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."

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

And as I said, "Catholic" as an official term didn't come till Theodosius

And as stated previsouly, this is incorrect. First, which Theodosius? And Catholic as a term was used by Ignatius of Antioch. I'm not sure what the phrase "official term" means - sort of like "really, really official term"?

[Petronski]

LOL

[Cronos]

Havoc (post #827): In the time of the Apostles, Asia turned away from Paul's teachings. Asia ain't tiny.

This shows your lack of knowledge. Asia at that time meant only Asia Minor, only the Greek city states, only what is now the coast line of Turkey. He did NOT mean the entire continent of Asia.

[Havoc]

What's the lie, that he didn't quote the entire thing because he was commenting while trying to read it? For all I know, he lost his place. You're trying to invent a problem where none exists in order to attempt to sidestep the issue in contention. Nothing added or subtracted from that prayer will change the sentence in contention. Nothing. It is Blasphemy. You can handwring and scream till the cows come home. It's still blasphemy.

[Cronos]

The office didn't even exist in the time of the Apostles.

St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. That IS the official title of the Pope.

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

And you hold the Apocryphals or Deuterocanonicals to be scripture. No difference. A book is a book is a book. If it isn't scripture, it isn't scripture. You're begging a difference that doesn't exist. Both of you use antiscriptural books and antiscriptural doctrines. The only thing seperating you is the names you use. The excuses are all the same.

So... This *appears* to claim Deutercanonicals are "antiscriptural"?

Again, some citations for folks to learn and understand are requested. I am doubtful they will be forthcoming. One wonders if souls and truth really are the goal of some, as opposed to bashing folks over the head what they believe Scripture says and the ability to say "I'm right - and you're wrong".

[Cronos]

If you check your history, you'll find the office wasn't even defined till the last half of the first millenium

Incorrect again. The office has been defined since apostolic times -- St. Peter, the Bishop of rome as were his successors. Then when Christians were persecuted they took on the title Pontifex Max, the head Priests or the Pontif or the Pope.

[Havoc]

LOL. Why can't you deal with the issue rather than finding something else to prattle on about. If your case was so sure, why can't it be addressed. Every time I've pointed out what your church teaches we get absolute silence or condescention. And it's because it is true and you can't respond to it.

[Cronos]

Presidents of the United states didn't exist pre-George Washington. Learn some History.

Okay, Bishops of Rome (Popes to you) didn't exist before Peter. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the current Pope is the latest of his successors

[Havoc]

No, I'm referring to the one the pope prayed, you know, the part about obtaining salvation for him...

[presidio9]

You have made your desperation to prove that the Pope is a blasphemer very clear. Thus far, you have not done so. Instead of continuing to defend a lie that I discredited three days ago, why don't you see if you can find another more valid example. Surely there must be one, right?

[Cronos]

And it's not an unbroken line.

What are you bandying unbroken line about as if it's a monarchy with sons taking over from fathers. If it was a family affair THEN it would be an unbroken line in the context You are using it.

In the correct context meaning that the Office has been in existance, it has existed continuously from the FIRST Bishop of Rome: St. Peter, so the office's existence is unbroken since St. Peter.

[Cronos]

And which Papal list do you wish to quote from? I have 12 and no two alike. The early popes are an interpolation because the office didn't exist.

The Office of Bishop of Rome existed from the time of Peter as did the office of Bishop of Jerusalem, of Alexandria etc.

[Havoc]

Communicating with the bodily dead is what I addressed. I didn't bring necromancy into it. And btw, necromancy, spiritism, soothsaying, witchcraft, ect, ect are not all the same thing - IE arguing it isn't necromancy doesn't preclude it from being any of the other forms of communicating with the dead addressed in the OT.

I understand your aim is to construct a strawman of a point I didn't make in attempt to justify on the basis that 'it ain't this'. It's still sin. You are the one being disingenuous here and on purpose.

[Petronski]

The problem with "Whore of Babylon!" nutbars is that they select their own definitions of words and that becomes reality. Explaining details is dismissed as 'semantics' and 'handwringing' because they are their own truth and to dispute their words is to be personally threatening to them.

[Cronos]

The deed itself is a lying facade created to impute authority based on cursory look. And as I said, "Catholic" as an official term didn't come till Theodosius

The deed? What deed?

"Catholic" as an official term -- which Theodosius are you talking about? The Theodosius in the East or the West. And at what time? And Catholic means Universal. And, the church's existence in the heart of the erstwhile Roman Empire under a bishop who was a successor of the previous leading all the way back to St. Peter is not in dispute.

The Church is Apostolic in origin. The usage of the term the Roman Catholic Church was only forced upon by the Protestants who needed to define themselves as not being part of the Church, so they renamed the True Church to distance themselves. They couldn't say They were not christians or not part of the church. They did say they were not part of the original church, then manifesting that to force the definition on the original

[Cronos]

If all the lies and deceptions were turned true by some magic and yet your Gospel remained a different Gospel than that taught by the Apostles, you'd still be wrong.

The Church teaches the truth as per the scriptures. It teaches the Gospel as taught by the Apostles. What do you teach? If it teaches the same Gospel, how can you say that you condemn the rest of humanity? you alone possess the truth?

[Cronos]

He said narrow and long is the path and few that enter in.

Yes, He also said that those who would enter in would follow His words. This is through His church. I would include the Orthodox and some mainstream Protestant churchs that teach the true Doctrine to this list, but anything else, any other false teachers teach the wrong path.

[Havoc]

Do we have to take you to logic school? The pope is supposed to be saved - is he not? How then does the pope pray to Mary to obtain his salvation for him. Christ already obtained salvation for all of us, we just have to believe and confess Him for it - that is Paul's teaching.
So how does Mary obtain what Christ has already done and hand it to us when it can only be handed to us by Christ.
"I am the way the truth and the life, No man comes to the Father but by ME" Period. Mary can't obtain what only Christ can give. Mary cannot hand over what only Christ can give. Yet we have the Pope asking her to do just that.
NOt to pray for him, to Obtain his Salvation for him.

Mary doesn't pray for you on request cause she can't hear or interact with you to so do. If she happens to be praying for all of mankind while she's in heaven, that's one thing. But to teach people to break God's law and then label it a righteous act to so do is heresy. And to teach that salvation can be obtained by Mary is heresy. To teach that salvation is doled out a bit at a time by priests to people until they have a full amount of grace needed to be saved is heresy, blasphemy and a doctrine of the devil. You can do semantic tapdances around it for eternity and it won't change anything. Rome is teaching another Gospel.

[Havoc]

Right, and pigs fly.