Who's Going to Gibson's The Passion of the Christ?

[D.R.R.]

It's a way of life and the road to truth

All light-heartedness aside, I am looking forward to seeing Mel's handiwork.

What I find interesting is that a lot of the critics who enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 1 by Quentin Tarentino as "provocative" and "fresh" are the same ones calling the Passion "sadistic". I think it's more an attempt to discredit the movie than anything else.

While the movie will certainly have Catholic overtones (not that I find anything wrong with that), Mel himself has said that it is for all Christians to meditate and remember the immense suffering Our Lord went through, solely for us. In today's world, we tend to lose sight of that as we are highly desensitized to violence. It even shows up in our Catholic Churches...Jesus is no longer depicted as brutalized on the Cross the way He used to be, but is clean, and even in some ways, triumphant. He certainly was triumphant, but let's face it, the manner of His death was not clean, it was brutal, and at the moment it certainly didn't seem triumphant to His disciples and Apostles. I think that in today's very cushy world, we all need to be reminded of that. We had to kill our own God so that we might be saved.

Yes, exactly...A Chestertonian, eh? So am I. You and I need to have a long discussion about Chesterton and Belloc in some English pub one day, each of us with a mug of beer in hand.

[piso mojado]

I'll be there the 29th.

[Amazing Rando]

I'll be there the 29th.

Hey Piso, that is an awesome username!

Caution, floor slippery when wet!

Welcome to Tweb, by the way!

[Solly]

I am broadly of Readers view, though mine is...er...nuanced. As if you didn't guess that.

Not me.

I believe the making of the film breaks God's 2nd commandment.

I don't happen to believe that, I just have problems with TV/cinematic portrayals these days. Period.

I believe there is no way a film can betray the spiritual significance of Christ's death and resurrection.

I don't see how you can have a film that portrays Christ dying, without all that led up to it, and that is in fact designed to focus on those last 12 hours with all the resources modern special effects can muster. One of the criticisms from the survivors of the Normany beaches about Saving Private Ryan was that the opening sequence was too intense, too detailed; it was not like that in real life, because you were not close to all the action; film puts it in your face in 20' high images burned into your retinas. Cinema overplays it's hand in its quest to create atmosphere - which it is good at, but that in itself overwhelms our senses. In this case, I think that is spiritually dangerous, since we can mistake the obvious human emotional reaction for spiritual feeling.

I doubt the film will be true to the Scriptural account without human exaggeration or omission.

For instance, Pilate's wife mopping up Christ's blood, I read that somewhere. And do we have Veronica in the film? Anyone tell me?

I believe the film will be entertaining and enjoyed only by sadists and masochists, and genuine, unsuspecting Christians will be shocked by the inordinate amount of sensationalism, blood, and gore.

Judging by some of the threads started here, that seems to be the case. "Still in shock." But from what? A work of the Holy Spirit opening to our hearts and minds the sufferings of Christ as our substitute and sacrifice, or a technicolour tour de force that seeks to outdo Freddy Kruger?

I do not believe the film will be used by the Holy Spirit of God to save a single soul from Hell.

I can't be so categoric.

I expect Protestant Christians, who do expose themselves to this blatant (Roman Catholic) money-making effort will go to great lengths to explain their sin of spiritual infidelity and work very hard to cover up their repulsion of what will be forever placed within their psyche and memory.

Gibson is, I believe, a nonVatican II Catholic. That is quite an eye opener, esp as I found it hard to believe he was a Christian after seeing him appear with a nude actress in Braveheart, and swearing in Lethal Weapon.
As for the other, how true. There are many things I wish were not in my mind, many things I no longer value the TV and cinema for. I didn't even go to see ROTK.

I believe it is a sick endeavor, sponsored by the devil, and it will not bear fruit to the glory of Jesus Christ, but will only distract from the true and Scriptural Gospel of our Savior.

Reader explains with his usual zeal, but I have to say I think there may be a grain of truth in his words. Marketing ploy, yes; money for Mr Gibson, yes; church related event yes. To the glory of God? Sorry, I don't think so.

slly

[Xmansmommy]

One of the things I'm finding so distressing is that most of the people that have negative things to say about the film either:

1. Haven't yet seen it.
2. Don't ever intend to see it.
3. Don't believe the gospel is for all who will believe.

Just my NSHO.

[Solly]

One of the things I'm finding so distressing is that most of the people that have negative things to say about the film either:

1. Haven't yet seen it.
2. Don't ever intend to see it.
3. Don't believe the gospel is for all who will believe.

Just my NSHO.

With respect Xmom, you are in error.

I have seen the trailers, I have been to the webiste and perused the material. I have been reading reactions on this site. Do I need to see the whole move to know if it is suitable for my son to see, or my mother, or myself? We are called to discern, not jump in with both feet and hope it's alright on the night just because a bunch of evangelical "names" say this is the greatest evangelistic opportunity of the decade (I heard that on the Radio).

Everyone told me the Matrix was a good film to see. Do I have to go in order to find out it is not? Given the laxity mentioned about Gibson himself, given the things that most Chrisitans seem to allow themselves in these enlightened days, I think it is incumbant on me to exercise extreme caution about so popular an event. Given the reasons I have pointed out, surely not going is the whole point, since I have a predisposition to mistrust films already. I don't need an audio-visual emotions-fest for my own spirituality, and I don't personally see how this will do it for nonChristians anymore that any other Jesus film has done.

Re #3, Reader and I both believe the gospel is for all who will believe. I assume that was meant to be an antiCalvinist remark?

prchr

[Xmansmommy]

Solly my brother, my comments weren't directed at you personally so I do apologize if they offended you. First I'd like to say, that I am not suggesting that you have to go see it. It doesn't affect me one way or the other if you go or not. I have children that I'm glad I didn't take. But in order to give a fair assesment of the movie, I believe one should have seen it. Otherwise their comments really are of no particular value. That's my opinion. As for the "anti-Calvinist" remark.....It was truly an observation. I'd like to say that I am by NO means anti-Calvinist. But I will say that I am against Calvinists that are anti-NonCalvinist. Absolutely.

[Solly]

thanks Xmom, and blessings to you.

slly

[Xmansmommy]

And to you as well.

[rocketman]

For instance, Pilate's wife mopping up Christ's blood, I read that somewhere. And do we have Veronica in the film? Anyone tell me?

...

Gibson is, I believe, a nonVatican II Catholic. That is quite an eye opener, esp as I found it hard to believe he was a Christian after seeing him appear with a nude actress in Braveheart, and swearing in Lethal Weapon.
As for the other, how true. There are many things I wish were not in my mind, many things I no longer value the TV and cinema for. I didn't even go to see ROTK.

Most of what you wrote is your own opinion, and that is perfectly fine. I just wish to address these two points.

Much of the mysticism is based on the visions of the Venerable Anne Emerlich, who wrote them down in The Dolorous Passion , which is a real heart-wrencher. All Christians of all stripes should read it, regardless of ideology. I have a feeling the basis for Claudia was in there.

As for Veronica, yes, she is most defintely in there...beautiful scene.

As to Mel Gibson...Gibson is not a schismatic-traditionalist (i.e., he is not a crazy conservative wacko who thinks the Pope is not the Pope...some Catholics call these people "rad-trads" for radical traditional)...his father is. Mel is like me...traditionalist. We both accept to teachings of VII...we simply prefer some of the older customs, such as the Mass in Latin. This Mass was never revoked or put on mothballs. It is still totally valid and okay to celebrate. Different strokes for different folks.

[rocketman]

Yes, exactly...A Chestertonian, eh? So am I. You and I need to have a long discussion about Chesterton and Belloc in some English pub one day, each of us with a mug of beer in hand.

Amen! Actually me and a college friend are attemoting to start a Chesterton Society here at college. The Everlasting Man and The Path to Rome were my Confirmation gifts...I lvoe those two books.

[Xmansmommy]

Actually in the movie Pilate's wife didn't mop up the blood of Jesus. I won't tell you who did though. Just goes to show...you can't believe every thing you read.