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."

[dangus]

Revelations 12.

It is true that there is a prophetic sense in which this passage refers to the entire Church, but how can anyone miss that the woman who symbolically represents the Church is the Mother of Jesus!

[AMDG&BVMH]

"God has always been Lord. But God has not always been Jesus, in a manner of speaking. "

In a manner of speaking, yes. "In the fulness of time . . . " but that is human time.

God is eternal; all time is accessible to Him eternally, at any and all "times". Sooo Jesus, incarnate as the Second Person of the Trinity, is eternally with/of the Second Person of the Trinity. or? ;)

[dangus]

That's like arguing Jesus was only partly God because he died.

[Praxeus]

Please clarify what you are saying.

thx.

[Praxeus]

Did God die?

[presidio9]

Where did you "hear" this prayer with the crucial words left out? I provided a link. I suspect you either found it in anti-Catholic literature, so obsessed with discrediting the Pope that it would, in effect, stoop to the level of planting evidence. If you heard it coming from the mouth of a priest, either he made a mistake, or (more likely IMOHO) your need to attack the Pope led you to develop a selective hearing disorder.

In any case, I have thoughtfully provided a link to the actual words of the prayer. The John 14:6 referrence explains what he is saying quite efficiently.

Think about it for a second. John Paul II is a brilliant man. You would conceed this point, I expect? Popes have been dealing with the same tired accusation that you just made for centuries. Protestants have trouble understanding Mary's Special Role in Catholic Tradition, so they assume that in consititutes worship. It doesn't, but that's beside the point. Why would the Pope, of all people, add fuel to the fire by making such a blatant mistake? He wouldn't.

As a Christian, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not intentionally change the quote to suit your argument. It's beside the point. You're still wrong.

[wolfman]

Can faith without works save? Of course not. Sin never pays. Faith without works can't save you from the consequences here and now of your spiritual slothfulness. Proverbs 22:8 echoes the same basic sentiment, "He who sows iniquity will reap sorrow." While your faith in Christ guarantees you salvation from eternal judgment (John 3:18), it does not promise you salvation from the consequences of sin here and now.

[dangus]

>>Mary is more akin to the Ark of the Covenant.<<

Havoc, you just cited the basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception! (Read more about the Ark if you don't get this!)

>>The ark was a container that had in and of itself NO power, No authority, Nothing. It was, apart from it's designated role, useless. It was pretty, I'm sure. It's worth was not in what it was; but, in what it bore. Remove that from it, and it was of no consequence. I am, of course, speaking in pragmatic relativism. Mary has no authority, no power and no place in the Godhead. Mary is mother of a human body, not the creator of God. She is creation, not created.<<

This is true. What Mary did which makes her special is that she perfectly did what we must all do: surrender our wills to God. It was said as Christ's conception, "Do unto me according to thy will," a perfect reflection of his own final prayer, "Into your hands, I commend my spirit."

>>Thus she is neither mother nor queen in heaven<<

You contradict Revelations based on what?

[Praxeus]

I must say.. I am surprised to find that Catholics do not subscribe to the doctrine of the dual-nature of Christ. I thought all faiths that subscribed to the incarnation explained it this way.

Interesting.

[k2blader]

I scrolled some more and saw #157. If those are the references, they do not prove the existence of purgatory. Instead, the link merely provides a list of Catholic beliefs on the subject.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation"

obtain, as Mediatrix, from your Son. Catholics believe that Mary's intercession with her Son is powerful, due to His love and respect for her.

Catholics understand this. Mary is Mediatrix of grace. The prayer is understandable to Catholics because the context is second nature. You are misunderstanding the prayer because you don't have/accept the context . . .

[presidio9]

The only proof of a Purgatory that I offered was the simple logic that there would be no point in praying for the dead if there weren't. I'm not going to do your research for you on this subject. Do you pray for the dead?

[Havoc]

As a Christian, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not intentionally change the quote to suit your argument. It's beside the point. You're still wrong.

What you quoted and what I quoted are essentially the same thing. As I said, the relevant portion is the fact that JP II as ya'll call him, sought Mary in prayer for salvation. You can spin that any way you wish. It does not change it one iota. I don't care a whit about the "special role" you wish to say exists. It isn't in scripture and it's blasphemous. Scripture tells us that Christ is the way the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father but by Him. Paul tells us that salvation comes through us individually believing on Christ and Confessing him with our mouths. That alone should be enough to tell us that Mary can in NO way obtain salvation for ANYONE. She can't believe for you and she can't confess for you. This is another Gospel message being foisted on us. You can't rationalize your way out of it. He said it. You're in denial.

[presidio9]

He changed the wording to make it sound blasphemous. See Post 199

[Havoc]

Mary is no such thing. Scripture tells us there is ONE mediator between God and man and that it is Christ, Jesus.
ONE. Not a chain of them. Not a college of them. ONE.
I reject the prayer because I all too well understand the context. It is a perversion of the Gospel.

[dangus]

"paid lipservice"

Amazing how ignorant people, when faced with an enigma, simply accuse the other of insincerity.

"paid lipservice"

yeah, like the Pope doesn't really believe in Christ as his redeemer. It's all a big act. You caught him.

Now, look more carefully at the words: "Obtain for us." Since when does "obtain for" mean "give to"? If he believed Mary was the source of salvation, he'd say, "Give us the grace of eternal salvation." No, those words are prayed to Jesus Christ alone.

To obtain something for someone is to get something FROM someone ELSE for that person. Christ gives us our salvation. He gives it to us THROUGH his Church, which is embodied in Mary (Rev 12), who has brought Christ into the world by her submitting herself to CHRIST'S will.

You want to go it alone, without Christ's church, fine, but don't twist words.

[Havoc]

I did no such thing. And in either wording it is blasphemous. The operative issue is the Pope seeking his salvation in Mary. Period. You can slice it, dice it and tapdance around it, it's still blasphemy.

[ninenot]

So I'd say this issue is worth noting, worth discussing, and worth dismissing.

LOL!!

But it sounds an awful lot like that ole RC saying: "Roma locuta est; causa finita est." (Rome has spoken and that's final.)

Do you have any other Popish tendencies??

[dangus]

Justification is instantaneous. Souls in purgatory are bound for Heaven; they have been justified. They need to be sanctified. Sanctified and justified are not synonyms.

[presidio9]

What you quoted and what I quoted are essentially the same thing.

That is a lie. I am beginning to think again that you omitted the verse intentionally.

As I said, the relevant portion is the fact that JP II as ya'll call him, sought Mary in prayer for salvation.

We call him John Paul II, because that is his name. Do you mock that as well? The "Salvation" we seek is "the Way and the Truth and the Life" Who is Jesus Christ.

He said it. You're in denial.

You need help. I really think you should consider speaking to your minister (or whomever you confide in) on this matter. You are demonstrably wrong.