A Freeper Review of The Passion of Christ

Vanity | 2/21/04 | John Fields

[jonboy]

I'm not sure where to start. I'm a fellow Freeper who also happens to be minister. I was invited today to see a screening of the Passion of the Christ at our local theater. I have been fascinated, and you might even be able to say obsessed with this movie ever since I heard about it a few months ago and first saw the trailer (I cried every time I saw it).

Given that I have watched and listened to several interviews and read several news stories about this movie I was as prepared as I thought I could be to watch it. I HAVE NEVER BEEN THROUGH ANYTHING LIKE THIS MOVIE! I sobbed, I throbbed, my Kleenex became a fairly useless mess that occupied the hand not tightly gripping the seat. IT WAS HARD TO WATCH. The cruelty was overwhelming, but approximated what we have a glimpse from in scripture. The violence and horror of what was done to Him nearly overwhelming, but not gratuitous as some have claimed.

As to the charges of anti-semitism, I can understand how a Jew who does not believe that Jesus is their Messiah would be frightened by this film. However, it was NOT anti-semitic. I could just as easily be moved to be against Italians for what the Romans did as I could be against the Jews. If one were inspired to hate the perpetrators if this event, they would be anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-Japanese, and anti-__________ (fill in your own blanks). I was filled with the grim overwhelming knowledge of my own guilt as much as anything else. As I watched Him writhing in pain, the ribs virtually exposed from the beating that He had taken, as I watched His shoulder ripped out of socket as they stretched his hand to make it to the pre-drilled nail hole, as I watched the blood flowing and the breath ripped from His body from the pain, one thing entered into my mind above all else. I PUT HIM THERE! He could have come down, He could have called in excess of ten-thousand angels. He could have stopped that horrible mockery and evil in its tracks by coming down off of that cross, healing His own wounds, and then saying go to it boys as He releases the angels to take care of business. BUT HE DIDN'T. I am in awe.

I admit that I has moments when I felt like ripping the Jewish and Roman perpetrators apart. How dare they laugh in the face of such agony! How dare they spit on Him! How dare they stand in pompous, arrogant, self-righteous judgment of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (how dare MYSELF go on sinning after what He did for me)! But as the High Priest is walking away from making fun and mocking. He hears Jesus softly say, taking up precious breath, "Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." The High Priest pauses in uncomfortable silence, then walks on. Later, after Jesus has died and the earthquake has damaged the temple and they are very aware that they have done something terribly wrong the High Priest is seen crying out and holding his face in grief and horror.

This movie was about love and forgiveness and about our sin and what God and His Son did together about that sin. It is about the horrible things that men do to their fellow men which can still be forgiven if they will but repent. Some of the Jews were depraved and some were compassionate. Some of the Romans were depraved, and some of them were inclined towards compassion. Anti-Jewish? NO WAY! Besides, the early church was exlusively Jewish. The movie is not about Mel Gibson having some kind of point to prove to anyone, let alone the Jews. It was Mel's passion, a labor of love. Will it profit Him? Unbelievably! Did he do it for the money, not a chance.

Were there any liberties taken with the scripture? Maybe a few. Poetic/artistic license was taken to a degree. There were some scenes with Judas that were extra Biblical, but imaginable. Surprisingly, he was shown as a somewhat sympathetic character, which is something I've felt to a degree for him. I doubt that he was a completely depraved man, he just wanted to speed things along so that Jesus would have to rise to the throne and have to take His true place. When he realized he had been horribly mis-lead he admitted guilt but then went out and killed himself. There was a scene in which the unrepentant thief had his eyes pecked out by a crow. I thought that didn't gel well with the theme of forgiveness and should have been left out. It seemed to represent Divine retribution since the thief had just been blaspheming Jesus. But the cross wasn't about retribution, that will come later at Judgment, it was about mercy.

As to this movie being appropriate for children? That's a hard call. I think it would be best if conscientous parents screened it for themselves first. It is hard enough for mature adults to stomach. However, there is something to be said for exposing young tender hearts to the truth of what He did. Maybe knowing what He did at a younger age would lead to more mature Christians later. Again, it's an individual call.

Is this movie Catholic? Yes and no. Those who see the relationship between Jesus and Mary who are Catholic will likely see Mary as divine. Those of us who believe that Mary was a mere woman who was blessed enough to have been chosen to be the mother of the Christ will see the relationship between a mother and her Son. THIS MOVIE IS FOR ALL!!! I can wholeheartedly recommend this movie to others for personal devotion or to touch the hearts of those who are lost. I believe very much that it will be a culturally defining movie and that it will break most IF NOT ALL of the box office records both nationally and world-wide. The Lord will not be silenced. I truly feel He has spoken through this movie. Maybe its His way of saying WAKE UP before He comes again. If it is, this Christian is awake (wiping away tears).

[Ohioan from Florida]

I'll take the blessings even though I am a "sister". I'll have to be getting to bed myself. Guess what's on schedule for tomorrow a.m.! God bless you, too, and your wife!

[jonboy]

Well, I must say that was rather pompous of you. My faith was as strong before this film as it was after. That said, I readily admit to the peculiar malady of being human. Being human, my feeble imagination was not enough to conjure up the imagery that I desired to have when I remember what He did for me at the partaking of the Lord's Supper memorial (communion). I wanted to see an approximation of what He went through to aid me in remembering what He did for me. I'm glad that your's is an active imagination not needing such aids. I wish you well. As to the children, if they are old enough to need a Savior, they are probably old enough to see an approximation of what He did for them.

[jonboy]

Well, I must say that was rather pompous of you. My faith was as strong before this film as it was after. That said, I readily admit to the peculiar malady of being human. Being human, my feeble imagination was not enough to conjure up the imagery that I desired to have when I remember what He did for me at the partaking of the Lord's Supper memorial (communion). I wanted to see an approximation of what He went through to aid me in remembering what He did for me. I'm glad that your's is an active imagination not needing such aids. I wish you well. As to the children, if they are old enough to need a Savior, they are probably old enough to see an approximation of what He did for them.

[what's up]

In case you are unaware...Adam and Eve were indeed sinners. Therefore, when scripture states, All have sinned" it is absolutely accurate.

Including Mary.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Salvation]

Thank you for sharing so openly.

God bless!

[montag813]

Were there any liberties taken with the scripture?

What scripture? From the script I have read, it seems like much of the goings on mirror Catherine Emmerich's fantasies, rather than the actual Gospels, which I find annoying. I certainly don't put any special creedence in this one woman's imagination over that of the Apostles. In 3 of 5 Gospels Jesus does not carry his own cross. In all four of the Gospels details of the scourging are mentioned rather briefly. This is such a hugely important work...why so much reliance on an obscure German nun?

[jonboy]

The link to the Popes comment on the Vatican site is:

HERE.

[montag813]

Could you go into a little more depth about this? Specifically, I'm wondering about a scene where Jesus is chained and thrown or dangled from a bridge.

Good luck finding this in the Gospels. More from Emmerich's lurid imagination. Unfortunate. The Gospels stand up well enough on their own without such crude embellishment.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. if you really believe Mary was without sin, then pack a picnic and go to the beach .. it's all over. Jesus' death was meaningless .. there is no redemption .. there is no salvation .. there is no remission of sins.

Basically, I don't think you understand redemption. If you did, you would never consider such a thing as Mary being sinless.

[jwalsh07]

Whatever.

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Catholic Discussion Ping list.

[montag813]

In 3 of 5 Gospels Jesus does not carry his own cross

Sorry. Meant 3 of 4.

[jonboy]

I'm not ignorant of all of the things that you mentioned in your post. And I know that man's salvation did not occur on the cross apart from their actions at a later time. In fact, none of these things could occur until he had been resurrected. Those things said, the imagery of a crow pecking out the eyes of the unrepentant thief even as Jesus is asking forgiveness for all of the people's sins was stark and I thought detracted rather than added to the entire movie.

[what's up]

Here's some info about some prominent Catholic figures who opposed the doctrine of the immaculate conception:

"When the feast was introduced in France, St. Bernard of Clairvaux opposed it, igniting a controversy that endured for three centuries. Most Scholastic theologians, including St. Anselm of Canterbury, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, opposed the doctrine on the grounds that it detracted from the universality of the redemption by Christ."

[Polybius]

I don't know what is taugh at the local Catholic Church here in my small town, but I do know that of people at my work most are Hispanic and Catholic. I can count no less that 4 or 5 images per day on cars (at any time of day or night at our work) that have pictures of Mary with the halo holy style. Most the cars have a small statue of Mary on the dash of the car too. When you see a full size van daily with Mary on the hood then you have to wonder if Mary is not a saint to these particular people.

The halo is merely a Western Civilization artistic convention to represent a saint.

Yes, Mary is considered a "saint". So are St. Peter, St. James, etc. However, saints are not considered "divine".

[NYer]

Excellent review! Thanks for sharing it with us.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[CyberAnt]

Mary could not possibly have remained a virgin all her life. She was a married woman and conceived children by her husband, Joseph. I believe that would prevent her from remaining a virgin. If she had never had more children, I guess you might be able to pass that off.

The ingredients of redemption required certain things. First of all, the blood of Jesus had to be from the Father. The reason was because the blood of humans was tainted from the fall. It is biologically established that it is the FATHER who provides the blood for a child; otherwise, a blood test for paternity could not establish fatherhood.

The next ingredient was the human. In order for Jesus to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind .. Jesus would have to be a human. The only way Jesus could be a human was that HIS MOTHER would have to be a human. The mother of Jesus would require 2 things. She had to be pure (a virgin), and she had to have faith (trust in God). Those were the only things required. Jesus had to represent ALL MANKIND - if Mary was anything other than a representative of mankind, then Jesus would not be able to represent us.

Jesus was sinless because of the blood of His father, not because of the flesh of His mother. In order for Jesus to become sin (for us) even though he knew no sin, Jesus had to be a representative of us - or human like his mother.

There was no other way for redemption to work.

If you elevate Mary by making her sinless, the plan of redemption is out of whack and would not have worked. It would not have been LEGAL for God to do it that way. Satan knew that for man to be restored to God, it would take the sacrifice of ANOTHER MAN. If Mary had been sinless, Jesus would not have been a representative of mankind, and no redemption would have been available to us.

[CyberAnt]

I'm sorry if you felt I was saying you were ignorant. I never meant to imply that. But .. sometimes on these threads, in order to explain one thing .. you are required to add much more detail for other people or otherwise what you say doesn't make sense.

I'm sure the imagery of the crow pecking out the eyes of the unrepentant thief was not pleasant, but I just wanted to reassure you that I don't believe that happened because God was punishing the thief .. but because the thief refused to receive God's goodness and that action brought the inflicted punishment. It was not God's choosing.

[polemikos]

Is this movie Catholic? Yes and no.

Does the movie comply with Sacred Scripture? If so, it is COMPLETELY Catholic.