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]

When the pope puts his soul in Mary's hands and beseaches her to secure for him his salvation

He asks her to pray for him, not to secure for him his salvation, that can only be done by God. We human beings ask other humans living or dead to help us try to come near achieving the perfection that is Christ

[presidio9]

John 19:25-27

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Oh, it is mutual! "Catholics" in Belfast really hate Catholics too! Let's drop the religious labels. There's godless, heathen Limeys fighting Marxist narco-terrorist Micks, OK? Ain't a one of'em ever heard of Christ.

Thanks for cutting to the heart of the matter. This Eurotrash has been fighting a war between England and Ireland, nothing more.

[Taliesan]

Jesus has two natures. The one that had a mother isn't God. The one that is, didn't.

I know this is a thread about a movie, but this sort of superficiality won't do.

Of course, the New Testament does not teach "two natures in one person". The church used that nomenclature to articulate the implications of the NT, in a process dominated by the Greek static concept "nature", by people who also had beliefs neither you nor I would consider biblical christianity.

That said, your statement illustrates why we protestants should read more creedal theology.

Those who articulated "two natures in one person" would also hold "without separation, without confusion".

It is inaccurate to speak of two natures as if they inhabited Jesus side by side, and one slid through Mary as if through a receptacle, except that the other, the human, was grafted onto the divine and out popped a bicameral being. The church rightly rejected that heresy, and its opposite. Any premise resembling this will always end in heretical dualism.

"Quod non assumpsit, non sanavit"...whatever was not assumed, was not saved. His kenosis allowed his divine "nature" to assume all the characteristics of our humanity. There was no thing that happened to the humanity which did also happen to the divinity, and vice versa, IN THE INCARNATION. sO, the divine nature of Christ was born of Mary, as was the human. To say that she was the mother of God is not to diminish God, nor to imply that she added anything to His divinity, nor to to imply that she caused God. She was His mother in His incarnate divinity, not in His pre-incarnate divinity.

Of course, the divinity is not an identity with the humanity; it (He) pre-existed Mary and was unoriginate, but still born of the Theotokos. In so far as He is God: Unoriginate, yet He proceeds from the Father and was born of a virgin -- not just as Jesus of Nazareth but also as the 2nd person of the Trinity.

The language of the creeds is always "this, yet that" and this rhythm of thought is always the mark of the mind baptised by orthodoxy. Commentary on the two natures or the triune God which does not preserve this patristic and poetic, careful quality is inevitably rationalistic.

In other words, I believe your comment on Jesus' natures is incorrect. (whew.)

[PBRSTREETGANG]

When the pope puts his soul in Mary's hands and beseaches her to secure for him his salvation. That's blasphemy.

Oy vey!

[BibChr]

Actually, I have been studying Biblical Hebrew and Greek for over thirty years and pretty well have some idea of the words' meanings. If you're referring to "Yahweh," which was re-worded into 'Adonai, you'll never once find the expression "My Yahweh" in all the books of the OT.

On the other hand, the word "Lord" (Hebrew or Greek) is used alike of humans and God, very frequently in both cases.

If it had a mother, it isn't God, can't be God. Mary is not the mother of Jesus' Deity.

Dan

[Cronos]

That was gooood.

[Havoc]

I'll see if I can post the quote later. He asks for her to secure his salvation.

[presidio9]

He asks for her to secure his salvation.

(ahead of time) No he doesn't.

[BibChr]

Then you're mistaken. If it had a mother, it isn't God.

Dan

[Desdemona]

The list of "too Catholic" art is endless.

Amazing, isn't it, that it was produced by Catholics.

[Arpege92]

Sounds like Mr. Thompson is a little "GREEN" with envy!

[Outer Limits]

This review presents a very tiny minority opinion

Yeah, the minority who aren't possessed of the heard mentality....

[Praxeus]

"the divine nature of Christ was born of Mary"

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. - (Heb 7:3 KJV)

Creed schmeed.

[dangus]

>>On the other hand, the word "Lord" (Hebrew or Greek) is used alike of humans and God, very frequently in both cases. <<

Yes, but the infant Jesus was not Elizabeth's Lord in an eartly way. By earthly ways, Jesus was a fetus swelling within the body of a lowly woman. She can ONLY have meant it in the divine way. Of course I said that already, you simply chose to ignore it.

>>If it had a mother, it isn't God, can't be God. Mary is not the mother of Jesus' Deity. <<

That's the Jewish argument for why Jesus cannot be God.

[Outer Limits]

Excuse me, Mr. Thompson, Mary is the Mother of God

Mary was the human fallen instrument used to produce the incarnation,however

As Jesus said.. Before Abraham was, I AM

[aruanan]

Yes; "Jesus is Lord" is kind of a common belief among Christians.

You're arguing anachronistically. Elizabeth stated this before there were any Christians, just followers of Yahweh. This statement by her is an unambiguous statement of the divinity of Jesus and her identification of the unborn child with the Master of the Universe. You know, Immanuel, meaning, God with us; or Yeshua, meaning, the Lord saves, for he shall save his people from their sins.

By definition, anything that had a mother isn't God.

Your definition is faulty because it assumes things neither in evidence, let alone proved. 1. That someone was divine and pre-existent to his birth doesn't at all negate the fact that he took on flesh at conception, lived and grew in utero, was born to and nursed by a woman who, by what she was and what she did, was his mother. 2. "Mother" doesn't have an exclusive meaning of "sole origin of, before which nothing said to have been begotten through her existed."

Jesus has two natures. The one that had a mother isn't God. The one that is, didn't.

Be careful, Dan. What you just stated above is a species of dynamic monarchianism. It's only a step from there to saying that it was the human nature of Jesus that suffered and died while the divine nature, Christ, remained distant from the corrruption of human sin.

[aruanan]

Wait -- are you on my "do not respond" list?

What?