People News
By April MacIntyre Jun 6, 2009, 18:41 GMT
Mel Gibson's Holy Family church member speaks out
And Also
Mel Gibson - View Mel Gibson Pictures - Mel Gibson News
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Headlines in People
- 1. Florence Welch's US fears
- 2. Russell Crowe besotted by bow
- 3. Fantasy actor Zac Efron
- 4. Taio Cruz would work with Brown
- 5. Pixie Lott ignores advances
Older Talkback
Trad not mad:
I agree. I think an important theme of 'The Passion of the Christ' is even to not cast stones and to stand up AGAINST hate (speech).
This is a quote from internet about 'The Passion'(to M&C: not an article from another site):
To see any event as a reason to divide different groups into categories of either deserving or undeserving, one must believe such distinctions are possible to begin with. Who-ever leaves from the assumption that such black-and-white categorizations are impossible, can’t interpret them as the cause of any event.
So what is a bigot? A bigot is a person who holds a view of life that says he is better than the ones he opposes, his conviction that he is different, ‘above’ (that German word ‘über’), that he couldn’t be or do the same, is even the excuse he uses to look down on and reject them. Mel Gibson, who supposedly thinks he is better than Jews, on the other hand uses his OWN hand in The Passion to drive the nail through Jesus’ hand in that gruesome, much talked about scene: An indication that his beliefs are the exact opposite of those of a bigot. He doesn’t view himself as ‘better’ and ‘above’ at all. This point of view in fact fits within a commonly held belief in America that we are all essentially equals, that we are ALL capable of both the best and the worst - under the right or wrong conditions that is. It is a suggestion that offends some, that shouldn’t be used however to suggest that MG is a bigot while a bigot does the exact opposite of claiming to be (capable of) the same.
The vision that Mel Gibson is singling out Jews doesn’t fit within his overall choices as a producer and director anyway. Facts are the fabric reality is made of, they should not be skipped as irrelevant somehow: Mel Gibson ALWAYS portrays abusers as fiendish somehow, he portrays blue-eyed gentiles that way. He also focuses on ALL sorts of abuse and wrong doings, in ALL sorts of stories. He was even going to finance and produce a mini-series about a Jewish woman who survives the holocaust (an anti-Semite is as likely to make a choice for that as the democrats are to pay for and support the campaign of the republicans). MG is in other words not at all pointing to Jews as the common enemy, he is pointing to hatred itself as our shared enemy - as the enemy of all people alike. In the biblical accounts of The Passion, as well as in the film, Jesus indeed does not retaliate, He instead forgives. Mel Gibson has stated over and over again that this, to him at least, is the crux of the story. He even calls Jesus the ultimate hero for rejecting hatred and choosing the other way instead, he calls him our ultimate example in that regard. He also stresses the fact that we are all the same, by specifically introducing a flashback in the film in which Jesus says to a crowd ready to stone a woman: “He who is without sin throw the first stone”. In other words, ‘don’t put yourself above others’.
Some people say that Mel Gibson could have chosen other biblical accounts to stress the above, this is not true however - the other stories would lack conviction in the sense that it is no accomplishment at all to be kindhearted and gentile, to forgive, for anyone who hasn’t or has hardly been wronged, it is only a measure of inner strength, wisdom and success for anyone who has been.
Did the Apostle Paul not judge and 'cast the first stone' when he said in 1 Corinthians 5:
New International Version
hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
New American Standard Bible
I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
International Standard Version
turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of his body, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord.
GOD'S WORD Translation
hand such a person over to Satan to destroy his corrupt nature so that his spiritual nature may be saved on the day of the Lord.
King James Bible
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
American King James Version
To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
American Standard Version
to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Bible in Basic English
That this man is to be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may have forgiveness in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Douay-Rheims Bible
To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Darby Bible Translation
to deliver him, I say, being such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
English Revised Version
to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Webster's Bible Translation
To deliver such one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Weymouth New Testament
I have handed over such a man to Satan for the destruction of his body, that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus.
World English Bible
are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Young's Literal Translation
to deliver up such a one to the Adversary for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Geneva Study Bible
(5) The one who is excommunicated is delivered to the power of Satan, in that he is cast out of the house of God.
(c) What it is to be delivered to Satan the Lord himself declares when he says, Let him be unto thee as a heathen and publican; Mt 18:17. That is to say, to be disfranchised and put out of the right and privileges of the city of Christ, which is the Church, outside of which Satan is lord and master.
(6) The goal of excommunication is not to cast away the excommunicate that he should utterly perish, but that he may be saved, that is, that by this means his flesh may be tamed, that he may learn to live to the Spirit.
People's New Testament
5:5 To deliver such one unto Satan. Not only this one, but all such persons. To deliver unto Satan is to excommunicate; to extradite from the kingdom of God to the prince of this world. The expression is used in 1Ti 1:20.
For the destruction of the flesh. Fleshly desires had caused the sin. These must be destroyed. The humiliation of excommunication, the sense of one's lost condition, was well adapted to bring a repentance. Some have held that this meant to send some painful disease miraculously. I believe that the Latin fathers and Beza are right in understanding that it refers to the mortification of the offender, cast out, shunned by the church as a dead body. This person is ordered to be restored, having repented, and no mention is made of disease, in 2Co 2:7.
That the spirit may be saved. This is the object of all true discipline. If carried out, as in the early church, it was well calculated to bring to repentance. It was effective in this instance, as we learn from 2Co 2:6.
Wesley's Notes
5:5 To deliver such an one - This was the highest degree of punishment in the Christian church; and we may observe, the passing this sentence was the act of the apostle, not of the Corinthians. To Satan - Who was usually permitted, in such cases, to inflict pain or sickness on the offender. For the destruction - Though slowly and gradually. Of the flesh - Unless prevented by speedy repentance.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
5. Besides excommunication (of which the Corinthians themselves had the power), Paul delegates here to the Corinthian Church his own special power as an apostle, of inflicting corporeal disease or death in punishment for sin ('to deliver to Satan such an one,' that is, so heinous a sinner). For instances of this power, see Ac 5:1-11; 13:11; 1Ti 1:20. As Satan receives power at times to try the godly, as Job (Job 2:4-7) and Paul (2Co 12:7; compare also as to Peter, Lu 22:31), much more the ungodly. Satan, the 'accuser of the brethren' (Re 12:10) and the 'adversary' (1Pe 5:8), demands the sinner for punishment on account of sin (Zec 3:1). When God lets Satan have his way, He is said to 'deliver the sinner unto Satan' (compare Ps 109:6). Here it is not finally; but for the affliction of the body with disease, and even death (1Co 11:30, 32), so as to destroy fleshly lust. He does not say, 'for the destruction of the body,' for it shall share in redemption (Ro 8:23); but of the corrupt 'flesh' which 'cannot inherit the kingdom of God,' and the lusts of which had prompted this offender to incest (Ro 7:5; 8:9, 10). The 'destruction of the flesh' answers to 'mortify the deeds of the body' (Ro 8:13), only that the latter is done by one's self, the former is effected by chastisement from God (compare 1Pe 4:6):
the spirit . saved-the spiritual part of man, in the believer the organ of the Holy Spirit. Temporary affliction often leads to permanent salvation (Ps 83:16).
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
5:1-8 The apostle notices a flagrant abuse, winked at by the Corinthians. Party spirit, and a false notion of Christian liberty, seem to have saved the offender from censure.
GRIEVOUS INDEED IS IT THAT CRIMES SHOULD SOMETIMES BE COMMITTED BY PROFESSORS OF THE GOSPEL, OF WHICH EVEN HEATHENS WOULD BE ASHAMED. SPIRITUAL PRIDE. SPIRITUAL PRIDE AND FALSE DOCTRINES TEND TO BRING IN, AND TO SPREAD SUCH SCANDALS. HOW DREADFUL THE EFFECTS OF SIN! THE DEVIL REIGNS WHERE CHRIST DOES NOT. AND A MAN IS IN HIS KINGDOM, AND UNDER HIS POWER, WHEN NOT IN CHRIST. THE BAD EXAMPLE OF A MAN OF INFLUENCE IS VERY MISCHIEVOUS; IT SPREADS FAR AND WIDE. CORRUPT PRINCIPLES AND EXAMPLES, IF NOT CORRECT, WOULD HURT THE WHOLE CHURCH.
Believers must have new hearts, and lead new lives. Their common conversation and religious deeds must be holy. So far is the sacrifice of Christ our Passover for us, from rendering personal and public holiness unnecessary, that it furnishes powerful reasons and motives for it.
Without holiness we can neither live by faith in him, nor join in his ordinances with comfort and profit.
Proverbs 23:14 You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.
1 Timothy 1:20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.(NASB)
For every text you quote others can and have throughout time quoted texts that advocate going the other way. It is a futile exercise, it would be utterly unproductive, we still would not meet. Our ground visions are too different.
Which is why the Catholics look at what the teaching of the Church says and not what an individual thinks. Jesus was not saying that the woman taken in adultery should not be punished - quite the reverse. It was because He, as God, could see into the woman's soul and could see that she knew she had sinned and that she deserved to be punished but that she was also repentant and thus he forgave her. We are required to judge others by their behaviour, that is all we can do. Unfortunately in this case the behaviour does not show repentance. The sin is judged as is required by God's laws to denounce this behaviour and call for repentance. As to his culpability that is entirely for God to know and judge.
Pearl,
Every denomination uses the bible to substantiate their vision.
I repeat my last comment. This is my last post.
That might be so - but we are talking about Catholics here not any denomination. I don't supose MG cares a jot what any other denomination thinks so why bring any other denomination into the discussion - useless.
Not every catholic thinks like you, eventhough you present it that way. In fact this comment section is proof of it. Even someone calling him/herself a traditional catholic doesn't agree with you.
Just shows what you know about Catholicism. Catholics are supposed to think the same way. Catholics are supposed to believe the same things and follow the same rules. It is Protestant to think that you can have sorts of differing views about the same thing and still call yourself a Catholic. You are Catholic in name only. And if you are supposed to be a Catholic then you are obviously a Modernist.
I am just stating a plain fact Pearl. You might believe that all of these other (traditional) catholics are misled, but obviously they don't share your point of view as to what a true catholic is. Some of them obviously believe it is you who is misled. That is just the way it is. Anyway, I am moving on.
Thing is it isn't my point of view that counts. It is what the Traditional teaching of the Church says that counts. Glad you're moving on - hope the sun shines where ever you are going :-)
I think one more reaction is justified. I will explain more plainly what I said above:
As far as these people are concerned you obviously do not get to put them on the side bench when it comes to determining what THE (traditional) church is and requires of people in this respect (to link this back to Mr. Gibson). To these people your ideas do not represent what THE (traditional) church wants - theirs do.
Pete, I'm afraid your answer is a nonsense. Sure they might make up their own rules but, as I said, that isn't what counts. What counts is the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and that is easy to know - you don't have to make it up. If Gibson has got an annulment from his Dad they all 'know' that it doesn't count for anything. Rules is rules as they say.
Your Talkback on this Story