Posted on 02/28/2005 1:28:36 PM PST by nickcarraway
Hollywood A-lister buys the rights to the book ‘Stealing from Angels'
Fittingly, just ten days after the death of Sr Lucia dos Santos, the last survivor to witness the appearances of the Virgin Mary at the Portuguese town of Fatima in 1917, Mel Gibson has bought the rights to the book ‘Stealing from Angels’.
Brian Dullaghan’s novel tells the story of a young Irish man who escapes a dreary life in his hometown only to slip into a life of major crime in New York. Everything changes when he meets Maria and he jumps ship again, this time to Maria’s hometown in Italy. However, blissful happiness does not follow and when the couple are connected to the murder of Pope John Paul and the third secret of Fatima, things really implode.
‘Stealing from Angels’ is a work of fiction that tells the tale of a man who shoulders a huge secret and trusts no one.
The third prophecy
Those familiar with the three prophesies revealed by the Virgin Mary at Fatima will be aware that the first two referred to the two World Wars and the third to the long kept secret that Sr Lucia ultimately revealed that foretold the 1981 attempt on Pope John Paul II’s life.
In 2000, when the Pope visited the shrine at Fatima, Cardinal Soldano, authorised to read a statement on behalf of the pontiff, described the prophecy: "the 'bishop clothed in white' makes his way with great effort toward the cross amid the corpses of those who were martyred. He too falls to the ground, apparently dead, under a burst of gunfire." Pope John Paul II credits the Madonna of Fatima with his survival following the assassination attempt by Turkish right-winger Mehmet Ali Agca in St Peter's Square.
‘Stealing from Angels’ has received rave reviews and is very popular in America, not least, in the same vein as The Da Vinci Code, because people can indulge their desire for church conspiracy theories – especially relating to the Catholic Church.
Mel Gibson’s interest will again stir up the controversy. Gibson is known to practice pre-Vatican II ‘traditional’ Catholicism and much was made amid ‘The Passion’ furore of his father’s Vatican conspiracy theories.
But let’s put this to one side. The film will not hit screens until 2006 and Gibson has proved himself an exceptional actor and director. He has also treated key figures in the Catholic hierarchy with respect and even sought their opinions ahead of the worldwide release of ‘The Passion of The Christ’.
Mel Gibson travelled to Fatima in September of 2003 to show the film to religious institutions. He visited Sr Lucia’s convent in Coimbra and managed to secure an agreement to show ‘The Passion’ to the sisters. Later, Gibson returned to Portugal and made another secret visit to the convent to meet with Sr Lucia.
One thing’s for sure; this film is destined to be a controversial box office blockbuster. But before the conspiracy theories get out of hand, not to mention individual reader interpretations, the author himself has the final say in an interview with The Tribune: “It’s a great story and that is that,” said Dullaghan.
Hollywood holds its breath…
Of course evangelicals enjoy movies for entertainment purposes, but we're not (and I can only speak for those who are faithful to the Bible) going to "enjoy" a movie that is making a theological statement that runs counter to the very beliefs that make us evangelicals. Maybe there will be some kind of "novelty" entertainment value for many who reject the authenticity of Fatima but true Evangelicals are not going to support a film that is pure, unadulterated Romanism rather than a film that appeals to the broader spectrum of Christianity that we can all agree on.
POTC was different because we could come together around a film about the "passion" of the Christ. We agree on the historicity of the events although we differ on their interpretation. POTC didn't "force" us to accept one interpretation over another. Fatima is different because evangelicals don't accept it as a historical event, or if we do, we don't accept it as a true witness to the gospel of Christ and the word of God.
This will be a denominational film, nothing more. I'm certainly not arguing against Mel's right to make it. I'm just being realistic about the divisions between Protestantism and Romanism on issues like Fatima as well as a plethora of doctrinal differences. We really are diametrically opposed on many essential fronts (rather than non-essentials where unity is not required).
"I do not think portraying Mary as having supernatural powers, or part of the Passion had anything to do with the Bible."
I understand your objections but both of these events would be open to the interpretation of the viewer (actually I can't think of any scene where Mary is portrayed as having "supernatural powers", but one could make the case that Mary is symbolically portrayed as participating in the atonement). Nothing is overt and most non-Catholics would not take that away from the film.
"How about Faith Healing? How about Name it and Claim it? Protestants have their own mystical faith traditions."
Those are not genuine Protestants, but aberrations and heresies just as Rome has their own subversives that are not representative of the Church's teaching. Besides, many within the charismatic extremes (and I am a Classical Pentecostal and am not throwing stones) of evangelicalism receive tacit support and encouragement from Rome.
Rumours are circulating, and despite official denials do appear to be founded on fact, that Gibson based his movie on a book by an ecstatic mystic nun called Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774 - 1824). This lady was a visionary and stigmatic (which means the marks of the crucifixion physically appeared on her body). In a review for the book we read:
Sister Emmerich's account of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, while faithful to the Bible, is heart-rending, edifying and surprising-because of its intimate detail. Based on the visions of this great mystic, The Dolorous Passion recounts in incredible detail the horrendous sufferings undergone by our Saviour in His (it would seem) superhumanly heroic act of Redemption. Illuminating in its description of Mary's participation in the sufferings of her Son, this book gives the reader a poignant understanding of why Our Lady is sometimes called our "Co-Redemptrix." The Dolorous Passion is a singular book that conveys a lasting impression of the terrible agony of Our Lord's sufferings for us. Here is a book that will melt a heart of stone!
Preceding The Dolorous Passion in this edition is a short life of the remarkable Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774 - 1824), a mystic, stigmatist and visionary. Toward the end of her life, she bore the wounds of Christ, ate no food save Communion, and was in ecstasy a great deal of the time. It was during these ecstasies that she witnessed in vision the details of Our Lord's life which are recorded in this book.
That's the deepest thought I have encountered on FR about the theological implications of the atonement in 5 years. /sarcasm off
John of the Cross? Teresa of Avila?
Are you a Tozer enthusiast?
I apologize if I misinterpreted the motive of the question.
"I apologize if I misinterpreted the motive of the question."
Especially considering that questions generally don't have motives. Doht!
Re-phrase: "the motive behind the question."
'Bout as "accurate" as Nostradamus for that matter.
Does a genuine vision that is supernatural in origin automatically make it divine in origin or is there some objective criteria by which we may rightly judge (discern) experiences?
The baptism? You mean Jesus' baptism? That's in the Bible.
Faith healing? Surely you have read what Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:20 NIV)
Name it and claim it? I have no idea what that is.
And believe me, I don't doubt Protestants somewhere have "mystical faith traditions" as well. But if it can't be backed up biblically, of course it should be rejected: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1 NIV)
"O yes Justification through faith, this is a bit of inspiration most people accept today, it really should be placed in the Holly books the Bible with other works of inspiration but it never will."
Huh? Are you saying Luther's treatise should be canonized?
I will have to look it up sometime, thanks.
Thank you for trying to explain. For the record, I did not call anyone a liar. I'm curious about *why* you believe what you believe and meant no offense.
Mary isn't depicted as seeing Satan when no one else can?
Agree (to your post number 98).
Maybe in your Bible...not mine.
Satan can appear as an Angel of light.
Huh? Are you saying Luther's treatise should be canonized?
Yes, for the frist 4000 years there were 66 books written this wdould give us an addional book each 62 years, sence A.D. 100 there have been no new books added. So yes I believe there have been inspiration sence A.D. 100 but someone is keeping a lid on it and will not allow it to be
cannonized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.