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."
Given the choice of using sinful men for a priesthood, or waiting for humanity to perfect itself before being worthy to serve God, Jesus chose to use men as they were.
Is sexual sin really that much worse or better than denying Christ three times (Peter) or being a persecutor of nascent Christianity (Paul)?
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?
No, silly. God is so powerful that he can channel grace through the minstrations of sinners.
And even more to the point, Is Christian salvation and sanctification to be found in rites at all?
Alas, after all your bashing, you have gotten to your point. Fine. Don't believe in a priesthood. Don't believe we can become bringers of grace to each other. I'm sure the Christians who may have helped you along to your faith were just accidental or random events and in no way brought any of God's grace to you. And that they were, of course, utterly without sin.
SD
Yep, you and Havoc (pbuh) have been carrying on in this way since the beginning of the thread.
If you really want to learn about the fullness of the Eucharist, I would recommend Article 3 of the Catechism. Here's a sample:
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.[187]
And the endnote:
187 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27.
I am at a loss as to the reference "DS 1740." Perhaps someone who knows can help.
Remember: THERE IS NO CATHOLIC TEACHING WHICH CANNOT BE MODIFIED, "EXPLAINED", OR RE-INTERPRETED AS NEEDED!
To assume differently is to ignore history.
That's demonstrably not the case. You've already been called out. you just change the subject and bluster. None of the Catholic things you quoted mean what you said they mean. You even acknowledged that you ignored the modifying clauses. That's just willfull ignorance.
You had best curb your attitude, if you expect mercy.
SD
sD
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.
I disagree with your translation of Scripture and your analogy. It's you doing the carving. You're a man. Christ is King. Hebrews tells us that the death of Christ cannot be repeated - it does not say sacrifice. Indeed, as pointed out before, Hebrews in the later chapters specifically mentions Christ's sacrifices. Christ's priesthood did not start with his suffering and death, it started with His incarnation:
"1:5 For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee? And again: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
"1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him."
Hebrews 1:5-6 (DR)
and continues in Heaven after his Resurrection and ascension:
"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."
Hebrews 9:24 (DR).
He died once. He continues in His office as High Priest., as indicated in Hebrews 8:2 and Hebrews 9:24, Christ is he who "...serves in the sanctuary..." and "now appears for us in God's presence". Indeed, Christ does more than take his seat at the right hand of God, he:
"5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;"
Hebrews 5:1 (DR)
This is referring to Christ. He's offering sacrifices. There is a huge difference between re-representation, and re-sacrifice. Lastly, Hebrews makes a clear distinction, by using very different words in Hebrews 9:28 - "He was offerred (prosphero) and Hebrews 9:23 - "...with better sacrifices (thusia)than these. He died once. He is re-represented sacramentally - and that is per His word.
A closing note - there was no intention to purposefully exclude Hebrews 9:25-28. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion - but whatever I guess.
It's called CYA dave. I've listened to your own people preach it and explain it.
Who is "your own people"?
Havoc, you've never "listened" to anyone except yourself. Don't even try to claim otherwise. You see Catholic things and you hear Catholic things. But you neither listen nor understand.
Humility and an understanding that you are fallible would be a great place to start.
SD
I think that your point, Dave, is that when the truth is revealed about your teachings, just like with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, it's a lie until It's posted and then nobody on earth understands it. Oh, nobody understands us
Speaking to a recent matter, Havoc took comments in a Dave Hunt tape and used the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam or "argument from ignorance" stating that what was attributed to the Pope must be true, because it has not been proven false.
I'll note, that it was not Soothing Dave, calling folks "snipes" and "nipping at heels"... Thanks Dave, for keeping above the fray.
Some of the cardinals who chose Urban pope, dissatisfied with his conduct of the office, declared that his election was invalid. They proceeded to elect Clement VII, who claimed the papacy from 1378 to 1394. He was succeeded by Benedict XIII. (Source: Catholic Almanac 2004
Where was the Holy Spirit during the election of Urban?? Did the Holy Spirit misdirect the cardinals and lead them to choose an unworthy man for pope?
Right Dave. Shall we go into Mormonism for 2.5 seconds long enough to state that Mormonism teaches polytheism. I'm sure I don't understand them either Dave. They just teach that there is only one God and on the other side of their faces comes out the teaching that they become gods in the afterlife. OOPS. They say one thing publicly and teach another privately. But I'm sure I just don't understand them either. Right? How about Jehovah's witnesses who Say Christ was resurrected a Spirit with no solid body and are stunned that thomas touches a solid body and wish to explain that away. I'm sure I just don't understand them either as they charge. Words mean things Dave. And we all here understand them. It just doesn't help you guys that the shell game ain't workin.
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.