Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary

"ECCE homo." The words of Pontius Pilate - "Behold the man" - with which he exhibited Jesus, scourged and crowned with thorns, to the hostile crowd have inspired many devout works of art down the centuries. Yet only now has the cinema, the popular art form of our time, the challenge of portraying what Christians acknowledge to be the defining moment of human history, with the release of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ.

Since it is not due for release in this country until March 26, it would not be possible to offer a conventional critique of this production - the actors’ performances, quality of direction, photography and all the other elements by which a film is normally assessed. The need to suspend judgment on such technicalities, however, should not inhibit believers from taking a stand on the issues with which the enemies of the faith are assailing Gibson and - by extension - the entire Christian canon.

The first point of controversy that must be addressed is the distraction - for that is what it is - of the claim that the film is anti-Semitic. There could be no better way of dismissing this canard than by invoking responsible Jewish opinion, as voiced by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, an American organisation that exists to build bridges between Jewish and Christian communities. Rabbi Lapin has excoriated the activists persecuting Gibson with a robustness that few Gentiles would have dared to exhibit.

Two weeks ago, Lapin predicted that the film "will become famous as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made" and that "the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them". Pity no Catholic bishop has gone on record in equally enthusiastic vein. Lapin went on to denounce "Jewish organisations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism". With heroic objectivity, he also condemned the offence given to Christians because "Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian scripture ‘really means’".

The rabbi’s remarks follow upon an even more devastating broadside he delivered five months ago, on the same theme, when he insisted that protests against Gibson’s film "lack moral legitimacy". He cited the exhibition of blasphemous art shown in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum, when Arnold Lehman was director, including a Madonna smeared with elephant dung. He also pointed out, with a directness that no Christian could contemplate, that Martin Scorsese’s blasphemous film The Last Temptation of Christ was distributed by Universal Pictures, run by Lew Wasserman, and posed the question "why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?"

Rabbi Lapin’s moral integrity and plain speaking have done more for Christian-Jewish relations than a thousand futile ecumenical symposia and weasel-worded scriptural trade-offs brokered by pressure groups and Vatican appeaseniks. It seems reasonable to hope that he speaks for a majority of his co-religionists, rather than the strident protesters. That said, the most vitriolic enemies of the film and its message are not Jews: they are drawn from the forces of militant secularism and the Fifth Column within the Catholic Church.

For, make no mistake, this is an intensely Catholic film. Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic who rejects the humbug and chaos of the Second Vatican Catastrophe - as do an increasing number of the disillusioned survivors stumbling around in the ruins of the once-mighty Roman Catholic Church. The faithful translation on to film of the scriptural narrative of Christ’s passion and resurrection would, 50 years ago, have presented Catholics with an image that was totally familiar. Bishop Joseph Devine, bishop of Motherwell, is one of the few in Britain to have seen the film and has described it as "stunningly successful... a profoundly religious film."

Yet, today, the Easter People, the dancers in sanctuaries, those who claim They Are Church and all the assorted Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men who have converted Catholicism into a crankfest regard the Passion with as much alienation as any atheist.

Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.

You will find little dissent from those propositions among the smirking, blue-rinse nuns of the post-Conciliar Church, or their ecumaniac male counterparts. To them, the crack of the centurion’s whip and the thud of the hammer on nails are distant, alien sounds - a disturbing echo of Holy Week long ago, of Gregorian plainsong, of ferias in Seville. In a word - ecumenically unhelpful; best washed away by a few more cups of tea at Scottish Churches House.

The militantly secular world is also keenly alert to the challenge of the Passion. In responding to Gibson’s initiative, no double-standard is too blatant, no inversion of truth too shameless. Critics are queuing up to denounce "pornographic violence" (the now favourite weasel phrase) in the literal portrayal of the crucifixion.

These are the self-same people who acclaimed every sadistic and pornographic obscenity with which Hollywood has poisoned the world over the past three decades, who vigorously denounced "censorship" and promoted the "pushing of boundaries". Now, suddenly, they are alarmed about pornographic violence.

Yet, amid all the sound and fury, the most contemptible phenomenon is the trahison des clercs. The Catholic Church will not embrace this film, despite the Pope’s verdict on it ("It is as it was!"), because it expresses a faith it now finds embarrassing. The Passion was made with as much religious dedication as the crafting of an Orthodox icon. The Tridentine Mass was celebrated on the set every morning and there was at least one conversion to Catholicism during the making of the film. Small wonder that modernist Roman theologians are galled by the fact that Tradition has produced the most triumphant artistic articulation of faith and that evangelical Protestants are flocking to experience it.

The Mass, as the bloodless continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, was the perfect complement to this artistic tribute to God. At the elevation of the host, the Catholic believer knows - although he can scarcely comprehend the fact - that he is as close to Christ as were Our Lady and St John at the foot of the cross. That is the cosmic drama of redemption that is re-enacted on the altar: "Behold the man".

Max,please just read the 113 pages. I know what you are saying and the proper response to you on that question involves style and substance and right now it would just confuse the issues.

Vatican II was just style. It was intended to update the clothes the body was wearing. The substance was to remain unchanged. The Progressive/modernists/communsists/infiltrators ripped off the clothes and prodeeded to try to reform and reshape the body using scissors,jackhammers and axes.

The Pope has no intention of changing the substance,he does want to change the style. I think that was necessary.He needs all of our help.

Look, make up your mind. You were the one who wanted proof that I was not prohibited by the Vatican from attending SSPX Masses.

You are confused. I never requested proof of the prohibition. It's unnecessary. We have Ecclesia Dei. Coupled with canon law, the case has been closed for fifteen years.

I cited him because I know people like yourself are more impressed by a Vatican letterhead than you are by the faith itself.

You are mistaken. The faith itself is best lived while in obedience to the teaching of Holy Mother Church. It is you who are impressed with Mons. Perle's letter, not I. It is a bone thrown to a very few SSPX adherents. It points to a very strict condition necessary to exist to avoid a state of sin. Your prolific pixel trail demonstrates that your beliefs and status do not qualify you to meet the strict standards set by Mons. Perle. Together with your total contempt for the Vatican as now run by the the current pope, it is just a fraud for you to use Mons. Perle's letter to justify your arguments. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

No, YOU are the one confused. Do you think excommunications--IF they ever occurred--are contagious? You and others like you have more interest in slandering others than in making any real distinctions. Lay persons are not members of SSPX, nor are they prohibited from supporting the Society morally or financially or spiritually.

As for "the bone" thrown to traditionalists, it was totally unnecessary at best since we don't need his input to know it can't be sinful to desire to worship fully as Catholics rather than as pseudo-Catholics.

As for whether or not I meet the strict standards you think Msgr. Perle has set--this is of no interest to me whatsoever. People like Perle and his mentors never had the authority to create a new religious faith in the first place; there was the one that Catholics had practiced for two thousand years till the present gang of liturgical fascists took over. It's still good enough for me.

Attending the indult sends the message to Rome that you agree the Mass was abrogated and that you agree that special permission is required to assist at the Mass that was codified for all time by Pope St. Pius V.

This is a good example of what Mons. Perle warns against. Your understanding of attendance at a Tridentine mass has nothing to do with devotion. Attendance at an indult means you agree with the governance of the Holy Pontiff. Attendance at an SSPX mass is an act of protest. In your mind ,it is purely political. I think your cause would be greatly enhanced, and would secure the unequivical support of people like me, if you praised the traditional rites from a devotional viewpoint rather than a legal/political one. By the many, many posts on these topics it has become painfully obvious that it is not about devotion at all, but rather about power.

There's a reason it's called the 'insult'.

You are the only one I've heard employ this derogatory epithet. What is insulting is your willingness to denigrate your fellow believers who prefer the Tridentine rite, yet attend a non-SSPX mass. It is either baffling or revealing that you wish to segregate youselves from your most natural allies.

Your understanding of attendance at a Tridentine mass has nothing to do with devotion.

It has everything to do with devotion, but I will not be treated like some freak who needs special permission to attend the Mass of all time.

I think your cause would be greatly enhanced, and would secure the unequivical support of people like me,

Your are not going to be at my side come judgement day. I am not seeking your support.

It is either baffling or revealing that you wish to segregate youselves from your most natural allies.

Natural allies? Gee, I would hate to see how you treat your enemies.

Do you think excommunications--IF they ever occurred--are contagious?

I never mentioned excommunications. I don't know why you bring it up. It doesn't benefit you to. Here's what I was thinking of:

"In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement."

Since I am most interested in the devotional aspect of the traditionalist movement, it was interesting to read this in Ecclesia Dei:

"The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

This needs repeating:

"It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience."

It seems to me that since we are discovering that the traditionalist movement is more about politics than spirituality, then one might not value the interpretations and discernment of those who coming from that camp. Might best to just stick to Holy Mother Church and the Holy Ghost which guides her.

You have a difficulty understanding distinctions. I qualified my statement with the phrase "IF they [excommunications] ever occurred." You need to read more carefully. I was clearly suggesting no excommunications--let alone schisms--ever occurred, not even if the Pope's all-too-fallible Ecclesia Dei letter says so.

But let me go beyond this. There is NO SUCH THING as the "Living quality of Tradition." That is simply a logical contradiction. Tradition is whatever is handed-down to us from the PAST, by definition--it cannot be subject to radical change by contemporary papal fiat. Authority may, of course, INTERPRET tradition. But it must do so in the light of previous popes and councils--not out of whole cloth. This is because the WHOLE POINT of authority is to safeguard what it has already received, to preserve it, to guard it. It can't legitimately use its power to destroy it--that is a monstrous abuse of authority, a perversion of it--which is why traditionalists oppose so vociferously what is now happening. It is an enormous distortion of truth to say something as novel as the New Mass, for instance, is somehow also traditional, or to intimate, as JPII had done in the Ecclesia Dei letter, that the tradition observed by traditionalist priests is somehow exclusively theirs and not his own. As Vatican I said:

"FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS NOT PROMISED TO THE SUCCESSORS OF PETER THAT BY HIS REVELATION THEY MIGHT DISCLOSE NEW DOCTRINE, BUT THAT BY HIS HELP THEY MIGHT GUARD THE REVELATION TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE APOSTLES AND THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH..."

To fail to preserve the heritage of two thousand years, to foment a revolution inside the Church, to refuse to consult with his predecessors and councils, to invent novel interpretations and practices, goes beyond anyone's authority. A Pope is merely a Steward; he holds the keys to the Kingdom--but is not himself the King. To behave as if he were has resulted in the present mess. This is because authority never had the right to depart from what it had received--it must perforce pass-on intact the patrimony it was given. That is why power was given in the first place--and certainly not for its own sake. In fact, Jesus warned the apostles about this: Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, he told them. If authority will not do this, its commands lose their legitimacy.

Are you OK? We have not been discussing excommunications or schism. I realize that it might be difficult to stay on topic, but goodness. I haven't brought up either excommunication or schism, just like I didn't prompt your quoting Mons. Perle. Talk about a lack of reading skills. I've stuck to the topic of whether it is acceptable for a Catholic to attend an SSPX mass. My desire in responding to your post was to expose the fallacy that Mons. Perle approves of SSPX mass attendance and the insincerity with which you cite his authority. I am satisfied that I have accomplished that on this thread.

Also, if you are going to accuse someone of not reading carefully, you should make a better effort at quoting him. "Living quality of tradition" should be "living character of tradition."

P.S. Were I to bring up schism I would utilize the euphemism you provided for us: "formality". As promised I am moving on. Good night.

What a fraud you are. There would be no issue of whether or not attending an SSPX Mass is "acceptible" were it not for the fact that some believe the Society to be in schism and excommunicated. The one implies the other.

I cited the Perle letter not to show that Rome approves of such attendance, but that it allows it--which not the same thing. Again, you fail to make distinctions. When has Rome ever approved of anything traditional, let alone attending an SSPX Mass? But it grudgingly allows it.

As for my mistaking your phrase--something you make a big deal of--there's not a dime's worth of difference between either phrase. The operative word was "living" as in "living tradition". It's the same old Vatican II Novus Ordo hooey no matter which phrase is used.

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.