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."

[Desdemona]

Sign off and run away.

Pardon me, please, for having a life and going out for the evening, but not before having to deal with a hot water heater with a pilot light that won't stay lit.

[Havoc]

You're making some of the same arguments I'd make. Paul didn't teach the assumption of Mary, purgatory, prayers to and worship/veneration of saints (the words mean the same thing). None of the apostles taught these things, and I haven't even gotten started, they didn't teach Unum sanctum, presence of Christ in bread and wine, indulgeances, prayers for the dead, praying to the dead, Iconography (idolatry), repetitious prayers ala the rosery or the rosery itself.. I could list these things till this thread was the size of a book. These things came into the church as ERROR starting at the outset. Paul stated that Asia turned it's back on his teachings in his time. Error had already crept in so far as to take all of asia. And you're going to tell us that you're right because you claim that you came from the first century. That is not the measure Christ and the Apostles handed us, IS IT! No. It is not. He said if anyone comes preaching a message other than I taught let them be accursed. The message is the primary issue he was concerned with. And that is what we're looking at.

You say, 'but we're old, we're big, others believe this way.' So what. What is the message you preach. I've been over it. Christ said believe and confess him. Paul said believe and confess and you shall be saved. You guys say believe confess, be baptized our way, bowing to our leader or it's null to begin with, then Christ's sacrifice isn't enough, there is a deposit of Grace contributed to by the good deeds of others that is held en banc by the church to dispense to cover what Christ could not. And if you're really worried, wear a scapular, get an indulgeance; but, you must expiate your sins yourself. That is the message you come with and it is unrecognizeable from the Gospel.

If that isn't bad enough, You Anathematize anyone who has the Gaul to say he is assured of his salvation and that Christ covered it. I quoted it from Trent on this very thread earlier. If you actually cling to the real gospel message and confess it, you are accursed by Rome. Now, that's a stance I'd expect from SATAN, not the "one true church." So hand wring if you will; but I didn't make those doctrinal stances up for you. Rome did.

I love you and care about your soul. It ain't about you. It's about what you've been taught by people trying to decieve people into believing they are Christ's Church. No different than What Mormonism has done and it's why you guys have no room to talk to Mormons and can't debate them because they can turn your arguments right back on you. Mormons are labeled a cult and you aren't. If your approaches are the same, why do you suppose they are and you aren't? Especially when your plan of salvation is so different from that in the Gospel. It isn't Christianity.

[Havoc]

Ok, you had me wondering there for a few. ;) "Where I am there you may be also." Since he's at the right hand of the father and that is in heaven, that means we go to Heaven. 'in my fathers house there are many mansions, if it were not so I would have told you'. You're remembering correctly. Good for you. As Paul said, stick to the scriptures that you will know what they taught and do not stray from them. You cannot go wrong in the doing. It is when people decide themselves wise in their reasoning and heap to themselves philosophy for doctrine that error abounds. Keep the Gospel ;)

[Havoc]

One more thing for point of reference that you can check. The Judaizers were christians who believed that we must be
circumsized and keep the law. Paul rebuked them as preaching another Gospel. And rightly so. Catholicism as I noted has heaped to itself far more than that.

[Thorin]

All this blather, and you haven't refuted a single argument I made. You didn't refute the fact that Irenaues (who was a dsiciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John) extablished the succession of the early popes and defended the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. You haven't refuted the fact that no Christians anywhere believed common items of faith among American fundamentalists (eg, the Rapture, dispensationalism, the docrine of "once saved, always saved," the need to be born again) until quite recently. In your view of the world, all those who thought they were following Christ were in grave error, until you came along.

I am very happy that Gibson's "Passion" is bringing conservative Catholics and evangelicals together--we both really believe in Christ, and we believe many of the same things. We are natural allies.

But I have no patience with the handful of evangelicals who claim that I am not a Christian.

[Coleus]

Yep, the fundamentalists bought tickets, big time, whole church congregations went. I think the majority of Catholics went on their own.

[Havoc]

I addressed it, you just ignored it. You aren't seeking answers, you're seeking excuses by asking questions you know the answers to which you think help your cause. I just did a logical end run around them to nip them at the bud. As I noted, the Judaizers thought themselves natural allies and believed all the same things but two - ALL THE SAME THINGS BUT TWO, and Paul stated them to be teachers of another Gospel. Why, because they taught that one must follow a ritual of judaism (circumcision) and follow the law - (righteousness by works, or as you might say, expiation). Paul judges your doctrine directly on that point. No two ways around it. And that's just for starters. So while I understand you don't like being told you aren't what you claim to be, I really don't care. I'm sorry you aren't. But then I'd like to be a fighter pilot. If I were to claim to be one and was corrected of it, I'm sure my feelings would be hurt; but, it wouldn't make my claim anymore correct than yours. If you want to be a christian, then become one.

[dangus]

What I cited to you, Havoc, and what you called me a liar for stating is the book of I Samuel. I presumed you would recognize it. I suggest you be a little more careful with what you call lying. Parse my sentence and you will find it IS true: As I said, Samuel did NOT curse Saul for bringing him up. Had I had the Chronicles passage on mind, I may have worded it differently, but what I did state is in fact true.

But I did say it was sinful for several reasons which I listed, and Saul did die for his sins.

Interesting to note, you had no comment whatsoever on three of my poinst, and you say "no difference" between being in Heaven and in Hades. Revelations plainly depicts souls in Heaven, observing the unfolding events on Earth below, and praying to God.

[dangus]

>>Jesus abode very briefly within Mary, and little is made of that period. <<

Little is made of that period? Hmmm... Luke 1:26-80; Rev 12:1-5; Matthew 1:1-25... Let alone ALL those Old Testament prophecies which predicted or foreshadowed the events.

But I wouldn't count how much is "made of" a certain event by how many verses are spent on it. After all, the gospels spend 90 verses on that, and only 48 verses on Easter Sunday, And I will CERTAINLY concede that Easter Sunday is far more important!

[Havoc]

Interesting to note, you had no comment whatsoever on three of my poinst, and you say "no difference" between being in Heaven and in Hades. Revelations plainly depicts souls in Heaven, observing the unfolding events on Earth below, and praying to God.

Revelation presents a great deal in symbolism. But what it doesn't depict is people in heaven interacting with the bodily living. The very thing you are trying for all you're worth to establish and it isn't there. You want to point to things you wish to say are that very thing which are by observation Not. Thus I say no difference. You pointed out discussion between two dead people and want to say "aha, that establishes it". No, it establishes that dead people can talk amongst themselves; but, even in the parable you note that the dead are disallowed to talk to or interact with the living. Just as ecclesiastes 9 states - that the righteous and the evil share a common fate which both consider an evil, that they must die - physically die and after that can have nothing more to do with the things that go on under the sun. Period. So long as they are dead, they cannot interfere or take part with the living. That is what God's word says. And it deals with both the righteous and the evil and neither is exempted from the situation. Now, you aren't arguing with me. You are searching for all you're worth for an excuse before God to get around HIS statute. I don't know what you think you're doing trying to convince me, it's HIS statute you violate. I'm not holding you accountable for it. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong and you are preaching another Gospel when you teach rebellion or sin for righteousness. God will hold you accountable. If we were under the law, I would hold you accountable and many others with me. We aren't under the law, so I correct you and God holds you to account.

[mitch5501]

taking a big deep breath placemarker

[wolfman]

Without the Papacy and the succession of Peter there is no Roman Catholicism. Their church stands or falls upon this obviously false teaching. The true Church stands and falls by its teachings and practices of Christ from the word of God in the Bible alone. Jesus said “if you continue in my word you are certainly my disciples.” When Jesus gave power to the apostles, He meant that whatsoever they forbid or permit in the church would have authority in conducting His teachings. This same authority is written of in the Scripture and used for governing the church today.

[iconoclast]

Here's a link that should remove your confusion.

For me the only confusion remaining after reading the first part of this link is:

Which feeling is it that predominates with some Protestants with regard to Catholics, fear or hate?

[iconoclast]

John tells us he was named Peter at the first meeting.

He tells us no such thing!

You apparently are reading the gospels as if they were daily diaries.

By the time John's gospel was put into writing Simon Peter was simply the clearest way to describe the man.

[nmh]

"Which feeling is it that predominates with some Protestants with regard to Catholics, fear or hate?"

Neither.

It's peace that passes all understanding is what I have and wish others had the same. My beliefs are founded on the Word of God and not the fallible word of man.

[Thorin]

No, you keep ignoring it. You claim that the Papacy is a late invention, the succession of Popes made up, yet you ignore the testimony of Irenaeus. And you make no effort to explain how, if the Holy Spirit guides the church established by Jesus (something attested to by Scripture), beliefs many fundamentalists hold dear were completely unknown until recently. Meaning, by your own logic, that almost everyone on Earth who has thought himself a follower of Jesus Christ is damned. Instead, you insist that your own personal reading of Scripture is binding on all, and anyone who disagrees with you is not a Christian. What arrogance, what stupidity.

By contrast, my Church, while recognizing that not everyone agrees with Her, recognizes those who are baptized as Christians. Which is why Protestants joining the Catholic Church are not baptized again, and why the Church recognizes marriages conducted by a Protestant minister as binding and indissoluble.

[redgolum]

I read the first introduction of the book, it is the apocalyptic Esdras. I asked because in the first two chapters, it appears to be a totally different book than the rest of the book, and makes some statements that would be out of place for a Jew before Jesus to make. That is why I asked if the RCC considered it canon.

I am reading some of the Apocrypha to get a bit of background in my Old Testament class on the time between the testaments. Lutherans do not hold the Apocrypha to be canon, but many "old school" pastors encourage reading them.

[nmh]

I often wonder why the Bible, the Word of God is so offensive to some but want to be labeled a "Christian" a follower of Christ. The Bible should be a comfort to them since that is where God's teachings are.

I also know that Satan despises the Word of God and will do anything to divert your heart/mind from His teachings.

[bimbo]

Sounds like Mr. Thompson has an agenda outside that of the Evangelical Protestant Society ...