How much of the Passion movie reflected Catholic doctrine?

Dear Brother Phillip,
I posted here my fundamental reason(s) for opposing this film.

Why I am opposed to the Passion of Christ

I will respond as fully as I am able to your post later.

Until then, I will say here as I said in the very first post I placed in this topic that I have not seen this film.

When I first heard of its making I thought this was a great idea. The first flag I received in the reveiws of this film was noting evangelical leaders state (as you seem to agree) this movie is the best evangelical tool in the last 100 years. From this statement to Mel's own disbelief expressed that the reception among protestants when this movie contains so much Marian doctrine.

This movie operates to deny scripture as being complete in and of itself because it draws any portion of its imagery from the vision of any person, let alone of three different such visions. In investigating just one of these and reading the 'vision' of Emmerich alone I was and remain sickened that such a work supposed to 'fill' in the blanks of scripture is so readily (or according to Mel received "hands down") by protestants.

This movie operates to deny the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ in so much as it uses any portion of the vision of Emmerich because her writing is seen throughout to exalt the mother of Jesus to a place that God nor scripture places her in. This movie is based upon the writings of this woman who states in that writing that the prayer of Christ during his suffering that God would "permit" what he was enduring to be a help to those who would endure the same.

Because of the attempt to mingle scripture with these falsehoods I believe this movie is from satan himself who proves in the third chapter of scripture that his methods are not to display deception and lies without a semblance of truth found therein.

In order to give a complete rundown of the movie scene by scene I would have to see it. I readily admit I have not seen it and I count it a blessing of God to have been saved of this unscriptural imagery witnessed by this 'artistic license.'

Were you and I to work alongside each other in a factory and you were to ask me regarding this film and I 'thought' you were 'lost' I would not speak as my posts speak here on the BB. Here we are among brothers and sisters who ought to be able to see the motive of this film instead of proclaiming it as something it is or cannot be, an evangelical tool.

That person who would ask such questions would not be turned from Christ because of my disagreement with the film, or else their interest I would think (even as though I would have any authority to think they are "LOST") is an evidence of a drawing that is based on their interest in the imagery portrayed. In order to be brought to Christ, any person must be drawn by the Holy Spirit. There is no other way. Most certainly not a hollywood film with little truth mixed in with 'visions' and false doctrine.

it is the attitude that this film can finally do what the Spirit has not done that I am in disagreement with, it is the attitude that this film can somehow enlighten all of us to the 'blanks' of scripture that I am in disagreement with, it is the attitude that this film will do what the word of God has not done that I am in disagreement with, it is these attitudes exhibited among the people of God that I am just as surprised at as Mel himself.

The preaching of the cross, the preaching of the gospel is offensive, let's add imagery and falsehood (visions and doctrine) and we will attract all the world to Christ.

Proverbs 14.25 disagrees also.

May God Bless you Dear Brother. Forgive me if I have offended you in these things. Pray for me that were I to be found in error by the word of God that His Mercy would be upon me when I am judged.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Jailminister wrote:
Sadly to say fiction becomes fact if it is not dealt with. That is why if you go see ANY movie or read any book(except the Bible). Just take it for what is and enjoy it. Just don't make it Gospel. Enjoy the popcorn.

MalkyEL: I think the subject of this thread is if and how we see Catholicism in the movie, so I will try to make my assessment from that viewpoint .

The disturbing fact is that Mel Gibson blatantly stated that the movie is Biblically accurate when approaching major Christian leaders, often times personally, to promote his artistic bent. These leaders, in turn, backed Mel up by presenting to all who would see this movie as "Biblically and historically correct" and "the greatest evangelistic tool in 2000 years". To my knowledge, no other movie has ever set this kind precedence. It is no longer "just a movie". It is being viewed as "gospel truth".

Mel also stated that he was surprised at the all-out endorsement by the Christian community because of it's Catholic and "Marian" perspective. When I viewed the movie, Mary was predominately present throughout as a central figure who at times appeared to be "stronger" than Jesus Himself - many Catholics perceive Mary as co-mediatrix. I was quite bothered by her "Marian" appeal - she would often be shown as having a "psychic" contact with Jesus - at one time laying on the stone floor with Jesus down under her in restraints in a cell, as He was looking up where she was lying. There was another place that she was running down the back streets with John and Mary Magdalene and "happened" to arrive at the same place where Jesus was carrying His cross. It was at this "station" that Mary ran to Jesus to "strengthen" Him with one of those "looks" and Jesus says to her "Behold, Mother, I make all things new" [Scripture taken out Revelations]. This same "psychic" ability was shown near the beginning of the movie as she suddenly awakens in the night asking "why is this night different from all the rest?" which is a direct quote from the Passover celebration - meaning that she completely "understands" Jesus as the Passover Lamb.

Every scene that had Mary in it [which were numerous], appeared to make her sinless. She cried just the right amount - the tears always just overflowing. Perhaps that sounds critical, but from my perspective, it only added to the Catholic perspective of her position as "The Queen of Heaven" as she is referred to. There was simply no point where Mary "failed". She was the the epitome of fortitude and strength with total and complete knowledge and understanding of what Jesus was enduring. I can find no Scriptural basis for this. His closest disciples did not even fully comprehend until after His resurrection.

The movie had Mary at the flagellation as well, stoically watching that horror unfold. I found it quite morbid as well as unscriptural and historically impossible, but not surprising because of her elevated position in Catholicism. Her character did not appear to be real.

At another point in the movie, Mary runs up to Jesus and is stopped by a Roman soldier. He turns and asks a fellow soldier who she is and is told that she is Jesus' mother. I found that again quite Catholic and surreal because of a perception of her ethereal "fame". Mary would have been unknown to the Romans.

One last thing about Mary that I want to mention -besides Jesus, she is the only one to "see" satan. This again, makes her co-equal to Jesus with her ability of perfect discernment. Also, satan looks at her in a "knowledgeable" way, as if she only, besides Jesus, understands the evil that is imminent. This only adds to her position as co-mediatrix.

Other posts have made note of the crucifixtion scene which further lifts Mary into a co-redemptive stance both by her words and her actions.

 

I ignore all posts that ask "what specifically in THE PASSION is not biblically accurate?"

Why? Because the person is probably:

(1.) Not really interested in Biblical accuracy, they just enjoyed this film, and are scoffing at allegations of "biblical inaccuracy."

(2.) Not willing to compare the sub-titles to scriptures.

(3.) Not willing to investigate the A.C. Emmerich mystical extra-biblical writings.

(4.) Not convinced that biblical accuracy is important in sermons, films, books, but emotional appeal, exciting special effects, good acting, and "evangelical leadership" endorsements are important.

(5.) Not willing to consider the hypnotic effects and techniques of motion pictures and movie theaters.

(6.) Not willing to think negatively about Mel Gibson who to them is Mr. Patriot/Road Warrior/Braveheart/Lethal Weapon

(7.) Not willing to consider that the majority of evangelical and church leaders, including their pastor, could possibly be in error on this.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, because I really do not care if the churchianity crowd and the pew potatoes are deceived. We all have our Bibles to consult, plus plenty of good Christian films to watch.

Vaaaaaaassssssppp--you've just been vasperized!

 

Honestly now Vaspers, how do you really feel about people who ask "what specifically in THE PASSION is not biblically accurate?"

 

ha ha you make vaspers laff again, you very bad man, you Jim Ward, that not nice to make vaspers laff all the time so he get no debating done.

 

Vaspers, I'm laffin right along with ya.


Seriously though, I find a lot of sound and sane judgment in your post about the posts you ignore.


Think it's something I'll look into applying myself.


Jim

 

Let me read your post before you respond because you very well may answer my questions. In principle I find myself agreeing with you, but in actuality have some issues. Understanding that you will not respond to non-christians in the manner we debate answers a lot of questions; maybe I am the one misunderstanding your purposes and the specifics of your quotes. I'll read your post and we can talk. Have a good evening. I do appreciate the way you stand by your beliefs, not many Christians can be found today that are not wishy, washy.
I'll read and get back to ya!

 

Hmmmmmm! I'm about to change my opinion of the movie. If you and Vaspers saw it, I want to know. You two need some serious help --- and quickly. If you saw that movie, then maybe we need to start playing it backwards and see what was hidden in the (supposed) Aramaic and Greek audio track. This is worse than I thought.

 

No worries Phillip, my hands shall not touch the door of the movie houses, especially to see an R rated movie.


Jim

 

vaspers "saw it"--you very mean and bad man to say vaspers "saw it"--vaspers no see no Passion flick, and never will--you very mean to vaspers...

...vaspers will "saw it" into tiny pieces this rotten film maybe saw it that way but not "saw it" as in view the horriblividous film...

vaspers no "saw" nothing...vaspers very mad now...

 

Woooow! What an answer. I can't do this tonight. If I debate this I won't get up tomorrow. I'll read this closer later and we can discuss....I have no doubt there is Catholicism show in the movie--I it in certain parts, but I also feel you may be making a few long stretches in some of your conclusions. I'll read it in more detail tomorrow and respond. Thanks for the good long response. I would rather "debate or agree" with someone who prints as much as they can about their side. It makes for a much better discussion. Have a good evening.

 

LOng posts are a pain to vaspers...vaspers likes to vasperize: short--fast--to the point.

if you must post a tome--at least hit the Enter or Return key and make a new paragraph every 3 to 5 lines. This is free direct marketing technique and cognitive psychology tip:

people tend to read short sentences...

and short paragraphs...

...more easily and quickly!!!

vaspers happy now--but don't know whyyyyyy!

 

I will try to remember that Vaspers.

 

Cream and sugar pleeze

 

S&T wrote:

Correct you are Malky El , and what a splendid job you did in your presentation . Welcome to the board. I have a serious question for you . Have you ever considered changing you screen name from Malky El to Malkye Elahh in honor of the "Aramaic" spoken in the passion movie? just kidding ....

MalkyEL: Thanks for the "warm" welcome, coffee included ! Am giving "serious" consideration to changing my name to the Aramaic version, at least for the Passion threads - however; my question is this: will it give, what is now lacking in, credibility to the movie? - perhaps I should go with the latin instead ?????

 

Poor insular isolationist Baptists...

...y'know, those who have never visited a Greek Ortho church, or a Catholic, or Pentehowmuchdoes itcostal, or a Presby, or a Unity, or a Nazarene, or a Jewish synagogue, or a Hare Krishna or Buddhist temple...

...they just know one thing: the Baptist way of doing things.

They couldn't tell you what elements of Catholicism are in the Pope himself, much less the Passion mooooovie. They honestly see NO Catholocism in this wretchedly heretical film...

...because they aren't really sure what you mean by "Catholicism" (me no genius, can't even spell it, yet I smell the "wake up and smell the coffin" reality coffee proferred by S&T)...

...so don't expect a whole lot when you pose that question...

Yippeee, I'm not "processed" by The Passion film.
Yippeee, I'm free of its heresy and special hy[pno]tic e[ffec]ts!!!

welcome malkyEL--toughen up, it gets rough here.
Koombayah everyone. Feel the love.

 

I saw the movie, I wasn't going to mind you cause I knew right from the get-go what was behind it's creation. BUT, my neighbor who is not saved asked if I'd go see it with her. Well we went and she had questions afterward, which Praise be to the LORD He gave me all the answers. I offered to her a book I have that explains a lot of the Bible..."Stranger on the Road to Emmaus" by John Cross. She's reading the book very thouroughly, thank you JESUS!!! Anyway...I'll get to my point.

Even though I had reservations about the movie, I thought it would be a powerful image for her to see. I didn't get into any catholic or ecumenical discussions (I save those for my Pastor and a few select friends).

I got this in my email today and thought I would share it with you...

Mel's Passion

A Marian Movie?

Extremely ecumenical and very pro-Catholic "Christianity Today" (many
of
the leading signers and promoters of "Evangelicals and Catholics
Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" are "CT"
editors and contributors) supplied the following:

Mel Gibson told "CT": "I've been actually amazed at the way I would say
the evangelical audience has--hands down--responded to this film more
than any other Christian group." What makes it so amazing, he says, "is
that the film is so Marian."

Gibson knows that Protestants don't regard Mary in the way Catholics
do.
And Gibson goes beyond many Catholics when he calls her "a tremendous
co-redemptrix and mediatrix."

"This evangelical enthusiasm for 'The Passion of the Christ' may seem a
little surprising, in that the movie was shaped from start to finish by
a devout Roman Catholic and by an almost medieval Catholic vision. But
evangelicals have not found that a problem because, overall, the
theology of the film articulates very powerful themes that have been
important to all classical Christians." (quotations from "Christianity
Today," 3/04 pp. 34,
30)


Not from my mouth