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

JW,

Right you are. We in the Eastern Catholic Church should know best of what you write. I don't believe the West alone nor the East alone expresses the fullness of the Gospel. For that matter, I doubt that the fullness will be expressed until heaven. Even so, as long as we squabble over perspectives we will not only miss what God has for us, but at least as important, we will miss opportunities to share the Gospel with the world.

There used to be a poster here who called himself Dr. John. While I occasionally disagreed with him we were in complete agreement about the central importance of evangelism. I believe he was even more frustrated with our lack of focus in that area than I am. I wish he were still here.

You are probably aware of the Hindu/Buddhist story about the blind Brahmins and the elephant. Each blind Brahmin insisted that his "view" of the elephant was the only one acceptable even though each only touched a small portion of the animal. The EO, EC, RC, debate is just as blind and just as foolish.

Dan L

I would think it was also beneth one ordained into the deaconate to assume a "diss" where none was expressly stated.

hal

Hal,

What is one to assume when you "humbly agree" with an article that does indeed "diss" the Latin Tradition? If you felt part of the article had merit you should have qualified your statement rather than offer a blanket endorsement of the article.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon:

That, of course, is the core issue - how one reads this Greek Orthodox priest's response. You say it disrespects the Latin tradition. From my point of view, the response stands up for my tradition. The two do not go hand in hand.

So I maintain that the premise for your argument that I have somehow taken a shot at the Latin tradition is, from my point of view, misplaced.

Perhaps I should have just posted without comment, given the fact that everyone around here gets huffy when anyone, even a highly-ranked clergyman, says "boo" about Mel's version of what happened 2000 years ago.

With this, I take my leave.

hal

I have seen The Passion twice.

It is, IMHO, the greatest film ever made.

It made me weep both times . . .

a lot.

The Passion is the kind of thing that could change someone's life for the better.

I've read books that have made that sort of impression on me, but this is the first film that ever has.

The criticisms of it are unfounded.

Linus,

I second that!

CDL

Deacon,

It would seem that you have been caught between those of us who loved the movie and those of us who didn't care for it and we're both getting after you.

Please, forgive me for so strongly scoulding you. Let me reassure you (I hope it does not cause you dread) I'm not leaving.

Dan L

Dear Friends,

Well, I think that Christians in North America are voting with their purchase tickets in favour of this movie - it may turn out to be one of the greatest box-office hits of all time!

Hollywood will ignore it, to be sure.

Some of the invective against Mel Gibson, at least what I saw when I was in your Grand Republic, was truly beyond all telling.

One commentator said that he not only hated the movie, but that he thought the scourging scene suggested "homo-eroticism" on Mel Gibson's part (?).

(And since when is Hollywood against that?)

He also insisted that he wasn't a Christian (I'm grateful to him for making that clear!)

It was also said that Mel Gibson is a "schismatic RC" and so why are Catholics supporting him etc. etc. etc.

I also heard that Mel Gibson had his seventh child baptized by a Byzantine Catholic priest.

Does anyone know anything about that?

Alex

Alex,

Do you know who this "commentator" was or is?

The non- Christian was a writer for Vanity Fair and had a British accent,I can't remember his name though, saw his interview on CNBC Chris Mathews.

james

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

For myself, I think one can look at this issue one or two ways:

1. On the one hand, I've heard some fellow Orthodox point out that the Gospels don't go into explicit drawn out details about the physical sufferings or torments of Christ so neither should the Church dwell on this to a morbid degree (as does Gibson's movie).

2. On the other hand, the reply from many Roman Catholics is that if the passage mentions He was scourged, then all this torment is understood in this very mentioning by the Evangelists.

I think both arguments have weight. But in reality the ancient Churches are what they are, Catholic and Orthodox, and no movie is going to change either of them. The East will go on emphasizing what it has always emphasized and the West will do likewise.

The only other thing I think I can add that has any substance is another point I heard made by the Orthodox Fr. Thomas Hopko. He points out that many human beings have physically suffered more than Christ. Therefore to concentrate solely on his physical sufferings as does Gibson's movie, is to miss the point. Christ's primary sufferings and torments were spiritual. The fact that He, as God, took on not only our humanity but also the sins of all mankind made him suffer in an infinitely greater way than any 3 hour beating could have ever caused Him.

I think this is a valid point we of the East would make to our brothers of the West. This is not at all to deny our Lord's physical sufferings. Its only to point out that His real sufferings were far more in depth than flesh and bone. To focus solely on the physical is for many Orthodox, to have missed the deeper meaning of our Lord's voluntary passion.

Having said that, I respect Gibson's movie and his commitment to spreading the message about Christ. I also admire his willingess to bite the hand that has fed him all these years i.e. Hollywood. This certainly will atone to some degree for all of his ungodly past films. I'm sure he had this in mind when he made this film.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]