How much of the Passion movie reflected Catholic doctrine?

[Spirit and Truth]

Please give your opinion of how much of the movie was reflective of Catholic doctrine. If you like, please comment in the thread about in which scenes this occured and the exact % that you think it was overall. I am personally viewing any references from mystical writings as doctrine also.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

I have a good friend who is a former devout Catholic. He went through the Catholic educational system, and was an altar boy as well. The question I posed to him was if he thought that the movie was promoting 50% Catholic doctrine. His response was that it was more like 80%.

This link is the view of a former Catholic priest about the movie:

http://www.bereanbeacon.org

 

[MalkyEL]

It appeared to me as if about 80%, conservatively, of the movie is catholic, although I am starting at a lower percentage than I would like to. As I think back on the scenes, I cannot remember where there is a point that is not influenced by catholicism, or information that the mystic nuns did not supply toward the content.

One thing I noticed that I have not heard too much discussion on, is the appearance of the women, especially Mary. Her head covering appeared to be very nun-like with the strip of white and then black. Maybe I am a stickler for detail, but it also appeared that her head covering was "padded" to some extent, because it did not seem to be resting directly on her head but elevated in the back to give it a squarish look, for lack of a better term. This made it look very "nunish" to me.

It would be interesting to research what color of fabrics the Jewish women of that time period wore, and did it include black.

 

[Frogman]

From the posts and personal discussions I have had of this film, the sin is being particular.

I am particular, as in, Salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, that the endurance of the cross by the Son of God was is and always will have been by the eternal covenant between God the Father and God the Son (in essence the full agreement of the Godhead). That it has always before the foundation of the world (before creation) been the will of God for man to fall and for His only begotten son to come into the world and endure the cross and that this being set before the Son that he willingly laid down his life to that end because of the joy that was set before him.

To add even one instance to that work that suggests to the people of God or to the lost world that there is something else to be added to either this work or to what the preserved Word of God reveals to man concerning this work and then to proclaim that is merely artistic or a form of hollywood dramatic license and that completed in itself the word of God is reason to be particular.

I am missionary Baptist, by that I believe it is the duty of the church to send men into the world to preach the gospel. This movie containing the visions of nuns from an organization outside the church cannot enter into the Biblical command we call the Great Commission.

This movie is in support from beginning to end, of a creed, a doctrinal system that denies all I believe the Bible teaches concerning the suffering and sacrifice of the Son of God. This movie supports and provides through vivid imagery an unforgettable imprint of false doctrine.

But, then again, even doctrine is a dirty word in our modern times.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[donnA]

I am personally viewing any references from mystical writings as doctrine also.

In this case, none of it was from the bible, it was all from Emmerich's vision, although a few parts of the vision were from the bible, making some parts of the movie appear to be from the bible, but even those parts were written directly from her vision as the details were from the vision.
Error and falseness are never total, it wasn't in the garden of Eden, then as now it is always mixed some truths, if it weren't people would see right through it and not be decieved by it.

 

[Jailminister]

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

 

[Frogman]

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

But make sure the popcorn isn't microwaveable

Amen, Jailminister & Donna, that is what I have been saying all along, but apparently fiction is what is needed to 'attract' the lost to God through Christ.

I like the Old Paths and as much as the Grace of God will provide will remain seeking and walking in those paths.

Line upon line, precept upon precept---if that is legalism---then there is nothing but relative truth and that just ain't truth

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Johnv]

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

MY thoughts exactly. I'm glad to say I saw the movie and appreciated it very much. It was very powerful, very biblical, and very personal. But many naysayers will presume that to appreciate the movie in such a fashion is to replace the Bible with it. Not so at all, and no one has even suggested that. I highly recommend the movie to all people, christian and nonchristian alike, of discerning age. But I recommend it as a movie (powerful though it is), and not as a replacement for scripture. There is no replacement for scripture. Naysayers have implied that pro-passion viewers are saying it's a replacement for scripture, and that simply ain't so.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

John V:

It was very powerful, very biblical

S&T:

You must have seen a different version than I did. The version that I saw was "very mystical". If you would like, I will break the movie down, and show how much of the movie was non-biblical, and the sources that it was taken from.

 

[Johnv]

No thanks. I don't require "another person" to discern something for me. I base it on what I saw (not what YOU saw), compared to what I read in the Bible, and what I know of the extrabiblical historical facts concerning the roman society in Palestine of the time. I know nothing of Emmerich's writings, and have no interest in reading them.

Rather than me being convinced in my mind, you're trying to get me to be convinced in your mind. I don't appreciate it. You're welcome to be convinced in YOUR mind. Please keep it as such.

 

[dianetavegia]

Oh Johnv, don't you get it? About 7 people out of our 5,000 members are the only spritual and discerning folk around. The rest of us are just confused and misled.

I'm sick of these folk who seem to put words in the mouths of others and think we're so much less discerning than they that we can't figure out what was 'movie' and what was 'straight from scripture'.

Diane

 

[blackbird]

Diane--listen! I've been reading in---and I believe with all my heart that there is no one here trying to put words in mouths---its simply that as a preacher of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ--I can see the dangers that Catholic theology presents---its deadly heresey.

Let me give you an excerpt from a faithful Southern Baptist theologian---Dr. John Phillips---a walking theological Einstein---from his commentary entitled, "Exploring The Gospels: John" page 367 paragraph 3---commenting on the words Jesus spoke from the cross---"Woman, behold thy son! Son, behold thy mother!"---John 19:26-27

"In Rome there is a church devoted to the worship of Mary. It is one of the major churches in the city, the church of Mary Maggiore. It is the heart of worship of Mary, in the Roman Catholic church. In the courtyard of this church is a tall crucifix. On one side of this cross, high and lifted up, is a figure of Christ. On the other side of this cross, back to back with him, nailed to the cross with him, is a figure of the virgin Mary. Nor is this simply the expression of some artist's exaggerated enthusiasm for Mary. Official Roman Catholic dogma teaches not only the immaculate conception of "the blessed virgin Mary" and her bodily (corporeal) presence in heaven, not only that people should bow before her images, light candles to her, and pray to her, but they call her "co-redemptrix." By that the church of Rome means that Mary is just as much our redeemer as Christ."

Now, relate what you just read to the lines in the movie where Mary says, "Oh my son---let me die with you . . .!"

I'm not "stuffin'" you or anyone else---but why expose yourself to heresy just to get a morsel of bread?

Your Southern Baptist preachin' buddy always,
Brother David

 

[vaspers]

Johnv--I'm shocked and dismayed--my noble and worthy debate opponent--that you have no interest in examining A.C. Emmerich's THE DOLOROUS PASSION.

You are not one to slide past anything.

Are you sure you don't want to look at this mystic's writings--since they are a huge influence and inspiration for Mel Gibson's script and scenes in his film THE PASSION?

You must have a good reason for not wanting to compare Emmerich's writings with both scripture and the Passion film. I'm curious. What is your reason?

I examined her writings and was appalled at the racism ("little swarthy brown skin midgets drinking beer scourged Jesus," or words to that effect, not a totally exact quote, but close enough to encourage you to check it out).

At www.emmerich1.com I believe you will find the text, with a short biography of this unfortunate mis-guided soul. (is it dot com or dot org?)

 

[uhdum]

Originally posted by Frogman:
I like the Old Paths and as much as the Grace of God will provide will remain seeking and walking in those paths.

Line upon line, precept upon precept---if that is legalism---then there is nothing but relative truth and that just ain't truth

Bro. Dallas Eaton

Bro. Dallas, would you mind elaborating on your phrase, "the old paths?" I started a thread a few weeks back asking the meaning of this phrase (as it is often used on this board, primarily by IFB's) but did not receive a whole lot of response (thanks to those who did respond )

I have heard this term over and over, usually used in opposition to new Bible versions, contemporary music, or different issues of "separation" that many IFB folks focus on.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jailminister:
Sadly to say fiction becomes fact if it is not dealt with. That is why if you go see ANY movie or read any book(except the Bible). Just take it for what is and enjoy it. Just don't make it Gospel. Enjoy the popcorn.

MY thoughts exactly. I'm glad to say I saw the movie and appreciated it very much. It was very powerful, very biblical, and very personal. But many naysayers will presume that to appreciate the movie in such a fashion is to replace the Bible with it. Not so at all, and no one has even suggested that. I highly recommend the movie to all people, christian and nonchristian alike, of discerning age. But I recommend it as a movie (powerful though it is), and not as a replacement for scripture. There is no replacement for scripture. Naysayers have implied that pro-passion viewers are saying it's a replacement for scripture, and that simply ain't so. </font>[/QUOTE]JOHN, WE AGREE-----YEAH!!!!!!!!!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jailminister:
Sadly to say fiction becomes fact if it is not dealt with. That is why if you go see ANY movie or read any book(except the Bible). Just take it for what is and enjoy it. Just don't make it Gospel. Enjoy the popcorn.

MY thoughts exactly. I'm glad to say I saw the movie and appreciated it very much. It was very powerful, very biblical, and very personal. But many naysayers will presume that to appreciate the movie in such a fashion is to replace the Bible with it. Not so at all, and no one has even suggested that. I highly recommend the movie to all people, christian and nonchristian alike, of discerning age. But I recommend it as a movie (powerful though it is), and not as a replacement for scripture. There is no replacement for scripture. Naysayers have implied that pro-passion viewers are saying it's a replacement for scripture, and that simply ain't so. </font>[/QUOTE]Couldn't have said it better JohnV, even if I'm not from California; I hope you realize the California part is just joking. I love California and am jealous of your climate, especially if you are in the San Diego area. I used to do electronic work for the Navy out there and couldn't wait to go. After all, who else can claim Mr. Universe as governor.

 

[donnA]

There may be 5,000 members on the BB, but we all know they do not post. Only about 100 or fewer of those actually post, and quite a few of those saw biblical problems in this movie. Some of us still like to have whats called biblical to come from the bible, not money, as some have insinuated that 30 million $$$ buys the right to rewrite scripture, or to use a non scriptural source while calling it scripture.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Frogman:
From the posts and personal discussions I have had of this film, the sin is being particular.

I am particular, as in, Salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, that the endurance of the cross by the Son of God was is and always will have been by the eternal covenant between God the Father and God the Son (in essence the full agreement of the Godhead). That it has always before the foundation of the world (before creation) been the will of God for man to fall and for His only begotten son to come into the world and endure the cross and that this being set before the Son that he willingly laid down his life to that end because of the joy that was set before him.

To add even one instance to that work that suggests to the people of God or to the lost world that there is something else to be added to either this work or to what the preserved Word of God reveals to man concerning this work and then to proclaim that is merely artistic or a form of hollywood dramatic license and that completed in itself the word of God is reason to be particular.

I am missionary Baptist, by that I believe it is the duty of the church to send men into the world to preach the gospel. This movie containing the visions of nuns from an organization outside the church cannot enter into the Biblical command we call the Great Commission.

This movie is in support from beginning to end, of a creed, a doctrinal system that denies all I believe the Bible teaches concerning the suffering and sacrifice of the Son of God. This movie supports and provides through vivid imagery an unforgettable imprint of false doctrine.

But, then again, even doctrine is a dirty word in our modern times.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

Bro. Dallas I must say that I respect your beliefs and your demand not to give in, but I do not necessarily agree with you (as I am sure you already know.) I wonder if you would kindly answer a few questions that might help me understand why your feelings are so strong in this area. You have been ranting about the way the movie messes up Biblical doctrine so bad that it will take years to straighten out someone who sees it, but besides your ravings that it is doctrinally unsound, it is 100% against scripture (implied) and so forth, I would like a real analysis from you about the movie so that we all may understand what your problems really are. Now, be aware that since these are debating threads, that you will no doubt get specific responses back from me, but then again, I may agree with you (believe it or not.)

1) What specifically, throughout the movie is against Biblical doctrine? I know there are places, but why don't you actually make a list for us to see of specific scenes and a specific analysis of why each has such a negative effect on Biblical doctrine.

2) Do you not realize that there are millions of people that are going to see the movie whether or not it is Biblically accurate and that people in the real world are going to want to discuss Jesus more than ever for this period of time? That this just could be an opportunity to talk to people about Jesus who would not normally allow you to discuss even the subject of Christ at any other time?

3) Assume I am a lost person and I come to you and make one statement--tell me specifically in your own words how you would answer me. My question is: "Hey, Dallas, I saw that movie that Mel did about Jesus, man I didn't realize it, did they really beat him like that before they killed him?" (That's all I say. You answer and assume that I am lost and you know it and also that I'm a very worldly person who believes in evolution and thinks that believing in God is beneath my knowledge base; otherwise I think your nothing more than just a guy who pesters me trying to get me to go to that church of yours full of hypocrites.) Mind you, I am NOT saying YOUR church is full of hypocrites, I am ONLY stating the mind-set of the person you are talking to, which is VERY typical today in the secular world. Answer my question without me walking off.

4) Do you think that Christians should pro-actively discuss the movie with non-Christians when they will not talk about Jesus in past conversations with you?

5) Did you see the movie and what made you go in the first place if you thought it was a Catholic sinful movie--we all knew from the promotions about Mel that he was Catholic and what was going to be in it?

If you will just start here, then maybe we can have some useful dialogue and understand each other better. I have given you my reasons for liking the film and mentioned the parts of the film I had problems with, but all I've heard is a lot of raving and ranting about the movie in general. Please, by all means, give me some meat to chew on.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by donnA:
There may be 5,000 members on the BB, but we all know they do not post. Only about 100 or fewer of those actually post, and quite a few of those saw biblical problems in this movie. Some of us still like to have whats called biblical to come from the bible, not money, as some have insinuated that 30 million $$$ buys the right to rewrite scripture, or to use a non scriptural source while calling it scripture.

Let me ask you a couple of specific questions. First of all, I guess we ought to burn Lehaye's books, right?

Second, we all know this world and this country is going straight to hell faster than the Titanic headed toward the north sea. And, we also know that Hollywood and movie moguls are going to put out their trash regardless of what we do, including a LOT of just downright trash that should not be watched (let alone all the pornography that is now called television). Would you agree with me to this point?

Okay, assuming you do then why do you not see an opportunity to talk to Jesus to people who would not normally discuss Jesus at all unless they had gone to this movie? Millions are going to go see it whether or not we do--right? So, why do we take such a negative route and not use it as an advantage to educate people about who the real Jesus was?

I asked this question in another thread, I'll ask it again in case you missed it, but I'm asking YOU specifically: When you are in Heaven and Jesus is chatting with you which question do you think he is more likely to ask you?:

1) Did you go see that Catholic, undoctrinal film that Mel Gibson made about me showing them beat me to a pulp before I was killed and support that sinner by giving him your hard earned money?

or might he be more likely to ask:

2) About ten years ago when you were alive, your friend at work named Pamela (just using names--hope you don't know one personally) died last night and went to hell, do you remember that time when she saw that Mel Gibson movie and asked you what you thought about it and you told her it was the most un-Christian, Catholic and doctrinally incorrect movie you have ever seen concerning Me. Do you remember she walked away quietly while you stewed about that heathen movie. Well, did you realize that she was searching for me? Did I only die on the cross for you?

3) Finally, I ask you the same thing as Bro. Dallas. Assume I am lost and a worldly person, we know each other, but don't speak about the Bible because I am just too smart to believe in a God that floods the earth and makes an Adam and Eve and I know the earth is millions of years old and we came from one celled animals. I go see the movie and knowing you are a Christian, out of curiousity I want to see what you say, so I ask you what you think about that Mel Gibson movie where they beat Jesus to a pulp before they killed him? Give me the answer you will give me before I turn around and walk away from you because I think your nothing but a mouthy Christian that goes to a hypocritical church just like all those other "born agains" do. Tell me specifically how you would answer me.

I am not trying to be mean here, I am actually really trying to find out what you would do and how you would react in those situations, based on what you have said on the BB. Please, be as specific as you wish, I'm tough skinned I can take it.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
I have a good friend who is a former devout Catholic. He went through the Catholic educational system, and was an altar boy as well. The question I posed to him was if he thought that the movie was promoting 50% Catholic doctrine. His response was that it was more like 80%.

This link is the view of a former Catholic priest about the movie:

http://www.bereanbeacon.org

Does it ever occur to you that Catholics are like us in more ways than you want to admit?

A. They often sit in pews during church.

B. They pray during church.

C. They believe Christ was the Son of God.

D. They believe he rose from the dead on the third day.

E. They believe that Jesus was beat severely before being crucified.

f. They believed he was crucified on a hill outside of Jerusalem (proper) and died without having his legs broken and that a soldier stuck a spear in his side only to have blood and water come forth.

I could go on and on and on, of course, I could list the doctrinal differences just as easily, but what specific doctrine did YOU see in the movie and what specific scenes did YOU see in he movie that would cause a person to go astray? Please be SPECIFIC as to the scenes and what doctrines were being attacked.

Thank you,

Wow, this thread has been fun to respond to tonight. Now you guys can try to tear me up. But as JohnV's governor says: "I'll be baack!"