rose from the dead. Thus, there was no one in heaven to whom anyone in the Old Testament could pray.
The souls of all who died in the Old Testament went to a place which in Hebrew is called Sheol, or in Greek is called hades, while their bodies went into graves. The souls of believers were in the section known as "Abraham's bosom":
"And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell." Luke 16:22 DR
awaiting Christ to visit them after the resurrection and take them to heaven:
"3:19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:"
"3:20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. " 1 Peter 3:19-20 DR
and:
"4:8 Wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive: he gave gifts to men."
"4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" Ephesians 4:8-9 DR
Once they are taken to heaven, then, and only then, could they receive pray petitions to present to the Father.
That these souls now have conscious existence in heaven and are quite aware of the happenings on earth is verified by Rev. 6:9-10 DR:
"6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held."
"6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (Holy and True), dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"
which is speaking of events on the New Testament side of the cross, and thus opposite the view of Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 which says they do not know anything on earth but is on the Old Testament side of the cross.
Further, Ecclesiates 9:5-6 is not necessarily speaking about the knowledge of deceased souls in the place they were then residing (Sheol), but the fact that they no longer have any knowledge of what is taking place on earth, nor can they participate in anything done on earth. That is the context of the passage, as can be seen in verse 6's clause "they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun." The phrase "under the sun" refers to events on earth.
Moreover, an argument can be made that Ecclesiates 9:5-6 is speaking about the evil men of the earth, since Ecclesiastes 9:3b begins a new context which speaks about evil men, which is separate from Ecclesiastes 9:1-3a which speaks about both good and evil men. As such, evil men will certainly never be heard from again, nor will there ever be a chance that they can receive communication from anyone, since they are damned souls whose sins go with them.
Communication with the ***dead*** IS impossible, but know what dead means:
22:31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you:
22:32 I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
Matthew 22:31-32 DR
That is nowhere in scripture, sir. And that is the whole point of the conversation. I've quoted what your documents say. And it is clear. You have another Gospel.
Ecclesiastes 9:2 All [things come] alike to all: [there is] one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as [is] the good, so [is] the sinner; [and] he that sweareth, as [he] that feareth an oath.
Ecclesiastes 9:3 This [is] an evil among all [things] that are done under the sun, that [there is] one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness [is] in their heart while they live, and after that [they go] to the dead.
Ecclesiastes 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun.
It stands for itself - an evil to all men, both righteous and evil alike that they have to physically die and cannot partake in anything that goes on here any longer.
Even if I cede the point, it doesn't matter. It's about you not being able to understand Catholicism.
And that is the whole point of the conversation.
No, the point is that you throw up Catholic quotes and then misread them. Which is why I showed you what they really mean.
I've quoted what your documents say.
Yes.
And it is clear.
No, it isn't. You can quote all the documents you want. They don't support the conclusions you take from them. As long as you do this, it doesn't matter what you quote. Without understanding, yours is so much bleating.
You have another Gospel.
From you? Absolutely.
SD
SD
Well, let's examine, shall we. Your documentation states flatly that only venial sins may be covered by the Eucharist which would have us believe that the sacrifice of the alter cannot cleans mortal sin. People come away with cleansing "grace" for venial sins; but, just can't get to second base. So the sacrifice of Christ isn't enough to do it all - it must be done by the people themselves or their priests must impart to them graces through other "sacrements" to get them there. Yes, Dave, I am aware as I posted before of the treasury of graces from which the Church dispenses a little at a time to get people there. That is a blasphemous abomination that is nowhere in scripture. But your Vatican II documents which I have referenced here bears that up.
Play semantics with me now. Whether you say it renders Graces or you say it renders forgiveness makes no difference. The logical end result is the same. If the Ceremony provides an eraser for the chalk board, it doesn't matter whether the chalkboard is erased there or elsewhere. The eraser is the issue. And you've born out the point I made last night. You're preaching another Gospel. Christ sacrificed one time and sat down. Once. Hebrews states clearly as I quoted last night in chapter nine that it was sacrificed once and applied for all. Christ gave us a finished work - but through your doctrine, you've shredded it, turned it into an erector set and are dispensing nuts, bolts and pieces at a time and are telling the people they have to build it themselves.
The religion you describe here is unrecognizable. Which is it supposed to be?
Maybe this will help.
F. Indulgences
The new theory of confession, particularly, the idea of attrition, gave new force to one of the most popular developments of the middle ages.
Indulgences.
1. Crusades Urban II, 1095 at Clermont. But it was not clear what he meant. Most probably thought it was complete forgiveness of sins. But that was not acceptable to the theologians. So they developed a theory.
2. Theory a. Treasury of Merit
b. Keys of the Kingdom
c. Temporal Punishment Idea comes from canonical penance. The days and years are or bread an water, while alive, not years in Heaven. But it got attached to the idea of time in purgatory. [Catholics believe in prayer for the dead leads to a need for a place neither heaven nor hell. Ref. First Book of Maccabees]
3. How to obtain an indulgence Do a pious act - Crusades etc. Pay money Development of indulgence hawkers in late middle ages.
4. Indulgences and the Dead. In late 14th century - you could apply indulgence to the dead, as a pious act. People start buying indulgences for dead relatives.
5. Popes begin to collect money by selling indulgences -Build St. Peters that way. -Leads to Luther.
Fordham University - Indulgences - Treasury of Merit
You couldn't be more confused and less aware of it.
The sacrifice covers all sins and transforms us in to non-sinners. You're just wrong. Sadly, irretrievably, 16-years-wasted-to-learn-nothing, wrong.
People come away with cleansing "grace" for venial sins; but, just can't get to second base.
Duh, they go to confession for mortal sins. Duh. And this forgiveness also comes into the world via the Offering of the Eucharist during Mass. But not by partaking of the elements in communion.
So the sacrifice of Christ isn't enough to do it all - it must be done by the people themselves or their priests must impart to them graces through other "sacrements" to get them there.
People don't do it "themselves" and to seperate the actions of the sacraments from Jesus Himself and His Sacrifice is to totally miss the entire point. You're really hopelessly lost. Learn some humility and God may have mercy on your ignorance.
Yes, Dave, I am aware as I posted before of the treasury of graces from which the Church dispenses a little at a time to get people there.
No, Havoc, the Church grants us total forgiveness and utter perfection again and again. Being human we somehow find a way to mess it up with our petty selfishness. And then guess what? The Church is there to continue Christ's ministry and to make us whole again. There is no piecemeal approach. There is only forgiveness and grace.
SD
This was already posted once on this thread. This place is full of ex-catholics who either left on their own or were ungraciously required to leave the church because they used their skulls for something more than nodding to Rome and thought for themselves. Feigned incredulity from an Agnostic doesn't change that.
This is, unfortunately, an abusive argumentum ad hominem comment by Havoc. Instead of arguing the points, he critcizes individuals. It's unfortunate, and indeed, we should refrain from this all around.
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.