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]

Propaganda, no. Anti-Christ per the biblical term means "in place of" Christ. Not propaganda, just an unfortunate fact.

[Havoc]

Why not, you imbue your priests with such and since we are a kingdom of priests as christians, then you should be able to pull it off, right? LOL. Nice point Reg.

[Cronos]

You really haven't answered post #901?

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

Um, taking part of the conversation and reposting it is meant to do what precisely? Again, are you going to do something today? Anything besides endlessly running about nipping at heals with claims and non arguments? If not, I'll just ignore you.

Cronos, asking for citations for some of the assertions that Havoc makes is called "nipping at heals". The same has been said to me. It's the difference between being able to say something and tuck tail and run when asked for citations, and being able to say something and present facts and reasoning to back it up.

[Cronos]

Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors. In place of Christ = antichrist

So, we Catholics worship the Pope now in place of Christ?????

[Cronos]

Hey, I'm still trying to figure out how Julius Ceasar was the Vicar of Christ.

Yup, strange isn't it? The pontifex Max title was there even earlier. So juli baby was the Vicar of Christ i.e. the anti-Christ who was killed about 40 B.C.

[SoothingDave]

Anti-Christ per the biblical term means "in place of" Christ.

No, I'm pointing out that your argument is a puerile as that which, years ago, claimed Catholics were pagan cause they had an office of "proPAGANda."

"Anti" does not mean "in place of." You are simply, and quite demonstrably, incorrect. Not that this should make you or your flunkies pause.

SD

[Cronos]

Coo, we imbue priests with the divine abilty to be master of time and space?

To quote you from post #880: Right, and pigs fly.

[SoothingDave]

Why not, you imbue your priests with such

No, Jesus is the one with the power. Duh.

Nice point Reg.

Reggie has no point. You must be suffering from the same delusions.

SD

[Havoc]

I said came from Dave. What you're doing now is making things up that I didn't say. Care to address the actual history which you know well at this point - or just care to snipe like your pal Cronos there.

[Fury]

You'll get along better with folks if you just take what they say without asking for citations to back that up ;)

If you do, answers like:

"I told you earlier that it is excerpted from a debate. If it was web posted, I'd be happy to provide one. The debators for 2.5 hours were Gerald Matatics and Dave Hunt. The tape may be available on the web; but, I haven't found a transcript web posted or I'd have it."

makes perfect sense - and you should just believe it.

[Cronos]

Um, taking part of the conversation and reposting it is meant to do what precisely

Meant to get answers to questions such as the one raised in #42 where you stated that there are the Pope's blasphemous prayers that I've heard quoted

Which was actually NOT

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

"Care to address the actual history which you know well at this point - or just care to snipe like your pal Cronos there"

I know I care to address the history. What Theodosius were you referring to in previous messages? I or II?

Asking for citations to statements made is not sniping. That's bad form in a debate.

[Cronos]

Would you care to answer the exact point (as stated in post #901) viz. did the Pope say "blasphemous prayers that you've heard quoted." ?

[Havoc]

I doubt very much, Dave that the office of Propaganda was their sole basis for making the charge anymore than my observation is a sole claim. If it were a sole claim it wouldn't be worth the time of day - would it. Added to the heap, it's just one more thing that makes ya go "hmmm".

[Havoc]

Asked and answered.

[The Grammarian]

Protestants are demonstrably wrong on Purgatory. The idea of Purgatory stems from Maccaabees, which Luther removed from the Bible. However, as that book points out, were there no purgaroty, there would be no need to pray for the departed, as we are instructed to do numerous times in both the Old and New Testaments.

Acceptance of Deuterocanonical works into the canon is another sticky point between Protestants and Rome. But even assuming that, and assuming that you can back up your claim that we are instructed to pray for the dead in books not in contention (i.e., the Old and New Testaments), 2 Maccabees 12:40 indicates that the Jews Judas ordered his men to pray for had idols of Jamnia in their possession. Now, isn't idolatry a mortal sin? And mortal sins don't wind you up in Purgatory, now do they?

[redgolum]

Hate to chime in on this, but I feel I should.

The Crusades were brutal, but if they had not happened we would be debating in Arabic right now. The Army of Islam had advanced into Europe in the west and the east, and had destroyed many of the original homes of Christianity. It was the mobilization of the European Christians, combined with the conquest of Genghis Khan, which kept the Muslims at bay.

I have read the accounts of the sack of Jerusalem, and it was horrible. Many of the Franks viewed the Crusades as a way to have their excess sons find lands and titles. However, even in the horrors and abuse, some good came out of it.

[Cronos]

You're right, I shouldn't ask for actual sites, just belief when someone says its written somewhere about something. otherwise it seems that I snipe at the heals. But then half-truths are SO much easier to prove.

[Havoc]

OOPS, huh. They don't like it when these things are pointed out. Prepare for sniping lol