Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'
Belfast Telegraph ^ | 19 March 2004 | Alf McCreary

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belfast; blessedmother; churchofrome; maccabees; marianyear; mary; moviereview; passionofthechrist; popejohnpaulii; thepassion; trinity; usefulidiots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,381-1,389 next last
To: TRY ONE
That allows the Catholics to pray to (and even "worship") Mary --- a real no-no for Protestants.

Catholics follow the scriptures - St. Luke 1:48 - "Behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

The Protestant misunderstanding of the the term "pray to" does not account for the changes that occur in living tongues. For many generations "I pray thee", "pray tell" , and , "pray, what does this mean" all carry the classic meaning of the common useage - I request, I ask. In no way does this usage imply worship.

As for being the Mother of God, Elizabeth calls her that - "And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" (St.Luke 1:43). Mary is the Mother of the human and divine Jesus.

141 posted on 03/19/2004 1:13:02 PM PST by pbear8 (no complaining...Thanks be to God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
`
142 posted on 03/19/2004 1:15:52 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
If it had a mother, it isn't God, can't be God. Mary is not the mother of Jesus' Deity.

Your statement is very close to the ancient Nestorianism heresy. You are separating Jesus' human and divine natures; where Nestorius a Syrian monk, taught that Jesus is two distinct persons. Nestorius held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. One inherent danger in separating Christ into two persons is the threat to atonement. Which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person", the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

The Council of Ephesus convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human. The Council concluded that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

This is still the Christian teaching.

143 posted on 03/19/2004 1:18:00 PM PST by tekriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
And not a single solid scriptural reference in the whole thing. Your statement was unequivocal. Surely you can do better than that.

One does not get much more clear than II Maccabees 12, 44-45:

For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

F.W.I.W. that translation is that Authorised Version (also called the King James Version).

Of course, that is from one of the books which although held by ALL in the first 1500 years of the Church to be part of the Bible, was thrown out by Martin Luther. Nevermind that when S. Paul wrote "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3, 16) he had in mind the Septuagint (which contains Maccabees), Martin Luther did not like it at all, so out it goes.
144 posted on 03/19/2004 1:22:16 PM PST by tjwmason (A voice from Merry England.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: TRY ONE
"So why not just pray to Jesus now ......"

I do that too, much much more than praying to Mary or to any of those pesky Saints you folks don't care for.

I'm not trying to argue with you really. Like I said, I'm no Catholic spokesman......but our belief in Christ as the living God is absolute. It's the foundation of our faith, both mine and yours......yes?

Regards;

145 posted on 03/19/2004 1:23:35 PM PST by Dazedcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This is Northern Ireland, of course, where everything must fit the favorite antagonism.
146 posted on 03/19/2004 1:24:26 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

To: tekriter; BibChr
Your statement is very close to the ancient Nestorianism heresy.

Of course. Those who do not learn from history repeat it. Those who disdain history fall victim to it.

One inherent danger in separating Christ into two persons is the threat to atonement. Which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person", the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

And, of course, if the "human person" is not the one dying, then it really bears no relation to our humanity. So it might be nice that God immolated Himself, but it is not an act which is involved in redeeming humanity.

So much trouble we get into just to deny the Catholic viewpoint on Theotokos.

SD

148 posted on 03/19/2004 1:29:33 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

Comment #149 Removed by Moderator

To: tjwmason
Funny, none of my Catholic friends seem to take the Apocrypha too seriously, and have indicated that the church doesn't either.

They tell me it is nice research material, but running around quoting it as scripture is frowned upon.

Not to mention that it is not quoted as scripture in the new testament.

Too many Catholics like to forget that Luther was Catholic, and he was a reformer, not an abolisher.

150 posted on 03/19/2004 1:31:25 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: tjwmason
Mary is "Mother of God" only in a derivative sense. That is, she is mother of what God took upon Himself: Flesh.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
- (Phil 2:7-8 KJV)

She was mother of the "likeness". Does that mean more than being mother of just any man? Absolutely. Does it mean she was mother of the eternal Spirit that was in the man? Nyet.

When the Spirit left the body, the humanity died. God cannot die. Mary was mother of that which died. At the end of Mel's movie, she is holding in her arms that which she was mother of. And with the death of that, she is mother no more, save in a memorial sense.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. - (2 Cor 5:21 KJV)

What she mothered became a sacrifice, that is, it became sin for our sakes and is no more.

The adamic nature of Jesus is gone forever. What was of Mary, her "seed", had to be destroyed for our sakes. If she is still mother in an actual sense, we are still in our sins.

I know many will disagree here, but it is my view.

151 posted on 03/19/2004 1:32:10 PM PST by Praxeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
They tell me it is nice research material, but running around quoting it as scripture is frowned upon.

You need some new "Catholic" friends. Passages from these books are found in the Lectionary. There is no hiding form them or pushing them aside.

Not to mention that it is not quoted as scripture in the new testament.

Jesus makes reference to the mother whose sons all were killed rather than eat something unlawful. Without these books, the allusion is lost.

SD

152 posted on 03/19/2004 1:33:40 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: tekriter
"Your statement is very close to the ancient Nestorianism heresy. You are separating Jesus' human and divine natures; where Nestorius a Syrian monk, taught that Jesus is two distinct persons."

"Close", but no cigar.. A miss is as good as a mile ;)

If three persons can be one God, then two natures can be one person.

153 posted on 03/19/2004 1:36:28 PM PST by Praxeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

Comment #154 Removed by Moderator

To: SoothingDave
Good to see you again Dave! How have you been?
155 posted on 03/19/2004 1:38:23 PM PST by redgolum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: tjwmason
One does not get much more clear than II Maccabees 12, 44-45

I suspect this person rejects Maccabees. There are many more examples in both the Old and New Testament.

156 posted on 03/19/2004 1:38:35 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; hopespringseternal
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
157 posted on 03/19/2004 1:39:00 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Is anyone else besides me getting sick of all the passion posts and stories? Enough already...
158 posted on 03/19/2004 1:39:45 PM PST by devane617
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Praxeus
If three persons can be one God, then two natures can be one person.

And, apparently, women can now give birth not to "persons" but "natures."

A simple question: If Jesus was not God when He was in Mary's womb, when did He become so?

SD

159 posted on 03/19/2004 1:40:06 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Good to see you again Dave! How have you been?

I've been fine. Thanks for asking.

SD

160 posted on 03/19/2004 1:40:46 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,381-1,389 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson