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]

Please stop this repetitive anti-Catholic goading and leave me alone, as I have already told you I am done arguing with you.

It is interesting how, in less than three weeks on this forum, you have made more hateful exchanges with more people than any single person I have seen in nearly 3 years.

Asking you a question for which you have no answer is not "anti-Catholic" by any stretch of imagination.

You must expect to be challenged when you make dogmatic statements. The fact that you respond with anger and personal attacks is your problem, not mine.

BTW when you ping me or discuss me within a post I may or may not respond as I see fit.

[Havoc]

I haven't personally attacked you, much less "constantly"; but, per your bidding and my direction in scripture, my feet are wiped and my offer withdrawn and retained.

[wolfman]

One might wonder what the writers of the liturgy would do if called upon to compose a prayer for a deceased Catholic who was known by all to be a poor lost sinner with no merits of his own. The funeral liturgy actually provides one such prayer, prayer number 44. It is for the person who has ended his life by his own hand. The Church considers suicide to be a serious and potentially mortal sin that incurs eternal punishment. Under the Code of Canon Law that was in effect until 1983, a Catholic who committed suicide was denied a Church burial. Since then the Church has taken a more sympathetic view and has lifted the ban. Nevertheless, in composing a prayer for the one who has taken his own life, the Church realized the deceased would have only one possible one hope of salvation. And what might that be?

God, lover of souls, you hold dear what you have made and spare all things, for they are yours. Look gently on your servant John, and by the blood of the cross forgive his sins and failings.

Amazing! Prayer 44 drops all pretense that the deceased deserves to go to heaven or has any claim to eternal life based upon his own merits. Apparently even Rome realizes that the only hope of salvation for a genuine sinner is to plead the blood of Christ, the biblical basis of salvation. In the liturgy, however, Prayer 44 is the exception, not the rule, for Rome fails to realize that we are all lost sinners, who must trust Christ, and Him alone, if we are to be saved.

[The Coopster]

What about Jews? Honest question, no disrespect intended.

[Bob Eimiller]

His date of birth unknown; elected pope in May or June, 308; died in 309. For some time after the death of Marcellinus in 304 the Diocletian persecution continued with unabated severity.

After the abdication of Diocletian in 305, and the accession in Rome of Maxentius to the throne of the Caesars in October of the following year, the Christians of the capital again enjoyed comparative peace. Nevertheless, nearly two years passed before a new Bishop of Rome was elected. Then in 308, according to the "Catalogus Liberianus", Pope Marcellus first entered on his office: "Fuit temporibus Maxenti a cons. X et Maximiano usque post consulatum X et septimum" ("Liber Pontif.", ed. Duchesne, I, 6-7). This abbreviated notice is to be read: "A cons. Maximiano Herculio X et Maximiano Galerio VII [308] usque post cons. Maxim. Herc. X et Maxim. Galer. VII [309]" (cf. de Rossi, "Inscriptiones christ. urbis Romæ", I, 30).

At Rome, Marcellus found the Church in the greatest confusion. The meeting-places and some of the burial-places of the faithful had been confiscated, and the ordinary life and activity of the Church was interrupted. Added to this were the dissensions within the Church itself, caused by the large number of weaker members who had fallen away during the long period of active persecution......

(My Note)Diocletion's persecutions prevented the election of a Pope during that period...

[Bob Eimiller]

the line of succession was not broken... the line of succession is always interrupted until a new Pope is elected..it can take days or weeks..maybe longer.

The College of Cardinals always elects the new Pope and they continue the line with their election. 4 years during persecution? what does that have to do about anything... the Church survived and thrived.... If it hadn't there would be No Christian Church today...Protestant or Catholic.. the Gates of Hell did not prevail against it.

[Bob Eimiller]

the line of succession was not broken... the line of succession is always interrupted until a new Pope is elected..it can take days or weeks..maybe longer.

The College of Cardinals always elects the new Pope and they continue the line with their election. 4 years during persecution? what does that have to do about anything... the Church survived and thrived.... If it hadn't there would be No Christian Church today...Protestant or Catholic.. the Gates of Hell did not prevail against it.

[Bob Eimiller]

sorry about the double post

[mdmathis6]

Yikes...these ministers must be real wolves in sheeps clothing!

[AMDG&BVMH]

"One of the most touching scenes for me was the flashback when she ran to Him as a child"

Even better, at the foot of the cross; she got it EXACTLY right (speaking as a mother who lost a son). "Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart." You see it is a physical loss, a physical part of the mother dies with the child. No wonder she asked Him if she could die with Him. Not despairing (as Judas did), asking Him . . .

I do mean EXACTLY right. Either she and Gibson are genuises, or it was inspired (or both!). I mean the entire film. So much of the subtle nuances of expression, etc. were PERFECT, IMHO.

I have missed too much being away from the computer to catch up on the rest of the thread. I'll have to see what happens nexttime.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"who was Pope between 304-308"

In the event of sede vacantism (the See of Peter being empty), it would be the Holy Spirit who guided and protected the Church, as promised by Christ.

I don't think Luther and Calvin would have disagreed, would they? ;)

[Havoc]

But they smile so nice and talk sweetly. They must be the real thing... I'm trying to imagine what I'd do to someone if I weren't a christian and they harmed a member of my family. I can't think of anything worse than sending a person to hell because you taught them a lie. People think it's all just a game or somethin. God will get even for all those people. Only thing we can do is try to get the truth out there :)

[nmh]

Me: 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.

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

Me: Easy. Just open your eyes and read what is written here. BTW, stop with all the feigned emotional dribble.

You: 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?

Me: There you go again ... your emotions are clouding what judgment you have. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who just wants to screech at me. I don't see that as very Christian. Then again, it's par for the course ... . You're not trying to "engage" anyone in a "Christian dialog" - that is OBVIOUS. Maybe when you calm down it might be possible but right now it's not feasible.

[nmh]

I find you humorous in a sad sort of way.

I did NOT address my link to YOU but you are as welcome as any to visit with Bibilical truth. Truth is not what you are after as this little ditty will show. What you are after is unChristian ad hom session because you didn't like what the link discussed.

---

Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Posted by iconoclast to nmh
On News/Activism 03/21/2004 4:22:17 AM PST #674 of 734

(The link was directed to someone else:)

Me: Here's a link that should remove your confusion.

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

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

---

If this is YOUR attempt at opening up a "Christian dialog, then you are in worse shape than I ever imagined! Biblical truth is extremely offensive to you hence the emotional meltdown.

My reply was this:

---

Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Posted by nmh to iconoclast
On News/Activism 03/21/2004 6:20:06 AM PST #676 of 734

You: "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.

---

Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Posted by nmh to iconoclast
On News/Activism 03/21/2004 6:28:48 AM PST #679 of 734

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.

---

Looks like you validated my statement on the Christian advarsary. The link I posted for someone else highlighted unBiblical aspects of the movie. Isn't it interesting how the advarsary also reacts negatively to God's Word and prefers anything less than Biblical truth.

---

Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Posted by iconoclast to nmh
On News/Activism 03/21/2004 11:23:00 AM PST #695 of 734

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?

---

It's clear to me that you have no shame even when I highlight the exchange YOU initiated in a most unChristian manner. In any event, I did reply. Unlike you I don't selectively leave remarks out.

---

Gibson's passion film 'too Catholic'

Posted by nmh to iconoclast
On News/Activism 03/21/2004 7:21:24 PM PST #734 of 734

Me: 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.

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

Me: Easy. Just open your eyes and read what is written here. BTW, stop with all the feigned emotional dribble.

You: 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?

Me: There you go again ... your emotions are clouding what judgment you have. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who just wants to screech at me. I don't see that as very Christian. Then again, it's par for the course ... . You're not trying to "engage" anyone in a "Christian dialog" - that is OBVIOUS. Maybe when you calm down it might be possible but right now it's not feasible.

---

In no way shape or form were you seeking a "Christian dialog". You were looking for a mud slinging contest. If you wanted a "Christian dialog" you could easily have discussed what you saw in the link I offered to SOMEONE else. No, not you. Instead you went into search and destroy mode since the Bible is offensive to you.

[broadsword]

Wow! It takes a real man like you to just keep b!tch slapping a lady who begs you to leave her alone. Too bad human society is littered with insecure little men who just have to try to prove their manliness.

It's sick.

[Havoc]

Is this what you guys call tagteam self martyrdome? She attacks him, he responds then she cries foul and says she's being picked on.. Sounds like the big sister getting whacked by little brother for pickin on him then she goes and cries to mom that she got hit and of course was doing nothing. hmf. Typical pharisees God love ya.

[ET(end tyranny)]

That being said, I repeat: traitors deserve death, and in a society based upon Christianity, heretics may be rightly counted as traitors, as they seek the overthrow of the existing social order. The death penalty itself is an entirely Scriptural and moral practice in such cases, presuming of course that due process is observed.

Our society is not based upon Christianity. It is based upon YHWH/G-d. Our currency says 'In G-d we trust', NOT in Yehoshua/Jesus we trust. If it was about Christianity, it would say Yehoshua, but it doesn't, is says 'In G-d We Trust'!!

Big difference. I think our founding fathers got it right!!

[ET(end tyranny)]

Please sweet lady tell me who was Pope between 304-308. Thanking you in advance for your continued kindness.

Oooooh. Ooooooooh. Pick me....

THERE WASN'T A POPE DURING THOSE YEARS. The line of succession failed.

They still hadn't decided which way to have their 'new' religion go at that time. It took roughly another 20 years of killing, errr I mean persuasion via the Holy Spirit, to determine what the Holy Spirit wanted them to do regarding their newly invented religion.

[Qwinn]

"THERE WASN'T A POPE DURING THOSE YEARS. The line of succession failed."

Talk about a non-sequitur. The second statement in no way whatsoever follows from the first.

For most of Catholic history, the succeeding Pope is -not- picked prior to the death of the previous Pope. He is picked following that death. There was always a period of time that elapsed between two Popes. In the 4th century, there was a period longer than most... but if the same method was used to choose that new Pope as was chosen at other times, by the method determined by the previous Pope, but just delayed, why would the line be broken?

Qwinn