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."

[kailbo]

<> But how do you KNOW who they are? How can you be sure? You are not judge.

[Praxeus]

Come now, Salve..

If a dual-natured Christ is "schizo", then what is a God that is three persons?

[nmh]

"It all depends on your interpretation."

LOL! It's not an interpretation issue. The majority is clearly laid out. Look at the Greek and Hebrew and the truth will be very clear as well as taking into account the context it is being used in. Catholic rely on "tradition" when it comes to trying to harmonize the differences with what they do and the Bible states as truth. Many are sold on this despite the contradiction.

[nmh]

I'll send you a link that expands on the contradictions.

[presidio9]

Is anyone else besides me getting sick of all the passion posts and stories? Enough already...

Not me, obviously. Or 100 other people on this thread. I find that when I have no interest in a thread, my best option is not to click on it. But that's just me.

BTW, have you seen the film?

[BibChr]

Did Jesus' Deity precede Mary's existence?

Of course.

Then she was not its matrix, was she?

Of course not.

Though she was the mother of Him who was both God and man.

Those who are slaves of history, rather than captive to Scripture, are bound to repeat its mistakes.

Dan

[presidio9]

I am confused as to what it is that Catholics do that you are so against, but even without knowing, I can almost guarantee that it is a minor point that non-Catholics have attributed undeserved significance to. Can you give an example?

[Praxeus]

He was God in the womb, of course. He was God before He Got in the womb, He was God while He was in the womb, He was God when He came out of the Womb. He is still God.

However, as my Irish genes came from my mother, so did the human nature of Jesus come from Mary... and no, Mary was not the mother of "two natures". She was the mother of the incarnate Christ.

I never beat my wife. I swear.

[hopespringseternal]

There is no hiding form them or pushing them aside.

I didn't say they were hidden or pushed aside. My point is that even Catholics distinguish between the Apocrypha and the rest of scripture. That distinction just doesn't mean as much to Catholics.

Jesus makes reference to the mother whose sons all were killed rather than eat something unlawful.

???

[Praxeus]

Yes, a thousand times, yes.. He arose from the dead, but the adamic nature did not any more than ours will. Thank God!

[reflecting]

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." S. John 21, 25.

This verse continues to be quoted to somehow support all of the extra biblical practices of the Roman church. Does it not occur to you that if God wanted you praying to dead people He would have put one, just one, instance of it in the Bible, old or new....? By this logic anything could become "authoritative" I like you guys but some of the stuff you do is a bit goofy to me.

[Praxeus]

"Revelations shows her wearing a crown in heaven and Gabriel hails her as a queen."

Mary is special, no doubt about it.

God Bless!

[SoothingDave]

He was God in the womb, of course. He was God before He Got in the womb, He was God while He was in the womb, He was God when He came out of the Womb. He is still God.

Then Mary carried God in her womb. She gave birth to God. Therefor "God-bearer" (Theotokos) or "Mother of God" are valid terms used to express this fact.

That is what orthodox Christianity means by the term, as defined at the council. It is not meant to imply that Mary pre-existed or created God. It means what it means. And it is absolutely correct.

SD

[reflecting]

reference?

[Praxeus]

"Creed schmeed."

Upon reflection, I have belittled what is part of your faith. I did not think, and did not mean to do so.

I apologize.

[mrbillxx]

Yes...I believe he was influence by...

http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm

[OLD REGGIE]

If you are questioning weather those referrences exist, you'd be better off looking for them yourself. You seem to be in need of a better acquaintance with the Bible.

And you refuse to help. How unChristian of you.

[Praxeus]

If you refer to my statement that Mary was special..

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. - (Luke 1:28 KJV)

If you refer to the statement about Revelations, you'll have to ask Salve Regina.