Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Jesus War (New Yorker Piece on Mel Gibson, "The Passion")
The New Yorker ^ | September 15, 2003 | Peter J. Boyer

Posted on 09/11/2003 4:25:18 PM PDT by Greg Luzinski

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: Campion
Seems odd to boot.

Mel is obviously going far out of his way to court evangelicals on this film. The crass-minded would say that he's just building a customer base for his product; but this is clearly a labor of love for Mel. Is he just proselytizing?

How seriously does he believe that salvation is impossible outside the Church? It would be interesting to see someone explore this with him.

Since the manstream press won't, it might be worthwhile for Crisis or First Things or even New Oxford Review to interview him on the subject.

51 posted on 09/12/2003 12:01:37 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
How seriously does he believe that salvation is impossible outside the Church?

Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church. He's only wrong in assuming he (Mel) knows who's outside the Church and who's inside. :-) Only He (God) knows that for sure.

52 posted on 09/12/2003 12:05:12 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Good point.

Of course, that leaves the question of virtuous folk pre or post-Christ who have never had the chance to hear the Good News...

53 posted on 09/12/2003 12:26:02 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: karenbarinka
I've respected Mel since he was the only one at the Academy Awards 3 years ago with the decency to look disgusted and embarrassed as tolerant Hollywood presented award after award to a pro-abortion movie.

Which movie was that?
54 posted on 09/12/2003 12:40:37 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Cider House Rules?
55 posted on 09/12/2003 12:49:58 PM PDT by The Right Stuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Do you suppose he is as concerned about anti-German sentiment that might arise from the next holocaust film?

Good point. No, I doubt he gives a rat's pattotie. Southerners, Christians, and I guess Nazis are all pretty much the same in the mind of the left.

56 posted on 09/12/2003 1:10:27 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Campion; truecompassion; DallasMike; The Iguana
Campion wrote:

Mel's pretty clearly a better moviemaker than he is a theologian.

I mean, this position of his (technically called "Feeneyism" by Catholics) puts him squarely against such dangerously heretical liberal Catholics as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII.



To Campion

Your accusation, that Mel is a Feeneyite, is rash. Mel most certainly does not ascribe to Leonard Feeney’s heresy. Neither does his much maligned father, Hutton Gibson, who regularly takes the Feeneyites to task in his newsletter. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” is De fide. The teaching of the Popes that you mention is presented below. Mel’s comments show that he is faithful to Pius IX's declaration: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation." I am concerned about your posting because it indicates confusion about Feeney’s heresy and/or Magisterial teaching on this matter. If you believe the confusion is mine, a sincere reply would be appreciated.

As I have seen it presented by Feeney and its advocates, the Feeneyite heresy insists on sacramental baptism for membership in the Church, as opposed to St. Thomas’ “baptism of desire” and the teaching of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine that catechumens, who die before they attain sacramental baptism, can win salvation on the ground of their faith, their desire for Baptism, and their internal conversion. This was Feeney’s error. Not “outside the Church there is no salvation,” which all Catholics are required to believe.

The following is posted as it is presented in Dr. Ludwig Ott’s, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

“Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation (De fide.)

“In the Caput Firmiter, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved,” (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). D 430. [D = Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma] This was the teaching also of the Union Council of Florence (D 714), and of Popes Innocent III (D 423) and Boniface VIII in the Bull “Unam sanctam” (D 468), Clement VI (D 570 b), Benedict XIV (D 1473), Pius IX (D 1647, 1677), Leo XIII (D 1955), Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporus” (D 2286, 2288). As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord” (D 1647). The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation Cf. D 1677; 796 (votum baptismi).

“The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti), but also a necessity of means (nec. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invicible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same...

"It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well...

"As against the reproach of intolerance a distinction must be made between dogmatic and civil tolerance. The Church rejects the dogmatic tolerance which would concede the same power of justification and the same value to all religion, or to all Christian confessions (Indifferentism); for there is only one truth."
57 posted on 09/12/2003 5:12:56 PM PDT by Aestus Veritatis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Aestus Veritatis; Campion; truecompassion; The Iguana
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation."

But Vatican II expressly allows for the possibility of salvation -- not only for non-Roman Catholic Christians -- but also for Jews, Muslims, pagans, and even those without an "explicit knowledge of God." (link)

Compare this with Unam Sanctum's "it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." (link)

These two doctrines are in direct contradiction with one another and cannot be reconciled. Gibson must be conflicted with his desire to follow the Roman Catholic Church and his apparent rejection, at least in part, of Vatican II. He understands -- and rightly so -- that the teachings of the Catholic Church since the 14th century or so and Vatican II cannot both be true.

I can't wait to see this movie but these theological sleights-of-hand make me glad to be a Protestant.


58 posted on 09/12/2003 7:54:47 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church. He's only wrong in assuming he (Mel) knows who's outside the Church and who's inside. :-) Only He (God) knows that for sure.

Excellent statement.

59 posted on 09/12/2003 7:56:25 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
As C.S. Lewis said (or had George MacDonald say) in The Great Divorce, "there is no soul in Hell to whom he did not preach."
60 posted on 09/12/2003 8:18:20 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Well stated. As a good faithful priest of my acquaintance once said, "That's not our problem. That's God's problem."

Folks need to quit speculating about who's in and who's out and just do their duty.

61 posted on 09/12/2003 8:19:43 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
I ditto the AMEN. Mel and his cohorts may not have any letters following their name, but I don't remember Jesus nor any of his followers having them either. I guess his academic critics already know that. As I continue to work on my doctorate in Christian Education I find that our intellectual egos can sometimes hinder our faith and often veil us from real truth and knowledge of historical fact.
62 posted on 09/16/2003 8:47:19 AM PDT by Rev. Friend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled The Jesus War (New Yorker Piece on Mel Gibson, "The Passion"), The Iguana wrote:
"Good point."
"Of course, that leaves the question of virtuous folk pre or post-Christ who have never had the chance to hear the Good News..."

It's not enough just to be good. You have to enter into the Covenant, and be born again, of the water and of the spirit (John 3:5). Since the requirement extends to all, it would seem only just that the Lord would provide a way for all to enter into that covenant. He has.

Peter wrote that even the rebellious who perished in the flood of Noah heard the Good News during the time between the Savior's death and resurrection: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison..." (I Peter 3: 18-21)

However, even when a person in the Spirit World accepts the Gospel, he must still be baptized, and baptism must be performed in the flesh, by immersion in water. Paul explained how the Lord solves this dilemma by providing for proxy baptism of the living for the dead: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (I Corinthians 15:20)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims authority from God, through the prophet Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6), to perform this service, and it has undertaken the enormous effort to do it for all, one by one, in its temples. Of course, the ordinance is only effective if the dead person freely accepts it.

For a more detailed account of Christ's ministry to the dead, see

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/138

Tracy Hall
Provo Canyon, Utah

63 posted on 09/18/2003 10:13:36 AM PDT by hthalljr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TontoKowalski; All
Our Lord was a carpenter, and surrounded himself with professional fishermen. While I don't have any evidence either way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Aramaic word for "bullshit" didn't come up occasionally in His presence.

I agree, and I think this point ought to be made more often. Because we love Him, and because we've all seen the same British movies, we Christians expect our Lord to speak in the quiet tones of genteel Home Counties English — as if He were a character from Milne or Tolkien. Becase He is our perfect God, it makes us uncomfortable to think of our Lord doing ordinary human things — having gas, for example, or visiting a latrine — but He did. He was 100% man as well as 100% God, and, like all men, He undoubtedly spoke in the vernacular of his class — the peasant class. And, as anyone who has spent time on a construction site can tell you, that vernacular is generally not something you'd hear in church.

And that's not necessarily sinful. Cussing and cursing are two different things. "Cuss words" — earthy, blunt, plain-language words, generally used to describe bodily functions — are not in and of themselves dirty. "Shit", for example, is just the plain English word for solid biological waste, nothing more. Words like "shit", "piss", and the Anglo-Saxon term for sexual intercourse are not curses; they may be considered rude, vulgar, or obscene depending upon circumstance, but intrinsically evil they ain't. (Each can be used in an evil way, however.) In fact, the word "piss" appears in the King James version of the Bible no less than eight times! (1 Samuel 25:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21, 2 Kings 9:8, 2 Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12, for the adolescently curious.)

On the other hand, cursing is a sin. Cursing consists of blasphemy, sacrelige, gross impiety, vain usage of the Lord's Name, and the actual act of cursing someone — in other words, expressing one's hope that they be damned to hell.

Jesus Christ is the King of the Universe, but He is also a Jewish peasant. It is my opinion that as such our Lord did on occasion use what might have been considered salty language. Just as our Lord resorted to physical violence on one occasion (the driving out of the moneychangers from the Temple), so, too, He used strong language when necessary. In Luke 3:2 et al. He called His hypocritical accusers "ye generation of vipers", for example, which must have sounded something like calling them s.o.bs to the ears of the crowd in His day. He also referred to the publicly pious as "whitewashed tombs" {Matt 23:27 et al.] — in other words, as being clean outside, full of filth inside — akin to calling them "full of shit"!

And let's not forget the fact that He was a carpenter. Somehow, I can't picture our Lord saying "Darn it!" or "oh, poop!" afrer smashing His finger with a hammer.

Our Lord is righteous, holy, and perfect, but He is neither effete nor "nice". He was God, but He also liked parties, wine, and hanging out with fishermen. We have had enough of the Nice Jesus, the Eton Jesus, the sanitized-for-your-protection Hollywood Jesus. Let's have the Real Jesus — fully God in His perfection, fully Man in his human nature.

Please keep in mind that I'm barely a Christian, much less a scholar or exegete. I could be totally wrong about this. If so, I humbly ask for your correction, and I apologize if I have offended or caused scandal by posting this message.

64 posted on 12/21/2003 5:25:29 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
Must be a genetic defect.

Who are you referring to?

65 posted on 12/22/2003 4:52:10 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Do you suppose he is as concerned about anti-German sentiment that might arise from the next holocaust film?

I can understand your concern considering all of the mass slaughters of Germans through the centuries.

66 posted on 12/22/2003 4:56:46 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Gibson and McEveety had been surprised to learn that Fisher's panel was an ad-hoc initiative, bearing no authority from the Church. After the Bishops Conference received the letter from Gibson's lawyer, it acted quickly to distance itself from the scholars and their report on Gibson's film. “Neither the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, nor any other committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, established this group, or authorized, reviewed or approved the report written by its members,” the conference declared in June.

Tricksy, tricksy.

67 posted on 12/22/2003 5:06:53 AM PST by A. Pole (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain , the hand of free market must be invisible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church.

For God nothing is impossible. The Church is the ark of salvation but some who are inside might still perish and some who are outside might be saved by God's special grace. Those whose faith (the spiritual map) is closer to the truth have better chance to find the destination.

68 posted on 12/22/2003 5:26:39 AM PST by A. Pole (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain , the hand of free market must be invisible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
"Rabbi Eugene Korn, the head of the A.D.L.'s interfaith affairs, was quoted in the article as warning Gibson that he should not ignore the scholars' group. “If he doesn't respond, the controversy will certainly heat up,” Korn said."

Probably more a revealing statement than any. Has Mafia-like implications between the words ( such as: " We'll be sure to make things hard for you if you don't do as we say. " ).

69 posted on 12/22/2003 5:57:17 AM PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
I don't know what British movies you have seen about Christ because I haven't seen many. I think what you may be refering to is the use of many British actors by Hollywood in the past. Old Hollywood thought english accents added class to a picture. If you want to see a shouting non genteel Christ I recommend Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew. Pasolini was from what I have read a homosexual communist so it just goes to show the gospel can come from some unlikely sources. The current in release Gospel of John (which I highly recommend) was produced Garth Drabinsky who is jewish so there is another example.
70 posted on 12/22/2003 6:19:02 AM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
So you have on the one side a Catholic "traditionalist" who, if you buy into the stereotype, would normally consider Evangelicals a bunch of heretics, while on the other side you have Evangelicals, who, if you buy into the stereotype, would normally refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, and both sides are coming together because both sides think this is a very faithful movie. Ain't that great?

I don't know... When I was talking with my friends at church yesterday, it looked as though I'd be the only young guy to go see that movie. The objection some had was the Aramaic thing -- they weren't going to see a subtitled movie. Oh, well.

More disturbing was the second reason -- that it was made by Gibson, a Catholic, and "would mis-represent the Gospels," indicitive of a denominational distrust of all things Catholic.

Oh well. What do I expect from a church where it is more than occasionally taught that Rome is the Whore of Babylon?

71 posted on 12/22/2003 6:28:39 AM PST by jude24 ("Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything thats even REMOTELY true!" -- H. Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

For us uninformed (or misinformed) Protestants, what might that traditional doctrine of the Church be? Cites are good, if possible.

72 posted on 12/22/2003 6:34:10 AM PST by jude24 ("Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything thats even REMOTELY true!" -- H. Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Sanders believes it is because of Jesus' actions at the Temple during his Passover visit to Jerusalem, when he drove the money changers from the premises and overturned their tables. Fredriksen, though she is an admirer of Sanders, believes that the Temple scene probably didn't happen. She places the initiative of the Crucifixion entirely upon Pilate, almost to the point of absenting Jews from the scene altogether. Fredriksen's theory is that Jesus was so popular among the Jewish people (as evidenced by his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the day Christians call Palm Sunday) that Pilate wanted him dead in order to teach Jews a lesson: Do not rebel.

I present to you the "experts", who, after two centuries of enlightenment, and after informing us that the gospels weren't written by the men whose names they bear, will now tell us what was originally in them.

As soon as they can figure it out.

Note that Frederickson thinks the Temple scene "probably didn't happen". Based on what evidence, you ask?

Well, it doesn't comport with HER IDEA of what did happen. Where did she get that idea, you ask?

Other parts of the gospels, which she likes better.

73 posted on 12/22/2003 6:58:55 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
...both sides are coming together because both sides think this is a very faithful movie. Ain't that great?

It's absolutely glorious and must go way beyond just this movie.

I notice that your posts are often given to softening interdenominational tensions. God will bless you.

74 posted on 12/22/2003 7:27:07 AM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cap'n Crunch
The references to ripping out the guys intestines and killing his dog is a bit much also.

Mr. Gibson was accurately reporting his emotions at the time...that was how he felt. If a Christian tells you he never feels negative emotions or urges, he's lying to you.

What is offputting is the graphic detail of Gibson's expression; but what's wrong with that? It may be shocking, but that primarily for its honesty.

75 posted on 12/22/2003 7:46:41 AM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
God will bless you.

I sure hope so. :-) I fail on so many levels to do what we all ought to do, but I don't think I'm so bad off that I can't manage to do this tiny thing.

76 posted on 12/22/2003 3:49:04 PM PST by wimpycat ("Black holes are where God divided by zero.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Post 57 & 58 are a good start. Aestus Veritatis has good references and DallasMike has some good links. Obviously, the two doctrines conflict. Whoa....I just realized today's date...good luck if your still around here...
77 posted on 02/13/2004 10:17:11 AM PST by Oisín (" Insane Eireish! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Campion; DallasMike
As someone brought up Protestant myslef, I defenitely think Mr. Gibson has a right to his belief, and when you consider what that is, it does have a logical, reasonable arguement. DallasMike -- I've seen alot of interviews of him for his movies and he would be a BLAST! to talk to or hang out with. As far as his realationship to his wife, that's between themselve's and God. The fact that he is still with her suggests that he is not so close-minded, able to marry outside his faith, unlike other dogmatic, intramerital, religious doctrines. His comment about her being a saint, " better than him " credits his sentiment to his beliefs and that her not believing his beliefs troubles him and is probably perpetually on his mind. Yet they work it out. How much more opened-mindedness could you ask for?
78 posted on 02/13/2004 10:47:48 AM PST by Oisín (just my 2 ˘)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
To: Campion
Oh, but he's right in saying that salvation is impossible outside the Church. He's only wrong in assuming he (Mel) knows who's outside the Church and who's inside. :-) Only He (God) knows that for sure.>>>>

Yes, he is right when he says that salvation is impossible outside the church. The problem is Mel does not know what the "Church" is. He thinks it is the Roman Catholic church. It is not. The church is made up of the body of Christ. Those that believe we are saved by Grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. The Catholic church does not teach this so therefor the Roman Catholic that follows the teaching of pre Vatican 11 or post Vatican 11 teaching do not have salvation. This movie may do some good, I don't know. But I would say that most that see it have already heard the Gospel and you can not be saved by emotion. And if they make a commitment because of the movie and do not receive Christ as the only sacrifice for salvation and add the dogmas of the Roman church in addition then it is to no avail.
79 posted on 02/16/2004 6:26:54 AM PST by SolaGratia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SolaGratia
"The Catholic church does not teach this so therefor the Roman Catholic that follows the teaching of pre Vatican 11 or post Vatican 11 teaching do not have salvation."

Not at all! Catholics are still considered within "the body of Christ." Most Protestants accept this even. They just don't believe that you need the chain of command to God, i.e. priest...bishop...Pope. Other minimal differences as well, but the "body" is anyone who believes Jesus as savior and follows His example. This includes Catholosism.
80 posted on 02/16/2004 5:36:55 PM PST by Oisín (I'm outta he-he-hyearrr!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Oisín
but the "body" is anyone who believes Jesus as savior and follows His example. This includes Catholosism.>>

The Catholic church does not believe we are saved by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. They add many things such as sacrements, works, purgatory, etc.

Just found out something about the Actress that plays Mary Magdalene, Monica Bellucci. She is a well know porn star in europe and has her own web-site to promote it.

81 posted on 02/18/2004 10:28:10 AM PST by SolaGratia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Great article, the best I've read. Explains a lot of between the lines stuff lately.

I have to say - Caiaphus be damned, or not, if Gibson's movie manages the point of -- people of power, even our spiritual leaders, are as corruptible as the least of us when it comes to preserving their power -- and manages to stay true to the Gospel, he has done well. Those calling for the crucificion of Christ were not necessarily the Jews; they were those who might stand to lose control, and power is nothing, without control.

Did I see a suggestion in this article though that Traditionalist Catholic is a schism? I believe that is not true.
82 posted on 02/18/2004 12:24:12 PM PST by My back yard (The world is changed; I can feel it in the water, in the earth, I can smell it in the air.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolaGratia
You are right that it is by grace alone that one comes to Christ, but this does not eliminate anyone just because of the church they attend. You must remember that there are nearly as many branches of Catholicism as there are Protestant denominations, and that they differ almost as widely in their theologies. I know many Catholics that are devout, genuine Christians, and many Protestants who are not. It has nothing to do with the theology, and everything to do with the relationship. Too many people think of Christianity only as a religion, and have no understanding of the relationship they can have with Jesus Christ.
83 posted on 02/22/2004 9:53:36 PM PST by holyquake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: All
I think this movie looks great.And im going to see it today,and I also believe,along with many others,that this is the last message from God before the rapture.As Jesus said of the signs that will and have just happened;wars and rumours of wars,nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom,famines and Earthquakes in diverse places,all the beggining of birth pains.Matthew 24.But the rapture wont happen unti lthe gospel is heard aroudn the world one mroe time,(The Passion Of The Christ)take a look at this: you cant tell me this is a coincidense,look at the dates,there every day.These are just a short list of things happening.


DECEMBER 26th 2003
Iran,magnitude 6.5; More than 41,000 killed

FEBRUARY 20,2004
Earthquake 6.0 Santa Cruz Islands
Magnitude 4.8 CHIAPAS, MEXICO
Magnitude 4.8 SEA OF OKHOTSK


FEBRUARY 21,2004
Magnitude 6.6 EAST OF SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS


FEBRUARY 22,2004
Magnitude 6.0 SOUTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA


FEBRUARY 23,2004
Magnitude 5.6 PAGAN REG., N. MARIANA ISLANDS
Magnitude 6.3 SAMOA ISLANDS REGION
Moderate earthquake rocks eastern France 5.1


FEBRUARY 24,2004
Magnitude 6.5 NEAR NORTH COAST OF MOROCCO
Magnitude 6.5 - STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR
Morocco Earthquake death Toll 564

If any ones wants to argue with this,i have this to back me.
If therefore thou shalt not watch I will come on thee as a thief,
and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee Rev(3:3)


84 posted on 02/25/2004 2:55:09 AM PST by RaptureReady (END TIME,READY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaptureReady
Jim Caviezel Tells of Meeting With Pope
Actor Who Plays Jesus in "The Passion" Thanked Holy Father for Letter to Artists

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 16, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ," thanked John Paul II for his witness which the actor said has profoundly inspired his own life.

Caviezel spoke today with a group of journalists about his private audience Monday with the Pope. They spoke, among other things, of the 1999 letter the Holy Father wrote to artists, Caviezel said. The actor said the letter has helped him personally.

The rest was "private," Caviezel told journalists in the Vatican, including a ZENIT representative.

The audience took place in the Pope's private library. "I couldn't tell you how long it lasted," said Caviezel. He said he did not look at his watch as he was absorbed in the Holy Father's conversation.

ZENIT saw some of the pictures taken during the meeting, and learned that John Paul II gave Caviezel a rosary. Caviezel and his wife were seated in front of the Pope's desk.

"John Paul II is a very special man for a very special world. He is the Pope of Fatima," Caviezel said in reference to the explanation given by the Holy See to the so-called third secret of the Virgin confided to the three little Portuguese shepherds. "The Pope is a mystic. He loves Christ."

Caviezel said of the film's director: "Mel Gibson is very, very Catholic, very Roman Catholic."

"Many celebrities say they are Catholics but they do not follow the Vatican, on pro-life issues, on capital punishment," Caviezel added. "When you see Mel Gibson's film, is it Protestant? Is it Muslim? Is it Catholic? What do you see?

"It is very Catholic, very universal. It is a great way to introduce people to what it means to be Catholic: It is universal, for all peoples, for all times."

For Caviezel, to be involved in the film was a "real spiritual experience."

"You can't see what is shown and remain indifferent" -- much less so if, as an actor, one penetrates the character to give the best of oneself, he said.

In acting the part, Caviezel said to himself: "I don't want people to see me; I just want them to see Jesus."

To come to this experience, Caviezel added, "I began with the rosary, the rosary led me to confession, confession led me to the Mass, every day, and always when I have the Eucharist in my body, I feel more like being in Christ."

The actor also responded to some accusations of anti-Semitism made by some groups against the film.

As a believer, Caviezel said, "I am Semitic. It is my lineage. I am from the House of David and Abraham."

If "someone says the film is anti-Semitic, the Bible should also be considered anti-Semitic," he said. Caviezel added that he has suggested to Jewish compatriots to make a film on Moses or David.

On Monday, Caviezel presented the film "The Passion of the Christ" to some ecclesiastics who live in Rome, before it was shown at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.
ZE04031604
85 posted on 03/20/2004 8:01:21 AM PST by SolaGratia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: Campion

Pius IX and Pius XII were not liberals. They were true Catholics along with SAINT Pius X. The popes we've had since Pius XII have been liberals. Check out these sites, please:
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/campos.shtml
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/campcont.shtml
http://ihsv.com/62reasons.html
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/evils.shtml

In Jesus Christ the King,
Jason


87 posted on 09/22/2004 10:14:23 AM PDT by sav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson