www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall 'It Is as It Was': Mel Gibson's "The Passion" gets a thumbs-up from the pope

'It Is as It Was'
Mel Gibson's "The Passion" gets a thumbs-up from the pope

by Peggy Noonan
Wednesday, December 17, 2003 1:06 p.m. EST

Here's some happy news this Christmas season, an unexpected gift for those who have seen and admired Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion," and wish to support it. The film has a new admirer, and he is a person of some influence. He is in fact the head of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Pope John Paul II saw the movie the weekend before last, in the Vatican, apparently in his private rooms, on a television, with a DVD, and accompanied by his closest friend, Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz. Afterwards and with an eloquent economy John Paul shared with Msgr. Dziwisz his verdict. Dziwisz, the following Monday, shared John Paul's five-word response with the co-producer of The Passion, Steve McEveety.

This is what the pope said: "It is as it was."

See the entire article at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004442

Gee,

I was going to post the same for Rose, but the Administrator was quicker on the draw.

james

Thanks Jakub and Administrator

Is that totally awesome. His words 'It is as it was', seems as though he has seen more of the Crucifixion than one could imagine. How much more to the point can one get.

I think too, the fact that repeatedly I read in articles that it changes people inside. That they are faced with what they have done in their lives that caused this. This has to be a tremendous tool of evangelization. Someone says that at one point the cross falls forward at you (I hope that is correct) and totally immerces you in the movie. It must be a wonderful yet mind boggleing thing to see.

Besides that, I need all the help I can get to recognize what part my sins played in Christ's Crucifixioin.

Rose

I will probably get flamed to no end for this, but my reaction to the Pope's statement:

How does he know?

I mean, seriously, the gospels recount the events, but hardly go into very possible minute detail.

While I'm at it (what the heck, I'm on a roll), movies like this, IMHO, detract from the deeper theological message of our yearly cycle of personal suffering and re-birth.

Movies such as this, IMHO, take the message down to the level of children who cannot understand anything beyond "every time you're bad, it makes Jesus hurt more."

It's time that we adults grew up in our outlook on our Faith and the historical truths it teaches.

(Spraying on my fire retardant),

Yours,

hal

I don't know, maybe I am a bit touchy today, but.....

Was anyone else bother by this sentance, "He is in fact the head of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church."

or is it just me?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

I agree with you that we don't know the exact details. I do however think the movie may be a vehicle for bringing some people closer to Christ and I will be seeing it.

In Christ,
Anthony

The Holy Father has spent a lifetime lifting his own cross on a daily basis and uniting it to the Cross of Christ. Clearly he is a prayerful man who is filled with the Holy Spirit. I believe that he is eminently qualified to judge whether the movie is faithful to Holy Tradition. I don�t take �It is as it was� as a statement that the Holy Father is saying that every detail in the movie is perfectly accurate. I understand these words as meaning that the movie is completely faithful to Holy Tradition.

I�ve read quite a bit of Peggy Noonan�s writings. She is extremely talented. I don�t know what faith group she belongs to (my guess is mainline Protestant) but her writings have always exampled that she has the greatest respect for Catholics and especially for Pope John Paul II. I think it highly unlikely that she intended offense by her choice of words so I find no offense in them.

She has stated in her columns that she is a Roman Catholic, that her faith deepened after 9/11, and that she now prays the Rosary daily.

Plus she's been working on a biography of the Pope which, given her talent, should be enjoyable reading.

One of my favorite writers!

Dear Admin:

In short, if I may paraphrase you, journalists are not "infallible!"

Amado

Well, isn't he?

(She didn't say "only"!)

Dear Admin:

Well, Latin Rite tradition, anyway.

Seriously, if that's what the Pope meant, then that's what the Pope should have said. This, IMHO, would have been the wiser course.

Yours,

hal

Excuse me, but do you mean to say that an account of the Passion of Our Lord based on the Gospel accounts would not be the same in the Eastern Rite tradition? Do you have a different set of Gospels?

I am sure that the Pope meant that the movie is as faithful to the known facts as is possible. What does "rite" have to do with it? We are talking about the *source* of all the rites here.

Hey,

I think the statement was wonderful. I agree with the Admin that the pope has carried his cross faithfully in many ways. His statement validates the fact that the movie is true to the Scriptures. I don't know how he could have said it any better than he did, short and to the point.

Rose

Theist Gal:

The wink and the smile should have sent a clear enough signal that this was intended to be a light-hearted comment.

But, now that you've mentioned it, it has indeed been discussed several times in this forum that the Latin Rite tends to concentrate more upon Christ's suffering and our role in it while the Byzantine more upon the redeeming quality of the Cross and its being the road by which Christ decended into Hades, defeated death and gave us eternal life. (I cannot speak for the other Rites, sorry!).

The Gospel writings, while the cornerstone of our Faith, gave rise to several apostolic and valid "traditions." Becasue the Admin's interpretetaion of the Pope's statement was couched in terms of "tradition" I maintain that my comment was, albeit light-hearted, appropriate.

Yours,

hal

Well, looks to me that the "liberal media" has lied to us once again.

The Vatican has responded to this and said that the Pope has given no review either way!

A small excerpt follows:

Pope's Passion verdict denied


VATICAN CITY�Although Pope John Paul II watched at least part of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion Of The Christ, he made no comment about it, said a senior Vatican official.

"The Holy Father saw it, but he made no comment. He watched in silence," the official told the Catholic News Service on Wednesday. "The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art," the official said. "I repeat: There was no declaration, no judgment from the pope."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630

Is one of many URLS for the full story.

Interesting, no?

Second: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20031224.htm is another source of this information.

This new message makes me very sad, especially if someone is hopeful of making more $$$ from the original statement.

james

I'm just looking forward to seeing the film. Incognitus

Perhaps it is the cardinals who are lying about the Pope's response because, if admitted and flaunted, might put the good relationship with the Juden on the rocks.

Logos Teen

Hal...
I don't have a flame thrower with me, so you are safe(I wouldn't use it if I had one anyway...everyone is entitled to their opinion), but I think movies are a good teaching tool, especially for children(that's how my mom, who is Jewish, taught us the faith that she wasn't too sure of). Some people are very visual...they need to see what it is you want them to learn. Isn't that, after all, the reason for Icons and religous paintings, statues and stained glass? My mom and sister visited recently for my daughter's b-day and when my mom walked in and saw my Icons and religous art she quipped that she felt she had to be on her best behaviour because of the all the 'eyes' on her...and considering the trouble my mom can get into sometimes, not to mention cause, it actually did work that way...childish, yes, but if it gets the point across, if it serves the purpose...

As for the movie containing details that the Gospel doesn't...too often people tend to take the Crucifixion for granted...they are used to clean statues and Icons that don't show the full extent of what the Romans did to those they beat and crucified...they are used to the Gospel accounts that really aren't very bloody...might it not be a good thing that this movie will show a crucifixion in all it's gory detail to make people stop and think about exactly what our sins costed Him and how much He loves us?

Vie

Admin and others...
I heard recently that some Bishops are putting a spin on the Holy Father's statements and are claiming that he didn't in fact say anything...is this someone just trying to downplay his approval of the film or has there been an another official statement released by the Vatican?

Considering how against this film some American Bishops were in the beginning, I wouldn't be surprised if the Holy Father's comments disturbed them...

Vie

Dear Vie:

Your comment regarding icons is certainly well-taken, but I would urge you to remember that icons (if properly written) have a specific theological content and message. Everything in the icon means something - from its use of color to the exagerated facial features and body positions, etc. etc. etc.

As for statutes and painted depitions of religious scenes, well, they're great art and I do greatly apprectiate them on an artisitic level, the Byzantine in me finds that they also lose something of the theological message.

Now that you have given me a chance to reflect (thanks ), this is probably the problem I have with the movies. Specifically, it is impossible for a motion picture to give us the theological richness of a (properly written) icon.

Once again, it may be great art on one hand, but I humbly feel that it also "dumbs down" our Faith.

Yours,

hal

Hal...
you are certainly welcome and yes, I can see your point now as well. I mean it might be great art, but as a theological truth, it is only as faithful to the Truth as the person who is creating it(if that makes sense). Over the years there have been blasphemous images of the Sacred that the Public has protested...the images might have been considered as great art(standards have sunken I think ), but they did not contain any sense of theological truth and did nothing to further the understanding of the faith.