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."

[Fury]

Fordham University - Indulgences - Treasury of Merit

This is from a college course. I'm confused, is that Church Law?

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

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.

As pointed out in my post, this answer is incomplete, if one looks to the whole of Scripture. Unfortunately, the rest of my post is not commented on, as that provides a Scriptural basis the point in question. Oh well...

[SoothingDave]

Fordham used to have a hell of a football team. "The seven blocks of granite" they called their line.

Other than that, I don't know why it's relevant.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Your post or its link does not list publication date, publisher, or most importantly, how that post might differ with or agree with the current Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

Would you settle for a Catholic source?

Catholic Information Center on the Web - The Decrees Of The Same

But an arrogant refusal to consult it to learn actual Catholic teaching and contradictions betrays your motivation: to lie and twist and quote out of context and to fit your own predetermined hate. (Sound somewhat familiar?)

[OLD REGGIE]

Even Jesus gave up on Judas when it became obvious that he would not turn.

This is not true to Scripture.

[OLD REGGIE]

That is IMHO a very logical position to take. ;) As I said, you are on a different path to truth. I HAVE accepted the Church's credible claim to truth, rationally and logically.

And that's fine with me. I am one of those dreaded "Universalists" who hold out hope of salvation to all people. For the same reason I reject Unum Sanctum.

[OLD REGGIE]

Is Catholic Answers an authority on the Catholic Church? Does it contain any absoloute lies?

[OLD REGGIE]

This is from a college course. I'm confused, is that Church Law?

If you're truly confused you should drop out of school.

[OLD REGGIE]

Other than that, I don't know why it's relevant.

I'm well aware they are just another "Non-Catholic" Catholic College. Nothing they teach has any basis in truth?

[SoothingDave]

I'm well aware they are just another "Non-Catholic" Catholic College. Nothing they teach has any basis in truth?

To assume that only Catholicism, even "in-name-only," is taught at a "Catholic" college today is to neglect the intervening years since the Fordham squad had its collosol scoreless ties with Notre Dame.

SD

[Havoc]

Even if I cede the point, it doesn't matter. It's about you not being able to understand Catholicism.

I understand Catholicism and I understand the Gospel of Christ. And you preach other than the Gospel of Christ. As I stated, your teaching is nowhere in scripture, yet Scripture is what the Apostles held us to. And it is what the Patriarchs of Judaism held us to.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

If your doctrine doesn't square with scripture, Isaiah tells us what authority you have. Not just the Apostles. Not just Christ (heh, just..) But the prophets and patriarchs are in agreement. You have added to scripture, redefined the term 'sin', defined a bank wherein the graces derived from Good works in excess of that needed for salvation are deposited and then doled out by the church through it's sacrements. That is what Vatican II tells us in plain language sir. And your Eucharist definition is part of that larger system. Oh, I know your system quite well. And yes I understand it's faulty logic. It's cute if it were fantasy; but, it's a lie from the devil because it stands in contention against God's word. Thus it is another Gospel. And that is the point sir. That has been the contention and as of now remains the contention.

[Havoc]

Read your own Vatican II documents dave, shall I quote again the passage that states that people expiated their own sins and the leftovers went on deposit for the church to apply to other people. That is quoted in last night's exchange I do believe. Not my words, the words of your council. You're talking out both sides of your mouth and your own documents make you a liar.

[Fury]

Let's look at one section of what Havoc writes:

Havoc writes:

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.

We take Havoc's posts referring to quoting chapter 9 of Hebrews to mean the post at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1101337/posts?page=1128#1128

Hebrews has two main themes. The first is warning against falling into apostacy. The second is the propitiatory intercession of Christ.

Christ died once. But to leave it at that is incomplete. Let's look at Hebrews 9:25-27 (DR):

9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the Holies every year with the blood of others:

9:26 For then he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world. But now once, at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Havoc translates Scripture to claim that Christ does not to keep appearing before God in order to offer sacrifice, but that he was sacraficed once and applied for all - and that's it. Scripture does not state that Christ does not re-present sacrifice before God. It states that Christ's once-for-all offering will not be like the offering of the Old Covenant priests who had to go in and out of the Most Holy Place every year. Christ entered the Most Holy Place, he is there to stay. If that was not the case, he would have to suffer and die over and over. He does not. While in the Most Holy Place, Christ continues his office as high priest, as stated in Hebrews 8:2 (DR):

8:2 A minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord hath pitched, and not man.

and Hebrews 9:24 (DR):

9:24 For Jesus is not entered into the Holies made with hands, the patterns of the true: but into Heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us.

meaning that he no longer dies, but through his resurrection power provided the same flesh and blood as at the time of his death on Calvary, which is presented sacramentally on the alter and later consumed by His people.

Additionally, Hebrews 9:23-24, demonstrates that some kind of blood sacrifice is presently occurring in heaven, said sacrifice which constitutes the ongoing work of Christ's eternal priesthood, and that is why Hebrew 9:23 makes use of the word "sacrifices" in plural (n.b. - the Greek qusiva is plural and Greek manuscripts contain no textual variant. The same plural appears in connection with Old Covenant sacrifices as noted in Hebrews 5:1, 8:3, 9:9, 10:1, 10:11).

Christ's sacrificial office is patterned after the priesthood of Melchiziedek who offered bread and wine (see Genesis 14:18), the repeated presentation must point to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, it is the only sacrifice of Christ repeatedly performed. This coincides with Malachi' 1:11's mention of plurality of location ("in every place")

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

You're talking out both sides of your mouth and your own documents make you a liar.

Again, Havoc is resorting to attacking the person. This is unfortunate. Havoc, please try to practice some reasonable debating skills.

[wolfman]

There was a case of a pastor of one of the largest Catholic parishes in San Francisco. Eleven men accused him of having sexually molested them when they were boys. In March of 1994, following an investigation, the bishop of San Francisco relieved the priest of his duties. The following year the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office brought criminal charges against the same priest, charging him with having embezzled $251,000 from Catholic parishioners and from the Church.

If these offenses did in fact occur, would the debauched condition of the priest invalidate the thousands of sacraments performed by him during the two decades that the crimes spanned? Did parishioners whose children had been baptized by him begin inquiring whether their children should be rebaptized? Did those who had given money for Masses to be said for their deceased relatives in purgatory start asking for refunds? Did Catholics who had confessed their sins to the priest begin to wonder if their transgressions had really been absolved?

Hmm, Roman Catholicism teaches that sacramental grace is dispensed from the work performed. The ability of a rite to confer grace is independent of the spiritual condition of the minister who performs it. Consequently, the sacraments this priest administered are valid according to the RCC. In fact, despite over 400 allegations of pedophilia against priests in the United States over the last decade, no one has questioned the validity of any of the sacraments that the accused performed.

Another case in Ireland in 1994. A 68-year-old Roman Catholic priest had a heart attack while visiting the Incognito, a gay bathhouse in Dublin that advertises itself as "Ireland’s most famous male-only sauna club." Responding to calls for help, two other Catholic priests emerged from private rooms in the club to give the dying man the Last Rites.

Is this Christianity? Would the Church have us believe that two men, interrupted in their homosexual activities, can benefit a third man dying on the tiled floor of a gay bathhouse by performing rituals over him? It's not about whether God would be willing to forgive a repentant sinner who cries out with his last breath for Jesus to save him. But the question is, Are Catholic rites so powerful that they can channel God’s grace to people even when the priest administering the rite is living an outright lie? And even more to the point, Is Christian salvation and sanctification to be found in rites at all?

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

I understand Catholicism and I understand the Gospel of Christ. And you preach other than the Gospel of Christ

Havoc, I have the quote you made where you mocked and belittled the words of Christ at Matthew 28:19 to make a point about the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, those are not of the Gospel of Christ, they are something else.

[Havoc]

If I carve a loaf of bread and a cup of wine out of wood and offer them, I'm not offering bread and wine. You claim that the Bread and wine are turned into Christ; but, just retain the appearance of bread and wine. So you aren't offering bread and wine. Christ has already been sacrificed, and Hebrews tells us that sacrifice cannot be repeated. So your own philosophy and the scripture are at odds with you as Catholics.

Hebrews 9:24 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:

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Hebrews 9:26 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.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Hebrews 9:28 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.

Hebrews 9:23 and 24 do indeed state he's in heaven - you excluded 25-28 which you knew was there is there and will not be moved - that he entered once and it was over with.
Again, making the scripture a lie for sake of your philosophy.

[SoothingDave]

shall I quote again the passage that states that people expiated their own sins and the leftovers went on deposit for the church to apply to other people.

There is no point to you quoting anything. You lack understanding. You're like my three-year-old pointing to random words and letters and saying "it says T P G - kitty."

SD

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

Again, making the scripture a lie for sake of your philosophy.

This appears to be an attempt to use the fallacy argumentum ad baculum or "appeal to force". I'll note that our friend was corrected on the erroneous assumption that a theory is an opinion elsewhere on this great site. Please help to have a good debate for all.

[Petronski]

Are Catholic rites so powerful that they can channel God’s grace to people even when the priest administering the rite is living an outright lie?

You've almost got it. I'll help:

God is so powerful that He can channel His grace to people even when the priest administering the rite is living an outright lie. Yes.