A Freeper Review of The Passion of Christ

Vanity | 2/21/04 | John Fields

[jonboy]

I'm not sure where to start. I'm a fellow Freeper who also happens to be minister. I was invited today to see a screening of the Passion of the Christ at our local theater. I have been fascinated, and you might even be able to say obsessed with this movie ever since I heard about it a few months ago and first saw the trailer (I cried every time I saw it).

Given that I have watched and listened to several interviews and read several news stories about this movie I was as prepared as I thought I could be to watch it. I HAVE NEVER BEEN THROUGH ANYTHING LIKE THIS MOVIE! I sobbed, I throbbed, my Kleenex became a fairly useless mess that occupied the hand not tightly gripping the seat. IT WAS HARD TO WATCH. The cruelty was overwhelming, but approximated what we have a glimpse from in scripture. The violence and horror of what was done to Him nearly overwhelming, but not gratuitous as some have claimed.

As to the charges of anti-semitism, I can understand how a Jew who does not believe that Jesus is their Messiah would be frightened by this film. However, it was NOT anti-semitic. I could just as easily be moved to be against Italians for what the Romans did as I could be against the Jews. If one were inspired to hate the perpetrators if this event, they would be anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-Japanese, and anti-__________ (fill in your own blanks). I was filled with the grim overwhelming knowledge of my own guilt as much as anything else. As I watched Him writhing in pain, the ribs virtually exposed from the beating that He had taken, as I watched His shoulder ripped out of socket as they stretched his hand to make it to the pre-drilled nail hole, as I watched the blood flowing and the breath ripped from His body from the pain, one thing entered into my mind above all else. I PUT HIM THERE! He could have come down, He could have called in excess of ten-thousand angels. He could have stopped that horrible mockery and evil in its tracks by coming down off of that cross, healing His own wounds, and then saying go to it boys as He releases the angels to take care of business. BUT HE DIDN'T. I am in awe.

I admit that I has moments when I felt like ripping the Jewish and Roman perpetrators apart. How dare they laugh in the face of such agony! How dare they spit on Him! How dare they stand in pompous, arrogant, self-righteous judgment of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (how dare MYSELF go on sinning after what He did for me)! But as the High Priest is walking away from making fun and mocking. He hears Jesus softly say, taking up precious breath, "Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." The High Priest pauses in uncomfortable silence, then walks on. Later, after Jesus has died and the earthquake has damaged the temple and they are very aware that they have done something terribly wrong the High Priest is seen crying out and holding his face in grief and horror.

This movie was about love and forgiveness and about our sin and what God and His Son did together about that sin. It is about the horrible things that men do to their fellow men which can still be forgiven if they will but repent. Some of the Jews were depraved and some were compassionate. Some of the Romans were depraved, and some of them were inclined towards compassion. Anti-Jewish? NO WAY! Besides, the early church was exlusively Jewish. The movie is not about Mel Gibson having some kind of point to prove to anyone, let alone the Jews. It was Mel's passion, a labor of love. Will it profit Him? Unbelievably! Did he do it for the money, not a chance.

Were there any liberties taken with the scripture? Maybe a few. Poetic/artistic license was taken to a degree. There were some scenes with Judas that were extra Biblical, but imaginable. Surprisingly, he was shown as a somewhat sympathetic character, which is something I've felt to a degree for him. I doubt that he was a completely depraved man, he just wanted to speed things along so that Jesus would have to rise to the throne and have to take His true place. When he realized he had been horribly mis-lead he admitted guilt but then went out and killed himself. There was a scene in which the unrepentant thief had his eyes pecked out by a crow. I thought that didn't gel well with the theme of forgiveness and should have been left out. It seemed to represent Divine retribution since the thief had just been blaspheming Jesus. But the cross wasn't about retribution, that will come later at Judgment, it was about mercy.

As to this movie being appropriate for children? That's a hard call. I think it would be best if conscientous parents screened it for themselves first. It is hard enough for mature adults to stomach. However, there is something to be said for exposing young tender hearts to the truth of what He did. Maybe knowing what He did at a younger age would lead to more mature Christians later. Again, it's an individual call.

Is this movie Catholic? Yes and no. Those who see the relationship between Jesus and Mary who are Catholic will likely see Mary as divine. Those of us who believe that Mary was a mere woman who was blessed enough to have been chosen to be the mother of the Christ will see the relationship between a mother and her Son. THIS MOVIE IS FOR ALL!!! I can wholeheartedly recommend this movie to others for personal devotion or to touch the hearts of those who are lost. I believe very much that it will be a culturally defining movie and that it will break most IF NOT ALL of the box office records both nationally and world-wide. The Lord will not be silenced. I truly feel He has spoken through this movie. Maybe its His way of saying WAKE UP before He comes again. If it is, this Christian is awake (wiping away tears).

[Ohioan from Florida]

Catholics believe that Mary was preserved from sin by God, ahead of time, from the beginning of time, because He knew the whole story: how Adam and Eve would fall, why it would be necessary to have a Savior, etc., etc. God knew the whole thing and so He had a plan, and Mary was part of that plan. We believe He preserved her from the stain of sin. She still needed a Savior, because she was human, but she didn't carry the stain of sin. God planned it that way. His way works. Why wouldn't He do this for the woman He chose to bring His son into the human world?

[Ohioan from Florida]

son = Son

[jonboy]

I'm not Catholic, obviously, nor is my faith a knee jerk or "protest" against the Catholic faith. That said, isn't it true that some Catholics believe Mary to be a Co-Redemptress and may even go so far as to want her included in the Godhead?

Dr. Miravalle’s Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici movement has presented over five million signatures to the Holy See humbly requesting a solemn definition of the Marian titles Coredemptress, Mediatress or all graces and Advocate. A third of the cardinals and over a quarter of the Catholic episcopate have signed the petitions.

The present Holy Father since the beginning of his pontificate has, like his immediate predecessors in the See of Peter, often taught the doctrine of Marian coredemption, and is the first Pope since Pius XI to employ the title Coredemptress in public addresses, where he has used it at least six times.

Do a search on Google and type in Mary and Godhead and see what comes up. I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrine any more than they are an expert on mine. That said Jesus is my redeemer and advocate before the Father, I believe that Mary has no roll in that.

[Budge]

Please see my brief post (259) - I hope this is useful.

[jwalsh07]

Remember, no one is sinless but Christ.

Would it be outside of Gods powers to free a human being from original sin?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Leonine]

My dates are not at all fuzzy. They are correct. Immaculate Conception--Conception--Conception. The Assumption issue has already been addressed earlier in this thread. If you will read Pius' statement, you will see that, to him, Mary is the "Immaculate Mother of God." Being immaculate and ever-virgin, according to Catholic doctrine, what need has she of grace? Talk about fuzzy--look at your penultimate paragraph.

[Yaelle]

Thank you all for your explanations. I can't say that I perfectly understand but I certainly do better than I did before. I really appreciate all the responses.

[what's up]

If that happened it wouold make the Scriptures a lie as the Scriptures state that ALL have sinned.

The Scriptures are not a lie. All have sinned....this means Mary too.

[tekriter]

Catholic Answers has information about praying to the saints, including scripture references.

Because the Catholic faith is a comprehensive whole, it's difficult to explain single aspects since everything is intertwined. For example, we believe that a person who is in God's favor is alive in Christ after his physical body dies. They are still a part of the body of Christ. Death does not separate us from Jesus; He conquered death. Therefore when we ask the intercession of saints in heaven, we're not asking dead people to pray for us; we're asking people who more alive than we are (and with Jesus!)

We pray directly to God the Father, to Jesus, and to the Holy Spirit. However, throughout the New Testament, Paul asked the followers of Christ to pray for others(1 Timothy 2:1–4, Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1). Jesus, Himself, asked us to pray for our enemies (Matt. 5:44)! So, Christians ask others to pray for them. The saints in heaven are Christians; therefore, we ask the saints to pray for us.

[Ohioan from Florida]

Thank you for that link. It may prove helpful.

[what's up]

She still needed a Savior, because she was human, but she didn't carry the stain of sin.

In your world, what's she need to be saved from? Most people need to be saved from sin. What's her need?

Why wouldn't He do this for the woman He chose to bring His son into the human world?

Why should He? God can do anything, including bring a Savior into the world thru a human woman. God never contradicts His Word. His Word says all have sinned. It nowhere states that 2 people are sinless.

[Ohioan from Florida]

You stated that very well. And thanks for the reference to Catholic Answers. I need to use it more often.

[Leonine]

Why don't you just pray to God? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All saints are covered by the incorruptibility of Christ and so are you. Try this: pray to God from your heart and pray through a saint by memorized literature. During which prayer do you feel closer to the Lord?

[jwalsh07]

My dates are not at all fuzzy. They are correct.

No, they are incorrect. Your dates imply that these traditions were somehow dreamed up in the second half of the 20th Century.

That implication is fuzzy and does not give a true picture.

The Assumption issue has already been addressed earlier in this thread.

Yeah, you addressed it to me. I just replied. Next don't address me if you don't want an answer. Comprende'?

If you will read Pius' statement, you will see that, to him, Mary is the "Immaculate Mother of God."

Yeah, and....? Being immaculate and ever-virgin, according to Catholic doctrine, what need has she of grace?Your argument is with the Archangel Gabriel. I didn't declare Mary full of grace, Gabriel did. Perhaps you should address your question to Gabriel?

But being immaculate and ever-virgin does not equal being divine. In fact the terms "immaculate" and "full of grace" would seem to mean exactly the same thing, absent original sin.

Talk about fuzzy--look at your penultimate paragraph.

Is this ad hominem stuff because I can do ad hominem pretty good?

[Ohioan from Florida]

During which prayer do you feel closer to the Lord?

Do whatever you are more comfortable with, but don't forget that the Holy Spirit is the one who is doing the interpreting for us either way. Romans 8:26-27 "In the same way, the Spirit comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God's will." (NAB)

[jwalsh07]

From the 5th Century:


the Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria;
The 5th and 6th Century:


the Apocryphal Books were testimony of a certain christian sense of the abhorency felt that the body of the Mother of God should lie in a sepulchre;
The 6th Century:


the Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Jerusalem (and perhaps even in Alexandria);
From the 7th Century:


clear and explicit testimony was given on the Assumption of Mary in the Eastern Church; The same testimony is clear also in the Western Church (Gregory, Tours, 538-594);
In the 9th Century:


the Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Spain;
From the 10th - 12th Century:


no dispute whatsoever in the Western Church; there was dispute over the false epistles of Jerome on the subject;
In the 12th Century:


the Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in the city of Rome, and in France;
From the 13th to present:


certain and undisputed faith in the Assumption of Mary in the universal Church;
1950, Pope Pius XII, declared infallibly, ex cathedra:


"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory."

[jwalsh07]

Church Fathers:


implicitly found in the Fathers of the Church in the parallelism between Eve and Mary (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140? - 202?);
Found in the more general terms about Mary: "holy", "innocent", "most pure", "intact", "immaculate" (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140?-202?; Ephraem, Syria, 306-373; Ambrose, Milan, 373-397);
Explicit language: Mary - free from original sin (Augustine, Hippo, 395-430 to Anselm, Normandy, 1033-1109);
Eastern Church:


celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 8th to the 9th Century;
Western Church:


celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 12th Century;
A record of the feast in the 11th Century in Great Britain; in the 12th Century in Normandy;
Record in many churches of a Feast of the Conception of Mary in France, Germany, Italy and Spain in the 12th Century (Bernard, Clairvaux, 1090-1153);
14th Century:


was noted for the opposition to the Immaculate Conception from some of the great doctors of scholasticism. The celebration of the feast was not denied though. The difficulty arose from the meaning of the universal redemption through Christ.
15th Century:


Franciscan theologians solved the difficulty--Christ, the most perfect mediator, preserved Mary from original sin by an equally perfect act of healing. Duns Scotus (Scotland, 1266-1308) explained that the Immaculate Conception came through God's application of the grace of Christ beforehand.
From 15th Century:


the Feast was universally celebrated; and christian piety introduced an oath to defend the belief in the Immaculate Conception to be taken not only by Religious, but also by non-Religious and at the Universities (e.g., Paris, 1497; Cologne, 1499; Vienna, 1501, etc.)
1854, Pope Pius IX, infallibly defined, ex cathedra:


"The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

[nutmeg]

ping!

[Leonine]

My dates are not at all fuzzy. They are correct.

No, they are incorrect. Your dates imply that these traditions were somehow dreamed up in the second half of the 20th Century.
That implication is fuzzy and does not give a true picture.

My dates are correct. If you're looking for hidden implications, they are not there. The point is that it took many centuries before the Vatican accepted these folk traditions.