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."

[Barnacle]

And I thought Foxman was bad...

[Desdemona]

The scourging could not have been nearly as bad as shown in the movie. There is no such evidence of a violent scourging on the Shroud of Turin.

Actually, the scourging, by all historical accounts, was probably much worse and there IS evidence of scourging on the Shroud.

Also, one of the saints, St. Brigit of Sweden, has a set of prayers given to her by Christ. There are fifteen and they are said each with an Our Father and a Hail Mary. If one says them for a year, the total is 5480, the number of wounds Christ told St. Brigit he received.

[B-Chan]

Brother:

First: With deepest respect, who are you to teach anything? Why should any of us trust your interpretations and teachings over any other? By what authority do you deem one doctrine the Truth and another error?

Unless you are claiming to be infallible, as is the Pope, you have no credibility as a teacher.. You are simply expressing your personal beliefs and claiming them to the identical with the Truth. You will forgive me if I prefer the Truth as taught by the Church for the past twenty centuries to your own home-brew version.

Second: 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. The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for our sins is precisely what the Catholic Church has always taught. The idea of somehow crucifying the Lord over and over again is, frankly, silly, and has no place in either Catholic liturgy or doctrine.

Third: Rome teaches a different Gospel. And that is the point I'm making that they don't like.

Rome teaches the Gospel handed down in unbroken succession from the lips and quill of Saint Peter, who was given the Keys of Heaven and Earth by the Lord Himself. Yours is the novel doctrine; it has neither history nor Scripture to support it. As for your “disliked” point, I and the other Catholics here will be happy to lovingly point out the errors in your teaching any time you feel like it, because we believe in the teaching of the Church, which is the Truth, and the Truth neither fears nor is threatened by error.

Lastly: Please do not take my criticisms of your doctrines to be personal attacks. I realize that your contention is born from a genuine concern for the salvation of your fellowmen, and thus is (despite its erroneous nature) a virtue rater than a vice. I appreciate your concern for our eternal destiny, and I pray to you for your intercession on my behalf.

Yours in Christian fraternity,

B-Chan

[Havoc]

We're discussing two very different concepts here. You are alluding to divination; catholics believe in the intercession of the Communion of Saints.

People with familiar spirits don't practice divination. They just speak to the familiar. Divination would be one form of communication associated with necromancy; but, only one. Divination in that sense would be the fraud of thinking oneself able to call up the dead when all they are actually doing is conferring with a familiar spirit - a demon. That will get you in trouble in a heartbeat - as in a death sentence under the OT rules.

The dead cannot interract with the living. A principle dealt with not only in the old testament; but in the new. Some would say, 'yeah; but, Christ raised people from the dead.' Read your old testament and you'll find people were raised from the dead by the power of God before Christ was born. The dead can't interract with you. God forbade it. But if you try to communicate with the dead, the demons are happy to oblige in making a good show of it. You can't see into the spirit world, so all they have to do is the minimum of familiar discussion and you are decieved. Thus the term familiar spirit. Once you do this, you give license to Satan in your life by putting your trust in the image he has represented to you - just as Eve did in the Garden. But I'm sure you think yourself wiser than her. That would be expected - all men think that way till God gets hold of them. That's why Solomon told us that there is a way that "SEEMS" right to a man but its end is DESTRUCTION. Satan made it seem right to EVE that eating the fruit was ok. It's end was destruction - death entered the world, the order of things was upset. The spiritual and the physical seperated. One sin did that. Adam didn't have to follow suit, Eve did all the damage that was needed to be done. One sin. One rebellion against God by someone who decided something else through rationalization seemed ok despite what God said.

In praying to the saints, one is not seeking knowledge about the future, but rather asking for their prayers.

Saul sought aid from Samual. No different than asking the saint of dog bites (yes you have one and I'm not joking) to take care of the bite. Seeking aid is seeking aid, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise. One has to communicate in order to seek aid. And Communication is the thing that is disallowed no matter whether you seek aid or not. No matter what kind of communication it is, it is still communicating with the dead. Forbidden in Ecclesiastes 9 and outlawed with death penalty under the law in every form it takes, whether it be necromancy, spiritism, consulting a familiar (the default form), ect. Understand, that since God has ruled that the dead can't communicate or interact with us, that doesn't stop demons from doing it in their place. That is why the default form is consulting familiar spirits. Demons will answer and play act for you at being your dead grandma. You can't see them, and all they have to know is a few things grandma had in the house, something she might have said, ect. then you're hooked and counseling with a demon. For which God would have you put to death. It isn't yours to reason why. You are supposed to be obedient even if you don't understand why. Not to me; but, to God. He's the one you answer to. You can sit and make excuses to me; but, when Dad gets home...

"The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."

Not untrue. It was still unlawful for Saul to talk to Samual. You haven't dealt with that. You are applying things said of the living to the dead as though this is ok to do. It isn't. It's bad exegesis and it is begging reason instead of founding in scripture. I can argue that camels are wise counsel with reason. It don't make it either true or scriptural. Let's say it's illegal to park your car in front of the courthouse. Parking a car is a wise thing. Nice cars are even better. Nice cars with good gas mileage are better yet. A nice car with good gas mileage that was impervious to decay would be the best. But if I park that nice impervious car with good gas mileage in front of the courthouse, it's still illegal. You're describing the car to argue your right to park in front of the courthouse knowing it's illegal. If I'm smart enough to see it, how in the world do you believe you are ever gonna Con God with that.

[Buggman]

The Word was in the Ark. The Ark is the physical container of the Word, both OT and NT. Both were in the dwelling place in the tent. Beyond that, you have taken the discussion in an entirely different direction.

No, the Law was in the Ark. That's a completely different Biblical concept.

[Cacique]

btt

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The Ten Commandments were the written Word of God.

Christ was the Living Word of God.

What was prophesied in the Old Testament came into manifestation in the New Testament.

[Havoc]

Pick a reason. It doesnt' matter to our salvation. It really doesnt' matter at all. It happened. Jesus said it was a vision. So, again, you're left with calling Jesus a liar or calling yourself one. Why do you rant out loud to no one when you're mad beyond momentary repair? Because you've lost your mind or because it's useful for the moment.
It's not our business to know everything. It's also not our business to make it up when we don't know. And more importantly, it's not our place to blaspheme God when we're making it up because we don't know. And that is exactly what Philosophy is. Rationalizing what we don't know and have no earthly clue about. Giving that rationalization a label, then calling that labeled rational a fact. You can believe it all you want. Egyptians believed earnestly that the Pharaoh was a god. They were decieved and liars when they said it. Doesn't matter how much they believe it.

They didn't have thousands of years worth of scripture to show them better though I'm sure God provided something in example. I can't prove that, so I can't preach that. We have thousands of years worth of scripture. We know better.
We are accountable for it. And trying to convince God's creation that God is a liar so your philosophy can be heralded as true, is no different than what Satan did to EVE. That is why false teachers are dealt with specially at the judgement. If you're running round spouting false doctrine, you earn that judgement. Back up and read that again. The tongue unbridled is a damnation to the person weilding it. Spouting false doctrine is the tongue unbridled. I ain't here to damn you. I'm here to throw up a red flag and stop you before you run off the cliff. Jesus loves you and so do I. But He won't put up with it.

[Havoc]

Cowardly default. Meaning you turned coward and ran off when shown a liar? Praying for ya.

[Havoc]

That post of mine put it in context. You argue that you are just tryin to get help from a dead brother. Same thing Saul was doing - just trying to get help from a dead brother. GOD PUT HIM TO DEATH FOR IT. How much more plain does it get that it is WRONG. Lord Jesus open his eyes and remove the blinders on this boy so he can see and understand your word.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

said the film displayed "an un-Biblical fixation on Mary, the mother of Jesus.

A member of the church went to see it and said the exact same thing. Way too much emphasis on Mary. Logical based on the individual producing the movie.

[nmh]

Here's a link that should remove your confusion.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/melgibson-thepassionofthechrist/index.html

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Mary is no such thing. Scripture tells us there is ONE mediator between God and man and that it is Christ, Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man 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.

Exactly right. I'm sure the passage has been posted already...but the reference is once again visible above so one doesn't have to look to find it.

[Havoc]

They are offering the prayers of others to God. That's intercession.

You need to study what intercession is. Intercession is not gathering other people's prayers to God (not to themselves) Handing the prayers to god over to God and letting God deal with it. Again, you're looking at a symbolism that is representative of something; but, you're interpreting the symoblism as the message. As I said before, if we apply that rational, then the Whore of Babylon is nothing more than a rodeo rider. This is why Peter said that no PROPHECY is of private interpretation. It can' only be interpreted by the HOLY Spirit. Read it 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. What you're doing now is exactly why he said it. The prophetic symobolism is representative of something. It is not the message itself.

Intercession is something that we do - actually praying for others. It is called standing in the gap. It is praying to absurd extremes for the protection of another. If you have ever tried converting a Satanist, you'll either find out what intercession is for real or you will see one or both of you dead.

You did. If heavenly beings offering prayers to God on behalf of earthly beings is wrong, it would not be used as imagery, literal or metaphorical.

Oh really, what do you suppose the imagery was that came to the prophet who rebuked David? What do you think the imagery was that he used in explaining to David that what he did was wrong? A wrong. No matter how you cut it. It was a wrong designed in imagery to mask exactly what David had done so that David would Judge himself. Up to the time that Peter recieved his vision it was wrong to eat of unclean animals. God showed him a vision that was against the law; but because it had changed. It was still repugnant to Peter. Do you just make it up as you go? Cause those scriptures and more have been around for quite a bit longer than both of us and they contradict what you just said without any real effort.

[RobbyS]

Protestants reject the Books of the Maccabees, which means they ignore several hundred years of the development of Judaism. During this time, especiallly during the wars with the Syrians, martyrdom became inportant to the Jews, along with the notion of the Resurrection. Both doctrines focus attention on the dead and the afterlife. So it became the custom to pray for the dead. Christianity came out of the same body of opinion, and the early Christians honored their martyrs the same way, as we know from tomb inscriptions. The underlying sentiment is fellowship between the living and the dead.

[RobbyS]

Havoc, I didn't know you lived in Belfast. You breathe the same spirit of hatred as the bombers.

[tekriter]

We have the "Red Phone" --- We can contact God (Jesus) directly. Why pray to another spiritual being? Show me one example in Scripture where an Apostle or Prophet did so!

One example: the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-30). The departed rich man is able to pray to Abraham and intercede for his brothers.

The Catholic doctrine of communion of saints has been discussed a lot on various "Passion" forums. Many non-Catholics do not accept the doctrine. However, just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding about what Catholics believe, here is a condensation of the doctrine:

1. All Christians are members of Christ's body and one another. (Rom 12:5 and many others listed below)

2. Jesus has only one body. (Eph 4:4; Col 3:15)

3. Death cannot separate Christians from Christ or from one another. (Rom 8:35-39)

4. Christians are bound in mutual love. (Rom 12:10; I Thess 5:11; Gal 6:2)

In Christ we are made part of God's family, children of God (1 John 3:1), Joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), and partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). This family communion of saints is known to Catholics as the Mystical Body of Christ. We are joined in a supernatural union as members of Christ's own body, and thus as members of one another. Each of us participates in the divine life of Christ.

This is what Christians have believed from the beginning of the Church as recorded through out the New Testament (1 Cor 10:16; Gal 3:28; Eph 1:22-23, 4:4, 4:15-16, 5:21-32, Col 1:18, 3:15). Additional evidence is in the writings of the early Church fathers, i. e., Hermas (A.D. 80), Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 208), Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 253), Methodius (A.D. 305), Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 350), and others.

[Buggman]

Nope. Christ made repeated references to the Law being separate from Himself. Paul's theology also makes this distinction. The Law (as in, the Torah and the Tanakh) do prophesy of Him, but to say that the Ten Commandments are the symbol of the Logos, Christ Himself, is a horrendous distortion of the Scripture's teaching.

[stands2reason]

These are Euro-protestants. A strong breeze will knock them over.

[Havoc]

First: With deepest respect, who are you to teach anything?

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. The whole 3 chapters are rather instructive as to who I am. It's instructive as to who all Christians are supposed to be.

The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for our sins is precisely what the Catholic Church has always taught.

Bunk. Read Vatican II. You are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about. The Catholic Church teaches that at mass, the priest summones Christ down from heaven and into the host and the wine to become really and truly Christ's full body and blood to be offered for sin in an ongoing perpetuation of the sacrifice of Calvary for sin. Over and over and over. It is referred to as an UNBLOODY sacrifice for sin. If Christ's blood is truly present, then one wonders who's fooling who. If it is done over and over again, it is not finished. The word of God says once for all time and then he sat down. IT IS FINISHED. SIN IS COVERED AND CLEANSED BY ONE SACRIFICE THAT IS DONE AND OVER WITH. You give lipservice to it then turn around and talk out the other side of your mouth to make people believe it is happening again. And you meet it out in installments as though once was not enough and force people to be present for it under threat of a mortal sin that will send them to hell. That is what you teach. That is what Vatican II reaffirms. And that has no basis whatsoever in scripture. Paul said believe with your heart and confess with your mouth and you shall be saved. 1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." If I were to claim what this verse just said, according to Vatican II I would be Damned. Anathematized. Who are you kidding. READ YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS.

Rome teaches the Gospel handed down in unbroken succession from the lips and quill of Saint Peter, who was given the Keys of Heaven and Earth by the Lord Himself.

Rome teaches bits and pieces that are convienient to the larger philosophy and the philosophy rules. Peter did not teach that Christ must be eternally sacrificed on the alter and reincarnated into bread and wine weekly to forgive sin. Peter taught that Jesus did it once for real and it was over and that it is a free gift accepted without works as paul said lest any should boast that their works had anything to do with their salvation. Rome states that even if you think Christ died for your sins, you have to expiate them yourself through works. You have to clean your own sins through works. Vatican II. Vatican II also reaffirmed Trent and all it's anathemas and it reaffirmed UNUM SANCTUM - something not only Peter wasn't aware of; but that Paul and the others including and up to JESUS himself were mercilessly unaware of.

Lastly, I don't take doctrinal differences as personal attacks. But I am a born again spirit filled believer with the promises that entails and I will speak with the self same authority The apostles entrusted and commanded. And I really don't care if you like it or not. I didn't come here demanding anyone believe me. As Paul said, so say I, Check every word against scripture. If I present anything other than was presented, let me be accursed. UNUM SANCTUM is a damndable doctrine from the pit of hell and it was never uttered anywhere in scripture. Your church comes teaching other than was taught by the apostles. That's one doctrine among hundreds I could pop off without thinking after 15 years of studying. Just one is all it takes and according to Paul, you're to be accursed for teaching it. Not my words, HIS.

I can quote my authority from scripture and stand on it. I have no problem with it because God's testimony does not return empty. I'm not infallible and neither is your Pope. He's no more infallible than anyone on this entire site. Proof's in the pudding. You have on record in your own archives the history of an exchange between Popes and a council that officially infallibly proclaimed both sides of a heretical doctrine as correct and anathematized one another. Infallibility as a doctrine was proclaimed to shut up protest and questioning so that the church could proclaim whatever it wished to a dumb audience. As people have become smarter and more of the light of day has shown on Rome's actions with each passing year, Infallibility has been gutted and neutered to where it would take einstien to understand the stipulations on it and God to sort out whether anyone ever said anything infallible. Your doctrines are like a chameilian on a table, reflecting whatever is needed for the moment to hide the pretense. I'm Havoc, btw, B-Chan. I am not an expert on catholicism; but, I've studied it and debated it since 1988. I know a little more than you'd care to give me credit for because I have bothered to read your own documents on the matter. Your own "authorized books" which are just free enough from doctrinal error to be required material for Catholics to study; but, full of errors when anyone else quotes them back to you. Pull the other one sir.