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]

John 1:42. I understand you guys are gifted with the ability to stare straight at something and claim it isn't there; but, then that's why God's word exists - so others can see it for themselves.

[OLD REGGIE]

I saw a bit of an uproar on the CC thread some days back and didn't have time then to address it. Anything I should go back and review?

I dunno. I can't recall any big time stuff.

[OLD REGGIE]

There is an unbroken line of men who have occupied the office now known as "Pope."

Good, maybe you can help me. I can't seem to get an answer to a question I've been asking on another thread.

Who was Pope between 304-308?

[MainFrame65]

>"What I saw was a woman watching her son being beaten, humiliated, and tortured to death, without any intervention from G_d except in her prayers. All I saw was love and humanity, without embellishment. Did I miss something?"<

Thank you both, for recognizing that this was a serious question, not just a comment. I appreciate your responses, and I wonder if anyone disagrees?

[OLD REGGIE]

You really should stop your Catholic-bashing, Reg. Your attitude is detrimental to the peaceful function of this forum.

I know. I think if some of my "friends" ever found me I'd go out in a blaze of glory. ;-)

[OLD REGGIE]

The position of vicar of the church comes from Jesus changing the name from Simon to Peter.

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church".

Not exactly. Jesus changed his name the first time he met him.

John 1
[40] One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
[42] He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

And in the last conversation between Jesus and "Peter" recorded in Scripture He changed the name back to Simon. Hmmmmm. Did the rock turn to dust?

John 21
[15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
[16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
[17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

[OLD REGGIE]

The matter proven is self-evident, and would be so even to a child.

What is proven is you don't know Scripture. Jesus had already named him Peter.

[OLD REGGIE]

Gee wiz, man! Learn to read!

Gee wiz, man! Stop proving your ignorance of Scripture.

[OLD REGGIE]

I recently wrote here that in my opinion the Inquisition and the institution of Christian Monarchy should be brought back.

I never said that the burning of heretics should be brought back.

Please note that I speak only for myself in my posts.

You could have fooled me.

(B-Chan) 1. In a Christian monarchy, where Church and State are bound together, heresy against the Church is treason against the State. Therefore, in such a situation, heretics are traitors, and traitors deserve death.

Just how do you propose to kill those "heretics" when your "Christian (read Catholic) Monarchy is in power?

[broadsword]

Cute personal attack, but I was asking the guy where he gets his authority for berating everyone else and shouting them down as liars and children of satan, etc...

[OLD REGGIE]

John tells us he was named Peter at the first meeting. You're calling John a liar. There is no contradicting statement made in Matthew to say otherwise.

Well maybe Petronski is giving the lie to Scripture. The fact this man "Simon" was known as "Peter" from the time of, and maybe prior to, his meeting with Jesus.

Matthew 4:
[18] As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

[OLD REGGIE]

The majority of Christians that are in existence today are Roman Catholics, just as the majority of Christians who have existed throughout history are Roman Catholics. These include those who are being martyred for Christ today by Moslems, in places like Sudan. The statement that Catholics aren't "Christians" betrays an ingorance that is truly amazing, especially since no Christians believed as American fundamentalists do until the last century or so.

Please don't forget that others are being martyred for Christ.

Since the end of 2002, eight of the group's missionaries have been killed in attacks, including the four in Iraq, three in Yemen and one in the Philippines, Bridges said.

Baptist Missionaries Killed

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Sorry. Who needs hot water anyway? ;-)

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

The so-called List of Popes is guesswork and backfill to satisfy an objective. The guesswork and lack of history is striking.

The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged

Catholic Encyclopedia the (maybe) List of Popes

You cite Irenaeus as an authority yet fail to mention there is no original copy of his writing used as "proof". That's great. "We don't have the original but here's a translation we made".

More stress is, however, laid on a passage in the works of Irenaeus. Irenaeus was brought up in Asia. He was a pupil of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, to whom Ignatius wrote, and remembered what his old master used to say about St. John and others who had actually seen our Lord. He wrote five books against the heresies of his time. His native tongue was Greek, but what he wrote was translated into Latin.

In his works, again, there is only one passage that bears on the question of the Papacy, but it is an important one. Unfortunately the original words are lost and we only have a Latin translation. We have to guess at the Greek behind it. It runs as follows: (Contra Haeres. III. iii. 2.)

We don't have the original but trust us.

As for The Primacy of Rome. It didn't exist.

First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 325

CANON VI.
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

The Bishops of Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and other provinces have equal authority.

[iconoclast]

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.

How do you in good conscience come up with such scandalous nonsense?

What on this thread has given you the right to make such an outrageous charge against the Catholics here that are attempting to engage you in Christian dialog?

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

You apparently are reading the gospels as if they don't accurately describe chronological events? A book written in 2004 which states the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 can't be correct by your standards.

The first meeting between Jesus and Simon was when Jesus named him Peter. ("You shall be called Cephas", which means Peter.)

[VOA]

I'm a staunch Protestant and thought that the movie was wonderful. This review presents
a very tiny minority opinion.

Here in Los Angeles, there are two radio-show hosts who were raised Catholic,
but are now Protestants. Greg Kokul (www.str.org, IIRC) and Frank Pastore
(www.kkla.com) have both said on their shows that the movie has Catholic elements,
BUY these are fairly subtle and probably not readily recognized by non-Catholics.

I get the feeling that Gibson has done an expert job at crafting a film that
would be acceptable to most of the folks in "The Great Hall" of Christianity
(IIRC, that's C.S. Lewis' term).

[iconoclast]

And this trumps Matthew 16:18-19 because?

[iconoclast]

"Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

He did ... and we're still being tended, thanks be to God, while y'all wander lost and filled with anger, hate and confusion.

[iconoclast]

The first meeting between Jesus and Simon was when Jesus named him Peter. ("You shall be called Cephas", which means Peter.

God does not exist in your sense of time. He knew Simon Peter would establish his Church before Eve accepted the apple from the serpent.