Passion of Christ

[Cal]

When I first saw The Passion I came out feeling disgusted and angry. All I saw was the Catholic Doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix and I went to see Jesus Christ glorified.

I pointed this out to my family and friends who responded that they did not see this at all, they loved the movie. My daughter even re-dedicated her life to Christ after watching the movie.

For those of you who don't know, Mary Co-Redemptrix is a Catholic doctrine that teaches Mary participated with Jesus Christ in the salvation of mankind. She participated as our redeemer by suffering along side Christ for our sins. Her suffering was the result of our sins which she innocently paid for just like Christ as she watched Him suffer. Of course I don't believe this doctrine is Scriptual and therefore I am jealous for Jesus Christ and want to see Him only glorified.

As I watched Mary following Christ and suffering with Him in the movie with great anquish, knowing Mel's Roman Catholicism and his belief in this doctrine and that none of those scene's were biblical, all I could think about was "Mary Co-Redemptrix."

Well it looks like I was not alone. :cry:


Gibson's Passion and Mary "Co-redemptrix"

by Dr. Mark Miravalle (A Roman Catholic Professor)

"In a recent interview with Mel Gibson, Christianity Today referred to Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic who "likes the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary Co-redemptrix." There's another well-known Catholic who also calls the Mother of Jesus the Co-redemptrix: His name is Pope John Paul II. He has done so on six occasions during his post Vatican II pontificate.

What does the Co-redemptrix title mean? From the Catholic perspective, it refers to Mary's unique human participation with Jesus (and entirely subordinate to her divine son) in the historic work of saving humanity from sin. Jesus is the only Redeemer, in the sense that he alone as the one divine mediator between God and man could redeem or "buy back" the human family from the bonds of Satan and sin. But God willed that the Mother of Jesus participate in this redemptive process like no other creature.


In light of her Immaculate Conception in which she was conceived without original sin through the foreseen merits of her Son, Mary is the sinless virgin Mother in total "enmity" or opposition with Satan, who becomes the ideal human partner with Jesus in the salvation of the human race. Early Christian writers called her the "New Eve," who together with Jesus, the "New Adam," accomplished the work of salvation for all the fallen children of the original Adam and Eve.

Mel Gibson has given the world its most powerful cinematic portrayal of the Mother of Jesus precisely as the Co-redemptrix in his blockbuster film, The Passion of the Christ.

From early in the film it is clear that Mary alone has a special participation in Jesus' saving mission. As the soldiers of the Sanhedrin bring Jesus in to stand trial before Caiaphas, Jesus looks at Mary from across the courtyard and Mary says softly, "It has begun, Lord . . . so be it." The Mother knows that the mission of human redemption has begun. She offers her sorrowful "so be it" to this mission to accompany her joyful "so be it" at the announcement of the angel Gabriel which first brought the Redeemer into the world.

Throughout the film, it is only Jesus and Mary who see their mutual adversary Satan, in his androgenized form. During the way of the cross, Mary slides her way through the crowd to accompany her tortured son carrying his cross when she spots Satan as he parallels her movements on the other side of the crowd. She recognizes her antagonist, looks at him for a moment, and then refixes her gaze on her suffering son.

Earlier, Satan appears during the scourging of Jesus carrying a demonic child, which conveys the Old Testament Genesis prophecy of the battle between the "woman" and her "seed" (Jesus Christ), and the serpent (Satan) and his "seed" or offspring of evil. After the scourging, Mary is inspired to soak up the blood of the Savior, splattered throughout the area of the pillar, with linens. She alone knows that each drop of this divine blood is supernaturally redemptive.

Many times during the savage process of the passion (for example, at the scourging, during the way of the cross, at Calvary), it is the glance of his Mother that gives Jesus the human support that strengthens him to proceed to the next stage of suffering. After one fall on the Via Dolorosa, Mary crawls next to her mutilated son and re-assures him: "I'm here." Jesus regains some focus and replies to her concerning the mission: "See Mother, I make all things new."


It is not Jesus alone, but all the disciples (Peter, John, the Magdalene), who call Mary, "Mother." On Calvary, Mary receives from Jesus her designation as universal Mother.


As Jesus, who is affixed to the cross, is being raised up from the ground, Mary, whose hands clutched the rocky ground as her sons' hands were nailed to the cross, rises from her kneeling position in proportion to her son's being raised on the cross. She then stands upright as her son is now upright on the gibbet.

After some time, Mary approaches the cross with John, the beloved disciple. She kisses Jesus' bloodied foot, and pleads for permission to die with him at this climactic moment of redemption: "Flesh of my flesh, Heart of my heart, my Son. Let me die with you!" Jesus responds to his mother and to John: "Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother." As the fruit of her sufferings with Jesus, Mary becomes the spiritual mother of all beloved disciples, and of all humanity redeemed at Calvary.


In The Passion of the Christ, Gibson has accomplished a Marian feat no pastor or theologian could achieve in the same way. He has given the world through its most popular visual medium a portrayal of a real human mother, whose heart is inseparably united to her son's heart. This mother's heart is pierced to its very depths as she spiritually shares in the brutal immolation of her innocent son. Hers is an immaculate heart which silently endures and offers this suffering with her son for the same heavenly purpose: to buy back the human race from sin.


Mary Co-redemptrix has been given her first international film debut in a supporting role, and it's a hit."




Source:
Dr. Mark Miravalle is a Professor of Theology and Mariology at Franciscan University of Steubenville.
http://www.cin.org/Miravalle.html (Catholic Information Network).

[Knight]

You definately weren't alone Cal....

I had issues with the movie in this regard as well. I do think that truth was presented in that it was an accurate portrayal of the suffering that Christ endured. (The physical suffering that is. I'm quite sure the spiritual separation that He endured is beyond our ability to completely grasp.)

The Evangelical community, even some of the Reformed stripe, seem to be missing the areas where this movie deviates from Scripture. It's passed off as artistic license. Some of it may very well be artistic license but there is a portion that is pure Catholic theology.

[Knight]

One more thing.....

Here is a link to a movie review written from the Reformed perspective. It's very good and gives a well-balanced view of this film.

http://www.aomin.org/BressonPassion.html

[Cal]

You definately weren't alone Cal....

I had issues with the movie in this regard as well.
I was beginning to wonder if I was just seeing a redemptrix behind every bush.

[jazzbird]

I understand where you're coming from. I however, did not come away from it with the same feeling as you. I feel that Mary's portrayal was handled well. What I saw, with regard to Mary's role, was a woman and a mother who loved her son. As a parent, do you not hurt when your child hurts? It is unimaginable to me what Mary went through seeing her son tortured and killed. She was a human being and I saw her humaness in this movie. Yes, her son was God incarnate, but He was also fully man. She raised Him and loved Him for over 30 years. Would she not be suffering as she followed Him to His death? I think that any portrayal of the Passion that leaves out Mary's experience would seem contrived. For many years, I was in the cast of a Passion Play in a Protestant church and Mary was present throughout His suffering. She suffered and weeped and cried out. Isn't that what Mary would have done?

I respect your opinions about all this, but I have felt for a long time that we Protestants react so much against the Catholic's veneration of her, that we ignore Mary entirely - like we almost pretend she doesn't exist. I agree that she has no place in our worship - she was a fallen human being in need of salvation, just like us. She was also a faithful woman, blessed by God. We talk about others in the Bible who were blessed by God - who were chosen for special tasks, yet we are afraid to talk about her. I'm not advocating that we all start paying more attention to Mary - I'm only saying that I think we can be too sensitive about her. She did suffer when Christ went to that cross, but that only points to her humaness. Her suffering had absolutely nothing to do with our redemption, and I didn't think that the movie said that it did.

Two things really struck me when I saw the movie:

1. The extent of Christ's suffering out of love for me - not just all of us, but me personally. I saw my own sin driving Him to that cross. I did not feel that the focus was taken off of His purpose in any way. I did not find Mary a distraction from the power of this purpose.

2. I saw the life changing impact He made in so many people through His relationships and even simple encounters. I had never before thought about how that soldier must have been changed as Jesus healed his ear in the garden....I had never thought about what it must have been like - really like - for Simon to carry that cross. How were their lives changed because of their encounter with Christ? I feel the same about His relationship with Mary in this movie. I felt that it showed the love of a mother - any mother - for her child, and it showed their relationship in a realistic way.

It's been almost three months since I've seen the movie - I will have to see it again and pay more attention to the issues you guys have brought up. Maybe I will agree with you more after seeing it again. The above was my gut reaction to the movie. I just didn't see the Co-Redemptrix aspect.

[Knight]

Jazz,

I do not dispute your views. You are correct in that the movie did portray Mary as a mother who cares for her son. No question there.

I also agree that Protestants, sometimes, can be too sensitive and overly downplay her role. Mary is to be respected and honored, not for the merit she possessed but for the way in which she was used by God.

However, it reamins that the portrayal of Mary in this movie is being used by RCC apologists to push the view of her that Cal mentioned. We simply need to be aware of that fact.

I also think we need to be aware of the extra-Scriptural material used in the movie. Any movie, play, skit, or the like that portrays these events (or any other Biblical event) needs to be tested under the standard of Scripture.

[BronxBriar]

I just wanted to say that is was nice to see an exchange of diverse views take place with no rancor or bitterness. I was edified and informed at the same time. Well done!

[jazzbird]

Knight - I see your point. I was discussing the personal reaction I had to the movie, and until this thread I wasn't even aware that Catholics were using it to promote their view of Mary. The movie had such an emotional impact on me upon first viewing and with such films it is easy to become so involved that you do not notice other qualities. Art is interpreted individually and I just didn't see the co-redemtrix element, but I can understand the concern that many Protestants feel, and next time I watch it I will try to be a bit more emotionally removed in order to observe what you and Cal are talking about.

[frost]

I understand where you're coming from. I however, did not come away from it with the same feeling as you. I feel that Mary's portrayal was handled well. What I saw, with regard to Mary's role, was a woman and a mother who loved her son. As a parent, do you not hurt when your child hurts? It is unimaginable to me what Mary went through seeing her son tortured and killed. She was a human being and I saw her humaness in this movie. Yes, her son was God incarnate, but He was also fully man. She raised Him and loved Him for over 30 years. Would she not be suffering as she followed Him to His death? .
I agree with this. I think many people who knew ahead of time about Mel's belief in Mary Co-Redemptrix, might see this in the movie. However, the rest of the people will just see a mother's anguish in her son's suffering. That's not to say I approved of the movie. Generally, I thought it was too violent with not enough flashbacks and not enough resurrection/post resurrection. I, however, did not see Mary's suffering linking to salvation in this movie.

[Cal]

I respect your opinions about all this, but I have felt for a long time that we Protestants react so much against the Catholic's veneration of her, that we ignore Mary entirely - like we almost pretend she doesn't exist. I agree that she has no place in our worship - she was a fallen human being in need of salvation, just like us. She was also a faithful woman, blessed by God. We talk about others in the Bible who were blessed by God - who were chosen for special tasks, yet we are afraid to talk about her. I'm not advocating that we all start paying more attention to Mary - I'm only saying that I think we can be too sensitive about her. She did suffer when Christ went to that cross, but that only points to her humaness. Her suffering had absolutely nothing to do with our redemption, and I didn't think that the movie said that it did.
I agree with you again Jazzbird, reformed Protestants for the most part pay too little attention to Mary. She is an excellent example for women.

But I must say, it really does anger me to see her portrayed as our redeemer. That is so far out of the realm of Scripture and takes away from the glory that belongs only to Jesus Christ that I am afraid it even tremondously angers the Father, whose intense desire was to give all glory, power and dominion to His Son.

Two things really struck me when I saw the movie:

1. The extent of Christ's suffering out of love for me - not just all of us, but me personally. I saw my own sin driving Him to that cross. I did not feel that the focus was taken off of His purpose in any way. I did not find Mary a distraction from the power of this purpose.

2. I saw the life changing impact He made in so many people through His relationships and even simple encounters. I had never before thought about how that soldier must have been changed as Jesus healed his ear in the garden....I had never thought about what it must have been like - really like - for Simon to carry that cross. How were their lives changed because of their encounter with Christ? I feel the same about His relationship with Mary in this movie. I felt that it showed the love of a mother - any mother - for her child, and it showed their relationship in a realistic way.
That is exactly how my 14 year old daughter felt when she saw it. As I said she rededicated her life to Christ after seeing it, and I don't want to take away from any of her experiences.

It's been almost three months since I've seen the movie - I will have to see it again and pay more attention to the issues you guys have brought up. Maybe I will agree with you more after seeing it again. The above was my gut reaction to the movie. I just didn't see the Co-Redemptrix aspect.
Yes, that might be good to do jazzbird. I always like to know the intent of movie makers, authors, musicians and artists. I want to know what they want me to see. They are creating something in order to say something and I don't want to miss it so I can fully appreciate their art.

Mel had many interviews and he made it plain that he wanted America to see a side of Mary that we have never seen before, as our redeemer with Jesus Christ. I don't want to miss what Mel wants me to see.

But I don't have to be happy over it! :mad:

[Cal]

Since everyone is giving their impressions of the movie, I wrote these impressions down immediately after seeing the movie without consulting with anyone yet I still believe they are accurate today:


"The following represents interpretive notes summarizing major scenes of Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of Christ.” These notes are an attempt to reveal what Mel Gibson is trying to get us to see from his movie.


The movie starts out with "ICON Productions" and then a picture of an ICON with the sound of a loud thunderclap that follows the image.

This was very appropriate give the number of Icon's in the movie. Icons have been a major problem for the Roman Catholic Church, it split the church during its early years and was the reason for the Islamic attack and defeat of the Christian Byzantine Empire. (Islam hates icons!)

At the beginning of the movie Mary is awoken suddenly and supernaturally in what appears to be her home when Christ's suffering has begun. She is shown in a house living with another woman by themselves with no husband or children or any relatives. It reminded me of a convent. In subsequent flashbacks, Mary and Jesus are shown entirely alone as if they also are living alone together with no father/husband or brothers or sisters. Jesus is even shown in a flashback building a table at home, which was His trade and calling, with no help, guidance or training from his father but instead from Mary who is shown reviewing and critiquing His work. Mary then offers Him further guidance and advise on his trade, and again with no husband/father in the picture. It reminded me again of a convent/monastery.


Anyway as Mary is awoken supernaturally at the beginning of the movie she states "Let it begin!" As if to know in some sort of omniscient way that suffering is to begin. She seems to acknowledge, allow and permit this suffering to begin. It also appears as if she acknowledging and permitting her own suffering to begin. Of course none of this is in the bible anywhere.


Throughout Christ's entire suffering ordeal Mary is present at every point. This is not in the bible. Mary is obviously in much pain, deep anguish and suffering in every scene along with Christ as He suffers. This is the doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix that both Mel and the Pope are both quoted to believe and of which Mel indicated he wanted to portray in this movie. The bible only mentions Mary one time during "The Passion of Christ" and that is at the foot of the cross along with his other disciples. So Mel's portrayal of Mary’s continual suffering and deep anguish alongside Christ and her continual following of Christ at every step of His way in His suffering is an "extra" idea added on to the true biblical account. Mary's portrayal of suffering was almost 50% of the movie which was shared with the other 50% of the movie portraying Christ's suffering. She was truly portrayed as a Co-Sufferer with Jesus Christ.


All the disciples called Mary "Mother" with a capital "M" throughout the movie. Of course this is the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary is the “Mother of God.” It goes like this; since Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is God then Mary is the Mother of God. Of course this is unbiblical because the bible only speaks of Mary being the mother of the human Jesus Christ giving Him His flesh and bone and God the Father being the Father of the Divine Jesus Christ.


Peter falls on his knees in front of Mary and confesses his sins to her of his denying Christ three times. Mary reaches out to touch and comfort Peter but he backs up on his knees saying he is unworthy of her. This is completely unbiblical. Peter never pay’s that type of homage, adoration and honor of Mary and when he denies Christ he runs away alone!


Mary is honored again. This time by the wife of Pontius Pilate! Pilate’s wife brings Mary towels while bowing her head in what appears to be a scene of deep honor, homage and adoration of Mary. Mary condescendingly smiles at Pilate’s wife as she takes the towels from her. Mary then uses the towels to wipe-up the blood of Christ. This is a portrayal of the supposedly source of a famous Roman Catholic tradition and relic. The famous relic of the Dark and Middle Ages was cloth with supposedly Christ’s blood on it that was “supernatural” and could be used to earn points to get out of purgatory and heal anyone who touched it. This Roman Catholic relic tradition was carried on from the Dark Ages, when it was “actually” conceived by Monks in monasteries, all the way up to the Reformation when it was cast down and revealed for what it really is. This relic traditional concept was continued by the Roman Catholic church to include the wiping up of martyred saints blood to be sold as relics under the same salvation and healing concept (Shakespeare ridicules it in Macbeth).


Mary then lies prostrate on the floor right above where Christ is chained to the ceiling on the second level right below her. This scene attempts to portray her superhuman, supernatural omniscience again. Christ looks up and knows Mary is there and again they both are shown suffering together for a few seconds. Of course once again none of this is in the bible.


When Christ is being beaten by Roman soldiers He falls to His knees. But suddenly He looks up and sees Mary! He then has the strength to stand back up on His feet to the great astonishment and amazement of the Roman soldiers who acclaim that it is a miracle. Mary strengthening Christ in His suffering is very unbiblical. But then the movie portrays her doing it again. As she continues to follow and suffer with Christ she sees Christ fall as He is carrying the cross. Mary stops her deep meditative anguish and suffering for a few seconds and rushes towards Christ and comforts and strengthens Him. Christ is then able to rise and continue carrying the cross. Again this is nowhere in the bible and is in fact a portrayal of Mary “participating” in the suffering of Christ as explained in the Co-Redemptrix doctrine. This scene in the movie also includes a flashback of Mary helping Jesus at home when Jesus fell down as a little boy, and again they are both alone with no husband/father, brothers or sisters in sight.


Mary then is able to see satan following Christ. Satan sees her and she sees satan. They stare at each other for almost an entire movie minute as they both follow Christ carrying the cross. Christ and Mary are the only one’s who can see satan in the movie, no one else can see him. Again, this is the portrayal of the Co-suffering of both Christ and Mary and their Co-participation as Co-Sufferers and Co-Redeemers in Mel’s Co-Redemptrix theology.


The source of another icon relic is portrayed by ICON Productions in their movie production of The Passion. A woman hands a towel to Christ to wipe His face. But instead of wiping His face in a “natural way” Christ only presses the towel directly to His face which we later see forms the outline of His face on the towel in blood. The next scene shows the woman holding the towel with Christ’s hair, eyes, nose, mouth and facial outline clearly visible on the towel in blood. Mel makes it a point to continue to show the facial impression on the towel for a few quick scenes. This is supposedly the source of the famous Roman Catholic relic of Christ’s facial impression on cloth. This relic was also used to release people from purgatory and heal people. Its formation was also in the Dark Age monasteries and was also cast down in the Reformation. Both these relics of Christ’s blood and facial impression along with several other relic’s are still used by the Roman Catholic Church today, however the Reformation has greatly reduced the credibility of their authenticity and value.


Mary and most of the women around her all looked like nuns. The dark robe covering their heads with the white trim on the inside of their hoods was very, very nun-like.


I also don’t believe Christ suffered those deep wounded scars all over His body. As Mel correctly portrays in the movie, when Christ is resurrected the only scars on His resurrected body are the scars of the cross. Why only those scars? Where did the other scars go? I believe Christ’s resurrected body was His body with His flesh and bones and with all the scars. Therefore, I think Mel’s portrayal of Christ’s suffering was greatly overly exaggerated. But Mel is not entirely to blame for this. Mel’s portrayal of “The Passion of Christ and Mary” is a direct account of the mystic vision of the Roman Catholic nun Sister Emmerich in the 18th century. Sister Emmerich wrote a full detailed account of her vision of Christ’s and Mary’s suffering in her book The Dolorous Passion.


Mel is not a plagiarizer though, he gives full credit to The Dolorous Passion as the basis for his movie. The newspapers have written just how amazingly close Mel’s movie is to The Dolorous Passion. They have indicated that if Mel wins an academy award for Best Director for this movie then Sister Emmerich’s The Dolorous Passion should win Best Screen Play. I agree!


The movie does portray that Christ suffered for our sins and I thought the portrayals of Pilate, Herod and the Jews were accurately based upon the bible.


If you like The Passion may I also recommend you see the Protestant version that came out last fall. It is a movie which is word for word from the Book of John. When I saw it I was convicted of so many sins I could hardly stand to continue watching it. I think it was because I was hearing the Word of God for four wonderful hours (it’s a long movie). It doesn’t have a famous director or famous actors and so it didn’t get all the fanfare of “The Passion,” but it was a great account of Jesus Christ and the Gospel.


Mel’s movie was much more entertaining than the Gospel of John movie but it did make me very mad and jealous for the glory that belongs to Jesus Christ alone!"

[jazzbird]

The intent of the author is pivotal to understanding the art.
That's argueable. :) Many believe that it is the response of the audience that creates meaning, and not the intention of the artist. I am somewhere in between this and your definition. Because of this, I think the movie is of value because of the responses of people like your daughter, me, and many others who had a very positive experience.

But I must say, it really does anger me to see her portrayed as our redeemer. That is so far out of the realm of Scripture and takes away from the glory that belongs only to Jesus Christ that I am afraid it even tremondously angers the Father, whose intense desire was to give all glory, power and dominion to His Son.

I agree. The things that you have brought up in this thread are troublesome. It's very unfortunate because I think the movie is very well done in many ways, and it is powerful.

Thanks for posting your thoughts and impressions from the movie. It was interesting to read.

[Cal]

That's argueable. :) Many believe that it is the response of the audience that creates meaning, and not the intention of the artist. I am somewhere in between this and your definition. Because of this, I think the movie is of value because of the responses of people like your daughter, me, and many others who had a very positive experience. I think what happened here is the Word of God cut through the muck and pierced the soul. My blessing was the muck was too much and the Sword pireced me in another way.

I agree. The things that you have brought up in this thread are troublesome. It's very unfortunate because I think the movie is very well done in many ways, and it is powerful.

Thanks for posting your thoughts and impressions from the movie. It was interesting to read. Thank you so much, and please be on the lookout for all the Mary homage and Mary as suffering redeemer scenes as well as, the Catholic "stations of the cross," and the icon creation scenes. I think you will be really sadly surprised at just how Roman Catholic this movie really was.

[oworm]

Mel Gibson says No Salvation without Rome



"There is no salvation for those outside the (Catholic) church. I believe it . . . . Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person thatn I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the (papal) chair. I go with it."

[Knight]

Do you have any reference information on that quote?

[oworm]

Do you have any reference information on that quote?
http://jacob.biola.edu/~jscott/nosalvation.htm

[thereselittleflower]

When I first saw The Passion I came out feeling disgusted and angry. All I saw was the Catholic Doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix and I went to see Jesus Christ glorified.
Cal, I am very sorry to hear you felt this way . . I feel great sorrow for you having experience such negative emotions at a film that has helped millions.


I pointed this out to my family and friends who responded that they did not see this at all, they loved the movie. My daughter even re-dedicated her life to Christ after watching the movie.
I think this was the goal of the movie . .to bring people back to Christ .. I am so glad to hear that your daughter was able to receive the message protrayed that Christ died for her sins and that she rededicated her life to Christ. That is a very powerful testimony to the witness of the Gospel portrayed in this film. I am very happy for you and your daughter.



For those of you who don't know, Mary Co-Redemptrix is a Catholic doctrine that teaches Mary participated with Jesus Christ in the salvation of mankind. She participated as our redeemer by suffering along side Christ for our sins. Her suffering was the result of our sins which she innocently paid for just like Christ as she watched Him suffer. Of course I don't believe this doctrine is Scriptual and therefore I am jealous for Jesus Christ and want to see Him only glorified.
I am very sorry to hear you misunderstand our doctrines and beliefs. You have not represented them correctly here.

May I recommend that anyone who wants to know what we really mean by Co-Redemtrix to please come to One Bread One Body and ask us . . what was presented above is not true . .


As I watched Mary following Christ and suffering with Him in the movie with great anquish, knowing Mel's Roman Catholicism and his belief in this doctrine and that none of those scene's were biblical, all I could think about was "Mary Co-Redemptrix."
I am so VERY sorry your misinformed understanding of our beliefs caused you to read into the movie elements that were not there, and caused you to be so angered and disgusted by it. All I can say is Thank God your daughter had not been adversely affected by your misunderstandings, else she may have never received the truth the movie proclaimed about Christ and rededicated her life to God as a result.



Well it looks like I was not alone. :cry:
Cal . . I can't find anything, anywhere in that article that presents Catholic beilefs the way you did above . .

Perhaps I missed it? Where are the statements in that article that say:

She participated as our redeemer by suffering along side Christ for our sins.

Her suffering was the result of our sins which she innocently paid for just like Christ as she watched Him suffer
That's not what Catholics believe, and I can't find it expressed in the article you quoted either . .

Well, I take that back . .after reading it again, I see that there is one line at the end . . unfortunately, the way it is worded lends itself to your understandig when divorced from the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but the way you understand it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church . .. I am sorry this priest who wrote this article saw fit to say it that way.

Again, I invite any who are intereseted in knowing what we really believe about Mary and what the theological term Co-Redemptrix means, to come and ask us about it in OBOB. :)

Regarding Mary and the movie . . of course, the bible tells us she suffered . . for it was prophesied that a sword would pierce her heart also . . and the movie shows she suffered as that sword was driven slowly into her heart . . but that is all I see . . :)


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

http://jacob.biola.edu/~jscott/nosalvation.htmWell, all I can say is that I am glad Mel Gibson is not infallible. :)

If anyone wants to better understand this issue about "no salvation outside the Church" and what it means to Catholics, not just one man, please come to OBOB (One Bread One Body) and ask us . . Mel Gibson's views are a little extreme in this and do not accurately represent the teaching of the Caatholic Church. :)


Peace in Him!'

[rnmomof7]

Perhaps I missed it? Where are the statements in that article that say:

She participated as our redeemer by suffering along side Christ for our sins.

Her suffering was the result of our sins which she innocently paid for just like Christ as she watched Him suffer
That's not what Catholics believe, and I can't find it expressed in the article you quoted either . .

Peace in Him!

Understand we would NEVER agree with that statement . She paid not one cent to our redemption in our beliefs.

Thank you for stopping by to visit, but this forum is not to debate Catholic doctrine , this is not the right forum.

This can be debated on the General Theology forum or the soteriology forum

Thanks

[thereselittleflower]

Understand we would NEVER agree with that statement . She paid not one cent to our redemption in our beliefs.
Hi!

I am not sure what you see as a disagrement .. we seem to be in agreement. :)



Thank you for stopping by to visit, but this forum is not to debate Catholic doctrine , this is not the right forum.
Thank you for your welcome. and I agree, this is not the place to debate Catholic doctine. :)


Peace in Him!

[bigsierra]

Just to clear up(not arguing doctrine)
I think Therese meant to have this in a quote box, quoting Cal

She participated as our redeemer by suffering along side Christ for our sins.

Her suffering was the result of our sins which she innocently paid for just like Christ as she watched Him suffer

and was saying, we don't believe that either ;)

[calgal]

Totally unscriptural. Mary was an imperfect vessel by which the redeeming grace of God could flow. No different than a William Tyndale, John Knox, Jean Chauvin, Martin Luther, Augustine or other famous theologian. Our term Soli Deo Gloria DOES NOT mean To God and Mary the glory but the glory to God ALONE. :clap: I found the movie a bit Catholic (and did recommend some devout RC's I know and like IRL see the movie) but God was and is able to use this imperfect vessel of a man made film about His Risen Son for His glory. That is the point here, not Mary's divine nature (I would say hers is a fallen nature and would happily back this up with Scripture). The Five Solas come up again and again. Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Christi, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria. :clap:



Just to clear up(not arguing doctrine)
I think Therese meant to have this in a quote box, quoting Cal



and was saying, we don't believe that either ;)

[thereselittleflower]

Just to clear up(not arguing doctrine)
I think Therese meant to have this in a quote box, quoting Cal



and was saying, we don't believe that either ;)
Hi Bigsierra . . yes, I was quoting Cal . . . I set his words off to indicate I was quoting him . . I thought that was clear . . thank you for trying to clear up any misconception. :)

We do not believe what Cal attributed to us as believing in those statements . .that was what I was trying to say .


Peace in Him!

[Knight]

The following is a quick review I wrote about the movie and posted on another site. I wrote this shortly after seeing the movie.

I saw the movie this past Thursday. It was moving, riveting, and all together powerful. No question about that. I did not cry during the move. (It's simply not my nature) However, the scene where the first nail is driven in was the most powerful for me. It always has been wether I see this in a movie or a Passion play.

I walked away from the theater feeling two things:

1) A sense of deep gratitude for what Christ did for me. He took the punnishment and separation from God that I deserve and placed it upon himself. In fact, this did not fully click until sometime the next day.

2) A sense of victory. This hit me immediately. Christ defeated sin and death. Praise Him! This is the reason for our joy. Christ died and rose again to bring us back into a relationship with Him.

No guilt, and definately no pity.

I am glad that this movie is prompting people to ask questions about Jesus. If this leads people to share the Gospel unto salvation then Praise the Lord. I also think it's important for Christians who have grown complacent in their walk to understand what He did to "buy them at a price."

That said, there were some things that I did not like about this movie:

1) The beginning makes you feel as though you've walked in during the middle of the story. There is little chance to see the actors established in their roles before the action starts. I found it difficult to make the connection early on in the film. IMO, if the movie had started at the Last Supper this would have been done better.

2) There were elements in the movie that were not in the Bible. Historical context is one thing but adding material that the Gospel writers themselves did not include is entirely different. Is it wrong? Not as long as it dosen't take away from the message. (Which I don't think it did.) Is it accurate? No, it's an interpretation. I could go on here but I trust that my point is made.

3) The symbolism of the baby. This has been described by Mel's publicist as symbolic of sin. (ref: www.christianitytoday.com (http://www.christianitytoday.com/)) How it looks good from afar but when you focus in on it you see how ugly it really is. No offence to Mel but if it required an email to his publicist to figure this out then it might as well have not been in the movie. (Again, this is my opinion.)

4) The resurrection scene was WAY too short. 12 seconds does not do justice to this event. I understand that the intent of this movie was to describe Christ's Passion (suffering). However, you cannot separate these events. Christ suffered for our sins, died, and rose again. In a two hour movie I would have liked to have seen at least 5 or 10 minutes devoted to the resurrection rather than a transition into the credits.

The movie was good and very well made. I would recomend it to all believers and to those who have questions about Christ. However, we need to understand that this is still a movie. It depicts the most significant events in human history but it is still a movie. It should never be a substitute for the Biblical accounts. Nor should it be considered infallable.

[bigsierra]

Ben-Hur is still my #1 choice. Not that I didn't like this one. I think it was very important, because it caused unbelievers to ask questions and had a major impact on some lives. Seeing Ben-Hur is like seeing a testimony. Really a different kind of movie, but I like the way they handled Jesus presence.

[Donny_B]

I have not seen the film, but have read some things about it.

A few observations that have been made:

(extra-Biblical or questionable events)

1. Satan tempts Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene. (where in scripture?)

2. Satan is depicted as a female (with a male voice).

3. The same Satan is shown in the crowd gathered in Pilate's courtyard carrying a child. (why?)

4. Jesus's right eye was battered shut, with only the left eye open. (Is Zech 11:17 a messianic prophecy??)

5. Instead of uttering "It is finished", "It is accomplished" (consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation?)

...there are many more errors (do a Google search of "passion left eye mel"), but these are a start. Is this just artistic license or are there hidden messages trying to be conveyed to the audience?

[thereselittleflower]

I have not seen the film, but have read some things about it.

A few observations that have been made:Hi . . I hope I can share some information that may help answer your questions and address the issues below.

(extra-Biblical or questionable events)

1. Satan tempts Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene. (where in scripture?) In Luke Jesus twice wakes his disciples up and warns them to pray so they don't enter into temptation and then returns to agonizing prayer himself.

The scriptures do not say that satan was there himself tempting Jesus, but they do allude to temptation being dealt with in the Garden.

But the purpose of Mel including this in the movie is several fold.



One, is that the movie abruptly starts in the Garden with no prelude . .so to introduce the idea that Jesus had been tempted by the devil several times, Mel demonstrates the devil's desire to tempt Jesus away from his ministry and purpose here in the movie. Mel uses creative license to demonstrate this in the opening scene of the movie. As "A Guide To The Passion 100 Questions About the Passion of the Christ" puts it:"The devil loves such "golden opportunities" to undermine our resolve when we are experiencing intense suffering." pg 13


It is the use of creative license to bring the audience up to speed on the relationship between Christ and Satan and their differing desires in relationship to God's plan for mankind.



2. Satan is depicted as a female (with a male voice).The part of Satan is ACTED by a female with a voice dub by a male . .both were chosen for the effect they would have in protraying this evil being.


3. The same Satan is shown in the crowd gathered in Pilate's courtyard carrying a child. (why?) Mel Gibson said it was to depict the opposite of all goodness . . he asked himself, what depicts goodness more than a mother with her baby? . .so he chose this to show how evil perverts that which is good and right.



4. Jesus's right eye was battered shut, with only the left eye open. (Is Zech 11:17 a messianic prophecy??) I have never read anywhere that Mel intended there to be a link between what was in the movie and this verse in scripture.



5. Instead of uttering "It is finished", "It is accomplished" (consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation?)I don't remember Jesus saying "It is accomplished" . . I remember Him saying "It is finished" and this is what the book I mentioned above also states he said in the movie.



...there are many more errors (do a Google search of "passion left eye mel"), but these are a start. Is this just artistic license or are there hidden messages trying to be conveyed to the audience?I think that anyone can find all sorts of hidden meanings in pictures, movies, etc, whether they are there or not.

The way Mel has described various parts of the movie, he was using artistic license to further carry the story into film medium. It is not easy to move from the written medium to film.


Peace in Him!

[Donny_B]

I don't remember Jesus saying "It is accomplished" . . I remember Him saying "It is finished" and this is what the book I mentioned above also states he said in the movie.


The movie review at http://movieweb.com/movies/film.php?577
states:
"...He overcomes his fear, looks at Mary, his Holy Mother, and makes the pronouncement which only she can fully understand, “it is accomplished.” He then dies: “into Thy hands I commend my Spirit.” At the moment of his death, nature itself overturns."

Again, I haven't seen the movie in person.

[thereselittleflower]

The movie review at http://movieweb.com/movies/film.php?577
states:
"...He overcomes his fear, looks at Mary, his Holy Mother, and makes the pronouncement which only she can fully understand, “it is accomplished.” He then dies: “into Thy hands I commend my Spirit.” At the moment of his death, nature itself overturns."

Again, I haven't seen the movie in person.
You know, I went and looked it up and yes, Mel had Jesus say It is accomplisehd.

So, I looked up the Greek word translated "finished" in the KJV and this is what I found:
G5055

τελέω

teleō

tel-eh'-o

From G5056; to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform.

"finish" is futher down the list than accomplish . . so its a matter of translation and choosing which word should be used.

I don't see that "accomplisehd" means somthing different from "finishesd" in this context . . . but perhaps I am missing something from your perspective.

We are used to hearing Jesus' words translated into English saying "it is finished" . . but I'm not seeing how translating them into English by saying "It is accomplished' changes the meaning of the words Jesus actually said on the cross . .

Is that the concern? That somehow the meaning of what Jesus said is changed by using this choice, "accomplish", to translate the word "teleō" ?


Peace in Him!

[Donny_B]

I was looking at John 19:30 in every English translation I could find, and they all use "finished"..even a Catholic one I found uses "finished". But, I remember "accomplished" was also used in the the TV miniseries Jesus of Nazareth. I guess it's just the "Hollywood versions" that use "accomplished".

[theseed]

I understand where you're coming from. I however, did not come away from it with the same feeling as you. I feel that Mary's portrayal was handled well. What I saw, with regard to Mary's role, was a woman and a mother who loved her son. As a parent, do you not hurt when your child hurts? It is unimaginable to me what Mary went through seeing her son tortured and killed

This was my thought too. Fortunately, you only understand the Catholic parts if your Catholic.-for the most part.

[theseed]

The movie was really powerful, and accurate in terms of Christ suffering, and in other areas. There was alot of symbolism tied in with RCC theology.

I just learned about co-redemptrix yesterday from this thread. I posted a thread in OBOB, and it eventually got locked up.

But what they told me was different from what I read on the internet. There are sites that teach that Mary is the only path to Christ.

I disagree with the assessment (Acts 4.12). The coredeptrix and mediatrix doctrine is not dogma yet, but it could be soon. There is a petition for it.

I'm kinda shocked to see how RCC Marian doctrine as grown throughout the centuries--especially when there was no basis for expanding the doctrine.

I think the RCC errs greatly in this respect of thier doctrine.

[Carrye]

But what they told me was different from what I read on the internet. There are sites that teach that Mary is the only path to Christ.
I'm glad you took that away, even if you still disagree. I definitely encourage you to (and hope you will) keep asking questions about Mary, or anything else for that matter, in OBOB.

And you're right, The Passion had a lot of Catholic theology in it because it was done by a man with Catholic ties. I wonder if it would've been as controversial of a movie if it had been made by a Protestant. The Gospel of John came out last year too, and it didn't have nearly the hype.

[calgal]

The movie was really powerful, and accurate in terms of Christ suffering, and in other areas. There was alot of symbolism tied in with RCC theology.

I just learned about co-redemptrix yesterday from this thread. I posted a thread in OBOB, and it eventually got locked up.

But what they told me was different from what I read on the internet. There are sites that teach that Mary is the only path to Christ.

I disagree with the assessment (Acts 4.12). The coredeptrix and mediatrix doctrine is not dogma yet, but it could be soon. There is a petition for it.

I'm kinda shocked to see how RCC Marian doctrine as grown throughout the centuries--especially when there was no basis for expanding the doctrine.

I think the RCC errs greatly in this respect of thier doctrine.
I agree. Mary as a semi divine being bothers me terribly. I never did understand the purpose of Hail Mary (All Hail King Jesus OTOH is scripturally correct). She was simply a sinful vessel (like the rest of us imperfect mortals) that God chose to magnify His glory. Where in scripture is she a coredemptrix? :eek:

[thereselittleflower]

I was looking at John 19:30 in every English translation I could find, and they all use "finished"..even a Catholic one I found uses "finished". But, I remember "accomplished" was also used in the the TV miniseries Jesus of Nazareth. I guess it's just the "Hollywood versions" that use "accomplished".
I don't know Donny . . I know one version that says "It is consummated" . .

It is interesting that Jesus of Nazareth used the same as The Passion did. . Thanks for sharing that. :)



Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

I agree. Mary as a semi divine being bothers me terribly. I never did understand the purpose of Hail Mary (All Hail King Jesus OTOH is scripturally correct). She was simply a sinful vessel (like the rest of us imperfect mortals) that God chose to magnify His glory. Where in scripture is she a coredemptrix? :eek:Hi

I realize that to you, it may appear that Mary is semi-divine to Catholics . .but I can assure you that we would be shocked to say such a thing ourselves. She is not even semi-divine to us . . :)

The Hail Mary is taken from the scripture passages in Luke, the Annunciation by the Angel Gabriel . .

"Hail Full of Grace the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women . ."

Then it adds what Elizabeth said

" . . .and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" then it adds Jesus.

Then we ask Mary to pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

The first part is straight from scripture, the second part merely asks her to pray for us.

I realize you do not hold to our belief in the communion of saints, but we believe the saints in heaven can pray for us.


As far as answering your question, it would take a lot more time and depth then we can do here . . it would be inappropriate for me to try to answer that question here.

Please come to OBOB and ask us there . . :)


Peace in Him!

[theseed]

I realize you do not hold to our belief in the communion of saints, but we believe the saints in heaven can pray for us.

That's not what communion of the saints means, its means that we share (communion) with other Christians. We find this in Acts 2.42ff. Not in the Aposltes Creed anyways.

This is why I don't pray to the saints or Saints.

Lev. 20
27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "



1 Chronicles 10:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1CHRON+10:13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD ; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance,



Leviticus 19:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+19:31&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
" 'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.

I am going to start another thread in CA :)

[thereselittleflower]

That's not what communion of the saints means, its means that we share (communion) with other Christians. We find this in Acts 2.42ff. Not in the Aposltes Creed anyways.Hi theseed . . of course, I can't debate our beliefs here . . however, sharing on an informational level, yes, the communion of saints, to the one's who wrote the Apostles Creed, meant that the body of Christ is undivided, and that the saints in heaven can hear our prayers and pray for us through the power and grace of God. The evidence of this is seen throughout the catacoombs of the Early Church. The term "communion of saints" is a theological term that was developed by, and belonged to, the first Christians.

I realize what it means to you as a protestant today and why, but I thought you would find it interesting to learn that is not what it meant to the earliest Christians.


If you would like to know more about this, please come to OBOB and ask. I think you will be surprised at what you learn.




Peace in Him!

[rnmomof7]

Hi theseed . . of course, I can't debate our beliefs here . . however, sharing on an informational level, yes, the communion of saints, to the one's who wrote the Apostles Creed, meant that the body of Christ is undivided, and that the saints in heaven can hear our prayers and pray for us through the power and grace of God. The evidence of this is seen throughout the catacoombs of the Early Church. The term "communion of saints" is a theological term that was developed by, and belonged to, the first Christians.

I realize what it means to you as a protestant today and why, but I thought you would find it interesting to learn that is not what it meant to the earliest Christians.


If you would like to know more about this, please come to OBOB and ask. I think you will be surprised at what you learn.




Peace in Him!


I think if there are more questions OBOB is the place to go. Our Refomed members need to understand that is they do choose to do that , they may not debate there either.


So anyone desiring to debate the meaning of the "communion of saints" will have to go to General Theology


Blessings and Peace to all here

[theseed]

I have started a thread in ecclesiology about praying to the saints.

http://www.christianforums.com/t688228