The Movie: You know which one.

[Matrona]

Great review Matrona! Thanks!

I had to reschedule my "attendance"....so hopefully will try to go over the weekend.

I would say "have a good time" or "hope you enjoy it" but I can't really say that about this movie. It's an experience, for sure.

I'm so glad my friends had enough tact not to bother me when I was crying in the car. When we were dropping someone else off, my friend turned back to me and asked, "So what did you think?" From crying, I looked and sounded like the wreck of the Hesperus, on top of having a bit of laryngitis. So I just looked up at him with a slightly pained expression and said, "You have to ask?"

 

[MariaRegina]

There are two things that bother me, though, and in my mind they sort of spoil the film:

The first being, the Harrowing of Hell isn't really given enough attention. I know I'm not a professional, but I am a film student and I've made films before. I would have showed Christ trampling down death, and have Him say something to the effect of, "I'm the Author of Life; death can't hold Me" and gone from there.

The second is, of course, the Resurrection. Wow, was that ever anti-climactic or what?! A naked guy walking out of a cave! Well, whoopdeedoo! I'm sorry if this sounds too flippant, but really, that wasn't anything approaching what Pascha is for me. A naked guy walking out of a cave is nothing approaching that! Where are the myrrh-bearing women? Where is the angel saying "Why seek ye the Living among the dead? Why mourn ye the Incorruptible amid corruption?" Where's the "Pascha, ransom from sorrow!"?! CHRIST IS THE LIGHT THAT CAN NEVER BE OVERTAKEN BY NIGHT!

Matrona --

They actually protrayed Christ walking out of the tomb in the nude? That's not scriptural -- that's not even glorious!

Do you recommend the film?

 

[OrthodoxSeeker]

My priest, after seeing the film himself, told the entire congregation to see it. I'm glad he did. (I would have seen it anyway).

I brought my 14 year old daughter and it was a MOST powerful experience for us both. We did not speak about our reactions and feelings until the next evening...talking about it too soon would have cheapened the experience I think. I would say we both found it to be a grace-filled experience. My wife, who saw it with friends two days later, also thought it was well done.

The very human and touching flashbacks saves the film from being too overwhelming. Grateful that I am not a fundamentalist it was easy to allow for some artistic license. Symbols and symbolic language are important are they not?

I highly recommend THE PASSION.

Regards,
Douglas

 

[Matrona]

Matrona --

They actually protrayed Christ walking out of the tomb in the nude? That's not scriptural -- that's not even glorious!

Do you recommend the film?

The Resurrection scene struck me as being very much an afterthought--it looks very tacked-on, like Mel Gibson just realized during post-production, "I guess we ought to put in the part where he came back from the dead, huh?".

They didn't show anything really bad during the Resurrection (it wasn't full nudity in either direction), but it was, well, pretty obvious that he wasn't even wearing a loincloth.

One thing with me, I don't like to criticize something unless I can think of a better way to do it. So I am going to read over the Gospels tonight and see if I can think of a better way that the Resurrection could have been put together.

Regardless, I give it a cautious recommendation. See it as long as you can tolerate seeing quite a lot of blood. I think the crucifixion itself was very well-done--even when Christ's precious hand had a nail through it and His cross was lifted up, you could see that he was forming the ICXC blessing with His fingers. Blessing those who murdered Him.

 

[brewmama]

A letter from Metropolitan PHILIP recommending all the faithful to see The Passion.

http://www.antiochian.org/News/Message20040302The_Passion_of_The_Christ.htm

I assume we'll hear this letter in church tomorrow.

 

[MariaRegina]

March 2, 2004


TO BE READ FROM THE PULPIT AND PUBLISHED IN THE CHURCH BULLETIN


Beloved Clergy and Faithful of our Archdiocese:

Greetings and blessings to you in the spirit of this Holy and Great Lenten season.

Shortly after the beginning of our journey with our Lord to Calvary and the empty tomb, Mel Gibson released his excellent film, “The Passion of The Christ.” This film raised many favorable, and at the same time, controversial questions; thus, I decided to see this movie and form my own opinion. The following is my observation:

I think that Mel Gibson has done an outstanding job. Ninety-five percent of the film is based on the biblical accounts recorded in the Gospels. We cannot distort history nor can we betray the hymnology of our church and the story which we relive every year during Holy Week. I advise our clergy and faithful to see this movie and share the suffering of our Lord and the joy of His Glorious Resurrection.

Yours in the Triumphant Christ,


+ Metropolitan PHILIP
Primate
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
of North America

[Note from Elizabeth: There has been no unified response from the other Metropolitans in the Greek and OCA Churches. This is only an advisory letter, not mandated.]

 

[brewmama]

JAMES CARROLL
Christ's real passion was life

By James Carroll, 2/10/2004

JERUSALEM.....

C______________________________________________________

James Carroll is a member of the Catholic Church.
_____________________________________________________
.

Chanter, I wouldn't use Carroll as a spokesman for the Catholic Church, as I understand he is a major enemy from within.

 

[MariaRegina]

Chanter, I wouldn't use Carroll as a spokesman for the Catholic Church, as I understand he is a major enemy from within.

This is the quote from the magazine. I had no idea. But I think this is the problem over at OBOB. There are Catholics, and Traditional Catholics like the SSPX, and then there are cafeteria Catholics and the three don't get along. I don't know where Carroll fits in this picture. I've never heard of him before.

The only spokesman for the Catholic Church is Pope John Paul II.

P.S. Please give the post number and thread whenever you quote something, so I can follow up. Otherwise, it is taken out of context. Was Carroll for or against the movie? Besides, isn't Gibson considered to be somewhat schizmatic or at least not in favor of the Novus Ordo Liturgy? Why do you bring this up? Is someone offended that I posted Carroll's opinions?

 

[brewmama]

This is the quote from the magazine. I had no idea. But I think this is the problem over at OBOB. There are Catholics, and Traditional Catholics like the SSPX, and then there are cafeteria Catholics and the three don't get along. I don't know where Carroll fits in this picture. I've never heard of him before.

The only spokesman for the Catholic Church is Pope John Paul II.

P.S. Please give the post number and thread whenever you quote something, so I can follow up. Otherwise, it is taken out of context. Was Carroll for or against the movie? Besides, isn't Gibson considered to be somewhat schizmatic or at least not in favor of the Novus Ordo Liturgy? Why do you bring this up? Is someone offended that I posted Carroll's opinions?

You posted it in this thread, I used the quote box for your quote. (?) What else do you want me to do?

Carroll is a liberal who is anti-pope and pro all the liberal stuff those types want the Church to embrace. No one has complained, but I have a problem with him myself, and if he speaks against the movie, I would take that as a recommendation to see it.

 

[MariaRegina]

You posted it in this thread, I used the quote box for your quote. (?) What else do you want me to do?

Carroll is a liberal who is anti-pope and pro all the liberal stuff those types want the Church to embrace. No one has complained, but I have a problem with him myself, and if he speaks against the movie, I would take that as a recommendation to see it.

I'm sorry - I do have a vision problem -- kindly tell me the post number.

I didn't know that Carroll is considered to be liberal, anti-pope and the rest. I've never read his stuff before. Where did you get the scoop on Carroll? What are your references?

Thanks for your help here, in advance. Honestly, I'm conservative. I'm just not yet convinced to see this movie as I read several well recommended Catholic books that had a lot of violence in them and ended up needing prayers of exorcism by my Orthodox Priest. So I'm rather cautious, but for a good reason.

 

[brewmama]

I'm sorry - I do have a vision problem -- kindly tell me the post number.

I didn't know that Carroll is considered to be liberal, anti-pope and the rest. I've never read his stuff before. Where did you get the scoop on Carroll? What are your references?

Thanks for your help here, in advance. Honestly, I'm conservative. I'm just not yet convinced to see this movie as I read several well recommended Catholic books that had a lot of violence in them and ended up needing prayers of exorcism by my Orthodox Priest. So I'm rather cautious, but for a good reason.

I can understand your reluctance on the squeamishness factor, I also know others who feel the same. But the liberals have come out full force against this movie also, and I don't want to give them any support or ammunition. They are pretty much 100% anti-Christian.

I have been reading of James Carroll in First Things magazine for quite awhile. Here are some search results on him by First Things. He trashed the early Church in Constantine's Sword.
http://switch2.netrics.com/cgi-bin/likeit.cgi

Oh, I think it was post 72

That link doesn't seem to work, I'll just copy it.




Search results for "James Carroll"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. FT February 2002: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll, perpetrator of the risible history of Christian anti–Semitism Constantine’s Sword, is a columnist for the Boston Globe. “This War Is Not Just” is a rehash of the usual arguments, but he adds the complaint that the government used the anthrax scare to justify the war on terrorism. “Now, the operating assumption is that the anthrax cases, unrelated to bin Laden, are domestic crimes, not acts of war. But for a crucial moment, they effectively played the role in this war that the

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0202/public.html
2. FT December 1999: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll is back at the stand the New Yorker gives him from time to time. The last time we took note, he was hawking dissident German theologian Hans Kng’s thesis that the Catholic Church should acknowledge "co–responsibility" with Hitler for the Holocaust. In a subsequent article, he takes up the canonization of Edith Stein in "The Saint and the Holocaust." There is the usual flapdoodle about the Church wanting to "Christianize" the Holocaust, but then comes a novel twist suggesting that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/public.html
3. FT August September 2002: Pius XII and the Holocaust and Popes and Politics (more matches on this page)

Sin, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword go further—to treat Pius’ supposed failings as an indication of the pathologies that permeate the Catholic Church as a whole. In the anti-papal diatribe he published in the January 21, 2002 issue of the New Republic (“What Would Jesus Have Done?”), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen took this strategy to a new level, seamlessly weaving together vicious attacks on the Pope and blatant anti-Catholicism (see Rychlak’s reply to Goldhagen in FT, June/July 2002).

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/reviews/dalin.html
4. FT April 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Andrew Sullivan reviews James Carroll’s fashionable trashing of Christianity, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. To be sure, Mr. Carroll, a former priest whose 756 pages are in the service of refashioning the Catholic Church according to what some still call “the spirit of Vatican II,” does not describe his book as a trashing. He writes more in sorrow than in anger, and so forth. In his review in the New York Times Book Review under the arrestingly original title “Christianity’s

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/public.html
5. FT November 2003: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

likes of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, James Carroll, and John Cornwell, who charge Pius XII with indifference, and even with crimes against humanity, during the Holocaust. In the present issue we publish Father Martin Rhonheimers assessment of less admirable dimensions of Catholic leadership during those times of terror. Yes, there were the rescuers; and yes, the record of Catholic leaders is far better than that of Protestants, especially in Germany; and yes, we must be exceedingly careful in

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0311/public.html
6. FT June/July 2002: Goldhagen v. Pius XII (more matches on this page)

Goldhagen was probably fooled by James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Carroll artfully states that the concordat was Nazi Germany’s first bilateral treaty. In fact, the Four Powers Pact between Germany, France, Italy, and England preceded the concordat’s signing. Moreover, Hitler’s representatives were fully accredited and recognized by the League of Nations and took part in the disarmament discussions in Geneva, which also came before the signing of the concordat. The Soviet Union on May 5,

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0206/articles/rychlak.html
7. Books in Review: Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (more matches on this page)

Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. By James Carroll. Houghton Mifflin. 756 pp. $20.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/reviews/noble.html
8. FT August/September 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Yes, I am intensely interested in, but I hope not obsessed by, the reception of James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. The other week at a Barnes Noble book signing for Death on a Friday Afternoon, copies of Carroll’s book were stacked six feet high at the entrance and the manager told me it is selling briskly. It seems likely that many minds and souls are being poisoned, for this is a deeply bad book. In addition to our own review by Thomas F. X. Noble (May), I have

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0108/public.html
9. FT December 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

recent books such as John Cornwall’s Hitler’s Pope, Garry Wills’ Papal Sins, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Cornwall and Wills leave no doubt that their motivation in attacking the papal office is to promote changes in Catholic teachings and practices from which they dissent. Carroll is more ambitious, advocating a wholesale recasting of the Christian gospel that eliminates the centrality of the Cross and Christ’s redemptive suffering. Their purposes are understandable, even if they

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0112/public.html
10. FT May 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Except for a few reviews such as Andrew Sullivan’s in the New York Times Book Review, James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword is taking an awful drubbing. And deservedly so. Our review in this issue makes points not made elsewhere, but already our Dan Moloney, writing in National Review, has highlighted historical and conceptual gaffes that wobble between the grotesque and hilarious. Elsewhere, in Slate, Katha Pollitt writes: “Carroll is welcome to rediscover—or invent—a form of Christianity that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/public.html


Results Page
· 1 ·2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · next page>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[MariaRegina]

I can understand your reluctance on the squeamishness factor, I also know others who feel the same. But the liberals have come out full force against this movie also, and I don't want to give them any support or ammunition. They are pretty much 100% anti-Christian.

I have been reading of James Carroll in First Things magazine for quite awhile. Here are some search results on him by First Things. He trashed the early Church in Constantine's Sword.
http://switch2.netrics.com/cgi-bin/likeit.cgi

Oh, I think it was post 72

That link doesn't seem to work, I'll just copy it.




Search results for "James Carroll"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. FT February 2002: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll, perpetrator of the risible history of Christian anti–Semitism Constantine’s Sword, is a columnist for the Boston Globe. “This War Is Not Just” is a rehash of the usual arguments, but he adds the complaint that the government used the anthrax scare to justify the war on terrorism. “Now, the operating assumption is that the anthrax cases, unrelated to bin Laden, are domestic crimes, not acts of war. But for a crucial moment, they effectively played the role in this war that the

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0202/public.html
2. FT December 1999: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

James Carroll is back at the stand the New Yorker gives him from time to time. The last time we took note, he was hawking dissident German theologian Hans Kng’s thesis that the Catholic Church should acknowledge "co–responsibility" with Hitler for the Holocaust. In a subsequent article, he takes up the canonization of Edith Stein in "The Saint and the Holocaust." There is the usual flapdoodle about the Church wanting to "Christianize" the Holocaust, but then comes a novel twist suggesting that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/public.html
3. FT August September 2002: Pius XII and the Holocaust and Popes and Politics (more matches on this page)

Sin, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword go further—to treat Pius’ supposed failings as an indication of the pathologies that permeate the Catholic Church as a whole. In the anti-papal diatribe he published in the January 21, 2002 issue of the New Republic (“What Would Jesus Have Done?”), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen took this strategy to a new level, seamlessly weaving together vicious attacks on the Pope and blatant anti-Catholicism (see Rychlak’s reply to Goldhagen in FT, June/July 2002).

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/reviews/dalin.html
4. FT April 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Andrew Sullivan reviews James Carroll’s fashionable trashing of Christianity, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. To be sure, Mr. Carroll, a former priest whose 756 pages are in the service of refashioning the Catholic Church according to what some still call “the spirit of Vatican II,” does not describe his book as a trashing. He writes more in sorrow than in anger, and so forth. In his review in the New York Times Book Review under the arrestingly original title “Christianity’s

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/public.html
5. FT November 2003: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

likes of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, James Carroll, and John Cornwell, who charge Pius XII with indifference, and even with crimes against humanity, during the Holocaust. In the present issue we publish Father Martin Rhonheimers assessment of less admirable dimensions of Catholic leadership during those times of terror. Yes, there were the rescuers; and yes, the record of Catholic leaders is far better than that of Protestants, especially in Germany; and yes, we must be exceedingly careful in

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0311/public.html
6. FT June/July 2002: Goldhagen v. Pius XII (more matches on this page)

Goldhagen was probably fooled by James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Carroll artfully states that the concordat was Nazi Germany’s first bilateral treaty. In fact, the Four Powers Pact between Germany, France, Italy, and England preceded the concordat’s signing. Moreover, Hitler’s representatives were fully accredited and recognized by the League of Nations and took part in the disarmament discussions in Geneva, which also came before the signing of the concordat. The Soviet Union on May 5,

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0206/articles/rychlak.html
7. Books in Review: Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (more matches on this page)

Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. By James Carroll. Houghton Mifflin. 756 pp. $20.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/reviews/noble.html
8. FT August/September 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Yes, I am intensely interested in, but I hope not obsessed by, the reception of James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews. The other week at a Barnes Noble book signing for Death on a Friday Afternoon, copies of Carroll’s book were stacked six feet high at the entrance and the manager told me it is selling briskly. It seems likely that many minds and souls are being poisoned, for this is a deeply bad book. In addition to our own review by Thomas F. X. Noble (May), I have

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0108/public.html
9. FT December 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

recent books such as John Cornwall’s Hitler’s Pope, Garry Wills’ Papal Sins, and James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword. Cornwall and Wills leave no doubt that their motivation in attacking the papal office is to promote changes in Catholic teachings and practices from which they dissent. Carroll is more ambitious, advocating a wholesale recasting of the Christian gospel that eliminates the centrality of the Cross and Christ’s redemptive suffering. Their purposes are understandable, even if they

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0112/public.html
10. FT May 2001: The Public Square (more matches on this page)

Except for a few reviews such as Andrew Sullivan’s in the New York Times Book Review, James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword is taking an awful drubbing. And deservedly so. Our review in this issue makes points not made elsewhere, but already our Dan Moloney, writing in National Review, has highlighted historical and conceptual gaffes that wobble between the grotesque and hilarious. Elsewhere, in Slate, Katha Pollitt writes: “Carroll is welcome to rediscover—or invent—a form of Christianity that

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0105/public.html

Thanks, Brewmama

It was post #72

When I first glanced through Carroll, he seemed to be siding with the Orthodox. Upon reading it a second time, I can see your concern. While he seems to be emphasizing the Resurrection (He sounded so Orthodox here, like a sly fox!) he seems to be saying that the Crucifixion wasn't really necessary at all (very unorthodox).

So thanks, Brewmama, for pointing this out.

Now how shall we handle this -- let post 72 remain -- or add this small addendum to post 72 as an editorial note to be wary?

Your call!

In Christ,
Elizabeth

 

[Suzannah]

Allright, finally got to see the Passion last night. I took my daughter and my husband.

First, I want to say that my daughter is extremely advanced for her age. She is 9. She also has been well prepared for this film, knowing the New Testament as well as a nine year old can. She has always understood the concept of the Crucifixtion as well as the important place it holds in Christianity. That being said, I would not allow just any kid to see this film for obvious reasons.

Yes, it was brutal. Yes, it was terribly violent. But here's my honest two cents: I have seen bloodier films. And this was not gratuitous violence. This was the Greatest Story ever told. I think the media hyped on this, simply as an excuse to attack a Christian film. The busy bodies of our society, those who want to "protect us from ourselves" are given way too much credit.

The film itself:

The imagery is purely traditional Catholic and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Gibson cannot possibly make an "Orthodox" movie. It is unfair to hold him to a standard that he does not embrace. The symbolism of the now infamous "baby" is a poetic license that I felt served the film extremely well, to show that Satan was mocking (and always will) the Holy Birth of Our Lord, and the Purity of Mary. I felt that this was an allusion to the idea that Satan is the opposite of Mary since God has no equal. The baby seemed to symbolize that "sin" was "born" into the world. Mary, being the Holy Mother of our Lord, the God Bearer who brought Jesus into the world, is his ultimate Adversary. If I missed the point of this, I can't help it, because I'm not Catholic, but this is what I felt Mr. Gibson was trying to portray in an artistic way, and I felt he did that very well.

There was so much "Bible" in this film I hardly know where to start. Jesus attacked by the serpent in Gethsemane, and he crushed it under his heel. (Genesis, somewhere...)

Once Jesus is arrested, the film does not let up in it's violence. Images that will probably stay with me forever:

Jesus building a "new fangled" table and Mary trying it out and joking, "This will never catch on..." : this is the Altar! This is our Inheritance!

Satan gliding around unseen through the company of the soldiers who are scourging Jesus....

The Holy Napkin!!!!

The soldier who turns, after Jesus falls, to see Mary helping him, saying "I'm here.." The soldier turns to someone and says with a genuine look of wonder on his face, "Who is She????"

Simon, who helps Jesus carry the Cross, the look on his face, when they reach the top....He runs away, not being able to bear, the knowledge that he has gained...He was an unbeliever, and by carrying this Cross, he has been illumined and you are left knowing that this man was never the same.

In all, I can say that the violence in this film is very, very personal. It is very difficult to watch it, even though we have seen blood and gore, like this before...It is different. His Blood is different.

I wept from beginning to end. My husband left a much more thoughtful person. We haven't really talked about what we saw, except to explain the more difficult parts to our daughter.

My daughter's reaction: She cried in many parts of the film. But before she went to bed she came to me and said, "Jesus isn't dead! And I saw Satan all alone in Hell. Jesus is not in that grave and He went to Heaven, so I'm not going to have any nightmares."

This is a powerful film and I recommend it completely to anyone.

 

[Michael G]

Half way through Great Lent, and I finally got arround to going to see the film. I went alone, my wife was not sure she wanted to see it. The Movie was definitely Catholic. It was like a living version of the "stations of the cross." I agree with Suzannah, how can a Catholic make an Orthodox movie? The points that Suzannah pointed out all stuck out to me, especially the Holy Napkin (Mandylion). I think the role of Simon Cyrene was very well played, with him helping Christ with the cross and seemingly walking away a believer due to the experience. Mel did an excellent job showing the love of the Theotokus for her Son. That did alot to help heal the relationship I have with the Theotokus which has been so damaged by all the years growing up Catholic (all of my adverse reactions to maryolatry and the idea of Mediatrix of All Graces, etc.) The violence was strong, but I understand the point he was trying to make. By His wounds we were healed. The Roman soldiers were made out to be sadists. They seemed to get high on the brutality. The Jewish leaders were made out to be the arrogant beings the Gospel describes them as being. But he didn't put very much emphasis on the Resurrection! In that part Mel could have used a healthy dose of Orthodoxy! Also, while the earthquake was well done, I don't think he did enough to show the world mourning the loss of Christ. I thought the sky should have totally turned to night and a nasty strom blown through. He could have done more to emphasize that. I found it interesting the Noble Joseph was portrayed as walking away from the trial after he tried to defend Christ. I also was disappointed that the Roman Centurion, the Martyr Longinus, did not say "Truly this was the Son of God" while kneeling in front of the cross. Finally, Mary Magdalene was very well done. I guess I have gone on long enough about the film. I would give it a B+, only an Orthodox version would get an A from me. Ok, I am biased
Peace,
Michael