"The Passion" (Mel Gibson)

[Saved_4ever]

Yes some romans look like some Jews I have seen.  You made the claim that having short hair wasn't "short" like we think of it.  You implied that the Jews not only had no idea what short hair was but that they were incapable of it.  There is no proof for your claim that Jews think you have to have hair down to your butt in order for it to be long.  I have seen many Jews and talked to them.  I have yet to hear that "long hair" is ok.

That is all assuming culture then and culture now are the same, they are not. What is acceptable then and now is different. Things have changed in 2000 years. Things have changed in 20 years. Yeah, you have talked to Jews. You have talked to Jews NOW, not Jews back then. Hair styles change, why is that so hard to grasp?

So tell me where did you come up with your hog wash.  I also mentioned the Greeks who were around way before the romans.

Right, I took world history in High School, too.

Would you care to clarify what you mean with "right..." as your answer to my scripture?  The bible states that nature itself teaches you that long hair is a shame.  Why then do you and others think it's ok?

I was agreeing with you, what is there to clarify? The bible says this. Who said I disagree? Long hair is shameful to a man. No one is disagreeing. We are not talking about whether or not men should have long hair, we are discussion whether or not Jesus had the shoulder length hair that today's popular culture has given him.

Down to the shoulders is obviously long.  It's plenty easy to mistake a man with hair of that length to be a woman.  That's what makes it a shame.

[Tibby]

Exactly, it is. Now, it is. Back then...

[Corpus]

Just as a point of interest, Mel Gibson is not a Roman Catholic. He is what is called a "Traditionalist Catholic". This a confusing name for a group of dissidents that reject the changes made by Vatican II. They have broken away from the RCC and I don't think they recognize the Pope as their spiritual leader. Some people believe that they are a cult.

Simply not true.
And the linked website makes no reference to breaking away from Rome.

I'm guessing most of the gang here isn't interested in those who are or are not in communion with Rome, but it's laughable how many peoples and groups have been falsely accused of 'breaking with Rome.'

[Tibby]

They believe that the post-Vatican II church isn't the real Catholic Church. In other words, they believe the Pope isn’t Catholic after all. They believe all Catholics not with their little group are not True Catholics. They believe Pope Pius XII was the last true pope. They believe for this very moment in time, there is no Pope. Break away from Rome? If it was there choice, they’d have Rome burn to ashes. Don’t let the misleading use of the Word “movement” confuse you, my friend.

[Corpus]

Tibby,

There are several 'movements' within the Catholic Church (Focolare, Opus Dei, Cursillo, etc..). The church is perfectly fine with most and even endorses most. As for the Latin Mass movement, my father and his parish priest were actually part of the group (NOT the society of Pius X) and he and I had several conversations regarding it over the years. In fact in my own diocese our newly appointed Bishop recently announced he would be celebrating a Latin Mass to recognize the value and contributions of those who continue to maintain its integrity.

In 1988, John Paul II authorized celebration of the pre-Vatican II rite with the permission of the local bishop. He created a pontifical commission, Ecclesia Dei, charged with overseeing its use.

While the groups you refer to do exist, they are primarily part of or offshoots of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and his Pius X society. Bishop Lefebvre was rightly excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining four priests and subsequently elevating them to the episcopate.

Gibson and those like him might still be a bit fringe, but there's no evidence I'm aware of that they've broken away or dismiss the Pope as their spiritual leader. They might disagree, and they are perfectly entitled to, but Rome has not seen fit to disassociate themselves from the traditionalists, which can only mean the traditionalists have not done anything (yet)deserving of it.

I suspect I'd disagree with Gibson on some points of Catholicism, but I believe his film will have a very ecumenical appeal (a recent screening received very favorable reviews from many prominent non-Catholic Christians) and pray that the grumbling over anti-semitism is just that.

[Tibby]

Holding Latin masses is one thing. We are not talking about holding Latin Mass verses English Mass. We are not talking about those who hold to the Traditional Catholic beliefs, we are talking about the CTM, who not only support the Latin Mass over the Newer Vatican II mass, but also believe ol’ Johnny boy isn’t the pope, and that the Papal office has been lost.

[Corpus]

According to whom? The following is a piece of the charter from the CTM website  and was submitted to the Vatican in 1964.

That respectfully mature loyalty and filial obedience to the Supreme Roman Pontiff as Christ's Vicar on earth and the visible Head of His Church continue to be preached and practiced by all Catholics, and that all open or veiled efforts to impede the practical acceptance of the Holy Father's supreme primacy over shepherds and faithful alike, will be effectively unmasked and vigorously met.

As I stated previously, I suspect I'd disagree with some of Gibson's Catholicism, but suggesting he and members of the CTM reject JPII and and the office as currently established has no foundation in anything I've seen. If you have interviews, articles, etc.. I'd like to see them. My interest in this controversy surrounding The Passion is particular and any additional info. I can obtain on it or related issues would be appreciated.

[tqpix]

For those arguments between "Jesus nailed on the palm" vs. "Jesus nailed on the wrist":

Evidence uncovered by man says that people who were crucified were nailed throught the wrists.

[Symphony]

From Ambassador's earlier post above, Aug 25, it appears this is going to be most culturally explosive.

It's looking that way.  I'm only part way into it so far, Corpus, but a fairly lengthy article in this week's The New Yorker, Sept. 15, p. 58, by Peter J. Boyer, "The Jesus War".  Gibson being ostracized from a Beverly Hills smoking club; he is editing and re-editing the film, including the quote from Matthew, 'His blood be on us, and on our children', saying that if he doesn't edit it, "...man, ... they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me."(p. 61).

Gibson says critics are one-eyed, saying that Jesus was killed by the Jews.  Duh.  It was a secular, worldly, Gentile Roman magistrate, Pilate, who "found no gulit in the man"--three times!!--and yet made the ruling decision.  Under Roman law, Jews required that "blessing" for an execution.  So not only did the Gentiles effectively kill Jesus, but they contradicted their own law, requiring evidence, of which Pilate repeated  there was none!!!

But, as Gibson is opining, critics don't see that at all, only looking at it "one-eyed", and thus condemning him of anti-Semitism.

We just don't want to admit that WE killed Jesus.  We always want to pin it on someone else, on some other group, even in full light of contravening evidence.

We must be praying for Mel Gibson, in all of this.

In Jesus' Name....

[Whitehorse]

Don't you believe the Word of God?  OR are you one of the silly fellows that thinks that some things are just fairy tales in the bible?

 

[Corpus]

Symphony,

Thanks for the info. I accessed the New Yorker's website, but couldn't find the article. I'm guessing their e-zine is different from the newstand copy.

Gibson changing the film out of fear of his critics admittedly disturbs me a bit, but I have to remember he has a family with 6(?) kids. If he's that concerned about the response to the film, then I tend to believe he has good reason. He's typically not one to shy away from professing his faith in the face of opposition. I remember the Academy Awards when he won an Oscar for Braveheart. He chose to wear a ribbon commemorating his faith while everyone else wore their standard bearers for AIDS (which in the Hollywood community isn't so much about healing the body as it is supporting the lifestyle). I'm allowing that I might not even like the film, but unlike his critics I am at least waiting until I've actually seen it.

And I agree about prayers for both him and the film that results. May it appropriately reflect the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died that we may live.

[Symphony]

Your welcome, Corpus.

Yes, I accessed The New Yorker's website several years ago; it seemed then you could see their cartoons(my favorite ).  When I last checked a few months ago, seemed the most you could see was the Table of Contents to the latest issue.  Understandably, of course, for subscription reasons.  So I don't know that the in-depth articles either will be available on-line.

Anyway, the article on Gibson goes into the background, Gibson's dad and various sympathies, how an early script(last March) to the movie was stolen and passed on to an ad hoc group of Catholic scholars, and some of the consternation Gibson himself is going through.  All of this is pretty current.  I imagine Gibson himself is reading it.

I'm two thirds through it now.  

For those interested in what seems to me a good overview of the background of the making of this movie, this article might be a good start.  Maybe a library would have it.  I understand The New Yorker has a very careful "fact-checker" department carefully filtering out every detail in their articles, and this seems, as is typical  of them, amply supplied with names, various criticisms, thoughts, viewpoints, etc.

[Brother Love]

Short and long are relative. In this day, a crew cut is short, but in those times, mans hair was considered long when it was getting close to his butt. They wouldn’t dream of getting what we would consider short, because of all the Pagan Priests who shaved there heads. The Romans where clean cut and clean shaven, but you have to keep in mind it was different times back them, Barbers where expensive, and who had the time to sit there and let your buddy’s saw you hair with his knife all day?

Where did you come up with that hogwash?  Long was not down to anyone's butt and people have cut their hair for quite some time.  I sharp knife (very common thoughout history) would cut your hair like nothing.  There would be no sawing of hair.  The Romans greeks and many other cultures had short hair as close as a "crew cut".  Have ye never seen a greek statue.  They NEVER have long hair it doesn't even cover their ears.  If nature itself teaches you that longhair is a shame why do so many people think it's ok.  I don't get it.

Give me a head with hair LONG........

The sign said No longhair.........

I dont trust shorthair men

/l\ PEACE

Brother Love

[Saved_4ever]

Short and long are relative. In this day, a crew cut is short, but in those times, mans hair was considered long when it was getting close to his butt. They wouldn’t dream of getting what we would consider short, because of all the Pagan Priests who shaved there heads. The Romans where clean cut and clean shaven, but you have to keep in mind it was different times back them, Barbers where expensive, and who had the time to sit there and let your buddy’s saw you hair with his knife all day?

Where did you come up with that hogwash?  Long was not down to anyone's butt and people have cut their hair for quite some time.  I sharp knife (very common thoughout history) would cut your hair like nothing.  There would be no sawing of hair.  The Romans greeks and many other cultures had short hair as close as a "crew cut".  Have ye never seen a greek statue.  They NEVER have long hair it doesn't even cover their ears.  If nature itself teaches you that longhair is a shame why do so many people think it's ok.  I don't get it.

Give me a head with hair LONG........

The sign said No longhair.........

I dont trust shorthair men

/l\ PEACE

Brother Love

UUUMMM ok then? Well I guess you can't trust me as I don't have any hair except for some stubble.  I'm not down with the receding hair line thing.

[Allinall]

Posted by: tqpix  Posted on: September 14, 2003, 01:33:42 AM  
For those arguments between "Jesus nailed on the palm" vs. "Jesus nailed on the wrist":

Evidence uncovered by man says that people who were crucified were nailed throught the wrists.  

Absolutely!  The purpose was to give the victim a way to pull up and take a breath/exhale, can't recall which.  I think it was to exhale though.  Anyway, to put a nail through the hand would tear as the hand didn't have the strength and structure to support the weight.  This would have caused the victim to die earlier, which was the last thing they wanted.  It was supposed to last for days if possible.