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."

[Havoc]

Correction to my highspeed typo "She is creation, not creator"

[Jape]

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

###

I'm curious how protestants 'interpret|rationalize' that

[k2blader]

As a Christian first, Protestant Evangelical second, I had no problem with Mel Gibson's portrayal of Mary and the Gospels.

Thompson and (assumed) Christians like him ought to know better.

[dangus]

No, we are not the judge. That is why no-one is called a Saint (with a capital S!) when they are alive, because we cannot know whether they will fall into perdition. (case in point: the ECUSA proclaimed Brittney Spears a saint!) There are some recent reworkings of this, but traditionally, the Church in Rome hears the arguments of the Devil's Advocate, who suggests reasons to doubt the sanctity of a person nominated to sainthood. Meanwhile, the Church looks to God to confirm the sanctity of the person by Him answering prayers prayed with the Saints. If no fault is found (unpurged while the person lived, anyway... saints are ALL reformed sinners), AND God has allowed miracles to be performed when the saint joins our prayers to theirs, it is decided that God has demostrated the sanctity of that person.

Not convinced? Fine, find another Saint to pray with. It is quite normal for people to prefer one Saint or another.

By the way, this is not to suggest that people who are sanctified in THIS life are NOT saints. The bible calls them saints, and the Church follows the bible. The trick is that we can only suspect they are saints, we cannot know. Nonetheless, it is quite profitable to pray with earthly people struggling down the path with you.

A little quirky? No Catholic is obliged to assert the saintliness of any post-biblical person.

[dangus]

"Behold your mother."

[k2blader]

were there no purgaroty, there would be no need to pray for the departed, as we are instructed to do numerous times in both the Old and New Testaments.

Please post these references. Thank you.

[Praxeus]

God does not get thirsty. Jesus did.
He that keepeth Irael neither slumbers nor sleeps. Jesus did.
God is a spirit and a spirit has not flesh and bones. Jesus did.

(Mat 19:17 KJV) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

What of this. Jesus was speaking of His flesh nature.. unless you believe he is not God.

(John 14:10 KJV) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Again, unless you place a difference between the two natures of flesh and spirit, and recognize that Jesus was limited in His humanity by design, you will run into problems here. Jesus "dices up" the aspects of his person here, not me.

[presidio9]

Please post these references. Thank you.

Do you disagree with the point that there are referrences to people praying for the dead in the Old and New Testaments?

[Praxeus]

"In fairness.. if you are a Catholic, John 3:13c does not appear in Alexandrian based Texts."

This was meant for you.

[Havoc]

I did no such thing. This is taken word for word from a debate in which it was quoted and referenced. I changed nothing. And it is irrelevant to the conversation. The bolded part changes nothing. It is not Christ whome the Pope is seeking salvation from in that prayer, it is Mary he turns to for it. I quote again: " Sustain us, oh virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation" Now, I may have quoted what I heard directly, and that quote may have left out what you filled in. It does not in ANY way change what is being said. The pope paid lipservice to Christ in HIS office as redeemer, then turned right around and asked Mary for his salvation. Not Christ, Mary. Exactly what I stated earlier that he said and you denied it.

[Desdemona]

You just debunked your own argument with the second quote.

All things are possible with God. I'll say it again and again and again. As humans, we are limited in our understanding of how this all came to be and is. We are to believe as little children do. Christ tells us this himself, to come to Him as a child would and accept. There's no rationalization to it. It simply is. God is three persons in one - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are all God. There is no way Christ could lose His divinity. He is divine.

[k2blader]

I happened upon a few replies to your question, and it seems the answer is found only in Maccabees, which, at this point in time, I do not consider "God-breathed". Also, it is neither in the OT or NT.

It would be helpful if Christians didn't lie to back up a point (#28)...

[wolfman]

As an Evangelical and former Catholic brought up in Catholocism, it is always interesting to hear Protestants and Catholics argue. But the frustrating thing is that the Protestants are always hung up on what I'd consider peripheral issues like purgatoy, the sinless doctrine of Mary, etc, and completely ignore he central divide between them.... the issue of justification, the difference between heaven and hell.

The Bible teaches that any person who simply and truly believes in Jesus Christ as his personal Savior from sin is at that point irrevocably and eternally justified. What is justification? Justification is the act of God whereby He not only forgives the sins of believers, He also declares them perfectly righteous by imputing the obedience and righteousness of Christ Himself to them through faith.

Catholic theologians claim that Paul’s use of the Greek word for justification "dikaiow" does not refer to imputed righteousness. But they did not get this understanding from standard Greek dictionaries which define the principal New Testament word for justification in a Protestant and not a Catholic sense—as a legal declaration of righteousness, not an infusing of actual righteousness.
So justification is a completed act of God, and because it is entirely accomplished by God, once for all, it is not a life-long process such as is personal sanctification or individual growth in holy living.

In the Bible the concept of righteousness appears in a forensic or juridical context. A righteous man is one who has been declared by a judge to be free from guilt. To me, Scriptures clearly show that justification is 1) a crediting of righteousness on the basis of a person’s faith, 2) a completed act of God, and 3) something that occurs wholly apart from personal merit or good works:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Romans 3:28
How blessed is the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:5-6
"Much more than, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Romans 5:9

[dangus]

Catholics do not distinguish between what you call "the apocrypha" and the rest of scripture. Pick up a Catholic-published bible (as oposed to the "Catholic editions" of Protestant-published bibles) and you will find "the apocrypha" blended in with the rest of the bible, mixed among the other books, with no distinction at all made. They are part of the triannual cycle of readings. Catholics only distinguish them for the purpose of discussions with Jews and Protestants.

Incidentally, the term "apocrypha," properly used, refers specifically to a collection of works such as "the Apocalypse of Moses," "The Didache," and "The Shepherd of Hermes." Such books are rejected by all churches, Catholic and Protestant alike. What you mean by "apocrypha" are what Catholics now refer to as "dueterocanonical." (Maccabees 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4, Tobit, Wisdom/Ecclesiasticus, Sirach, and Judith.) Luther was purposedly denigrating them by calling them apocrypha, and the term causes much confusion. (Perhaps you heard Catholics say they don't consider the apocrypha scripture because they thought you meant "apocrypha" in its proper sense?)

[k2blader]

Please see #212 and please, if possible, provide the verses from the OT and NT. I'd really like to examine them.

[dangus]

Open up a bible that was not censored by Luther.

[Havoc]

I'm not playing with secondary issues here. It doesn't get any more central than salvation and where it comes from. And this is a central issue of division. Christ died on the cross and arose from the dead to pay the cost of our salvation. It is done, over with. And per Hebrews, he sat down next to the Father in Heaven when it was finished. One sacrifice, as Hebrews states, for all time never to be repeated - in contrast to the repetitious sacrifices of the old covenant that covered; but never cleansed. Rome teaches a different Gospel. And that is the point I'm making that they don't like.

[Praxeus]

How have I debunked myself?

I do not for one moment suppose that Christ "lost his divinity." I simply say he possessed a nature that was not divine along with a nature that was.

How could this be? I dunno. I'll appeal to your statement:

"All things are possible with God. I'll say it again and again and again. As humans, we are limited in our understanding of how this all came to be and is. We are to believe as little children do. Christ tells us this himself, to come to Him as a child would and accept. There's no rationalization to it. It simply is."

That cork will stop more than one hole.

[Jape]

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, ìYou have faith; I have deeds.î
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe thatñand shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[1] ? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[2] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

[Praxeus]

I agree.