The Passion of Mel Gibson

Time Magazine ^ | 01/27/03 | RICHARD CORLISS; JEFF ISRAELY

[TheFilter]

It could win an Oscar for best foreign language film.

But to be frank, subtitles might be a good idea.

I can see the first negative review now: "The Book was better." ;)

[shezza]

I love seeing him stand up for his beliefs like this. He's too big in Hollywood for the powers-that-be to cross him on this one (no pun intended). He's too big in Hollywood precisely because he stands up for his beliefs. And, as Taffini pointed out, he's a good, decent guy who loves his wife and kids (six, is it?). I will gladly support Mel and his endeavors. ;o)

[Claire Voyant]

Our Tabernacle is ina SEPARATE BUILDING!!!! It's a disgrace....it's in a Chapel!!

I LOVE the fact that the actor playing Jesus was Blessed by the Pope!! Way to Go MEL!!!

[LuisBasco]

Some of the new monstrosities that pass for houses of worship have moved the tabernacle completely out of the sanctuary into a small enclave.

People genuflect towards the main altar completely unaware that such reverence is to be directed towards the tabernacle.

When they enter the "sanctuary" they continue to visit and talk in loud voices until the organ and choir commences singing the recessional which is customarily an old protestant hymn. I thank God for those old hymns and the occasional homily that deals with those forbidden subjects: sin and hell.

[LuisBasco]

Should have read your comment first, Liz.

[ppaul]

Looks good.....

Sounds bad.
The whole thing is in Aramaic, with no subtitles.
Sheesh!

[wideawake]

Only half of acting is in the words.

Granted the film won't be substanceless fluff that can be easily viewed and just as easily forgotten.

Rise to the challenge.

[ppaul]

:

THE DOLOROUS PASSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

:

[wideawake]

I don't get it. What's so holy about Latin?

For the millenium stretching from 1054 to 1970 Roman Catholics shared a common language of liturgical devotion and scholarly discussion. The use of Latin was a sign of Catholic unity and the hymns and prayers composed in that language and incorporated into the Mass are among the most beautiful and impressive literature ever written.

The Latin language is an incomparable treasure of the Catholic faith - as it has been lost, Catholics have lost a large measure of unity, orthodoxy and their sense of historical mission and heritage.

Latin was extremely practical as well - as the official language of the Church it shows no bias for or against any modern tongue. Because it is no longer used as a language of casual conversation, its semantic content is much more stable - it is hard to twist the meanings of words in Latin anymore.

Its use in the liturgy was a signal to Catholics that they had entered into a different place, a divine sanctuary. The worshipped in a language which they associated with sacred worship and the sacraments.

The study of the language was an excellent, broadening experience for young Catholics, and knowledge of Latin increases one's level of culture and intellectual discourse.

Latin is still kept as a sacred treasure of the Church by many - it's return to its rightful status as the common heritage of Catholics is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

[B-Chan]

Gibson is a more truculent Catholic. He scorns the Second Vatican Council, which in the 1960s replaced the Latin Mass with the liturgy in the language of the people and lots of perky folk songs. To Gibson, Vatican II "corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia."

Right freaking on, Mr. Gibson.

Although I do not "scorn" any Council of the Church, it's obvious that to some the so-called Spirit of VII was simply an excuse to open a Pandora's box of satanic infiltration into the Church -- many of the "reforms" seen since then have proven to be attempts to Protestantize, paganize, or otherwise dilute and destroy authentic Christian worship within the Body of Christ.

Well, the Arians thought they'd beaten Him too -- and they were wrong. Long after the fads and fancies are gone, the authentic Church will exist. As our parish priest wryly notes, "the Age of Aquarius can't go on forever".

[sheik yerbouty]

Rest assured, Mel will have subtitles.

[what's up]

it's return to its rightful status as the common heritage of Catholics is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

This may be true of the writer but not all Catholics.

Many Catholics would probably also prefer that the Bible not be translated into the common tongue; they may consider that the common tongue is not associated with sacred worship and devotion. However, disgruntled Christians who were being treated in a condescending manner by their leaders wanted to understand the truths of God a few centuries ago, not just recite them like a parrot or follow after a leader because he/she can orate in Latin.

I agree that Latin and other classical languages are extremely valuable for any person to study however I do not believe that the following statement is accurate:

worshipped in a language which they associated with sacred worship and the sacraments.

I think they realized that any language can be associated with worship and/or the sacraments. God does not understand just one language, as important historically as it may be. And He probably prefers to hear the common tongue, as it would be more representative of an individual's true heart and mind.

[ArrogantBustard]

Correction: In some areas, the Mass has become etc.

Liturgical abuse may be widespread, but is far from uniformly distributed.

[ArrogantBustard]

Quiz question, no cheating:

Which translation of the Bible, into English, is older?
a) Douay-Rheims (Catholic)
b) Authorized Version (Anglican/Protestant)

[what's up]

Don't know. But I am very interested in your answer.

Do you happen to know the date of the Tyndale translation? Also, I would like to know when Luther did his German translation.

[ArrogantBustard]

Don't know.

Didn't think so. You might want to find out, before making any more foolish remarks about what Catholics do or do not want.

[what's up]

Apparently, you're not so up on church history dates as I thought. And here I genuinely thought you were going to give me some good info.

I am an ex-Catholic and know a bit about that church. There was huge opposition to an English translation in the 1500's. But I forget...it is easier to call people names than engage in true debate, isn't it?

[ArrogantBustard]

You're the one ranting about Catholics not wanting the Bible translated into the common language, without any knowledge of Church history.


Work on the translation began in the 1570s; political trouble and occasional lack of funds caused it to be suspended from time to time. The New Testament was published in 1578; the Old Testament took rather longer. The entire Bible was published in 1609, two years before the "Authorised Version".

OBTW, that was hardly the first time the Catholic Church had the Bible translated into the "Common" language, so that it could be read by as many of the faithful as could read. Have you any idea when that was first done, and which languages were involved?

[what's up]

Since I was not able to get the information I was looking for from you I did a search: Here's an informative link: Bible Versions

[american spirit]

Turns out Mel's dad is a real patriotic gentleman and is not afraid to speak out on his beliefs regarding constitutional and sovereignty issues. He's been interviewed recently and seems to have a clear grasp on many of our country's problems as well as the globaloney spewed by many of the talking heads and politicians.