The Movie: You know which one.

[Suzannah]

The Passion of the Christ

Are you planning to see it? I have already bought my tickets!
Also, does anyone know if any of our Patriarchs have seen it and if so, what they feel about it?

[Orthodox Andrew]

I think it looks amazing! I can't wait to get it on DVD.:clap:

[MariaRegina]

Perhaps I'll get the DVD also. I have trouble with my distance vision; therefore, going to theaters is not my cup of tea, especially with the popcorn eaters, etc. I'd rather see it in the privacy of my home or at a private viewing in someone's home with fellow Orthodox.

[InnerPhyre]

I can't wait to see this movie.....tho I imagine I'll bawl like a child getting a tetanus shot.

[Suzannah]

I can't wait to see this movie.....tho I imagine I'll bawl like a child getting a tetanus shot.
You'll be in good company then! I've actually got a special bag "packed" with my bottled water, kleenex, and ziploc bag for used tissues, a small icon of St. Patrick (he's just always been very comforting to me personally), toastie socks and sweater.

As I understand it, many priests and pastors have come out of the screenings bawling their eyes out so I think we, none of us, have to be embarrassed. Billy Graham was reported to have the theatre crying, as well many others.

[Photini]

Sorry, couldn't vote because the right response wasn't up there for me.
No, I won't be seeing it, but it's not really because of the gore. It's because of the problem I already have with pushing images out of my mind when at prayer.

[MariaRegina]

Sorry, couldn't vote because the right response wasn't up there for me.
No, I won't be seeing it, but it's not really because of the gore. It's because of the problem I already have with pushing images out of my mind when at prayer.

Yes, we must be obedient to our spiritual fathers.

[Momzilla]

I will definitely go see it, hopefully with my Bible study group.

[Amandine]

I dunno... I want to see it, and somewhat agreed to go with my youth group...but I'm not sure if I can handle it.
-Catherine

[xenia]

>>>No, I won't be seeing it, but it's not really because of the gore. It's because of the problem I already have with pushing images out of my mind when at prayer.<<<

Wow, you managed to say in one succinct sentence what I have been trying to explain, in ineffective paragraphs, on other boards. I won't be seeing the The Passion for exactly the same reason.

-Xenia

[the_Abbot]

I am definetly going to go see this movie

[Reader Nilus]

I will see it when it comes out on DVD.
Jeff the Finn

[Matrona]

I'll see it if I get the chance--I wonder if I'll get one, since so many churches are buying up huge blocks of tickets, and my church is too tiny for something like that. Also, there is a mega-baptist church right down the street from the one theater around here that will be showing this film.

I hope it is worth all this trouble and hullabaloo. :)

[prodromos]

Like Photini and Xenia, I will not be seeing this movie.

Additionally, I have a pet peeve about it being in Aramaic and Latin. It completely ignores the legacy of Alexander the Great in making Greek the lingua franca all the way to India. Pontius Pilot would have been a native speaker of Greek coming from the Pontus region.

John.

[MariaRegina]

Like Photini and Xenia, I will not be seeing this movie.

Additionally, I have a pet peeve about it being in Aramaic and Latin. It completely ignores the legacy of Alexander the Great in making Greek the lingua franca all the way to India. Pontius Pilot would have been a native speaker of Greek coming from the Pontus region.

John.

Wasn't Latin considered to be the language of the uneducated at that time?

[prodromos]

My understanding is that Latin (even in Rome) was only really spoken by the upper class. Greek was the common language.

[Suzannah]

Prodromos: How interesting! I didn't know.regarding the languages..thanks for sharing your thoughts!
:)

[Niko]

i will definitly see it.

It will sell well. Not because of the movie, but the controversy it has stirred up. The movie can be bad but i think it would still be on the top 100 movies of all time.

[Maximus]

I will see it if I can, but I don't generally like movies about the life of our Lord.

They are always disappointing and fall way short of doing justice to the Gospel.

How could it be otherwise?

At least, from what I have heard, Mel Gibson is a pious man and a believer.

[Photini]

I actually was going to see it until recently. I mainly decided against seeing it after reading through this thread..(Read me) (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/6555/14410.html?1076601691).
My real concern is that (and especially it being so near to Pascha) during services and reading those passages in Scripture and during prayer, that I will have a hard time not setting the images of that movie before my heart's eyes. It will no doubt also play a number on my emotions...which can be easily mistaken for a true spritual experience. I'm already having a hard enough time without adding unnecessary struggles.

[Photini]

And also a problem for me, is the fact that they are claiming that this is an accurate portrayal of what is in Scripture. I'm not sure what to think about that, being that this is coming out of Hollywood. I don't see how just the Passion should be singled out like that, without also the Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension, and still be "accurate."

[MariaRegina]

And also a problem for me, is the fact that they are claiming that this is an accurate portrayal of what is in Scripture. I'm not sure what to think about that, being that this is coming out of Hollywood. I don't see how just the Passion should be singled out like that, without also the Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension, and still be "accurate."

Yes, the Crucifixion without the Resurrection would have been awful. No hope.

[prodromos]

Wasn't Latin considered to be the language of the uneducated at that time?

Dear Elizabeth,

here is a little bit of light reading (http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_ethnic_cleaning_of_roman_history.01.htm) on the Greekness of the Roman Empire.

There I go again, tempting you away from your studies ;)

John.

[prodromos]

And also a problem for me, is the fact that they are claiming that this is an accurate portrayal of what is in Scripture.

I have been given the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that the visions of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm) played a large role in the screenplay.

John.

[Photini]

I have been given the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that the visions of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm) played a large role in the screenplay.

John.
I'm not sure what to think of that either.


Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich was an Augustian nun who lived in Germany. She lived between 1774 to 1824. During her life, God gave her extensive visions of the past, the present and the future. Many theologians believe that she received from God more visions than any other saint. The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ are the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich concerning the Last Supper, the Agony in the Garden, the Arrest, the Scourging , the Crucifixion and the Ressurection of Jesus Christ. They are highly detailed and highly descriptive revealing to us more information about the Life of Jesus Christ besides what we read of Him in the Bible.


I didn't read any of it past this point.

[Patristic]

I plan on seeing the movie since I think I need to understand better exacly what our Lord went through. Too much of the imagery I have seen is too Victorian and I don't think it does enough justice to the brutality of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus. Anyways, my prayer is that I will better comprehend the immense suffering and torment Christ went through as he bore the sins of the entire world.

[countrymousenc]

Anyways, my prayer is that I will better comprehend the immense suffering and torment Christ went through as he bore the sins of the entire world.

I am hoping for the same. Even though I actually dread seeing such a graphic portrayal of what Christ endured for us, it's my prayer that every time I am tempted to sin, every time I am weak, that my memory of this film will help me to prevail. I am also praying that it will have a profound impact on my family.

[Photini]

Anyways, my prayer is that I will better comprehend the immense suffering and torment Christ went through as he bore the sins of the entire world.
Understanding that there is really no way that we could possibly comprehend it, I hope to also gain this...but not by seeing any movie, which plays on emotions and gives a false sense of spirituality...but through prayer, fasting, and the ways prescribed to us by our Church. Through divinely revealed and uncreated knowledge given to us by Christ Himself. This movie I do not trust, but the Church I do trust.

[OrthodoxTexan]

I've been waiting for this movie for a long time. I only wish that it would have been released as it was originally intended to be, that is without subtitles. But maybe I am just being artsy-fartsy.

I can see the point some have made about the intrusion of images during worship. However, for myself, an image of Gibson's portrayal of the Lord's Passion would be better than the images of my own passions that attack the quietness of my mind. Lord have mercy on me, the chiefest among sinners.

[Photini]

I've been waiting for this movie for a long time. I only wish that it would have been released as it was originally intended to be, that is without subtitles. But maybe I am just being artsy-fartsy.

I can see the point some have made about the intrusion of images during worship. However, for myself, an image of Gibson's portrayal of the Lord's Passion would be better than the images of my own passions that attack the quietness of my mind. Lord have mercy on me, the chiefest among sinners.
lol

You're right. Different people will be effected in different ways. I have an over-active imagination. Something that at one time I thought was a good thing, but now I see as a huge nuisance. (As I said in that other thread...Jurassic Park gave me a recurring dream for several years.) I am almost positive that the image of the movie would haunt me for a very long time, and even worse...replace the Orthodox image of Christ as shown in the Icons of the Crucifixion.

[Patristic]

Understanding that there is really no way that we could possibly comprehend it, I hope to also gain this...but not by seeing any movie, which plays on emotions and gives a false sense of spirituality...but through prayer, fasting, and the ways prescribed to us by our Church. Through divinely revealed and uncreated knowledge given to us by Christ Himself. This movie I do not trust, but the Church I do trust.

I agree! Nevertheless, I don't think this movie will promote an aggradizing false sense of spirituality in everyone, although it may do that in some. My whole desire for wanting to see this movie is that since my youth I have been exposed to austere and stoic recreations of Christ's passion where one could never really tell that He was suffering; It was as if His divine nature gobbled up His human nature during the crucifixion and He just bore everything He received without flinching. Gibson's portrayal of the event, although a personal artistic interpretation, strives to give us a glimpse of how gruesome and painful this event really was. He actually conducted a lot of research into how a crucifixion was conducted, how a person would suffer, and how they would eventually die. I am by no means going to accept his rendition as dogmatic or the final word, but I will view it in the hopes that I can better understand how Christ suffered and the immense pain and torment He went through while doing so.

[JillLars]

patristic, I will be seeing the movie for the same reason. We see the cross around many places, in churches, on necklaces, on other Christian paraphenilia, but I think a lot of times we forget that the cross back then is what the electric chair is today. I think we sometimes forget the horrible death that Christ suffered on that cross. Yes, it is a symbol of our salvation because Christ overcame that death, but we can never forget the pain and suffering he went through to give us that gift. I don't understand what it was like because people don't get crucified today, hopefully this will give me a glimpse of the horrible pain Christ went through to save me. I don't think it will create a false sense of faith, simply reinforce what I already know and believe.

[Patristic]

I don't understand what it was like because people don't get crucified today, hopefully this will give me a glimpse of the horrible pain Christ went through to save me. I don't think it will create a false sense of faith, simply reinforce what I already know and believe.

Amen!

[Matthias]

Nope, I won't be seeing it; the trailers for it bored me...

[Photini]

Surely the Church could have chosen to focus upon the bloody gore and horror of the Crucifixion, but guided by the Holy Spirit...it has not done this. I got this quote below from a link that is absolutely sickening. I wonder if seeing such things could eventually and maybe unconciously lead us to reject (especially new converts and potential converts) the Holy Icons of the Passion in this way...surely for some it may affect their sensitivity to them in some way. http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/passion.htm



The reason why Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ is such an important film is that it underscores the emotion, pain and passion of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Through the centuries Christian depictions of the Crucifixion of Christ became so decorative that they lost the original passion. Beautiful works of art indeed, but they became nearly bloodless with no evidence of real emotion or pain. Artistic depictions of the Passion were reduced to a mere religious symbols. These works of art have deep connection to the faithful, but no connection to rest of the world apart from their obvious decorative beauty. Neither of the depictions below have the crown of thorns, nor evidence of the whipping, nor emphasis on blood, pain or passion. All the characters look bored, even Jesus looks bored. Again, no passion

.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion/pic1.jpg http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion/pic2.jpg

[TWells]

I will most definitely be seeing the movie tomorrow as I have already bought tickets.

Photini, I really dont understand your perspective at all. Christians today have been completely desensitized to everything. Including the massive pain and suffering our Lord went through. And while Icons and Franciscian Cross's sure are pretty they completly leave out the true sacrifice God made when He "loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten Son...". It wasnt pretty, our God was beaten, tortured, humiliated then nailed to a tree completley naked for all to see and mock. That is our God, that is His glory and bloodless crucifixes with a slightly wimpering Jesus totally neglect that. The Passion is the model for our Christian life, its the symbol in which we model our own bearing of the Cross. It wasnt pretty for him nor should it be for us. Why should his agony always be portrayed as a slightly annoyed looking wimper? Personally I think this is exactly what is needed in American Christianity. We need to be shocked, we need to be slapped in the face, we need to be shown what we have forgotten and what the consequences of our forgetting can mean for the world. The Passion of our Lord and McWorld dont mix.

Does that mean that everything the Church does regarding the crucifixion and the Passion should be gory? No, but "ONE".. single movie...surely, surely that is ok. Surely its needed every once in a while.

Also, I am very visual and audio oriented. Its one of the reasons I love Holy Icons and Christian art like Michealangelo's 'Creation of Man' so much. They can say something spiritually far more powerfully that just reading about it . For me to see a film that portrays that period of history so accurately, visually in familiar images like the Blessed Virgin at the foot of the Cross with her hand open and with great music (which the soundtrack is beautifull) - that does a lot for me. Far more than another few hours of theological reading.

In Christ,

Travis

[MariaRegina]

My first Good Friday service (Holy Thursday Night) in the Holy Orthodox Church was very shocking. The Priests read the twelve Gospels which detail the Holy Passion of Christ our God, then the priest carried the Holy Cross in procession around the Church. The lights were out and it was very dark and quiet. Suddenly we heard a hammer, and some of the women started to cry. We didn't need to see blood. We knew that today Christ was nailed to the tree. Today is our salvation. Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him forever.

[Suzannah]

Chanter: Amen~!
Beautiful story...I hope to expereince that in my Church on Good Friday...what a beautiful and profound thought you had there! :)

[MariaRegina]

Thank you Suzannah and Photini.

May you all have a blessed and holy Lent. It's my favorite time of the year because we draw near to the Lord in repentance.

[Suzannah]

Quote: "You may not add to Chanter's reputation until you spread some more reputation around."

Me::mad:

[MariaRegina]

Quote: "You may not add to Chanter's reputation until you spread some more reputation around."

Me::mad:

Dear Suzannah: I got the same response!

[prodromos]

Photini, I really dont understand your perspective at all.

I understand it perfectly and am in complete agreement with Photini. The Gospel accounts include everything that is necessary and have nothing that is unnecessary. If the blood and gore were necessary the evangelists would have gone into detail.

The simple fact is, Christ died because it was the only way to get into Hades. He died publically so that there could be no doubt as to the truth of His subsequent resurrection. Crucifixion fit the bill perfectly. Yes He suffered, but was it any greater than His deigning to put on human flesh in the first place?

John (who is not holding to his fast very well so far)

[prodromos]

Quote: "You may not add to Chanter's reputation until you spread some more reputation around."

Me::mad:

Some people have obviously been abusing the system and bumping up each other's reputations, hence the restriction. Poor Erwin must throw his hands up in despair sometimes.

John.

[athbibleboy]

new member and a roughly three year Christian.

I was fortunate enough to see an advanced screening last night (tuesday) with my church group. in all actuality, the movie itself was what inspired me to join a Christian newsgroup.

I feel it necessary to warn people who are excited about seeing this movie, that it is not pure entertainment. it is ruthlessly violent so i would not take the children. however it is very accurate and moving overall. i don't want to spoil anyone from seeing the movie, by any means.

in fact i came away totally silent but with more resolve as a Christian.

we learn in sunday school about the crucifixion, but seeing it so graphically depicted was disturbing to say the least. to see this beautiful man. my savior. god made flesh. being tortured so graphically, and the things he went through made me weep. i cried through the last twenty minutes of the movie because i realized that it was I who did that to Him

the scourgings and the beatings and the torture were to pay for our sins. my sins. your sins. a man who had only ever done things to help people being treated so brutally moved me so much and He did it for me. for you. for all of us who are unworthy.

in essence i definitely recommend the movie to any Christian but non believers may not necessarily be inspired by it. they might just consider it brutally violent.

me personally i pray that this movie will inspire Christians to think on their lives. if Jesus was willing to do this for me, i should be willing to deny the tempatation of sin for Him.

thank you and may God bless all of you.

[JillLars]

If the blood and gore were necessary the evangelists would have gone into detail.
At the time the gospels were written, the immense suffering was implied because people knew about crucifixions and what they entailed, in today's society we wear crosses around our knecks with very little understanding of what they were actually used for. Now, if it were an electric chair, we'd have a better understanding, but because it happened 2,000 years ago, we are not able to fully grasp the sacrafice Christ made for us, he didn't just die of natural causes, he suffered and died, and we are not (nor do I believe we will ever be) able to fully understand the horror of the crucifixion.

[countrymousenc]

Surely the Church could have chosen to focus upon the bloody gore and horror of the Crucifixion, but guided by the Holy Spirit...it has not done this. I got this quote below from a link that is absolutely sickening. I wonder if seeing such things could eventually and maybe unconciously lead us to reject (especially new converts and potential converts) the Holy Icons of the Passion in this way...surely for some it may affect their sensitivity to them in some way. http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/passion.htm

.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion/pic1.jpg http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion/pic2.jpg



Photini, I see your point to a certain degree. I think the comments you quoted about the lack of passion in the icons - well, how does anyone not see the passion in them? Just pretty pictures? Someone's not connecting with those faces!

In fact, it isn't only the faces.

[Photini]

John and others,

I wonder if there has been or will eventually be any thought or article about this coming from the Holy Mountain. I have a strong tendancy to think that it will not receive raving support.

I hope i haven't come across as crazy here. But I have been trying to line up the thought of this movie and it's intentions (which are no doubt good intentions) with the thought and counsels of our Holy Fathers and Elders in Orthodoxy. The more I look into it, the more I see the two do not seem to line up at all, but are pretty contrary to each other.

[TWells]

Howdy John and Photini,

The Gospel accounts include everything that is necessary and have nothing that is unnecessary. If the blood and gore were necessary the evangelists would have gone into detail.

First, as someone pointed out earlier (and this is a gripe I have with a recent article that Frederica Green wrote for Beliefnet) the reason the Gospels simply state "...and they crucified him" is because the culture they were written in didnt need to have it described; it was a common reality for them.

I honestly believe that to cover up the crucifixion with pretty icons and paintings and to push it away because its "gory" or "violent" is partially what Paul's gripe with the Corthinians was about in 1 Cor. 1:23:

"but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles..."

Whether it appeals to our modern sensibilities or not, God chose the cross. He chose that particular way with all its bloody, gory detail to reconcile himself to us. If its wrong to portray the reality of it then it was wrong for God to do it in the first place.

Second, lets be honest. Its not like Christians (especially the Orthodox) are bombarded with bloody images of the Crucifixion. Of the more than 100 films that portray the Passion, this is the only one that depicts it realistically. Surely you can see some value in that?

The simple fact is, Christ died because it was the only way to get into Hades. He died publically so that there could be no doubt as to the truth of His subsequent resurrection.

The only purpose of the Cross wasnt just to get "into Hades". If God simply wanted a public execution he could have had Jesus been born a Roman citizen like Paul and we could all be wearing chopping blocks around our necks. I believe there was a much higher reason for God to choose one of the most horrifying, humiliating and painful forms of execution ever concieved of by man. Which is also the reason Passion is important and not that icky part Christians should hide in the closet. Because God at his most rejected, scorned, humiliated and bleeding to death naked is the moment in which God reveals more about himself and who He is than any scripture, liturgy or icon can ever reveal.

Yes He suffered, but was it any greater than His deigning to put on human flesh in the first place?

Of course it was John. The Incarnation wasnt simply what God had to do because we screwed up. The view of the Fathers was that the Incarnation would have been neccessary had the "fall" not even occured. Man would have always come to an impasse to where he could not progress in his deification until the union of the Logos with creation. What the 'fall' did do was add a "rescue operation" dimension to the Incarnation.

Photini:

I wonder if there has been or will eventually be any thought or article about this coming from the Holy Mountain. I have a strong tendancy to think that it will not receive raving support.

I have no doubt they will be critical of these "western" notions of the Passion.

I have been trying to line up the thought of this movie and it's intentions (which are no doubt good intentions) with the thought and counsels of our Holy Fathers and Elders in Orthodoxy. The more I look into it, the more I see the two do not seem to line up at all, but are pretty contrary to each other.

What writings of the Fathers would you be referring to? I dont remember reading anything by the Fathers stating that the crucifixion should only be depicted bloodlessly and with only an annoyed wimper on his face.

Athbibleboy:

in fact i came away totally silent but with more resolve as a Christian.

I'll pray for you and pray it will do the same for me.

In Christ,

Travis

[MariaRegina]

John and others,

I wonder if there has been or will eventually be any thought or article about this coming from the Holy Mountain. I have a strong tendancy to think that it will not receive raving support.

I hope i haven't come across as crazy here. But I have been trying to line up the thought of this movie and it's intentions (which are no doubt good intentions) with the thought and counsels of our Holy Fathers and Elders in Orthodoxy. The more I look into it, the more I see the two do not seem to line up at all, but are pretty contrary to each other.

Dear Photini,

Until a person has experienced the complete Holy Week in the Holy Orthodox Church as an Orthodox Christian, that person may not fully understand what you are trying to convey.

Starting with the Bridegroom services on Palm Sunday evening, Monday and Tuesday evenings, the Orthodox Christians worship the Suffering Bridegroom, our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a preparation for the rest of the week. In some churches, the Presanctified Liturgy is celebrated on Monday and Wednesday mornings. The Orthodox Christians experience the Seven Gospels on Wednesday evening, the Divine Liturgy on Holy Thursday morning, the Twelve Gospels of the Passion on Holy Thursday evening, the Good Friday morning, noon and mid-afternoon services and the Lamentations on Good Friday evening, followed by the quiet reading of the psalms at the Tomb of Christ in the all-night vigil on Good Friday until Holy Saturday morning. While the Catholics and Protestants have no services on Saturday morning, the Orthodox begin to celebrate the Holy Saturday Divine Liturgy with baptisms and the scattering of laurel leaves and rose petals with the proclamation: "Let God Arise and His enemies be scattered." Finally we come back to the Church for the celebration of the Holy Pascha.

Involvement in the full services of the Orthodox Holy Week is mentally, spiritually and physically exhausting. One is never the same. It is a life-changing experience.

There is a difference, throughout all these Lenten services, in the way the rest of Christendom looks at the events leading up to the death of our Savior. In Orthodoxy, there is expressed in song the joy of the Resurrection. We are never left without hope. It is a bright sadness. This cannot be conveyed on the big screen. Hence, the problem we Orthodox have with the blood and the gore of The Passion of the Christ. Sadly, this movie may further desensitize our teenagers who might look at it as another bloody movie to entertain them. Hopefully not, but there are too many movies that display violence and death.

Just something to think about....

Yours truly in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

[prodromos]

Dear Travis,

have you read On the Incarnation of the Word by Saint Athanasius (http://www.ccel.org/a/athanasius/incarnation/0content.html)?

I think you might find some of your opinions at odds with what he writes.

John.

[countrymousenc]

Travis,

just my 2 cents, for what it's worth. For a Jew (like Jesus) execution by hanging from a tree or wooden crossbeams put the one executed under the worst curse of the Law. Christ died to the Law so that believing Jews could do the same, in Him, and to erase the enmity between Jews and Gentiles that the Law created. We can't (thanks be to God eternally) ever truly look into that which was Jesus' greatest and truest suffering while He was tried, beaten, mocked and crucified. He has spared us.

[TWells]

Hey John, Chanter :wave:

have you read On the Incarnation of the Word by Saint Athanasius? I think you might find some of your opinions at odds with what he writes.

Yes, I have studied On the Incarnation quite a bit. Its what sparked my love for the Fathers. But im not exactly sure what part of my post you would be referring to.

Until a person has experienced the complete Holy Week in the Holy Orthodox Church as an Orthodox Christian, that person may not fully understand what you are trying to convey.

Chanter, I may only be a catechumen and havent experienced a complete Holy Week yet but I find it very silly to simply dismiss what I and others have said by claiming that we just "dont get it." Are you really willing to dismiss out of hand the spiritual signifigance of the Passion? Or the signifigance that the Western Church as ascribed to it? This really only furthers my belief that part of the reason many Orthodox dont like this movie is because its "western" or Catholic movie. If the West has over emphasized the Passion at the expense of the Ressurection, then the East could be equallly as guiltly of neglecting the Passion.

In Orthodoxy, there is expressed in song the joy of the Resurrection. We are never left without hope. It is a bright sadness. This cannot be conveyed on the big screen.

Once again I simply dont understand this. Dont you think you can get spiritual edification from meditating on both the Passion and the Ressuerection?? You seem to think one has to be seperated from the other. That leaves out the suffering aspect of our faith that finds its roots in the Passion of our Lord and is so central to it.

Sadly, this movie may further desensitize our teenagers who might look at it as another bloody movie to entertain them.

I know a few people that have seen this film and all walked away feeling they had a seen something religiously profound. Judging from the reaction generally that audiences are having toward it I see no basis for this at all. Teenagers become desencitized because of pointless violence that has no meaning and portrays the victims as nobodies. This film hardly does that.

In Christ,

Travis

[TWells]

Hey countrymousenc :wave:

just my 2 cents, for what it's worth. For a Jew (like Jesus) execution by hanging from a tree or wooden crossbeams put the one executed under the worst curse of the Law. Christ died to the Law so that believing Jews could do the same, in Him, and to erase the enmity between Jews and Gentiles that the Law created. We can't (thanks be to God eternally) ever truly look into that which was Jesus' greatest and truest suffering while He was tried, beaten, mocked and crucified. He has spared us.

I would agree totally. I dont think we will ever truly understand the proufound signifigance of the Passion and Ressuection of Christ.

Travis

[MariaRegina]

Hey John, Chanter :wave:

...

Chanter, I may only be a catechumen and havent experienced a complete Holy Week yet but I find it very silly to simply dismiss what I and others have said by claiming that we just "dont get it." Are you really willing to dismiss out of hand the spiritual signifigance of the Passion? Or the signifigance that the Western Church as ascribed to it? This really only furthers my belief that part of the reason many Orthodox dont like this movie is because its "western" or Catholic movie. If the West has over emphasized the Passion at the expense of the Ressurection, then the East could be equallly as guiltly of neglecting the Passion.

Once again I simply dont understand this. Dont you think you can get spiritual edification from meditating on both the Passion and the Ressuerection?? You seem to think one has to be seperated from the other. That leaves out the suffering aspect of our faith that finds its roots in the Passion of our Lord and is so central to it.

I know a few people that have seen this film and all walked away feeling they had a seen something religiously profound. Judging from the reaction generally that audiences are having toward it I see no basis for this at all. Teenagers become desencitized because of pointless violence that has no meaning and portrays the victims as nobodies. This film hardly does that.

In Christ,

Travis


Dear Travis:

I don't want you to think that I am debating with you. That is why I didn't mention your name before as I was responding to all the thoughts that are being expressed in this thread. What you are saying has validity, especially from a Western point of view.

Truly, I felt much the same way as you did when I was a catechumen. I really searched and studied East versus West before I was chrismated. It was difficult to understand the Eastern ethos. At times I honestly felt that I would never be chrismated because the differences seemed so large.

However, the experience of Holy Week in the Orthodox Church -- and over several years -- does have a profound effect.

Perhaps this might help:

Several priests told me that I could not acquire the "Orthodox mindset" until I had lived Orthodoxy -- until I had participated in the Holy Week services for several years. Orthodoxy is not acquired by watching a movie or reading a book. It is lived. It is attending weekly Divine Liturgies, praying and fasting, participating in parish activities, visiting the elderly, living in communion. Baptism and Chrismation are only the mysteries of initiation. Holy Communion leads us to theosis.

So Orthodoxy is more of a participation in the life of Christ -- not a passive reading or watching a movie.

And yes, I do believe the movie will have a profound effect. But I wonder, will the effect wear off because all these people (like in Christian Crusade) have no one to pastor them? Will this leave people feeling angry because they might feel that Christ died in vain -- because they do not see the Church as a reality, as a continuation of Christ's life here on earth. Christ came and established His Church, but His Holy Church is not really mentioned in the movie and I can understand why it wasn't.

The Church is the Bride of Christ, which was washed in His Blood. The Church leads us to Christ and nourishes us with His Body and Blood. I think Mel Gibson omitted the best part.

Forgive my rambling thoughts - I may be coming down with the flu.

Did this help?

Prayerfully yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

[Momzilla]

This is almost entirely OT, but Chanter, after reading your description of Holy Week, my only thought is that I can't wait to attend a Holy Week service this year at an orthodox church. Thank you for drawing me closer to orthodoxy! (and I hope you're not getting sick!)

[MariaRegina]

This is almost entirely OT, but Chanter, after reading your description of Holy Week, my only thought is that I can't wait to attend a Holy Week service this year at an orthodox church. Thank you for drawing me closer to orthodoxy! (and I hope you're not getting sick!)

Thanks Momzilla -- so many times I am just paraphrasing the Orthodox Priests who instructed me.

BTW: What does OT stand for? It couldn't be Old Testament in this application, could it?

A little confused here,

Elizabeth :scratch:

[nicodemus]

I didn't read everybody's posts in the thread, but I thought you all might like to read what my priest said about it:

Here's his email verbatim:

As to the movie, “The Passion”, which opens today,the
articles in recent bulletins have been put there to
show the reaction against the movie, sight unseen,
which reminds us of the hatred of Christ that is still
very real in the world. Do not assume I have
automatically endorsed the movie. It has been a good
opportunity, with Lent upon us, for discussing the
Orthodox teaching on the Cross (see Feb. bulletins).

The articles also suggested that Gibson has gone
overboard with the violence, whereas the Gospels are
very reticent in that aspect. That's an important
point. And this points to a different emphasis on the
Cross in the West as compared to Orthodoxy and the
ancient Church. The focus of the West since the schism
is on the extreme suffering and the vicarious
sacrifice (Christ is punished instead of us).
Orthodoxy focuses, as did the early Church, on
Christ’s sacrifice as His triumphant victory for us
against sin, death and the devil. Yes, His suffering
is real and fierce, but already people are saying the
movie “shows how it was”. Well, then people and the
movie are assuming a lot, if that’s the case.

Remember it is still a movie. One might go see it
during Lent some time, but the first week of Lent we
belong in church. Orthodoxy is not a Sunday religion.

In the Church is the only way Christ’s Passion will
ever heal us of our passions. Not by watching a movie.
And bare in mind, the only genuine spiritual
“experience” one can have from seeing it, is the
desire to repent of one’s sins and live anew for
Christ and in obedience to Him and the Church. Every
other “spiritual experience” is emotion that, however
sincere and heartfelt, will not save in the long run,
unless we have genuine repentance. That’s asking a lot
of a movie. Let’s not expect a movie to fix us (It may
indeed shock and horrify us - not sure how good that
is for our souls either...). But only Christ and the
Church can accomplish genuine healing and repentance.

[countrymousenc]

the only genuine spiritual “experience” one can have from seeing it, is the
desire to repent of one’s sins and live anew for Christ and in obedience to Him and the Church.

I agree.

[countrymousenc]

Hey countrymousenc :wave:



I would agree totally. I dont think we will ever truly understand the proufound signifigance of the Passion and Ressuection of Christ.

Travis

We never will, and I'm glad you agree. I'm not sure you entirely got my point. I seem to remember that in your first or second post on this thread you said something about icons being "pretty pictures." I don't get that at all, because when I look, I mean really look, at icons, I find it difficult to keep my eyes on those faces for very long. I see triumph after suffering, but it's a sober, serious triumph. I see love and compassion, and devotion. It's at least as powerful as our western realism.

[MariaRegina]

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/653662.html

Woman Collapses During Showing of "The Passion Of The Christ"
Wichita
KAKE News

This movie is not for the faint-hearted.

[nicodemus]

I'm getting less interested in this movie by the minute.

[Suzannah]

Nicodemus: You have a very wise priest. I loved this : "Every
other “spiritual experience” is emotion that, however
sincere and heartfelt, will not save in the long run,
unless we have genuine repentance."

I have been reading Fr. Seraphim on this very topic. Astute observation, and very profound.

I do still want to see the movie this weekend. But I have a much more subdued attitude toward it, after reading everyone's posts here. Christ is not tabloid material and we should never treat him so casually.

[Photini]

Christ is not tabloid material and we should never treat him so casually.
Isn't there a saying something like..."Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread."

[Suzannah]

:hug: Photini! Yes, I think it's in Proverbs! If it isn't, we Irish have lots of proverbs that will do as well


God prefers prayers to tears.

If you dig a grave for others you may fall into it yourself

There never came a gatherer but a scatterer came after him.

Everyone feels his own wound first.

[Photini]

TW,
I mainly refer to the writings of the Saints such as in the Philokalia. Also such as The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St John of the Ladder, Journey to Heaven by St Tikhon of Zadonsk, My Life in Christ by St John of Kronstadt, Unseen Warfare as revised by St Theophan the Recluse...etc. The spiritual life is developed gradually and carefully and I do not see where "shock therapy" with it's sudden ups and provoking of emotions plays into that. I am not condemning the movie, or saying it's bad. According to these Fathers, true repentance is born through much toil. "We fail to realize that he who seeks to see Christ should look not outside himself, but within himself, emulating Christ's life in this world, and becoming sinless in body and soul, as Christ was. His intellect should apprehend everything through Christ." ~St Peter of Damaskos

{edited: because of my wordiness.}

[athbibleboy]

I'm getting less interested in this movie by the minute.


please don't be. everyone has their own opinion, so just go see it and come away with your own opinion of it.

i was so moved by what our wonderful Lord went through, just for us.
Thank you Lord Jesus, for the gift of eternal life.


God Bless you all
Atnu

[athbibleboy]

Nicodemus: You have a very wise priest. I loved this : "Every
other “spiritual experience” is emotion that, however
sincere and heartfelt, will not save in the long run,
unless we have genuine repentance."

I have been reading Fr. Seraphim on this very topic. Astute observation, and very profound.


that is true. i had posted earlier that this film is NOT a witnessing tool. its not going to win anyone to Christ.

but as a Christian already, it does allow us to appreciate what our Lord did to give us our wonderful gift.

God bless you all
Atnu

[Momzilla]

What does OT stand for? It couldn't be Old Testament in this application, could it?

No, in this context it means "Off Topic"

[Oblio]

John David Powell
The Sunday of Forgiveness * 2004
Houston, Texas

Listen closely and you will hear the hoary hounds of Hell howling their hatred of an event that has not occurred. They cry out not at war or famine, not at injustice or crime. They bare their teeth over entertainment, a film, an interpretation of the last hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have tried with small success to avoid the hype and hysteria preceding the release of Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ". It was my hope to see the film free of self-serving influences. Alas, that will not be the case.

.
.
.

An anti-Mel/anti-Christian email prompted the column you now read. The email was a copy of an article carried by the online magazine Salon (www.salon.com). It is a classic example of leftist speech and godless commentary, written for the satisfaction of the types of folks Lenin called useful idiots.
.
.
.

Complete column can be read at Orthodoxy Today (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/PowellPassion.shtml)
---------------

BTW, I heard on NPR what I think was the Salon opinion that prompted the column piece. All I can say to the NPR piece is :rolleyes:

The gem in this column (all possible inaccuracies & misplaced emphasis in The Passion aside) is:


The fathers would stroke their beards and nod in understanding of "The Passion of the Christ" brouhaha. “Is no mystery here,” they would say. “Is Satan poking at us and distracting us. He really gets ticked off when we ignore him and turn our minds to God. Do not be deceived.”

[countrymousenc]

From the article at Orthodoxy Today:

The fact is this: These folks and their ilk are not troubled by Gibson or by his film; they are frightened by the possibility that someone may discover Christianity, or someone else may have his or her faith strengthened.

Another point to consider is the theology behind strength in numbers and how that relates to the power of prayer. This year is one of the occasional times when the conjunction of the Old and New calendars ( www.slocc.com/orthodoxy/oldcal.shtml) allows Eastern and Western Christians to observe Easter, or Pascha, at the same time. As a result, the entire Christian world travels together through Great Lent.

For some reason, this brings to mind a saying -

What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

[MariaRegina]

Just a thought ...

With all these millions of people viewing the Mel Gibson film The Passion, we should boldly proclaim our faith so that the unchurched will find a church. I've talked to a lot of angry ex-Christians who were evangelized by Christian Crusade (CC) and who left Christianity and Christ because they were never pastored, they never found a "home" in Christianity.

I guess the release of this film will cause an increase of hungry visitors to CF.

This film is profoundly disturbing:

To separate Christ from His Teachings, His Holy Mysteries, and His Church is dangerous. These "shocked" people need to find a Church home or they will turn against Christ. Mel Gibson couldn't put the Church in his film for obvious reasons. This separation of Christ from His Holy Church is the tremendous disadvantage of the film. You cannot separate the Bride (His Holy Church) from the Bridegroom (Christ).

[MariaRegina]

JAMES CARROLL
Christ's real passion was life

By James Carroll, 2/10/2004

JERUSALEM

CAN A PIOUS Christian make too much of the passion of the Christ? Can the suffering of Jesus be remembered as too bloody? Or too unique, for that matter? Can the crucifixion be made too central to Christian faith? Indeed, can that faith be distorted by an overemphasis on blood and cruelty into a perversion of the message Jesus preached -- or even into a source of new cruelty? These are questions in my mind as I sit outside the small chapel that marks the place where Jesus died. Sensational news stories and a clever publicity campaign lead me to associate Golgotha with Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ." I am aware of the danger of prejudgment, having not seen the film, yet Gibson's many comments and selective screenings of excerpts, which I have seen, are enough to have me thinking of it here. The possibility that the film levels the old "Christ-killer" charge against Jews prompted my first concern.

But an afternoon's meditation at the place where Christians have remembered the death of Jesus for 1,600 years raises the question of whether we have more broadly misused that memory. This shrine memorializing Golgotha is, in fact, a kind of side chapel in a much larger church that gives overwhelming emphasis to the memory of Jesus being raised from the dead. One sees that in the fact that the church is called the Holy Sepulcher by Latin Christians, indicating the tomb, not the execution place, and even more in the fact that Eastern Orthodox Christians call it the Church of the Resurrection. A celebration of the joy of resurrection trumps the grief of crucifixion in every way here.

In the first centuries of the church, the bloody crucifixion had little hold on the religious imagination of Christians.* Scratched on the walls of the ancient catacombs, for example, one finds drawings of the communion cup, the loaf of bread, the fish -- but rarely if ever the cross.

Early Christians revered the death of Jesus, of course, but they evoked it metaphorically, not literally, more with the image of going down into the waters of baptism than with nails and blood. The cross comes into the center of Christian symbolism only in the fourth century, with Constantine and his mother, Helena, who is remembered as having discovered it here, only yards from where I sit. But even then, the cross was taken more as a token of resurrection than of brutal death.

It was only in the medieval period that the Latin church began to put the violent death of Jesus at the center of faith, but that theology was tied to a broader cultural obsession with death related to plagues, millennialism, and the carnage of the Crusades. Grotesquely literal renditions of the crucifixion came into art only as self-flagellation and other "mortifications" came into devotion. Good Friday began to replace Easter as the high point of the liturgical year. And God came to be understood as so cruel as to will his son's agonizing death as the only way to "atone" for the sins of fallen humanity.

Such is the piety into which many Christians, including Catholics of my generation, were born. From all reports, it is the piety on display in Mel Gibson's movie. But in nothing have the reforms of the Second Vatican Council been more significant than in a rejection of that piety and a return of the Resurrection to the center of faith. That is why, in the Catholic Church, white vestments replaced black at funeral services, why Easter rites have been reemphasized, why the cross itself, in church architecture, is downplayed.

All of this is to say that death was not the purpose of Jesus' life but only one part of a story that stretches from incarnation at Bethlehem to life as a Jew in Nazareth to preaching in Galilee to a courageous challenge to Roman imperialism in Jerusalem to permanent faith in the God of Israel whose promise is fulfilled in resurrection. In this full context, the death of Jesus can be seen as a full signal of his humanity -- and more.

In being crucified, Jesus was not uniquely singled out for the most extreme suffering ever inflicted but was joined to thousands of his fellow Jews who said no to Rome -- and who suffered similarly for it.

Leaving aside questions of taste, or even of prurience in displays of graphic violence, any rendition of the death of Jesus that attributes sacred meaning to suffering or cruelty to "God's will," not to mention special guilt to Jews, is a betrayal of the real passions of Christ -- which were for truth, for love, and for life. Life, as he put it, to the full.
_______________________________________________________

James Carroll is a member of the Catholic Church.
_____________________________________________________
*This could have been said better by the author. The early Christians used the symbol of the Cross and it was not rare, but it was mostly a symbol of victory and not with Christ's body depicted on it. Before his conversion Saint Constantine asked his advisors the significance of the Cross the told him that it was, "the symbol of immortality and the victory over death that the Christ of God had recently accomplished."

[nicodemus]

Nicodemus: You have a very wise priest. There is no doubt about that, now if I can just get my stubborn, sinful self to heed him more often...

[TWells]

This film is profoundly disturbing:

To separate Christ from His Teachings, His Holy Mysteries, and His Church is dangerous. These "shocked" people need to find a Church home or they will turn against Christ. Mel Gibson couldn't put the Church in his film for obvious reasons. This separation of Christ from His Holy Church is the tremendous disadvantage of the film. You cannot separate the Bride (His Holy Church) from the Bridegroom (Christ).

Chanter, I cant help but think your going a little overboard in your negative attitude toward the film. The Church as Christ's family of believer's are represented well in the film (as is the Eucharist for that matter) and is lead by the Blessed Virgin who is always referred to as "Mother"

Also the victory of the Cross is well represented in the film. The driving theme is that Satan is defeated by Christ's suffering self giving love. One of the films best scene's
shows Satans defeat in Hades after his death. The Ressuerection follows immediately after.

Have you actually seen the film yet?

[MariaRegina]

Chanter, I cant help but think your going a little overboard in your negative attitude toward the film. The Church as Christ's family of believer's are represented well in the film (as is the Eucharist for that matter) and is lead by the Blessed Virgin who is always referred to as "Mother"

Also the victory of the Cross is well represented in the film. The driving theme is that Satan is defeated by Christ's suffering self giving love. One of the films best scene's
shows Satans defeat in Hades after his death. The Ressuerection follows immediately after.

Have you actually seen the film yet?

True the First Eucharist is mentioned, but what about all the seven Holy Mysteries - these really cannot be depicted on film anyway: Baptism, Chrismation (occurred at Pentecost), The Divine Liturgy (Eucharist), Holy Confession, Matrimony, Holy Order, Holy Unction. Do you see what I mean? Mel Gibson did not truly represent the Bride of Christ and the early Christian Church as a lived experience. This is the problem.

[TWells]

Hey :wave:

I just dont think that its a films place to do all that. Its just a movie, in fact it would be rather silly to try to cram all that into it.

[Matrona]

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I felt like I should put in my two euros somewhere, now that I finally saw The Movie last night.

It was, well, it was a movie. And I thought it was for the most part very well-done. I did cry at two points during the movie: when Christ said to His Mother, after she helped Him up, "See, Mother, how I make all things new..." and later on, during one of the flashbacks, when He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." After that I held it together until the end of the movie, and we had walked out to the car, and I started weeping again as soon as I sat down. (Thank heaven for all the tissues I brought with me.)

Oh, it really upset me when the woman was giving Him a cloth to dry His face (Holy Napkin!) but when she gave Him a drink of water, it was kicked away from Him by that stupid Roman soldier. You know, for some reason I had this really strong feeling that the woman handing Him the water was St. Photini. Hey, it sounds like something she'd do, since He had once offered her a drink of Water, remember? :)

I don't know why the scourging itself did not bother me. I guess from all the hype this movie got, I wasn't shocked by actually seeing it. It was like I wasn't really seeing it. Until they showed how part of His ribcage was exposed from all the beatings. And that was when I almost passed out right there in my seat. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There are two things that bother me, though, and in my mind they sort of spoil the film:

The first being, the Harrowing of Hell isn't really given enough attention. I know I'm not a professional, but I am a film student and I've made films before. I would have showed Christ trampling down death, and have Him say something to the effect of, "I'm the Author of Life; death can't hold Me" and gone from there.

The second is, of course, the Resurrection. Wow, was that ever anti-climactic or what?! A naked guy walking out of a cave! Well, whoopdeedoo! I'm sorry if this sounds too flippant, but really, that wasn't anything approaching what Pascha is for me. A naked guy walking out of a cave is nothing approaching that! Where are the myrrh-bearing women? Where is the angel saying "Why seek ye the Living among the dead? Why mourn ye the Incorruptible amid corruption?" Where's the "Pascha, ransom from sorrow!"?! CHRIST IS THE LIGHT THAT CAN NEVER BE OVERTAKEN BY NIGHT!

[countrymousenc]

There are two things that bother me, though, and in my mind they sort of spoil the film:

The first being, the Harrowing of Hell isn't really given enough attention. I know I'm not a professional, but I am a film student and I've made films before. I would have showed Christ trampling down death, and have Him say something to the effect of, "I'm the Author of Life; death can't hold Me" and gone from there.

The second is, of course, the Resurrection. Wow, was that ever anti-climactic or what?! A naked guy walking out of a cave! Well, whoopdeedoo! I'm sorry if this sounds too flippant, but really, that wasn't anything approaching what Pascha is for me. A naked guy walking out of a cave is nothing approaching that! Where are the myrrh-bearing women? Where is the angel saying "Why seek ye the Living among the dead? Why mourn ye the Incorruptible amid corruption?" Where's the "Pascha, ransom from sorrow!"?! CHRIST IS THE LIGHT THAT CAN NEVER BE OVERTAKEN BY NIGHT!

I haven't seen "The Passion" yet, but I like your suggestion about the Harrowing of Hell. The Resurrection scene I'd like to have been included would be Mary Magdalene asking Jesus (not yet recognizing Him) where the body had been taken, and Jesus saying her name, and the look on her face as she realized the truth. That must have been, well, indescribable. I love to think about it!

[Oblio]

The second is, of course, the Resurrection. Wow, was that ever anti-climactic or what?! A naked guy walking out of a cave! Well, whoopdeedoo! I'm sorry if this sounds too flippant, but really, that wasn't anything approaching what Pascha is for me. A naked guy walking out of a cave is nothing approaching that! Where are the myrrh-bearing women? Where is the angel saying "Why seek ye the Living among the dead? Why mourn ye the Incorruptible amid corruption?" Where's the "Pascha, ransom from sorrow!"?! CHRIST IS THE LIGHT THAT CAN NEVER BE OVERTAKEN BY NIGHT!


/me hums the Paschal hymn

The myrrh bearing women, at the break of day ...

:)

[Suzannah]

Great review Matrona! Thanks!

I had to reschedule my "attendance"....so hopefully will try to go over the weekend.

[Matrona]

Great review Matrona! Thanks!

I had to reschedule my "attendance"....so hopefully will try to go over the weekend.
:)

I would say "have a good time" or "hope you enjoy it" but I can't really say that about this movie. It's an experience, for sure.

I'm so glad my friends had enough tact not to bother me when I was crying in the car. When we were dropping someone else off, my friend turned back to me and asked, "So what did you think?" From crying, I looked and sounded like the wreck of the Hesperus, on top of having a bit of laryngitis. So I just looked up at him with a slightly pained expression and said, "You have to ask?"

[MariaRegina]

There are two things that bother me, though, and in my mind they sort of spoil the film:

The first being, the Harrowing of Hell isn't really given enough attention. I know I'm not a professional, but I am a film student and I've made films before. I would have showed Christ trampling down death, and have Him say something to the effect of, "I'm the Author of Life; death can't hold Me" and gone from there.

The second is, of course, the Resurrection. Wow, was that ever anti-climactic or what?! A naked guy walking out of a cave! Well, whoopdeedoo! I'm sorry if this sounds too flippant, but really, that wasn't anything approaching what Pascha is for me. A naked guy walking out of a cave is nothing approaching that! Where are the myrrh-bearing women? Where is the angel saying "Why seek ye the Living among the dead? Why mourn ye the Incorruptible amid corruption?" Where's the "Pascha, ransom from sorrow!"?! CHRIST IS THE LIGHT THAT CAN NEVER BE OVERTAKEN BY NIGHT!

Matrona --

They actually protrayed Christ walking out of the tomb in the nude? That's not scriptural -- that's not even glorious!

Do you recommend the film?

[OrthodoxSeeker]

My priest, after seeing the film himself, told the entire congregation to see it. I'm glad he did. (I would have seen it anyway).

I brought my 14 year old daughter and it was a MOST powerful experience for us both. We did not speak about our reactions and feelings until the next evening...talking about it too soon would have cheapened the experience I think. I would say we both found it to be a grace-filled experience. My wife, who saw it with friends two days later, also thought it was well done.

The very human and touching flashbacks saves the film from being too overwhelming. Grateful that I am not a fundamentalist it was easy to allow for some artistic license. Symbols and symbolic language are important are they not?

I highly recommend THE PASSION.

Regards,
Douglas

[Matrona]

Matrona --

They actually protrayed Christ walking out of the tomb in the nude? That's not scriptural -- that's not even glorious!

Do you recommend the film?
The Resurrection scene struck me as being very much an afterthought--it looks very tacked-on, like Mel Gibson just realized during post-production, "I guess we ought to put in the part where he came back from the dead, huh?".

They didn't show anything really bad during the Resurrection (it wasn't full nudity in either direction), but it was, well, pretty obvious that he wasn't even wearing a loincloth.

One thing with me, I don't like to criticize something unless I can think of a better way to do it. So I am going to read over the Gospels tonight and see if I can think of a better way that the Resurrection could have been put together.

Regardless, I give it a cautious recommendation. See it as long as you can tolerate seeing quite a lot of blood. I think the crucifixion itself was very well-done--even when Christ's precious hand had a nail through it and His cross was lifted up, you could see that he was forming the ICXC blessing with His fingers. Blessing those who murdered Him.

[brewmama]

A letter from Metropolitan PHILIP recommending all the faithful to see The Passion.

http://www.antiochian.org/News/Message20040302The_Passion_of_The_Christ.htm

I assume we'll hear this letter in church tomorrow.

[MariaRegina]

March 2, 2004


TO BE READ FROM THE PULPIT AND PUBLISHED IN THE CHURCH BULLETIN


Beloved Clergy and Faithful of our Archdiocese:

Greetings and blessings to you in the spirit of this Holy and Great Lenten season.

Shortly after the beginning of our journey with our Lord to Calvary and the empty tomb, Mel Gibson released his excellent film, “The Passion of The Christ.” This film raised many favorable, and at the same time, controversial questions; thus, I decided to see this movie and form my own opinion. The following is my observation:

I think that Mel Gibson has done an outstanding job. Ninety-five percent of the film is based on the biblical accounts recorded in the Gospels. We cannot distort history nor can we betray the hymnology of our church and the story which we relive every year during Holy Week. I advise our clergy and faithful to see this movie and share the suffering of our Lord and the joy of His Glorious Resurrection.

Yours in the Triumphant Christ,


+ Metropolitan PHILIP
Primate
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
of North America

[Note from Elizabeth: There has been no unified response from the other Metropolitans in the Greek and OCA Churches. This is only an advisory letter, not mandated.]

[brewmama]

JAMES CARROLL
Christ's real passion was life

By James Carroll, 2/10/2004

JERUSALEM.....

C______________________________________________________

James Carroll is a member of the Catholic Church.
_____________________________________________________
.


Chanter, I wouldn't use Carroll as a spokesman for the Catholic Church, as I understand he is a major enemy from within.

[MariaRegina]

Chanter, I wouldn't use Carroll as a spokesman for the Catholic Church, as I understand he is a major enemy from within.

This is the quote from the magazine. I had no idea. But I think this is the problem over at OBOB. There are Catholics, and Traditional Catholics like the SSPX, and then there are cafeteria Catholics and the three don't get along. I don't know where Carroll fits in this picture. I've never heard of him before.

The only spokesman for the Catholic Church is Pope John Paul II.

P.S. Please give the post number and thread whenever you quote something, so I can follow up. Otherwise, it is taken out of context. Was Carroll for or against the movie? Besides, isn't Gibson considered to be somewhat schizmatic or at least not in favor of the Novus Ordo Liturgy? Why do you bring this up? Is someone offended that I posted Carroll's opinions?

[brewmama]

This is the quote from the magazine. I had no idea. But I think this is the problem over at OBOB. There are Catholics, and Traditional Catholics like the SSPX, and then there are cafeteria Catholics and the three don't get along. I don't know where Carroll fits in this picture. I've never heard of him before.

The only spokesman for the Catholic Church is Pope John Paul II.

P.S. Please give the post number and thread whenever you quote something, so I can follow up. Otherwise, it is taken out of context. Was Carroll for or against the movie? Besides, isn't Gibson considered to be somewhat schizmatic or at least not in favor of the Novus Ordo Liturgy? Why do you bring this up? Is someone offended that I posted Carroll's opinions?

You posted it in this thread, I used the quote box for your quote. (?) What else do you want me to do?

Carroll is a liberal who is anti-pope and pro all the liberal stuff those types want the Church to embrace. No one has complained, but I have a problem with him myself, and if he speaks against the movie, I would take that as a recommendation to see it.

[MariaRegina]

You posted it in this thread, I used the quote box for your quote. (?) What else do you want me to do?

Carroll is a liberal who is anti-pope and pro all the liberal stuff those types want the Church to embrace. No one has complained, but I have a problem with him myself, and if he speaks against the movie, I would take that as a recommendation to see it.

I'm sorry - I do have a vision problem -- kindly tell me the post number.

I didn't know that Carroll is considered to be liberal, anti-pope and the rest. I've never read his stuff before. Where did you get the scoop on Carroll? What are your references?

Thanks for your help here, in advance. Honestly, I'm conservative. I'm just not yet convinced to see this movie as I read several well recommended Catholic books that had a lot of violence in them and ended up needing prayers of exorcism by my Orthodox Priest. So I'm rather cautious, but for a good reason.

[brewmama]

I'm sorry - I do have a vision problem -- kindly tell me the post number.

I didn't know that Carroll is considered to be liberal, anti-pope and the rest. I've never read his stuff before. Where did you get the scoop on Carroll? What are your references?

Thanks for your help here, in advance. Honestly, I'm conservative. I'm just not yet convinced to see this movie as I read several well recommended Catholic books that had a lot of violence in them and ended up needing prayers of exorcism by my Orthodox Priest. So I'm rather cautious, but for a good reason.


I can understand your reluctance on the squeamishness factor, I also know others who feel the same. But the liberals have come out full force against this movie also, and I don't want to give them any support or ammunition. They are pretty much 100% anti-Christian.

I have been reading of James Carroll in First Things magazine for quite awhile. Here are some search results on him by First Things. He trashed the early Church in Constantine's Sword.
http://switch2.netrics.com/cgi-bin/likeit.cgi

Oh, I think it was post 72

That link doesn't seem to work, I'll just copy it.




Search results for "James Carroll"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. FT February 2002: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll, perpetrator of the risible history of Christian anti–Semitism Constantine’s Sword, is a columnist for the Boston Globe. “This War Is Not Just” is a rehash of the usual arguments, but he adds the complaint that the government used the anthrax scare to justify the war on terrorism. “Now, the operating assumption is that the anthrax cases, unrelated to bin Laden, are domestic crimes, not acts of war. But for a crucial moment, they effectively played the role in this war that the

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0202/public.html
2. FT December 1999: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll is back at the stand the New Yorker gives him from time to time. The last time we took note, he was hawking dissident German theologian Hans Kng’s thesis that the Catholic Church should acknowledge "co–responsibility" with Hitler for the Holocaust. In a subsequent article, he takes up the canonization of Edith Stein in "The Saint and the Holocaust." There is the usual flapdoodle about the Church wanting to "Christianize" the Holocaust, but then comes a novel twist suggesting that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/public.html
3. FT August September 2002: Pius XII and the Holocaust and Popes and Politics (more matches on this page)

Sin, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword go further—to treat Pius’ supposed failings as an indication of the pathologies that permeate the Catholic Church as a whole. In the anti-papal diatribe he published in the January 21, 2002 issue of the New Republic (“What Would Jesus Have Done?”), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen took this strategy to a new level, seamlessly weaving together vicious attacks on the Pope and blatant anti-Catholicism (see Rychlak’s reply to Goldhagen in FT, June/July 2002).

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/reviews/dalin.html
4. FT April 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Andrew Sullivan reviews James Carroll’s fashionable trashing of Christianity, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. To be sure, Mr. Carroll, a former priest whose 756 pages are in the service of refashioning the Catholic Church according to what some still call “the spirit of Vatican II,” does not describe his book as a trashing. He writes more in sorrow than in anger, and so forth. In his review in the New York Times Book Review under the arrestingly original title “Christianity’s

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/public.html
5. FT November 2003: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

likes of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, James Carroll, and John Cornwell, who charge Pius XII with indifference, and even with crimes against humanity, during the Holocaust. In the present issue we publish Father Martin Rhonheimers assessment of less admirable dimensions of Catholic leadership during those times of terror. Yes, there were the rescuers; and yes, the record of Catholic leaders is far better than that of Protestants, especially in Germany; and yes, we must be exceedingly careful in

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0311/public.html
6. FT June/July 2002: Goldhagen v. Pius XII (more matches on this page)

Goldhagen was probably fooled by James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Carroll artfully states that the concordat was Nazi Germany’s first bilateral treaty. In fact, the Four Powers Pact between Germany, France, Italy, and England preceded the concordat’s signing. Moreover, Hitler’s representatives were fully accredited and recognized by the League of Nations and took part in the disarmament discussions in Geneva, which also came before the signing of the concordat. The Soviet Union on May 5,

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0206/articles/rychlak.html
7. Books in Review: Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (more matches on this page)

Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. By James Carroll. Houghton Mifflin. 756 pp. $20.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/reviews/noble.html
8. FT August/September 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Yes, I am intensely interested in, but I hope not obsessed by, the reception of James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. The other week at a Barnes Noble book signing for Death on a Friday Afternoon, copies of Carroll’s book were stacked six feet high at the entrance and the manager told me it is selling briskly. It seems likely that many minds and souls are being poisoned, for this is a deeply bad book. In addition to our own review by Thomas F. X. Noble (May), I have

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0108/public.html
9. FT December 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

recent books such as John Cornwall’s Hitler’s Pope, Garry Wills’ Papal Sins, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Cornwall and Wills leave no doubt that their motivation in attacking the papal office is to promote changes in Catholic teachings and practices from which they dissent. Carroll is more ambitious, advocating a wholesale recasting of the Christian gospel that eliminates the centrality of the Cross and Christ’s redemptive suffering. Their purposes are understandable, even if they

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0112/public.html
10. FT May 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Except for a few reviews such as Andrew Sullivan’s in the New York Times Book Review, James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword is taking an awful drubbing. And deservedly so. Our review in this issue makes points not made elsewhere, but already our Dan Moloney, writing in National Review, has highlighted historical and conceptual gaffes that wobble between the grotesque and hilarious. Elsewhere, in Slate, Katha Pollitt writes: “Carroll is welcome to rediscover—or invent—a form of Christianity that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/public.html


Results Page
· 1 ·2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · next page>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MariaRegina]

I can understand your reluctance on the squeamishness factor, I also know others who feel the same. But the liberals have come out full force against this movie also, and I don't want to give them any support or ammunition. They are pretty much 100% anti-Christian.

I have been reading of James Carroll in First Things magazine for quite awhile. Here are some search results on him by First Things. He trashed the early Church in Constantine's Sword.
http://switch2.netrics.com/cgi-bin/likeit.cgi

Oh, I think it was post 72

That link doesn't seem to work, I'll just copy it.




Search results for "James Carroll"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. FT February 2002: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll, perpetrator of the risible history of Christian anti–Semitism Constantine’s Sword, is a columnist for the Boston Globe. “This War Is Not Just” is a rehash of the usual arguments, but he adds the complaint that the government used the anthrax scare to justify the war on terrorism. “Now, the operating assumption is that the anthrax cases, unrelated to bin Laden, are domestic crimes, not acts of war. But for a crucial moment, they effectively played the role in this war that the

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0202/public.html
2. FT December 1999: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll is back at the stand the New Yorker gives him from time to time. The last time we took note, he was hawking dissident German theologian Hans Kng’s thesis that the Catholic Church should acknowledge "co–responsibility" with Hitler for the Holocaust. In a subsequent article, he takes up the canonization of Edith Stein in "The Saint and the Holocaust." There is the usual flapdoodle about the Church wanting to "Christianize" the Holocaust, but then comes a novel twist suggesting that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/public.html
3. FT August September 2002: Pius XII and the Holocaust and Popes and Politics (more matches on this page)

Sin, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword go further—to treat Pius’ supposed failings as an indication of the pathologies that permeate the Catholic Church as a whole. In the anti-papal diatribe he published in the January 21, 2002 issue of the New Republic (“What Would Jesus Have Done?”), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen took this strategy to a new level, seamlessly weaving together vicious attacks on the Pope and blatant anti-Catholicism (see Rychlak’s reply to Goldhagen in FT, June/July 2002).

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/reviews/dalin.html
4. FT April 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Andrew Sullivan reviews James Carroll’s fashionable trashing of Christianity, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. To be sure, Mr. Carroll, a former priest whose 756 pages are in the service of refashioning the Catholic Church according to what some still call “the spirit of Vatican II,” does not describe his book as a trashing. He writes more in sorrow than in anger, and so forth. In his review in the New York Times Book Review under the arrestingly original title “Christianity’s

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/public.html
5. FT November 2003: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

likes of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, James Carroll, and John Cornwell, who charge Pius XII with indifference, and even with crimes against humanity, during the Holocaust. In the present issue we publish Father Martin Rhonheimers assessment of less admirable dimensions of Catholic leadership during those times of terror. Yes, there were the rescuers; and yes, the record of Catholic leaders is far better than that of Protestants, especially in Germany; and yes, we must be exceedingly careful in

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0311/public.html
6. FT June/July 2002: Goldhagen v. Pius XII (more matches on this page)

Goldhagen was probably fooled by James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Carroll artfully states that the concordat was Nazi Germany’s first bilateral treaty. In fact, the Four Powers Pact between Germany, France, Italy, and England preceded the concordat’s signing. Moreover, Hitler’s representatives were fully accredited and recognized by the League of Nations and took part in the disarmament discussions in Geneva, which also came before the signing of the concordat. The Soviet Union on May 5,

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0206/articles/rychlak.html
7. Books in Review: Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (more matches on this page)

Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. By James Carroll. Houghton Mifflin. 756 pp. $20.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/reviews/noble.html
8. FT August/September 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Yes, I am intensely interested in, but I hope not obsessed by, the reception of James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. The other week at a Barnes Noble book signing for Death on a Friday Afternoon, copies of Carroll’s book were stacked six feet high at the entrance and the manager told me it is selling briskly. It seems likely that many minds and souls are being poisoned, for this is a deeply bad book. In addition to our own review by Thomas F. X. Noble (May), I have

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0108/public.html
9. FT December 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

recent books such as John Cornwall’s Hitler’s Pope, Garry Wills’ Papal Sins, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Cornwall and Wills leave no doubt that their motivation in attacking the papal office is to promote changes in Catholic teachings and practices from which they dissent. Carroll is more ambitious, advocating a wholesale recasting of the Christian gospel that eliminates the centrality of the Cross and Christ’s redemptive suffering. Their purposes are understandable, even if they

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0112/public.html
10. FT May 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Except for a few reviews such as Andrew Sullivan’s in the New York Times Book Review, James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword is taking an awful drubbing. And deservedly so. Our review in this issue makes points not made elsewhere, but already our Dan Moloney, writing in National Review, has highlighted historical and conceptual gaffes that wobble between the grotesque and hilarious. Elsewhere, in Slate, Katha Pollitt writes: “Carroll is welcome to rediscover—or invent—a form of Christianity that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/public.html


Thanks, Brewmama

It was post #72

When I first glanced through Carroll, he seemed to be siding with the Orthodox. Upon reading it a second time, I can see your concern. While he seems to be emphasizing the Resurrection (He sounded so Orthodox here, like a sly fox!) he seems to be saying that the Crucifixion wasn't really necessary at all (very unorthodox).

So thanks, Brewmama, for pointing this out.

Now how shall we handle this -- let post 72 remain -- or add this small addendum to post 72 as an editorial note to be wary?

Your call!

In Christ,
Elizabeth

[Suzannah]

Allright, finally got to see the Passion last night. I took my daughter and my husband.

First, I want to say that my daughter is extremely advanced for her age. She is 9. She also has been well prepared for this film, knowing the New Testament as well as a nine year old can. She has always understood the concept of the Crucifixtion as well as the important place it holds in Christianity. That being said, I would not allow just any kid to see this film for obvious reasons.

Yes, it was brutal. Yes, it was terribly violent. But here's my honest two cents: I have seen bloodier films. And this was not gratuitous violence. This was the Greatest Story ever told. I think the media hyped on this, simply as an excuse to attack a Christian film. The busy bodies of our society, those who want to "protect us from ourselves" are given way too much credit.

The film itself:

The imagery is purely traditional Catholic and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Gibson cannot possibly make an "Orthodox" movie. It is unfair to hold him to a standard that he does not embrace. The symbolism of the now infamous "baby" is a poetic license that I felt served the film extremely well, to show that Satan was mocking (and always will) the Holy Birth of Our Lord, and the Purity of Mary. I felt that this was an allusion to the idea that Satan is the opposite of Mary since God has no equal. The baby seemed to symbolize that "sin" was "born" into the world. Mary, being the Holy Mother of our Lord, the God Bearer who brought Jesus into the world, is his ultimate Adversary. If I missed the point of this, I can't help it, because I'm not Catholic, but this is what I felt Mr. Gibson was trying to portray in an artistic way, and I felt he did that very well.

There was so much "Bible" in this film I hardly know where to start. Jesus attacked by the serpent in Gethsemane, and he crushed it under his heel. (Genesis, somewhere...)

Once Jesus is arrested, the film does not let up in it's violence. Images that will probably stay with me forever:

Jesus building a "new fangled" table and Mary trying it out and joking, "This will never catch on..." : this is the Altar! This is our Inheritance!

Satan gliding around unseen through the company of the soldiers who are scourging Jesus....

The Holy Napkin!!!!

The soldier who turns, after Jesus falls, to see Mary helping him, saying "I'm here.." The soldier turns to someone and says with a genuine look of wonder on his face, "Who is She????"

Simon, who helps Jesus carry the Cross, the look on his face, when they reach the top....He runs away, not being able to bear, the knowledge that he has gained...He was an unbeliever, and by carrying this Cross, he has been illumined and you are left knowing that this man was never the same.

In all, I can say that the violence in this film is very, very personal. It is very difficult to watch it, even though we have seen blood and gore, like this before...It is different. His Blood is different.

I wept from beginning to end. My husband left a much more thoughtful person. We haven't really talked about what we saw, except to explain the more difficult parts to our daughter.

My daughter's reaction: She cried in many parts of the film. But before she went to bed she came to me and said, "Jesus isn't dead! And I saw Satan all alone in Hell. Jesus is not in that grave and He went to Heaven, so I'm not going to have any nightmares."

This is a powerful film and I recommend it completely to anyone.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Michael the Iconographer]

Half way through Great Lent, and I finally got arround to going to see the film. I went alone, my wife was not sure she wanted to see it. The Movie was definitely Catholic. It was like a living version of the "stations of the cross." I agree with Suzannah, how can a Catholic make an Orthodox movie? The points that Suzannah pointed out all stuck out to me, especially the Holy Napkin (Mandylion). I think the role of Simon Cyrene was very well played, with him helping Christ with the cross and seemingly walking away a believer due to the experience. Mel did an excellent job showing the love of the Theotokus for her Son. That did alot to help heal the relationship I have with the Theotokus which has been so damaged by all the years growing up Catholic (all of my adverse reactions to maryolatry and the idea of Mediatrix of All Graces, etc.) The violence was strong, but I understand the point he was trying to make. By His wounds we were healed. The Roman soldiers were made out to be sadists. They seemed to get high on the brutality. The Jewish leaders were made out to be the arrogant beings the Gospel describes them as being. But he didn't put very much emphasis on the Resurrection! In that part Mel could have used a healthy dose of Orthodoxy! Also, while the earthquake was well done, I don't think he did enough to show the world mourning the loss of Christ. I thought the sky should have totally turned to night and a nasty strom blown through. He could have done more to emphasize that. I found it interesting the Noble Joseph was portrayed as walking away from the trial after he tried to defend Christ. I also was disappointed that the Roman Centurion, the Martyr Longinus, did not say "Truly this was the Son of God" while kneeling in front of the cross. Finally, Mary Magdalene was very well done. I guess I have gone on long enough about the film. I would give it a B+, only an Orthodox version would get an A from me. Ok, I am biased :)
Peace,
Michael