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."

[Cronos]

Actually you didn't answer:this holds the conversation with no answer from H

[SoothingDave]

I said came from Dave.

This isn't lucid. I mean, even more than your normal stuff. Mhat are you trying to say?

What you're doing now is making things up that I didn't say.

I refer you to post 929, where you said:

Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors.

That's exactly what you said. That "Vicar of Christ" was a title of the Emperors.

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

Why don't you try being lucid for a minute, slowly explain what you are trying to say in normal English, and then I'll show you where you are mistaken.

"Vicar of Christ" was never a title of the Emperors.

SD

[Fury]

Havoc writes:

Asked and answered.

Here is what was posted in regards to this question (asked by presido9), if we are discussing the same question:

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1101337/posts?page=298#298

"There is no "link" that I'm aware of. 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."

Cronos, you better believe that explanation!!! Why? Because I said to!!!

;)

[Havoc]

I gave citation for where it came from - a debate between Dave Hunt and Gerald Matatics. It was only broadcast to the world. I noted that it isn't web published. I didn't say it isn't available in hardcopy. What do you want me to do, transcribe the entire debate here so that you can deny it - that isn't scholarship. Given that Matatics is a leading man in publishing Catholic Answers as was noted at the outset of the debate and noted by me prior, I would imagine that if you showed some scholarship and tracked it down yourself, you might be able to see I was quoting accurately from the debate. Just a hint. But then you haven't done anything but snipe here so assuming you could show scholarship may be asking too much.

[Havoc]

That's exactly what you said. That "Vicar of Christ" was a title of the Emperors.

Dave, I'm done with it. If you wish to put words in my mouth that I didn't say instead of dealing with the history, have at it. It is dishonest and peripheral and I'm not going to sit and pick knits with you instead of dealing with the central arguements. This has nothing to do with the central arguments and is a generalization - perhaps overgeneralization that is being sniped at for that very purpose, to distract. Which is why snipes are brought in in the first place - to ask a gazillion general questions, flood the thread with non answers and destroy the cohesion of the debate.

[SoothingDave]

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.

LOL. You don't know the way the anti-Catholic mind works, do you? Yes, it was exactly on that "linguistic" argument that the claim was based.

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".

In order to "add it to the heap," one would have to buy into the idea. And thus demonstrate that he didn't understand language or history. Just like you do here.

"Pagan" and "propaganda" share the same root. The Latin word for "country." To propagate the faith is to take it out of the cities and out to the boonies. And out in the boonies, people still clung to the "old" "pagan" beliefs.

SD

[broadsword]

But then you haven't done anything but snipe here so assuming you could show scholarship may be asking too much.

Is it too much to ask the great scholar, Havoc, to explain his authority for screeching that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong to the extent of their agreement?

[Havoc]

"Vicar of Christ" was never a title of the Emperors.

The title, Dave, Came from a title used of the Emperors. That is the point I was making and it isn't worth it. I'm done with it. This sort of overgeneralized answer you're picking at is nothing more than the product of answering a snipe. have fun with it.

[Havoc]

Asked and answered. Next.

[Cronos]

"Vicar of Christ" was never a title of the Emperors.

REally? Julius Caesar wasn't called Vicar of Christ, but according to post #929 Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors.

[OLD REGGIE]

I take this to mean that you believe I possess the divine abilty to be master of time and space?

Not really. I believe you have the ability to

[SoothingDave]

Havoc in post 929:

Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors.

That's exactly what you said. That "Vicar of Christ" was a title of the Emperors.

Dave, I'm done with it. If you wish to put words in my mouth that I didn't say instead of dealing with the history, have at it. It is dishonest and peripheral and I'm not going to sit and pick knits with you instead of dealing with the central arguements. This has nothing to do with the central arguments and is a generalization - perhaps overgeneralization that is being sniped at for that very purpose, to distract. Which is why snipes are brought in in the first place - to ask a gazillion general questions, flood the thread with non answers and destroy the cohesion of the debate.

Did I hallucinate post 929? Can anyone else see it? Is it a "generalization" to post your own words and ask you what you mean? Is it a "distraction" to wonder if the things you spout off have any meaning or relation to history?

Is it destructive to the "cohesion" of the debate to ask for backing and clarification for the nonsense you write?

Now, did post 929 mean something or was it just whatever words popped into your mind at athe time, with no relation to reality?

SD

[Cronos]

Dave, I'm done with it. If you wish to put words in my mouth that I didn't say instead of dealing with the history, have at it.

post #929 in it's entirety:
Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome. And Pope is the title, not Bishop. Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors. In place of Christ = antichrist. Amazing how that works isn't it. Now, are you going to just continue sniping with soundbites and claims or are you going to eventually say something?

[SoothingDave]

"Vicar of Christ" was never a title of the Emperors.

The title, Dave, Came from a title used of the Emperors. That is the point I was making and it isn't worth it.

The Emperors were considered the Vicar of Christ? try to make some sense, please. Maybe your flunkies are used to amen-ing whatever you say, but the rest of us like to deal with the world where words mean things.

SD

[broadsword]

Then you would like to explain this statement of yours:

Remember "Vicar of Christ". That title came from the Roman Emperors.

If this title came from the Roman Emperors and not just from the official language of the Church, then how did the Roman Emperors come up with our modern legal concept of vicarious liability?

Which emperors, specifically, did the term Vicar of Christ come from and when did this happen. Can you give us any quotes or historical references?

And if this is just another of your divine pronouncements, where do you get the authority for it, that we should take your word above all else?

[presidio9]

The point is not that you changed the wording of the prayer. It is that Hunt lied intentionally to make his point. You have been informed of this and have attempted to brush it off. This is a major point: Hunt has to stoop to lying in order to discredit the Catholic Church.

[SoothingDave]

The more you hang around with Havoc, the less sense you make. Is his approval really wirth that much to you?

SD

[broadsword]

The title, Dave, Came from a title used of the Emperors.

Give us one single historical reference, or is this just another gratuitous claim on your part?

[OLD REGGIE]

Hi Grammarian It's been a long time. How are you? Be careful on this thread, an honest question is not well accepted. ;-)

[Cronos]

Dave, dave, the Emperor's were actually all had the Title Vicar of Christ, even Nero and Domitian. So, they would throw Christians to the lions. That's what Vicar actually meant Vicar=lion tosser = anti Christ.

Since Vicar of Christ means Anti-Christ, The Devil's name is Vicar of Christ, so you don't call him Lucy, but Vicki.

Wow, that's really