www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Passion Not Accurate - GO Priest Says

Maybe Mel Gibson should have finished the movie and showed the resurrection and the happy part which followed the Passion of Jesus Christ.

The author of the quote.

Once again, the text of the Gospels (and some non-canonicals thrown in there with artistic liberties) cannot stand on its own without a theological debate.

The USCCB complained about not enough 'why' for the 'how'; the Orthodox complained about not enough 'why' for the 'how.' The USCCB looked for more pre-Passion reasons; the Orthodox looked for more post-Passion reasons.

Are Catholics and Orthodox leaders our worse enemies when it comes to getting the message of the Scriptures across? The Protestants and Evangelicals were already busting out the gate before the shot was fired ...

Can we not accept the movie for what is is: the PASSION of the Christ, the longest distinct continuous narrative in any of the four canonical Gospels. Just as the early believers learned of His pathos, they too began to ask the question: why?

It is in stage two where we as Christians can eleborate. Good Friday stands by itself, but not for long.

"Having suffered, the Passion for us, Christ Jesus, Son of God, have mercy, have mercy, have mercy on us!"

Joe

TO YOUR CROSS O CHRIST WE BOW DOWN IN WORSHIP OF MASTER AND YOUR HOLY RESURRECTION WE GLORIFY!

Dear Forum Members, +May the LORD bless you, especially during this Holy Season of Great Lent! Many of you have e-mailed me during the past few days asking what I think of Mel's movie...etc. So I thought I respond here...it's easier during this busy season and I have little time otherwise.

The Passion of The Christ. I think personally, I'm probably MUCH too sensitive for such a movie. I'm sure that I won't go. I'd probably just cry and cry and have to been removed from the theatre. I'm sure that the movie WILL help many in their relationship with the Lord. As for me, the Lord and I go back many MANY years now...and we don't really need movies to help our relationship, I much prefer to enter into the actual event in the Liturgy and the Holy Services. The image of Our Lord Jesus on the Cross for Eastern/Orthodox Christians is always as VICTOR. The suffering bloodied Christ is an icon that many Western Christians have found helpful (especially Spanish, Italian, and others), but we Orthodox have always maintained and preferred to view the CHRISTOS in Glory as the Victor!

The way Orthodox Christians traditionally come closer to the Lord is through the Liturgy, which is the ACTUAL piercing of time and our joining the events of salvation in God's ever present moment. There can be nothing more beautiful and intimate than THIS---it is, after all---THE real thing! I hope many who see the movie will be moved to love and serve Him better and, as some have said, we need to place the blame on our OWN sins rather than the various groups of people living and participating in the historical event.

A blessed and holy Lent to all of you!

In Him Who is Risen,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory, who asks for your forgiveness and your holy prayers!

I have not yet seen the film and haven't actually decided if I will do so. I spent much of my youth under the spiritual care of the Passionist Fathers, and once gave strong consideration to joining the sons of St Paul of the Cross in their fourth vow, to promote devotion to the Passion of our Lord.

Probably for this reason, I have been very consciously aware in my almost 4 decades as a Byzantine Catholic, of the decidedly different Eastern emphasis - our focus on the "end", the Resurrection of Christ and the correspondingly assured opportunity for mankind's resurrection, rather than on the "means" by which He accomplished it, His Passion and His Death, over which He triumphed. In being so aware, I have never felt that the West was wrong or that the East was right, only that the latter gave me a profound sense of my opportunity for participation in the great mystery of that new Beginning which He made for us. That said, I still carry in my mind and heart the extraordinary suffering that He endured to give us the opportunity of resurrection (the Passionists, though lacking the graphic visual imagry afforded by Mr. Gibson's genre, spare few if any sensibilities in their mission of preaching His Passion).

But, I have to agree wholeheartedly with my brothers, djs and David, and Anton, who posted on another thread:

IMHO, we of the East have, much more so than our brothers and sisters of the West, nurtured and treasured the individuality of our spirituality and it ill behooves any of us to require of others that they derive spiritual edification or even sustenance from the same font that we percieve as nourishing, not when that wellspring is not Divine Revelation or inspired dogma, but a Hollywood production - regardless of how well-meant its message is or how well-intended the messenger.

There are persons of goodwill, lovers of He Who is the Lover of mankind, who will not find themselves enamored of, inspired by, or in any way appreciative of Gibson's work. That does not make them any less a good Christian of whatever faith and it does not and will not deny them the legacy of salvation that He gave to us with His Passion.

I decline to believe that Mel Gibson, however personally holy he is and however well-intentioned, has been commissioned from On High to bring the world to salvation; that some will come to it because of their experience in watching this movie, I have no doubt, and for affording them that opportunity, I thank Mr. Gibson. But, what he will have done (all he will have done) is to exercise his witness, as we are all called to do, each in our own way and with whatever God-given talents and gifts we can bring to the task.

Unless and until someone declares "The Passion" to be of the Deposit of Faith and attaches excomuni�n latae sententiae reservada a la Sede Apost�lica to criticism of it, I'll continue to believe that reasonable men may differ on its efficacy to their individual faith.

Many years,

Neil

For starters the Resurrection is in The Passion. It is brief but also profound, as are the Gospels of Matthew and Mark in their treatment of the Resurrection, who both give two paragraphs to the Resurrection whereas Matthew gives three pages to the Passion and Mark two pages. Are these Gospels in conflict with the Byzantine "tradition"?

"Now, if you are going to look at it as a piece of art, fine, the Passion is the Passion. But, if there is to be a theological message there, the fact of the matter is that in the Byzantine tradition, one cannot divorce it from Christ's teachings and, more importantly the triumph over death that was the Resurrection."

The Passion is not divorced from either. Both Christ's teachings and His triumph over death are present in the movie. Those who say they are not are not being truthful.

The Passion is told through a Latin lense. In fact The Passion is very much the Stations of the Cross or the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary acted out. That The Passion is in the tradition of the Latin Church does not invalidate its message, that is, unless one is decrying the entire Latin Church and its practices. I have come to expect that from some Orthodox circles but it is beneath one who is in communion with the Latin Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Tony,

Thank you for the links. I understand the theology, but I responded in frustration. That I should not have done. Here is the comment that most got under my skin.

"The errors that deviate from the gospel are profound."

This is clearly wrong. That the movie does not show the entire Gospel is quite true. That was not Gibson's intention, though it is a little unfair to say that he did not depict the resurrection which he most certainly did, not only in the last scene but throughout the movie. Perhaps if we had seen his fuller comments and not just bits and pieces from the reporter's notes it would have been more understandable. Still the comment above is damning, not against Gibson's movie, but against the priest's ideas.

Mexican,

He did depict the resurrection.

Dan L

Dan,

I have not seen the movie yet, but I do plan to and an Orthodox priest friend will probably go with me.

I only responded to the "hint, hint" and Kazantzakis comments in your post.

Tony

Here's a liberal Protestant version of "The Passion of the Christ"

http://therestoration.org/regional/newengland/ottohiss/film.wmv

Instead of giving a broadside against Gibson's work I wish that the Orthodox critics of it had and would present their film version of it, or at least ideas for their film version of it.

It's a bit embarrassing to read, as we have in this thread, criticisms of Gibson's movie from persons who haven't yet seen it. Still, I do realize why the 3-D crucifix of the West is not the version we use. We depict the Risen Christ who in His resurrection still has sacrificed. I understand that we are closests to Christ at the Divine Liturgy. Still, the criticisms of Mel's movie made by the Orthodox priest are unfair and inaccurate. I know it's a free country. But the comments are still inaccurate.

Why not clearly offer an alternative? How are we ever to bring the Gospel to the world if all we are willing to do is bring it to those who are already part of the Church? How are we to bring the Gospel to the world if all we hear are criticisms of every valid effort but ones own.

I still find the article an embarrassment to the Church.

Dan Lauffer

Deacon Lance,

I'm not sure if your post was in response to mine but, if so, I did not anywhere seek to invalidate its message, although I did speak of its focus as being more Latin than Eastern. However, I didn't suggest nor do I believe that any practice (Eastern or Western) that a believer of the other lung can employ to their spiritual benefit is without merit.

The major thrust of my post is contained in its final line:

"reasonable men may differ on its efficacy to their individual faith."

I was decrying the tendency here to denigrate the opinions of anyone who has viewed the film and come away critical or uninspired. I stand by my comments in that regard.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

No my comments, were directed to Hal and his sanction of the Greek Orthodox priest's comments.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I wonder, imagine a movie that focused on the Nativity of our Lord, shown during the Christmas season, that did not mention the Resurection. Would it also draw the ire of the Fr. Kantzavelos?

I see nothing wrong about a movie that portrays a specific part of the Life of our Lord, as long as it is faithful to that part of the Gospel in particular, and the whole Gospel in general.

'The Passion' seems to do that.

And maybe we should just skip all this Lenten fasting and penance stuff, and just go straight into the happy time of Easter, which follows Lent.

Scotus,

Without the full letter sent out by the good father I don't know how accurate our comments are. However, based upon the quotes in the interview one wonders if this man is a recent convert and just likes to pick fights with Catholicism to justify his change. If so, is that any better than a Protestant who bases his theology on whatever opposes a Catholic position? I pray that there are better representatives of Orthodox theology around than this.

Dan L

Yes, for those who critize and haven't seen, the Resurrection is in the movie and, as Fr. Dcn. Lance said, is quite profound.

I thought it was interesting that the Resurrection was even in the movie, since it is about the Passion. That's nice that Mr. Gibson included this, and I thought (oh silly me), that it would satisfy most/all Eastern Christians.

But the movie is about the Passion. It's not about the Resurrection. Maybe Gibson's second movie about Christ should be about His Resurrection. That'd be great. But I think it would be childish and divisive for Latin Catholics to complain and lament that in "The Resurrection of the Christ," (play along and fantasize with me here) the Passion is not included and thus "misses the point" because the Passion and Resurrection can't be divorced from each other. They can't, but this film is not divorcing the two.

The bottom line is that Catholics and Orthodox should not use this beautiful depiction of Christ's Passion as another tool of division, as Alice said. Appreciate it for what it is worth, and then petition Mr. Gibson for a "Resurrection" sequel! That'd be more productive and well worth the effort.

Logos Teen

The lengths that some Orthodox, ECs and RCs go to in order to differentiate themselves is, to put it kindly, amazing. To put it honestly, it's disgusting.

Mel Gibson is a Traditionalist Latin Catholic. Knowledgeable ECs and RCs know that the Western Church has long (not so much anymore) focused deeply on the Passion of Christ. As pointed out, the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, as well as the Divine Mercy devotion, focus on Christ's Passion.

I am not here to tell any Eastern Catholic how to practice his or her faith. I come here as a humble LC to learn from all of you who know so much more than me.

I believe that Gibson made The Passion as an expression of his faith a gift from Christ - which is expressed differently between East and West, but is not different except for how we sinners make it.