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."

[OLD REGGIE]

Where do I speak as if there is no Catholic hostility to Protestants? I'm sure there is, but I don't see any evidence of it here. What I do see is the same, tired assortment of second-rate minds and third-rate pens attacking the beliefs of Catholics, and then acting shocked when Catholics fight back.

That is the pattern I've seen time and time again: a handful of fundamentalist zealots intent on trashing Catholicism. I've seen very few Catholics going on threads discussing Protestant issues intent on trashing Protestant beliefs.

I'm sorry I interrupted your nap. Nighty night.

[TRY ONE]

"Catholics pray to Mary because her will is made perfect in communion with Christ: Her will cannot oppose God's."
____________________________________
WOW! Protestants believe that Christ is in Heaven sitting at the Right Hand of the Father.

Sounds like Catholics believe Mary is sitting in the same seat with God!

I'm going to continue praying to Jesus directly --- No middle men/women required!

[Desdemona]

I just went to confession and I don't want to mess it up, so I'm going to be nice about this, and actually respond.

Where are the records? What records? Please, produce them, from the Vatican records. All researches who have seen them, say that there was no selling of indulgences. St. Peter's was built with donations, admitedly some may have been coerced, but indulgences were never sold.

[Havoc]

One parting word for you: VISION

[Havoc]

That is a lie. And not even a very good one. There is civil record of it from the people. Walter Martin, if memory serves, even quotes a song written about the monks who used to carry around small casks which they'ed open up for money to be dropped into. I can't remember the words right now; but, it was something along the line of "You drop in your coin and out pops forgiveness." The Vatican as I understand it, still doesn't find it as amusing as the rest of the world that recognized it for what it was. In other words, you can't be serious.

[Havoc]

I can't get her to admit to a single word in scripture and you want an apology from her? LOL. Reggie, you should know better by now :)

[iconoclast]

then check out the non-answer in post 480.

Yes, they're clearly just losing it due to their irrational prejudice.

[MagnoliaB]

I grew up as a Primitive Baptiste. There was nothing in the movie that I hadn't been taught since childhood. No shockers for me not even when it came to the torture that Christ had to endure. I have always known it was gruesome. Where have some people been?

[B-Chan]

To: Pope Havoc
From: B-Chan
Subj: Vision

Your Holiness:

The word “vision” does not necessarily imply ghostliness, appartion, or unreality. “Vision” just means ”that which you have seen”. Your entire “argument” is thus rendered null and void.

But being gifted with the infallible ability to interpret Scripture and teach the truth, you surely knew that already.

[Desdemona]

It is the truth as I know it and have been taught by people who have researched the matter fully.

Obviously, this misnomer has been so well ingrained in the lore of mythical Catholicism, one lowly little girl isn't going to convince anyone. The church has never taught the sale of indulgences and if it was done, it was done in error, like so many other things. That doesn't change the faith.

I'm signing off from this thread.

[OLD REGGIE]

Do you stand by this hateful, slanderous lie of yours?

Do you stand by your hateful, slanderous accusation?

[B-Chan]

Hey, you're a Cult of One! What do you care what we think? You already know everything!

[Havoc]

To: B-Chan
From: Havoc
Subj: Vision

Your highness

The word vision has specific meaning. The scripture doesn't say, "tell no man what you saw." It says "Tell the vision to no man". In context, it means what it says. It was a vision, not just something that was seen in the ordinary course of things. A vision. Rationalizing doesn't remove the fact. Sorry. And you forgot to phrase your answer in the form of a question anyway.

[BibChr]

< shrug >

Already there. But I don't have the crushing burden you've taken on yourself: propping up the indefensible.

But then again, that's your choice, isn't it?

Dan

[Havoc]

The church did condone it and involved itself in it. That is a matter of history. The church is in the business of covering it's hide and hiding behind semantics in order to defend it's image. Just as in the priest scandals. Just as in the matter of their complicity and guilt with regard to the inquisitions. Blame is shifted anywhere but upon the clergy for anything the church does in order to present an image of blamelessness. It is deciet and nothing more than a tawdry lie. I'm sorry; but, that is the fact.

[OLD REGGIE]

(Reg) Or, since her harrangue was directed at me and I never made that statement, she should apologize.

Is this another lie or another mistake?

I had posted to somebody else, not you. The world does not revolve around you, and you are not its god.

Allow me to re-post the "somebody else" you posted to.

To: OLD REGGIE
Your original ugly hateful slanderous lie was this: You also fail to point out that in those 1500 years, death was most certainly the outcome for anyone who even challenged Papal authority.

It is a universal statement and is automatically proven wrong by only one single exception. But then you rephrase it in your lie-filled pseudo-rebuttal.

LYING IS A SIN. Get your act together!
455 posted on 03/20/2004 2:57:35 PM EST by Salve Regina (When Islam takes the last city, you will be given a choice: a prayer rug or a coffin.)

Sure looks like you posted it to me. You are either confused or lying. Which is it?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Those allowed to touch had to be specifically garbed and had to follow correct form...

That makes sense to this Catholic girl. Thanks.

[B-Chan]

Havoc: “The word vision has specific meaning. The scripture doesn't say, ’tell no man what you saw.’”

Oh, yes it does:

“As they were coming down from the mountain, He [the Lord] charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone…” - St. Mark 9:9 RSV

There it is, straight from Scripture.

You're wrong. Admit it or be ignored.

[OLD REGGIE]

And why did Jesus say to the good thief, “Indeed, I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (LK 22:43) Is that good thief just rotting mindlessly in his grave? Or does today not mean today, or paradise mean a rotting death?

Now since "today" means so much to you, where did Jesus go on that day? How many days passed before Jesus was ressurected? You've got it! 3 days. Maybe your "today" is not the "today" of Jesus. Maybe your comma is in the wrong place. Or did Jesus lie to the poor man?