‘It is as it was’ or was it?

drstevej

[drstevej]

‘It is as it was’ or was it?

 

‘It is as it was’ or was it?
Some say he said ‘it is as it was’ and that’s the way it is!
Others say he didn’t mean to officially say ‘it is as it was’ yet he believes it is.
Guess it all depends on what one means by ‘it is as it was’
What confuses me is how he would know whether ‘it is as it was’
Should he not say ‘it is as I think it was’ or ‘it is as it was as far as I know’?

After considering this ‘I am not what I was’ or am I?

 

~drstevej

[drstevej]

After I see the movie will I be what I was? Hopefully not.

[drstevej]

Tis confusing indeed. Just builds the anticipation!

[NYer]

Whatever it was, it still is!

(Did you watch the interview with Mel Gibson on EWTN last night?)

[drstevej]

***(Did you watch the interview with Mel Gibson on EWTN last night?)***

I missed it. We have friends in from Wales and were treating them to some cajun cuisine. They crawfish fettucine was awesome.

***Whatever it was, it still is!***

My post does raise a point that I don't think has gotten much attenntion in the myriad of comments:

How could JPII know it is as it was?

I'd be interested in the thoughts of the Catholic Raucus.

[undirish01]

"He said, as he said, er, it was what he said, um, it is as he said, well, it is near what it was is........."

Anybody gotta definition for 'is'????

[NYer]

How could JPII know it is as it was?

Is this a trick question?

[drstevej]

Barnacle ("It is as it was.") PING

[drstevej]

No it was not. Taking biblical accounts and bringing them to cinema (visual) inescapably involves interpretation and imagination.

[Tantumergo]

"How could JPII know it is as it was?"

Because one of the charisms that comes with the Papal Office is the ability to read little black marks printed on paper which can be interpreted as WORDS.

These words can be joined together to make a SENTENCE which gives a contextual meaning to all of these words.

Four blokes called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote down lots of these sentences into descriptive accounts which included details about another bloke called Jesus and how he was tortured and killed by some other blokes who were not very nice.

Exercising his Papal charism, JPII read these four accounts called GOSPELS, compared the film he had seen to what he had read and said "Oy, knock me darn wiv a fevver - it is as it was!"

Excuse the complex theological concepts that have been necessary here.

;)

[ninenot]

Well, Doc, here's the story.

The Pope said exactly what the Gibson people reported.

The Pope's secretary, a Mgr. Dziwicz, decided that the Pope should not be used as a promotional vehicle for the Gibson film--and in any case, the Pope's comment should be considered "obiter dicta."

Navarro-Valls, on the other hand, told the truth, affirming the quotation.

In the first place, it was extremely tacky of the Gibson team to ask for the Pope's endorsement of a movie. I can't condone their action, period, no way, no how. The movie will stand or fall on its own merits.

Secondly, it appears as though there was some sleight-of-hand in the process. One is clearly entitled to question whether the Pope understood precisely the meaning or intent of the Gibson team, and whether the Pope would "endorse" a movie. Frankly, I doubt it.

So Dziwicz covered. Navarro-Valls, while affirming the accuracy of the quote, left UNSAID whether this constituted an "endorsement" of the flick--for the obvious reason: the Vatican does not "endorse" flicks unless the Vatican MAKES them.

Gibson ought to apologize.

[Tantumergo]

"Gibson ought to apologize."

BOLLOCKS!

The Vatican published a list of JPII's top 50 films a couple of years ago. The Pontifical Councils for Social Communications and Culture are always passing comment on things on behalf of the Pope.

Gibson's people actually asked permission to use the quote before they did so and it was freely granted. They are not at fault in this - they were probably just too naive to realise that the anti-Christ has many henchmen ensconced in the curia, and that they would not want approval given to this movie.

[ninenot]

As long as you are convinced, based on evidence which is INDISPUTABLE, that such permission was clearly and freely granted...I will retract my request for Gibson's apology.

Then the question: is Dziwicz a LIAR?

[Land of the Irish]

Then the question: is Dziwicz a LIAR?

Yes

[drstevej]

See post #8 ***Taking biblical accounts and bringing them to cinema (visual) inescapably involves interpretation and imagination.***

So I ask...

"How could JPII know it is as it was?"

[drstevej]

***Dziwicz***

Shame you can't use proper names in scrabble.

[HarleyD]

Why does he need permission to quote what the Pope said? If the Pope said it than so what? If Gibson quoted what the Pope said so what?

To me the statement doesn't serve as an endorsement of the film, just that the Pope liked it. And if Gibson says that the Pope liked the film can that be so bad?

[MarMema]

With some luck you might be interested in my thoughts as well. :-) After reading about your cajun cuisine it is going to be hard to eat breakfast here.

Anyway here is a commentary which I recalled after reading some of the posts here.

What Mel Missed

[Tantumergo]

"As long as you are convinced, based on evidence which is INDISPUTABLE"

I don't believe there is any such thing as evidence which is indisputable - you will always find someone somewhere who will dispute anything.

However, Gibson's people clearly believe that they had permission, and it is hardly in their interests to stir up such a hornet's nest by acting without permission. Both Noonan and Dreher have seen the e-mail from the Vatican confirming permission and I cannot see that it is in their interests to lie about that.

"Then the question: is Dziwicz a LIAR?"

He is probably being very "economical with the truth". The words he used in his denial were that the pope made no "declaration." This is technically true, but it is not the same as saying the pope "said nothing".

I would suggest that rather than being a "LIAR", he is being a "SPIN DOCTOR". I will leave you to judge whether there is a substantial difference between the two.

[AAABEST]

I agree with Harley, Gibson owes nobody an apology.

If Rome doesn't want "leaks" they should learn how to control them. Would be nice if they came out and said something like "Go see this movie and learn how our Savior was brutally tortured, humiliated and executed for YOU", but that's wishful thinking.

Besides, there is a good chance that conservative forces in the Vatican - maybe even the Pope himself - wanted this to leak (and look like an unintentional leak) figuring it was a far as they could politically go to getting behind this.

There's a lot at play here, remember Gibson is a member of SSPX which brings a whole set of complications on it's own.

Be happy the quote is out there and is actually what the Pontiff said, it's a good thing.

[Barnacle]

"How could JPII know it is as it was?"

Well Doctor, the same way as any of us; the historic accounts given to us in the Bible. I imagine, and can only hope that JPII has even a bit more to go on since he has dedicated his entire life to Christ and is the spiritual leader of about a billion Christians.

This is analogous to a renowned professor of history who has dedicated his career too the life and death of Abraham Lincoln commenting on a movie about Lincoln's assassination. You're free to argue with him if that's your pleasure. But bear in mind, you may come away looking rather foolish.

I hope that when you emerge from the experience of The Passion, you too will say, "It is as it was."