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."

[OLD REGGIE]

Humility and an understanding that you are fallible would be a great place to start.

No smiley? Humility from the man who said "If you want to know what Catholics believe, then you ask one. I've been here telling you the true story for a long time. That's why I am qualified."

Thank you oh humble one.

[Cronos]

A Gay man in an open relationship is elected Bishop in the ECUSA, Buddhist priests in Thailand are accused of molestation and homoesexuallity, Muslim mullahs are accussed of the same, ditto Baptist pastors etc. And don't even go into the number of Television 'evangelists' framed. Persons do fail, but that doesn't negate the good deeds of the religion. Charles Martel defended Christendom againsts Islamm but he killed quite a few, what does that make him? There have been christains who have made mistakes.

And about the Catholic priests who have fallen, what is their percentage? a minuscule number? And you condemn the remaining majority for the crimes of the minority?

[SoothingDave]

the difference between the infallible teaching of Unum Sanctum and the current infallible teaching concerning the salvation of those outside the RCC?

There is no difference in the teaching. But, yes, the audiences are different. And the application of the teaching is different because of that.

It's like the just war theory. It's principles are pretty well defined. But the circumstances of its application can change and be different depending upon the situation being addressed. The teachignng doesn't change.

SD

[ET(end tyranny)]

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":

ANTIPOPES

This list of men who claimed or exercised the papal office in an uncanonical manner includes names, birthplaces and dates of alleged reigns.

Source: Annuario Pontificio

Source: Catholic Almanac 2004

And the concordance DOES show anti as having an acceptable use of 'substitute', to go along with the substitute/antipopes.

[SoothingDave]

Humility from the man who said "If you want to know what Catholics believe, then you ask one. I've been here telling you the true story for a long time. That's why I am qualified."

You need to take my words in context. Compared to the utter confusion you were showing, that was a charitable offer to help. :-)

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

That's at odds with your tag line:
I am a cult of one

Well it's nice that you are calling me a liar.

The "cult of one" was added to my tag line because one of your loving RC's called me "a cult of one". I added it because I thought it was funny.

as for:

And with yours and Havoc's and ET's earlier posts where you state that the rest of Christendom is wrong and are not Christians but worship:

Mary
The Pope
The sun


Since your charge is inclusive I can only say you are a liar.

Why do you find this necessary?

[SoothingDave]

Antipopes are not "substitutes" for a real pope. Your reasoning is fatuous. For one it confuses English and Greek meanings, which are not always the same. Antipasta is not a substitute for pasta.

Anti-popes were what we would call "un-popes." They were false popes, not true popes. Do you think an antidote is a substitute for a dote?

SD

[Petronski]

Do you think an antidote is a substitute for a dote?

Anti-climax is a substitute for a climax?

[Fury]

And the concordance DOES show anti as having an acceptable use of 'substitute', to go along with the substitute/antipopes.

Can you please provide a link for the concordance?

I believe the dictionary I used provided an accurate description of the definitions for "anti-". That's not to say there are not other defintitions, subject to seeing a citation, of course. Thanks...

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

It just doesn't help you guys that the shell game ain't workin

Who is "you guys"?

[ET(end tyranny)]

Anti-popes were what we would call "un-popes." They were false popes, not true popes.

Bingo! Thank you for making my point. :)

They were false popes, not true popes.

And the Antichrist will be a falsechrist, not the true Christ. A substitute!

If those antipopes were unpopes, why does the catholic church refer to them as ANTIPOPES? Why doesn't the RCC call them UNPOPES? LOL

Yes Dave, thank you once again, for proving my point. The antipopes were considered to be false popes, just as the antichrist will be considered a false christ.

[OLD REGGIE]

There is no difference in the teaching. But, yes, the audiences are different. And the application of the teaching is different because of that.

Oh I see! What some might call completely different stories, lies even, you call "application of the teaching".

Spin away.

[AMDG&BVMH]

" I've done that and many times have had my doubts cleared because of insights from my fellow travellers"

Indeed. I have also removed filters by reading what the Church really teaches. Human nature makes it entirely too easy to rationalize, hear what we want to hear, interpret texts as we want them to be read . . .

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

Actually, I did answer that querry Cronos. And with no more information than was provided to you, I was fed this a few minutes ago by someone who did bother to look before trying to slander me. That's what I call honesty.

It's usual to provide the citations at the time the assertions are made, not make the assertions, present them as fac,t and tell folks to find them themselves. That's not slander - to request citations. That's a request for intellectual professionalism.

Dave Hunt - Roman Catholicism - Debate - Is it another Gospel.mp3 WinMX network.

I downloaded the software and the only Dave Hunt file found is about Islam.

I guess it's the default Catholic position to slander and look last. But I'm told the quotation I gave came from this debate and records the comment exactly as I relayed it.

No, not the default Catholic position, and that is unfortunate that you lump folks together. I believe it's intellectually dishonest to make an asserton, present it as fact, and have no diret reference at the ready.

So when you get your pride out of your behind, and work up the integrity, I'll be waiting here for the apology I'm sure I'll never see. In the meantime, I'll get the software and download it myself to confirm for myself. This outta be good. ROFL.

I will be the first to offer the apology if the citation you mention is included in the MP3. Specifically, if one hears the Pope or the Vatican Information Service claim that the Pope prays to Mary for salvation. Otherwise, it's not unreasonable to ask that Havoc retract his claim about the Pope. I'll note that Dave Hunt saying that the Pope said this or that is not sufficient proof. If the Pope did indeed state what Havoc is claiming he did, you would think it would be available on the Internet. I've searched a larger portion of the Vatican web-site from 1997 and can't find the statement in question.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"who hold out hope of salvation to all people"

Isn't that the hope and promise of Christianity? Jesus Christ earned salvation for all; however, not all will make use of it by following their inner nudgings to seek truth and do good.

[ET(end tyranny)]

473 anti an-tee' a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.

Strong's Lexicon

from the Greek
473 anti an-tee'
1) over against, opposite to, before
2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
a) instead of
b) for
c) for that, because
d) wherefore, for this cause

BLB search results

I access both from HERE

[broadsword]

Hey, brothers, have you noticed that what they do is exactly what they falsely accuse us of; lying, name-calling and misinterpreting scripture.

I swear, this little trinity of heresy is the most surreal and diabolical thing I have ever encountered. Reading their posts is like looking at the grisly results of a terrible auto accident. You want to look away from the gore, but it is just so hideous and twisted that you can't. You stand there with mouth agape.

I once saw a man who, in some sort of diabetic problem, got in a serious accident. By the time we found him, he had coagulated blod hanging out of his ear canals like ear rings. The gooey little bloodsicles hung down there about two inches and wiggled every time he moved his muddled head. But the wierdest thing of all is that, in his stupor, he kept blowing kisses and coming onto a female ambulance worker. It was so incredibly surreal. He had no idea how hideous and screwed up he was, and yet he just kept on going after her.

And here I am gaping at the infinitely wise posts of the little trinity of Havoc, REGGIE and ET. Deja vu!

[Fury]

I access both from HERE

Strong's concordance is for use with the Scriptures. You used the term "anti-Christ" as follows:

That list is a list of ANTI-POPES! So the word anti can clearly mean a substitute for something.

A substitute for something in Scripture, yes. I believe you are taking the word anti as used in Strongs and assigning it a meaning outside of Scripture for use with "anti-popes".

Another point - do you maintain the ONLY meanings for "anti-" are contained in Strongs definition?

[Fury]

Hey, brothers, have you noticed that what they do is exactly what they falsely accuse us of; lying, name-calling and misinterpreting scripture.

I just dissapointed that we can't have a reasonable debate. A couple of years ago, I was told by Havoc that (paraphrase) that he could take me to task in a debate. I believe I have shown on this thread, that the outcome is less certain than our friend maintains.

[Fury]

I'll also note that when someone claims that a theory is an opinion, that is also a cause for concern, in the area of presenting an argument in a cogent, logical manner. Of course, in that case, it's easy to get one's hat handed back to them - in pieces! ;)