Have tried to catch up on latest re: Passion, the film Mel Gibson is producing/directing in Rome (started this month) on the final 12 hours of Our Lord's life. It's interesting; Gibson doesn't act; another actor will be Jesus, James Caviesel, and only Latin & Aramaic will be spoken-- without subtitles! Following is a paste:

Gibson consulted with high-level theologians and Vatican officials to ensure maximum authenticity in the retelling.

Ben Fitzgerald and Gibson scripted from several sources, freely adapting the diaries of Anne Catherine Emmerich, collected in the book "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," Mary of Agreda's "The City of God" and the New Testament Gospels of Luke, John, Matthew and Mark.

The screenplay was translated into Latin and Aramaic by Los Angeles-based Jesuit linguistics professor Bill Fulco, who also will serve as on-set dialogue coach.

Principal locations will be the towns of Matera and Craco in Italy's southern Basilicata region, with extensive work on constructions on the Cinecitta backlot and four soundstages.

Says before that Gibson is a devout Catholic, and does this as a labor of love! --Wow!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 29, 2002

Answers

??? +++

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 29, 2002.

Eugene, The Weiner is back! Eat my balls!

-- The Weiner (weiner@weiner.com), November 29, 2002.

Thanks, Joel. Thank you, Judas.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 29, 2002.

hey he said weiner. he he he he. yeah weiner cool, heh heh hehe. he said balls. ho ho yeah, balls rock man,.er he heheh he he he Hey that guy weiner is a loser hey yeah loser. heh hee ...

I think its safe to assume this wont be breaking any box office records. Good on him I suppose, it does show a real love for Christ doesnt it. I think hes a great Catholic role model. "Coming to a coming Jesuit seminary near you....".

-- Bevas and Butthead (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 29, 2002.

I think hes a great Catholic role model

Sure about that? Seems Mr. Gibson is one of...them.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), November 30, 2002.

Sure, Jake.

You are too, except for your idisyncracy. Did I ever condemn you?

As for Mel Gibson, I believe his heart is true to god. I know he's heard the Latin mass in his home chapel. Certainly I hope the priests who celebrated it there were ina state of grace.

''Gibson consulted with high-level theologians and Vatican officials to ensure maximum authenticity in the retelling.--'' Look at that; the enemy Church has a hand in Gibson's production. --A heretical church? How come, Jake?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 30, 2002.

Hi Jake, you condemn a man because of the type of make believe action hero he plays in movies? To me the article you provided confirmed my impression of a devout Catholic. Clearly you were making a point that I missed, was it an effort to highlight the differences between his real private life and his occcupation as a Hollywodd actor?

His charachters are mostly men with good hearts fighting against evil and injustice. Perhaps he could play a real life version of Ned Flanders with a Latin script etc etc, is that what you were getting at. Sorry I really dont see your point?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 30, 2002.

Kiwi
I think Jake's implied Gibson is a follower of his own, ''traditionalist'' church; the one opposed to Vatican Council II changes in language, liturgy, etc., and even has gone as far as to question the legitimacy of our present Holy Father. A renegade Catholic party, you might say. I'm not inclined to worry about their qualms. I have faith in the Holy Spirit.

So, anyhow, if Mel Gibson does reject Vatican II, why consult Jesuits and theological experts in Rome, for the scripting and authentic representation of his film? Personally, I feel Jake is an American Don Quixote. Means well, and talks a good joust, but tilting at windmills.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 30, 2002.

Ahhhhhhh got you, Im a bit slow in the mornings, thanks Gene

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 30, 2002.

Intersting website keeping tabs of Mel Gibson, the Passion filming, and pictures of the cast. Also very intersting (wonderful) items about James Caveziel, who plays Our Lord.

www.sassiweb.it/thepassion/

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 01, 2002.

Has anyone actually read the book, used as a source, "Mary of Agreda's - The City of God" ? I own the abridged version, all 794 pages of it. Something to read in sections, mind you.

Well, let me tell you, if you're looking for answers and insight into the things the Catholic Mass does not discuss in great depths, then this book is a MUST for you to read.

May I suggest chapter 10 (page 574), "The Victory of Christ Over Hell". This chapter alone lends so much wisdom to the events of the Jesus' life that it will send chills (good ones) down your spine. There is no way that Mary of Agreda could have had such wisdom and insight, to pen the words therein, except by the direct intervention of God and His Holy Spirit.

This book further explains that Jesus was born into humility so that Lucifer wouldn't know it was the Godman of which prophecy foretold. You see, Lucifer knew that God would one day come to Earth in the flesh ... he just didn't know the "how, when or where".

As a matter of fact, chapter 10 goes on to say that it wasn't until Christ took the Cross upon His shoulders that Lucifer's eyes were opened to the true identity of Jesus. It was at that time that Lucifer became violently distraught over the fact that he, himself, played a major role in God's awesome and perfect plan by having Jesus crucified which ultimately destroyed the gates of hell and death for those that would believe in Christ.

Chapter 10 states that Lucifer and his demons were made to endure watching Jesus on the Cross when they would rather have cast themselves into the depths of hell. It was extremely torturous for them to witness this event, especially since it proved that God loved the Human Race despite their sinful ways. Lucifer considered himself "higher" than Humans, yet he was abolished from Heaven forevermore. That is what continually causes Lucifer pain, and is precisely the reason he continues, in full strength, his goal to separate man from God. As if that was even possible.

Please get this book and read it. You WILL be amazed. You don't have to be a believer in Jesus (or anything) to understand this book.

ISBN 0-89555-070-9 TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. Rockford, Illinois 61105

May God bless and keep you, Paul

-- Paulie D. (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), December 04, 2002.

Paulie,
I haven't read that one. But Anne Catherine Emmerich I have. It is also an eye-opener. (Ugh.) She maintained that during the Annunciation the devil was inside the room as Gabriel told Mary she was to bear the Son of God. --Emmerich's account has it the Archangel Gabriel chased him out through the door, smashing him and kicking him.

It's also true that during the temptation of Our Lord in the wilderness, Satan would lead Jesus on, saying. ''If you are the Son of God, command that this stone change into a loaf of bread, --'' etc.,

So the devil knew, or suspected. But somehow, he couldn't tell for sure. It's a subject for our devout meditation.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 04, 2002.

Paulie,

How much does that book cost? If I rember correctly, it was a very expensive book[s]. If its not to much, maybe Kiwi will buy it for me for a Christmas present. ;-)

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 05, 2002.

??????????????

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 05, 2002.

To Eugene, David and others interested in The City of God publication. Here's the link to order the book. It's only $ 21.00 USD.

http://www.tanbooks.com/books/myst0126.htm

Anyone who takes the time to read this book, even part of it, will NOT be able to put it down. I am not an avid reader, yet I find myself continually drawn to its content. Chapter after chapter, so many of the beliefs I have throughout my life are now finally making sense.

Please post your comments here after reading, as I am anxious for your feedback.

Paul

-- Paulie D. (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), December 05, 2002.

Eugene, in regard to your quotation, this publication discussed that as well.

So many of the things I've come to learn of take on such deeper meaning as I make my way through this book. From the events themselves to the very words Jesus spoke; this book connects the pieces together!

-- Paulie D. (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), December 05, 2002.

Everyone I know who has read this book or knows about it says the same thing, that it is hard to put down. Paulie is so right.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 05, 2002.

Gene, the schismatic traditionalists can have Mel Gibson for now (until he repents and reverts to Catholicism).
He has bad-mouthed the Vatican. He has made movies that have unnecessary nudity and gross, sex-related jokes. You said that "he's heard the Latin mass in his home chapel." It is against Canon Law to have a "home chapel."
So our local, unbanned "trads" are welcome to a guy like that.

Turning to Jim Caviesel, though ... I have high hopes for him. I have seen him interviewed on EWTN, and he seems very decent -- a genuine Catholic.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.

John, I agree with you.

Peace

-- Xavier (crusaders_warship@yahoo.com), December 08, 2002.

Gene, I'm sure that he knew who He was. Why else would he be tempting Him so? I say this because of a book I've been reading on the temptation of Christ and how we can learn lessons on our own temptations from it.

I think he was being sarcastic when saying "if". You know, kind of like, *if* you're so great...*if* you're SOOOO wonderful...*if* you REALLY are the Son of God....

Like that. He was trying to do the ultimate. Get the Son of God to show His hand, so to speak. Make Him use His position, if you will, for greed and His own self serving purposes. I don't know that it had so much to do with Jesus as with God. In tempting Jesus, He was also (really) tempting God. Because it would have been God that sent His angels to catch Him had He taken that leap. And it would have been God that turned those stones to bread, etc. And had He relented and fallen prey to that temptation, Satan could have thrown it in God's face. Look what your precious Son did, he could say. It would have been the ultimate stain on His Son.

Just my take on it. :)

PS~I'd love to see this movie, btw, but would really like it if it at least had subtitles. Sheesh. Like I could understand it.

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), December 09, 2002.

Hi, Jackie--
You aren't wrong necessarily, but I said the devil couldn't be sure. After all, the Incarnation as we see in hindsight wasn't a plain truth in the days we read of in the gospel. No real revelations had ever been made to the devil either by men, angels, certainly not by God the Father. Yet, he almost knew, or suspected.

--As for any blanket condemnations of Gibson, his sect, and the ''traditionalist'' Catholics, I have grave reservations about what John says. On a number of levels.

One, they haven't denied the Church, so they aren't schismatics --as yet.
Two, Mel Gibson may not have such leanings. He has questioned what the Church is saying recently. But this isn't schismatic, nor breaking with Rome. Maybe it would seem he's treading a dangerous path. Likely enough he is acting in sincere faith.
Three, we all know Hollywood is corrupt at the core. Yet, Gibson has made only some few questionable films. His directors know he's signed a contract, and his scrupulosity about roles can't always overrule the director's demands. I think that's why Gibson has eventually begun to produce/direct his own films. He is very probably sick of the Hollywood indecency.

Whatever the case, I'm sure he's guided by an active conscience, and to toss off remarks like, ''Let the schismatics have him,'' is very ungracious. I would rather the Church of his true faith have him.

Four, I wish him every good fortune with the work he's doing now. It's something long overdue after so many insipid and tasteless films about Our Lord. I have to think Gibson can't gloss over any truths of his Catholic faith in this production.

His leading man, James Caveizel, does seem the very most devout of Catholics. I read in Catholic Digest his own accounts of the necessity of acting in steamy love scenes, etc., and how he's coped. I gather Mel Gibson is in much the same position. But now they can collaborate on a film which reverses the trend. God be with them --to bring us a great and spiritual film experience. May God also preserve them in their love of Christ's Holy Church; and faithful to our Holy Father John Paul II.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Hey, Gene~

Well, I guess I would say that because he knew of Christ's coming beforehand (up in Heaven) and that anger was partly what led to his fall. Or so I've been led to believe by what I've read/been told. So, I figure he'd know who He was.

And as far as Mel Gibson goes...number one, the man is HOT! LOL And it ain't just his looks, either. You know what makes him so attractive? Look at how long he's been married..to the same woman! And look at all of the kids he has. A devoted husband and father...it just doesn't get any sexier than that. :)

And frankly, so he's had a butt shot here and there. Whoopdeedoo. There's actually a real lack of love scenes in his movies and I suspect (or I think he may have said this once..can't remember but either way) it has something to do with his beliefs and his marriage. He seems like a genuinely nice guy. Never heard any raunchy tabloid gossip about the guy. And he's a damned fine director. He's a rare breed in Lollywood these days.

God bless ya, Gene~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), December 09, 2002.

Dear Jackie,
You are ALL woman; that's so clear! If everyone were half as decent in their hearts as you seem to me, we wouldn't have promiscuity and porn and MTV junk all around. Too extreme in each direction makes for ''prudes or punks.'' Nothing healthy! God intended for sex to be holy and joyful.

God bless you, Jackie!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Awww thanks, Gene. My husband seems to think so, too. :) As he told me the other night~"I could look all over this world and never find a better wife than you".

And I totally agree with ya. "Too extreme in each direction makes for ''prudes or punks.'' Nothing healthy! God intended for sex to be holy and joyful."

Amen. I'm definitely no prude and ain't no punk, either. So, I guess I'm a healthy mix. LOL

You take care now~

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), December 09, 2002.

Jmj
Thank you, Xavier.

Hello, Gene. Amazing! Despite all your brilliance on several recent threads, you still do retain some terrible blind spots! You must have made ten or more mistakes in a single post!

You wrote: "As for any blanket condemnations of Gibson, his sect, and the 'traditionalist' Catholics, I have grave reservations about what John says."

As I have had to tell three or four people today ... Please read and write carefully. My message contained no "condemnations" of anyone. You should know by now that I never "condemn" anyone. (Remember that I was the one arguing against calling another person "evil.") Since you started with an incorrect premise (that I had "condemned"), your subsequent points collapse.

You stated: "... they haven't denied the Church, so they aren't schismatics -- as yet."

But "deni[al of] the Church" is not the measure of whether someone is a "schismatic." The Eastern Orthodox and the SSPX are "schismatic." Though they hold most doctrines correctly, they do not submit obediently to the pope as universal pastor and lawgiver (often demonstrated in the way that they illicitly worship). THAT is the essence of schism.

You went on: "Mel Gibson may not have such leanings. He has questioned what the Church is saying recently. But this isn't schismatic, nor breaking with Rome. Maybe it would seem he's treading a dangerous path. Likely enough he is acting in sincere faith."

He "may not have such leanings"? Don't you think that you should find out if he does have them, rather than writing several totally "iffy" sentences. You should realize that the fact that he illicitly has Mass in his own chapel tells you that he is in schism. He is using schismatic priests to serve him. Only they would celebrate Mass in such a chapel.

You continued: "... we all know Hollywood is corrupt at the core. Yet, Gibson has made only some few questionable films. His directors know he's signed a contract, and his scrupulosity about roles can't always overrule the director's demands."

Wrong! I realize that this is one of the hardest things about being 100% Catholic, but one must never compromise on evil. An actor MUST hold out, refusing to do ANYthing immoral, even if it means getting black-listed and never acting again.

[I referred to Gibson being involved in movies with unnecessary nudity. Jackiea mentioned "butt shots here and there ... whoopdeedoo." I don't care if I'm the only one at the forum who believes this (along with Jesus, St. Maria Goretti, St. Pio), but a Catholic can never have that attitude about unnecessary "butt shots," which (you can be sure) are done for sexual stimulation, contrary to the Ninth Commandment. Actually, when I mentioned Gibson and films with nudity, I was referring to female nudity. I didn't even know that he had exposed himself too. How doubly sad!]

Gene, you continued: "I think that's why Gibson has eventually begun to produce/direct his own films. He is very probably sick of the Hollywood indecency."

I don't know why his is producing/directing, but it is not to avoid 100% of indecency. The "gross sex-related jokes" that I mentioned were in a very recently released film. Moreover, some of his films are loaded to the gills with unnecessary graphic violence -- a form of "indecency."

You continued: "I'm sure he's guided by an active conscience..."

I am sure of that too, but many people have in ILL-FORMED "active conscience" -- probably including Gibson.

You continued: "... to toss off remarks like, 'Let the schismatics have him,' is very ungracious. I would rather the Church of his true faith have him."

You took my words out of context, rendering your comment completely unjust. What I said was: "... the schismatic traditionalists can have [him] for now (until he repents and reverts to Catholicism)."
I am saying that I want him to become Catholic again, but that our Church is better off not having his current bad influence hanging around "for now."

Later, you wrote: "I read ... [Caviesel's] own accounts of the necessity of acting in steamy love scenes, etc., and how he's coped."

I have to repeat the concept I mentioned earlier ... "I realize that this is one of the hardest things about being 100% Catholic, but one must never compromise on evil. An actor MUST hold out, refusing to do ANYthing immoral, even if it means getting black-listed and never acting again." Any "steamy love scene" that causes illicit sexual pleasure is a scene that an actor or actress must avoid (or abandon). This has nothing to do with "prudishness," but with obeying the Commandments of God -- one of the hardest things for us weak humans to do. But we gotta do it nonetheless. No compromises! If you are inclined to fight me on this, ask yourself, "Would Jesus do a steamy love scene?" The answer is "Hell, no!" And we are to imitate him!

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2002.

John, I wouldn't make so much of it; all I said is let Gibson do as he pleases. If he's in schism on your page, he isn''t yet on mine. I'll agree when I know it from the Pope. My interest is really in the filming of Our Lord's passion. I don't believe in checking the spiritual temperature of actors and directors, since the whole Hollywood gang is disreputable with only a few exceptions. Gibson appeared to be one of the exceptions, therefore I wouldn't call him a lost Catholic yet.

The part about Latin Masses in his private chapel, (I should have cautioned) is hearsay. For all I know, he has a chapel at home for personal prayer and recollection, and he hears Tridentine Masses in a church. There are a few in Italy, I think. If not; then Gibson is like Ed Richards; outside the pale. But I won't say it unless I know it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 11, 2002.

Jmj

Gene, you wrote to me (of Gibson): "If he's in schism on your page, he isn't yet on mine. I'll agree when I know it from the Pope."
Please be serious. You know very well that the pope is not going to publicly declare a specific layman to be a schismatic. And if a priest or Gibson's bishop were to warn (or has already warned) him that he is in schism and must return, then that too probably would not be done publicly. Sometimes we have to use common sense to make a "probable judgment" about a person's status. For example, I judge you as certainly not being in schism, but Gibson as almost certainly being in schism.

The following is from the "New York Post":
"September 13, 2002 -- Mel Gibson -- who is producing a movie about Christ -- slammed the Vatican and said he doesn't believe in the church as an institution anymore. Calling the Vatican 'a sheep in wolf's clothing,' the devout Catholic, who rigorously supports the Latin Mass, apparently believes the church has become too liberal. 'I believe in God,' he told the Italian newspaper 'Il Giornale.' 'My love for religion was transmitted to me by my father. But I do not believe in the church as an institution.' Instead, the 46-year-old he-man has a private chapel at his home in California, and every Sunday, he conducts a service - in Latin. Brad Hunter"

If you want to remain in denial after reading the above and this, then you can't be helped. (Similar pieces of information are accessible all over the Internet. This is beyond the possibility of being called an error or hearsay.)

God bless you.
John
PS: Your first words this time were: "I wouldn't make so much of it; all I said is let Gibson do as he pleases." Letting people "do as [they] please" is not a Catholic behavior. Although we cannot force people to change, we have to have enough concern and love for them at least to pray for them to change. We can't just close our eyes and look the other way, as these words imply: "... let Gibson do as he pleases."

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2002.

"I realize that this is one of the hardest things about being 100% Catholic".

John, this thing about measuring the Catholic-ness of an individual aint working. This whole way of dealing with things is a kind of error in itself.

An orange is not 97% an orange; it is either an orange or it is not an orange. Therefore, calling it "100% orange" is a platitude at best, and at worst, signifies nothing at all.

An orange may be rotten, but again, this cannot be measured in percentages of orange-ness. There is another way to determine Catholicity.

Got baptism?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2002.

I understand you, John--

Please be serious. You know very well that the pope is not going to publicly declare a specific layman to be a schismatic. --My choice of words was ''the Pope. But I haven't grown stupider at 65; I know the Pope has better fish to fry.

And it behooves us as well, not to publicly denounce another man's ''schism''.

If we're truly interested in helping, we ought to pray for these people.

Now, if Mel Gibson cares to enter our forum, as Ed Richards and his friends have, I will very eagerly fire my broadsides at him. Assuming what you've reported is true. I hadn't been informed. Thanks for telling me.

He is in fact getting collaboration from Vatican sources and a Jesuit in California is helping with translations. So, apparently he's half-hearted about ''slamming'' the Catholic Church? I haven't much else to contribute here.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

I am sorry to have entered YOUR FORUM, Gene. It would have been much nicer if Isabel, Regina, and I had gotten your permission.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.

It's OUR Catholic forum, Ed. You have a link to Gibson, I presume. If he were here, he'd be on your side. It would be more fun than arguing with you. But have your fun with me; I'm at your service.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't Jesus make good use of 12 men that had their own set of issues? We have to remember that Jesus came to save the lost, the sinners, and throughout history has brought about miraculous changes in many a lost man. Remember Saul?!

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible? passage=ACTS+9:4&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

A contributor's posting stated we should pray for Mel and his task at hand. I agree wholeheartedly. We should pray for Mel and all others that are struggling to come to terms with a faith in Christ Jesus. That's what the disciples did and we're called to do no less.

-- Paulie (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), December 15, 2002.

Per the above web address, when you copy & paste it, REMOVE the space that somehow got inserted between bible? passage=

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible? passage=ACTS+9:4&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

-- Paulie (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), December 15, 2002.

Emerald, sometimes you are so strange, but I am inexplicably drawn to continuing to chat with you!
You wrote:
"[John said:] 'I realize that this is one of the hardest things about being 100% Catholic'. John, this thing about measuring the Catholic-ness of an individual ain't working."
[Please don't say, patronizingly, that it "ain't working." You have not determined if it is "working" or not with other readers. You can only say that you yourself don't like for me to use that terminology.]

"This whole way of dealing with things is a kind of error in itself. An orange is not 97% an orange; it is either an orange or it is not an orange."
[You cannot try to draw a parallel in this way. Rather than say that we can't compare apples and oranges, I'll say that we can't compare oranges and human beings. An orange has no choice but to be 100% an orange. But a Catholic, because of free will, has a choice to be less than 100% Catholic. In my opinion, you should have realized that I was not using the word "Catholic" in its root sense -- i.e., baptized and not excommunicated -- but rather in the sense of "extent of adherence to Catholic doctrine." A "cafeteria Catholic" is usually still a Catholic, but does not adhere to 100% of the doctrine he is obliged to accept. The term, "less than 100% Catholic," is a shorthand way to refer to these dissenters. You just misunderstood me.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

Could you tell me how the story will developp her principal theme with the crusifixion. I think there will be some flashbacks about the live of our Lord jesus Christ. Could you answer me because I am interrested in this film and I think it will be very spectacular and realist. I think what Mr Mel Gibson does seem to be strange but i think it is good to poduce a film with his passion. Thank you for your comprehension. Good luck for everything

-- Ganga Etienne (don_ganga@hotmail.com), December 27, 2002.

Okay, who else saw the interview of Mel Gibson (while on site filming in Italy) on the O'Reilly Factor (Bill O'Reilly news commentary show)?!

Bill gave him quite a bit of air time to talk; much more than Bill usually allocates to his guests.

Mel spoke with sincerity and with due respect to the cause of Christ. He stated that the world "has gone nuts" and needs to be reminded of the Grace which God gave to humankind by sending His Holy Son to pay for our sinful ways. On that note, Mel stated that this will be the first film to capture the true punishment that Christ Jesus endured from His time with Pilate all the way to the Holy Cross and eventual death.

Bill questioned Mel, asking if he thought people would be offended by the gruesome details of Christ's physical suffering. Mel said that only people "not familiar with Christ" (who He was, why He came, what He did) may find it offensive. However, believers should know, understand and fall to our knees in remembrance of all that Jesus endured SO WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO suffer in hell.

I completely agree. I would add to that by stating many believers need to be reminded of Jesus' suffering. Some of us need that reminding on a daily basis. I know that when I see an image of Christ on the Cross, I am humbled and moved in ways that escape mere words. Yes, I believe Jesus is risen (He is risen, indeed), but I still feel that the world has forgotten the intensity of His final hours. If that were not true, then why do so many of us commit daily sins ... and become "convenient Christians" knowing forgiveness is just a whisper away. We must remember that EACH SIN is like driving the nails into His precious body. These images are a harsh reminder of that truth.

[continued below]

-- Paulie (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.

[continued from above]

A Christian (non-Catholic) woman once told me she was "utterly offended" by a drawing of Jesus, depicted on the Cross with His Holy Blood streaming down His face. Offended?? Are we in love with the same Jesus, I wondered. Was not His suffering and death the final payment for our sin ... the ultimate reason He came to Earth in the first place? How can we say we know and love Jesus without first accepting the reality of His cruel and unjust punishment. The Holy Creator, the Alpha and the Omega Himself - in the flesh - was spat upon, cursed at, beaten, whipped, kicked on His journey to the Cross. He could have been stoned, shot with an arrow, etc., - a quick death - long before He ever walked the path to Calvary. But NO! That was not God's plan. Jesus was to endure the suffering of all - past, present and future - and there was no escaping it. God demanded justice and Jesus was the One to endure it all.

A poor example, but an example nonetheless, is your credit card. It allows you to take merchandise that you -really- haven't paid for yet. But, some day, the bill is going to arrive and demand payment. The offerings of our forefathers appeased God, albeit temporarily, but by no means did those acts remove the stain of sin. It would take a pure and perfect offering ... One that could only come from God alone. The Lamb of God, as it were, came and said "I love you this much", as He stretched out His arms and died for the world.

Let us take this time to reflect on Jesus' suffering, and on the Grace of God for loving us despite our sinful ways ... enough to send His one and only Son to our rescue. I, for one, am completely humbled. I hope and pray this movie will awaken a people that, 2000 years later, has sadly fallen asleep in the Light.

-- Paulie (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.

By the way, the O'Reilly Factor show I mentioned was aired last evening, 15-Jan-2003 ,in the US.

-- Paulie (highvoltageline@yahoo.com), January 15, 2003.

For those of you who didn't see the Bill O'Reilly Show last night, here is the transcript:

Is Mel Gibson Being Targeted for his Beliefs? Wednesday, January 15, 2003 This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, January 14, 2003. Click here to order the complete transcript. BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Personal Story segment tonight: The actor Mel Gibson has been in Italy for months shooting a controversial film that graphically depicts the execution of Jesus. The movie is being financed by Gibson's production company. It's being shot in Aramaic and Latin, the languages used at the time.

Mr. Gibson is a religious man and believes there are some in the media who want to discredit him personally because he's making a pro- Christian film. And, indeed, The Factor has learned that there is a print reporter trying to dig up nasty personal dirt on Gibson. And the guy has even approached his 85-year-old father under questionable circumstances.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, Mel Gibson's production company has optioned my novel, Those Who Trespass. So, I do have a working relationship with him. But I believe this situation is troubling.

I spoke with Mel Gibson yesterday from Rome.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

O'REILLY: Mr. Gibson, I understand the movie you're shooting right now about the death of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty graphic, pretty explicit.

MEL GIBSON, ACTOR/DIRECTOR: It is, yes.

I've never seen a rendering that equals this for reality. The versions I've seen either suffer from bad hair, inaccurate history, or not just being real. And somehow, because of that, I think I think you're distanced from them somehow. They're more like fairy tales. And this actually happened. It occurred. I'm exploring it this way, I think, to show the extent of the sacrifice willingly taken.

O'REILLY: You're going to make it in Aramaic and Latin, all right, so that no one is going to even understand what's said. The images are going to be explicit and powerful. What is the point?

GIBSON: Well, the point is that I think you can transcend language with the message through image. And I'm very happy with what we're getting.

O'REILLY: Is it going to upset some people to see the person they believe is God brutalized in this manner?

GIBSON: Well, I think anybody that is in the know about Jesus as God and they believe in that realize that he was brutalized and that I'm exploring it this way, I think, to show the extent of the sacrifice willingly taken. I think it's going to be hard to take, but I don't necessarily know that people are going to be upset by it.

O'REILLY: Is it going to upset any Jewish people?

GIBSON: It may. It's not meant to.

I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But, when you look at the reasons behind why Christ came, why he was crucified, he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind, so that, really, anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.

It's time to sort of get back to a basic message, the message that was given. At this time, the world has gone nuts, I think. Christ spoke of faith, hope, love and forgiveness. And these are things I think we need to be reminded of again. He forgave as he was tortured and killed. And we could do with a little of that behavior.

I mentioned what I was going to do to Night Shyamalan. And he thought: "Oh, great. You have the ultimate opportunity to make the perfect anti-date movie."

And I said: "No, no, that's not true at all. I think I refer to it as the career-killer film." And I was only half joking at the time. But it's interesting that, when you do touch this subject, it does have a lot of enemies. And there are people sent. I've seen it happening. Since I've been in Rome here, for example, I know that there are people sent from reputable publications -- they go about, while you're busy over here, they start digging into your private life and sort of getting into your banking affairs and any charities you might be involved in.

And then they start bothering your friends and your business associates and harassing your family, including my 85-year-old father. I find it a little spooky.

O'REILLY: We have heard that there is a reporter trying to dig up dirt on you, and who has bothered your 85-year-old father, trying to get provocative statements from him, and trying to portray you as a fanatic and perhaps a bigot, that this guy is operating right now. He's trying to dig up dirt on Mel Gibson.

And do you believe it's because you're making this movie about Jesus?

GIBSON: I think it is, yes. I think he's been sent. So, that's the way it is. You got to deal with these things. I'm a big boy and I can take care of myself. And you can say what you like about me. I'm a public person, I suppose, although I don't ever remember signing the paper that I said I had no rights to privacy. But you can pick on me. But if you start picking on my family when I'm out of town, get ready.

O'REILLY: But I'm surprised that someone would go after somebody as well-liked as you are and as powerful as you are. And you really believe it's because you're making this movie about Jesus?

GIBSON: Yes, I think so. Yes, I think there's a lot of things that don't want it to happen.

But, hey, as I said before, it's a film that speaks about faith, hope, love, and forgiveness. That's the basic message. And that's what we need to get back to, I think. And if everybody practiced a little more of that, there would be a lot less friction in the world.

O'REILLY: So, if this guy writes something terrible about you and your father and family, you are going to forgive him?

GIBSON: Yes. You've got to. I already did. But it's just perplexing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'REILLY: All right, there it is. And we'll let you know if anything gets in print.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), January 16, 2003.

God bless you, MaryLu! My home doesn't have "Fox News," so I was hoping that I'd get to see the transcript somewhere.

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 16, 2003.

I also saw the O'Reilly interview with Mel Gibson. The transcript is perfectly correct. Have you seen some of he stills of that movie? It would tear your heart apart. I read that Gibson is not doing this for monetary profit. This is a labor of love. Most theaters will not book the film, when it comes out. Caviezel says his rosary every day and meditates a lot during the filming. Toughest job he's ever had, hanging in a cross in cold temperatures.

As for Gibson, he once said in an interview, "I did not leave the Catholic Church, the Catholic church left me"

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 16, 2003.

Dear Ed,

What does Mel Gibson mean by that, "I didn't leave the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church left me..?" What is the story behind that?

ml

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), January 16, 2003.

Good question MaryLu. I was just about to ask that too.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), January 16, 2003.

"I didn't leave the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church left me..?"

Just a guess here, but Christ asked His disciples to drop their old way of life, (read habits and rituals) and follow Him. Some people want the Catholic Church to be like a Jewish temple, following an old Law to the letter while missing the big picture that Christ was sent to fulfill the Law, and his church was to be like His living body.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 16, 2003.

Stumbled upon this interesting info: Emmerich

Please keep Mel Gibson in your prayers as he makes this movie. This movie could be a huge turning point for the non-believers.

Peace

-- Choas (Choas@ivillage.com), January 17, 2003.

try try again.

Emmerich

-- Choas (Choas@ivillage.com), January 17, 2003.

I think that Mel is certainly a nut, but I'm still looking forward to the film. Thank God, Jim is a real Catholic at least. Mel doesn't have the right to build a church without the approval of the diocese and employ his own priests.

-- Garry (what@hotmail.com), March 16, 2003.

My, my. A little biblical reality and a little Latin, and doesn't the "Politically Correct" crowd go ballistic! It seems that Mel Gibson's film, which hasn't even been cut yet, can "fan religious animosity and misunderstanding." Well, it already has, but not against the Jews these PCers are worried about, but against traditional Catholics! The rapiers of these PCers have repeatedly jabbed at poor Mel, an espoused traditional Catholic, and even his father, whose conservative views are being constantly misquoted. Now, if Mel were Jewish, these same PCers would be screaming, "First Amendment! Artistic Freedom!"

According a the April 27 Los Angeles Times article, "[Novus Ordo] Catholics fear that Gibson might use his star power and clout to promote traditionalist [sic] views in his new movie. Jews worry that it might promote anti-Semitic feeling." It's perfectly OK for liberals to promote their perverted agenda, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to a traditional Catholic, even if he is one of Hollywood's most successful actors, directors, and producers with the people.

"Sister" Mary Boys, who teaches at a Protestant seminary in New York, lets slip what the real problem is here: "He can get his views into the media and has far more power in that sense than what the Church has." So, what it comes down to is that Novus Ordo bugaboo POWER! The Novus Ordo wants to control all propaganda. It knows darn well what would happen if a traditional Catholic got a chance at the microphone. And Mel Gibson is just the guy to grab the microphone.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Ed, The rumor is Mel once said to somebody somewhere, ''I didn't leave the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church left me.'' A statement that seems to fill you with pride. So, why would the Catholic Church leave Mel? Did Mel stop obeying the Pope? Could Mel now be a better Catholic, after bashing the Vatican?

No one clarifies these odd details.

What it all means is you are more and more blowing your cover. You aren't the surreptitious Church- basher you once were. You are bashing her in public now. Any chance that Mel Gibson may be in your camp, of course, elevates your prestige. Very understandable, Ed. Isn't it Cool!!! A movie star bashed the Vatican! Oh, frabjous day, Caloo, Calay!

This is an accurate indicator of your faith?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (13); still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." Paul VI

the same can be said of the Nazis: not EVERY German supported the Nazis, but most did; and the Germans of today are truly embarassed about Nazism. but if someone made a film suggesting that it was only a few bad Germans that carried out the Holocaust, imagine how the Jews would react.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 29, 2003.

oh, and the Germans have apologised (as have the Japanese). why not the Jews? but no, the Pope has to apologise for the Holocaust.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 29, 2003.

Dear Ian:
Some Jews, like many Christians may be scoundrels. But, why would you want them to apologise? What is their crime, in Germany or anywhere after the crucifixion? Many Jews, after all, were converted and became our early church. Not just that, many Jews are Catholic saints and among these is the Blessed Virgin Mary. The only fault of theirs is not accepting their Messiah; and that is really God's Will; not a racial trait.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 29, 2003.

Eugene, I am not looking to bolster anybody's prestige, but it doesn't hurt for a celebrity getting a little more of the traditional side out there.

I am not blowung any cover, I say what I say,

1). I an not a sedevacantist. I wouldn't take either side on that issue.

2). Is the N.O. Mass valid? I don't know... I believe that it is sacrilegious.

3>). Have the conciliar popes done damage to the Church?... Darn right!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

Ed,

My problem with mel gibson isn't that he attends a Tridentine mass, I attend one myself for the most part. BUT, Gibson (as I understand it) built a chapel *at his house* and has mass said there! How is that being a Christian and a part of the body of Christ, separating yourself from everyone and having a priest cater to YOU ALONE? Nope, I think he fell off the deep end, but will see the movie though (when it comes to video).

It's kind of funny though, I'd bet even Gibson himself doesn't speak enough Aramaic to understand it, so what's the point? It's kind of like those kids that translated parts of the Bible into "Klingon", maybe a nice exercise, but perhaps their energy could have been better spent.

And yes, everyone one knows you think a valid Catholic mass is sacriligeous. That is something you'll have to answer for, some day. Christ died for our sins, and is offering His body and blood to His people, and yet somehow that's not good enough for you! Good luck, Ed.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

It's kind of like those kids that translated parts of the Bible into "Klingon"...

Kling James Version?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 30, 2003.

Once in a while Ed makes blasphemous comments. isn't that a little like sacrilegious ''rap''? The spirit is willing, but the mouth babbles on.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

To repeat. It is not my Mass that tells a big fat lie at the Consecration. The original N.O. told the truth...but the ICEL had to go and change it.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

Jmj

Ed R, let me try to understand this ...

You wrote: "Is the N.O. Mass valid? I don't know... I believe that it is sacrilegious. ... It is not my Mass that tells a big fat lie at the Consecration. The original N.O. told the truth...but the ICEL had to go and change it."

Ed, if it's "sacrilegious," how come you can't figure out if it is "valid"?

Ed, if it "tells a big fat lie at the Consecration", how come you can't figure out if it is "valid"?

Please be brave, Ed, and come right out and tell us if the rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Missal of 1970 results in a valid Holy Eucharist or not. [I honestly can't recall if you were one of the people who called the rite an "abomination" last year.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 01, 2003.

No,, I was not even on these threads last year (Oh Joy), I can't say that it is invalid, as you well know, only God has that right. From a human viewpoint, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

In this era of neo-pagan Modernism, experimentation with the rubrics (i.e. rules) of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass have resulted in many abuses. In addition to priestly experimentation, even some Archbishops and Cardinals promulgate pastoral letters directing parish priests to implement liturgical changes at odds with the official Church rubrics. Some of these abuses are so serious that they actually invalidate the Mass, which then greatly deprives the soul of Grace and the sacrificial benefit of Eucharistic Jesus. Such loss of Grace for both the faithful laity and priest may result in loss of the Catholic Faith and further descent of this world into pagan darkness. Strong words to be sure, so read The Power of the Mass article to appreciate how important the Mass truly is as evidenced from Church teachings and many great saints. So it does happen. Do you want to play Russian roulete when you go to Mass?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

Please be brave, Ed, and come right out and tell us if the rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Missal of 1970 results in a valid Holy Eucharist or not. [I honestly can't recall if you were one of the people who called the rite an "abomination" last year.]

There's two issues there, not one.

In other words, if someone had said the liturgy was an abomination, that does not necessary mean that they hold the Mass in the Missal of 1970 to be invalid.

The Mass in the Missal of 1970, as you put it, is valid, but it is in fact an inferior liturgy to the Mass of Trent or the liturgies of many of the Eastern rites.

It is absolutely no sin or failure in Faith to make such a claim.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 01, 2003.

The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of "pro multis" in the words of Consecration as "for all" (which has been approved for use throughout the English-speaking world) has probably attracted more controversy than anything else in its English version of the Latin text of the Mass. There is an excellent discussion of the point by Monsignor Gamber, in an addendum to his book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", in which he concludes that the ICEL translation is completely unjustifiable. However, this discussion is for the most part confined to the theological considerations, and the linguistic aspect is mentioned only in passing. ICEL itself has published (in the Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal) a defence of its translation from the linguistic point of view, and I am not sure that the reasons that were given in that document have ever been rebutted in print. I am not a theologian, and my intention in this brief article is to consider only the linguistic arguments advanced by ICEL and to explain why I think the Commission is wrong. ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "many" (saggi’in and rabbim respectively), which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as "all". This may well be right in principle; I am not familiar with either language and am not therefore in a position to comment. The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as p o l l o i (polloi), which means "many", not as p a n t e V (pantes), which means "all". In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for "many" and not that for "all". I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.

I repeat the orginal Paul 6th mass says "Many" as do all other Catholic denominations.... The N.O. in English or any oter vernacular is THE ONLY ONE

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

Yes, all of this may seem like nitpicking. But keep in mind that it is nitpicking about the most important thing in the world -- Christ our God truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. Computer code has to be "bang-on" precise for it to work right. Fortunes are made and lost based upon a few words in a business contract being contested in a court of law. The French Concorde burst into flames recently, killing everyone on board, because a small piece of metal on the runway pierced a tire. Small things matter. Do you really want to fall down and worship a wheat wafer and a cup of wine when the words that are supposed to make this happen have some kind of theological "general protection fault" with an "error message" reading "sacrament is invalid"? Could this be what Anne-Catherine Emmerick was speaking of when she prophesied an "odd-looking Church" in which there was only bread? "Quod pro vobis tradetur" appears nowhere in the old rite. There is nothing "wrong" with it, but why add it? Again, tampering with the words of consecration. Where did "Mysterium fidei" go? As anyone who attends the Novus Ordo knows, soon after the (putative) consecration of the Precious Blood, the priest invites the congregation "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith". Keep in mind, also, that the English translation of the Novus Ordo is not really a "translation"; it's more of an "interpretation". "Mysterium fidei" just translates as "the Mystery of faith", period. Still more tampering with the words of consecration. "Pro multis" means "for many", not "for all". Again, another English "interpretation". Thankfully, the Latin retains "pro multis"; "for all" would be "pro omnibus". Not all are saved; the best "spin" you can put on it is to say "not all are saved, but all can be saved if they want to be, and that is what we mean when we say 'for all'". Yet more tampering with the words of consecration

Again: These are the words of someone a lot wiser than me, but oh how right he is!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

The passage doesn't refer to how many are saved. If that were the case, "many" and "all" would both be incorrect, since scripture tells us "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are FEW who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14). Therefore, if the prayer of the Mass referred to the number who are saved, the only correct rendition would be "which will be shed for FEW". However, that isn't what the verse is about at all. It concerns those His blood was shed for, not those who accept the salvation He won by His blood, and are thereby saved. The scriptures tell us: "For the death that He died, He died to sin once FOR ALL" (Rom 6:10); "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that ONE DIED FOR ALL" (2 Corinthians 5:14); "He DIED FOR ALL, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf" (2 Cor 5:14-15). Therefore, it is only right that the words of the Mass reflect the reality revealed in the Word of God itself.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 01, 2003.

Paul, there are 6 billion now living on this planet. Probably another 6 billion have passed before. That makes about 12 billion.

If only 1 billion are saved that is many people, but still few in comparison to the whole. One sure thing, it is certainly not all that are saved.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

That's right, it is not all that are saved. But it is all who CAN be saved because the blood of Christ was shed for them - ALL of them. That's what the Word of God says, and that's what the corrected prayer of the Mass says.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 01, 2003.

Paul, They corrected Our Lord, the bible, Trent and 2000 years of tradition? Come on!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003.

Ed, It is the Bible which says He died for ALL (see above). The Bible preceded Trent. However the Bible did not precede the original teaching of the Church. Rather, it reflects and preserves the original teaching of the Church.

-- paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 01, 2003.

Jmj

Ed R, I didn't realize that you are gutless until now.
You have been boldly flapping your trap here for months, but I shut you up in two seconds flat? No courage at all have you!

Yesteday, I challenged: "Please be brave, Ed, and come right out and tell us if the rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Missal of 1970 results in a valid Holy Eucharist or not."

To this, you whimpered: "I can't say that it is invalid, as you well know, only God has that right. From a human viewpoint, I wouldn't bet the farm on it."

All right then, Mr. Two-Face...
----- If you "can't say that it is invalid," then you also "can't say" that it is "sacrilegious" -- as you DID say earlier in this thread. TAKE THAT BLASPHEMY BACK NOW -- or tell me that the Eucharist is invalid when I attend Mass!
----- If you "can't say that it is invalid," then you also "can't say" that it "tells a big fat lie at the Consecration" -- as you DID say earlier in this thread. TAKE THAT BLASPHEMY BACK NOW -- or tell me that the Eucharist is invalid when I attend Mass!
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Emerald, I'm having a hard time figuring out whether it was Ed R or you who made a bigger jerk of himself in responding to me. No, I've figured it out. It's you, because you have more native intelligence, but messed up even worse than he did.

I wrote: "... Ed ... tell us if the rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Missal of 1970 results in a valid Holy Eucharist or not."

To this, you responded: "There's two issues there, not one."

I wrote the darned thing -- not you, Buddy-Boy -- so I know that there is only ONE issue there. I PUT that ONE issue in there -- and for Ed, not for you. Don't give me your deceptive rubbish about "two issues."

You continued: "... if someone had said the liturgy was an abomination, that does not necessary mean that they hold the Mass in the Missal of 1970 to be invalid. The Mass in the Missal of 1970, as you put it, is valid, but it is in fact an inferior liturgy to the Mass of Trent or the liturgies of many of the Eastern rites."

As was explained to you and others about a year ago, this is completely idiotic nonsense. Having learned the facts about it back then, you have no right to come here and lie about it today.
As you were instructed then by orthodox Catholics, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any Catholic rite of the Mass (or Divine Liturgy) to be "inferior" to any other.
As you were instructed before, all rites are the sacrifice of Calvary made present.
As you were instructed before, that sacrifice was perfect, as is each rite.
So, accept these facts or leave. We don't need your devilish heresy and mortally sinful blasphemy here. Keep it the hell out of my sight!

May the Lord forgive you and drive the influence of satan out of your soul.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

So let me see if I have this right... I said something you didn't agree with, right?

In the name of fairness, I just want to make sure I have a good bead on your sentiments there before responding... lol!

Are you angry with me?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

Obviously, this Body and Blood of Christ is not going to be inferior to that Body and Blood of Christ; that can't be said anyways, since it's the same Body and Blood of Christ.

That's why I said the validity was a distinct consideration, and not related in any way to the equality of the two rites.

The liturgy itself is open to admission of variation of degree as to the richness and depth in which it expresses doctrine; in this way, one can be superior to another.

Again, there is no sin, no blasphemy, in saying this.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

Dear Emerald:
No house, temple or cathedral ever seen will enhance by a drop the holy presence of our Glorious Savior whether it's a magnificent feast day, (Christmas, Easter, a nuptial) nor with bells, or incense or a king and queen present with their royal court. CHRIST is the ornament which rises up to his Father in heaven; all else is earthbound. It is, as He put it so well, eaten by the moth, and corrodes with time and in fact is only passing away.

Yes, a fine ritual ceremony, with solemnity and Christian LOVE for God, elevates us, the faithful, to gracious worship. To ecstatic attention and awe.

But-- from the vantage point of God our Father's heavenly throne, it is all wasted if His Son is not with us, or if He were to come empty-handed up to his Father in heaven.

Which we know, never will happen for the ages. Jesus will present to his Almighty Father, first and most prominently His Body and Blood given on the cross; and with it his Captives, faithful to Him-- like a King in triumph parades in a City. We are His offering; YES! Our humble worship is acceptable to God the Father in heaven, because Christ offers it, united to His Body & Blood forever.

We shouldn't forget it. Not if we are present at 6AM Mass in Saint Peter's, or a hut somewhere in the Congo, with a lonely missionary. The ceremony consists ENTIRELY of Jesus Christ; and whatever else attends, only He is adorable and worthy before God the Father.

Meaning, in consequence, that all is worthy when Jesus places it next to His Sacred Heart. All Masses are glorious, because all bring His Holy Body and Precious blood to our altars.

Be they Tridentine, Latin, Orthodox, or Vernacular Novus Ordo and inadequate from the standard of extravagance. God loves His children, and all of us are his children. We must come to Him with Jesus body and soul, without pretense of great or GREATER stature. All are beautiful to the Father Almighty, with Jesus as the Giver. That is why no Elite is Christian. Catholics can't be elitists over other catholics, or over non-Catholics. We exert ouselves rather; to cover the whole earth. To bring the earth itself into the Church of Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.

I think this Elitism you speak of is more a phantom than a reality... but let's say it is a reality: it still pertains to the attendees, not the liturgy itself.

The most I can glean from what you are saying is that one shouldn't choose the greater of two liturgies, because these people that go there, they're a bunch of Elitists.

That doesn't ring true to me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 02, 2003.

Eugene and John, You cloud a simple issue with a lot of bombast, (hot air) Stop jumping around in the bible to justify yourselves.

Stick to the words at THE LAST SUPPER. That's the only issue.You believe the it's "Turned to His disciples AND SAID" for you and for all".

A sacrilegious LIE. Show me where at that moment He said For all" and I will admit defeat.

Stop telling me what He meant... just tell me what He said.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

Mathew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Clearly, the use of many, as opposed to all, is a more accurate doctrinal expression.

There is no sin in saying this.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 03, 2003.

From Ed---''A sacrilegious LIE. Show me where at that moment He said For all and I will admit defeat. Reply: Christ's Holy Church has no need to ''defeat'' a presumptuous malcontent. He is free to leave for greener pastures (a lost sheep.) DO IT NOW.

''Stop telling me what He meant... just tell me what He said.'' A diatribe by the Master. Reply to diatribe: Ya Fawther's mustache!

--

EMERALD /
''. . . as opposed to all, is a more accurate doctrinal expression. Reply:--Except we are not Popes or Cardinals; nor do we translate ancient languages. Take a course in ancient Hebrew & Aramaic.

''There is no sin in saying this.''
--Reply: There is no sin about any of 2nd Vatican Council's reforms. We are faithful to the Holy Father in matters of faith and morals. The Mass comes under faith; so the authority to effect reforms rests in the Popes. Not in a ''traditionist'' party. The ''traditionists'' (a misnomer) have to appeal to him, and not assume any rights for themselves. Furthermore, if they dislike our newer rite, that's their problem. Let them go to the other Mass, and have the charity to stop complaining. --For now, they ought to start their own forum --Light years from here; go-- DO IT NOW.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

Gene, on the one hand you say:

"There is no sin about any of 2nd Vatican Council's reforms."

...but on the other you make reference to that fact that Catholics who hold to tradition...

"...ought to start their own forum --Light years from here;"

After a year in here of reading, writing and considering, I can't help but see the discrepancy between the two thoughts you put forth. People of all types and backgrounds come in here, I suppose, looking for insights on their Catholic Faith. I know I did, but it's a bit odd that in the New Springtime that I am being asked to hitch a ride with Hans Solo.

There seems a bit of a discrepancy here as well:

"Reply:--Except we are not Popes or Cardinals;"

...and this expressed desire that I leave:

"DO IT NOW"

...and John's words, begining with the phrase:

"...as you were instructed before, etc."

I'm pretty sure what we've got here is not so much a desire of certain people to have us be subject to the Holy Father so much is it is for us to be subject to what they say and think about the Holy Father. Their interpretations of things, so to speak.

First, this can indicated by the fact, when pressed for follow up on details of claims made, all manner of distractions are sought out, such as claims of demonic possession, mortal sin and heresy, instead of coming to the fore with the truth in love, in this most august springtime of the Holy Roman Church.

Secondly, it is uniquely demonstrated in the ongoing contention between even among those in league with each against the more traditionally minded Catholics in the forum, in this particular compromise:

"We are faithful to the Holy Father in matters of faith and morals. The Mass comes under faith..."

... while yet, the determination of the moral principle in warfare falls under matters of morals, yet, in this matter and by some of these same people, they marginalized the Pope's expressed authority and didn't listen to the Pope over this war.

I'm just yacking, John. Take it all with a grain of salt. I'm not sure why you guys want me to leave so bad.

Devil and the deep blue sea behind me; vanish in the air you'll never find me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 03, 2003.

Emerald:
You say, ''. . . reference to that fact that Catholics who hold to tradition--
"...ought to start their own forum --Light years from here;" --

But I said these things--If you are unhappy here, amidst your Novus Ordo faithful peers. Clearly that means we don't care for your complaining and your elitist arguments. I for one have had it with your holier-than-thou posturing; and I want peace!

It is only constructive for a while; and while there's still a chance for a meeting of the minds. I think you yourself are trying to work that out.

But Ed, OTOH, is simply being redundant, and makes very offensive posts repeatedly-- at the slightest opportunity, with unrelenting prejudice. All we get from this pest is the same old tune. It has no merit, it gets no credibility here, and it won't win him friends, but he never changes the subject. I can only surmise he's obsessed and helpless to stop himself. SICK /

Another forum with him, Jake, Regina, and one or two like-minded Catholics would give ED a real soap- box, a tremendous place to spread his wings (and his favorite landfill.) I hope he DOES IT NOW.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

--And, mind you-- the ''tradition you hold'' is not the main problem. The main problem is, your minds are closed to even SIMPLE discussion without deriding the Pope, without disparaging the Liturgy, without FROWNING ON EVERYTHING that happened with the coming of the 2nd vatican Council. You could only come to terms if the vatican Council is brought to ruin and disgraced.

People like Ed & Jake won't even deny this; to them we are there only to cover over with shiddt! And the Pope we follow with condescension and scorn. I'm quite tired of it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

Eugene. Peace, truce.....If you don't like what I post just turn the dial, ignore it.

I never wnted to aggravate you, I just wanted my side to be heard.

I never once got personal with you... until you started it. Sure what I said ruffled feathers, but how do you think that I and probably others on these threads, feel when we believe we were robbed of our Mass and traditions. You can still fall out of bed to go to church.. some of us do much traveling to get to our Mass.

Thats irritation! God bless

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 03, 2003.

OHHH!

OUR Mass!
OUR, OUR, Mass! You mean the Elite Mass? The Better-than-yours Mass? The LOFTY, simply over arching, consummate Mass to end all Masses, for which 600 km or 10K km is well travelled, so ignore the ''mean, midget, ordinary, plebeian, so-called'' Mass?

To each his own. Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 03, 2003.

John, tonight's your lucky night. We'll go 50-50... I'll keep the Faith, and you can have the forum.

It's a win-win situation, imho. This couldn't possibly be the right thing for me doing right now, so I should absent myself which is what you want anyways.

My humblest apologies for failing.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 04, 2003.

Eugene I don't want to be any part of your health problems, so,

Hope you do not mind me printing 2 of your sweetest love letters to me..Ah! Ya mudder wears army shoes! Know what Gene.. That is very very true today... Topic for a gentler thread

'Should women be in combat"? and we can keep it on topic by saying "Catholic women"..

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

You're greatest and dearest friend

Crazy Eddie

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 04, 2003.

OK, Ed--
Much appreciated; I'm always glad to help. I'm happy when you accept reproof in good humor. I like to be a sport when I am carped at for giving you a backhand stroke.
But when you insist on a six month assault on our Holy Father and the Novus Ordo Eucharistic Rite, it becomes much more serious than giving me the raspberry. It surpasses a wicked grin at your father's mustache & your Mom's army boots. These are juvenile spitballs when contrasted against gross irreverence and blasphemy directed at Holy Mass in my parish. I fail to see the Good Sport you think you are then.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 04, 2003.

Deo gratias! Alleluia, alleluia!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

I am simply curious..... I have been doing a great deal of theological reading over the last couple of years. My mother is Catholic, my father is a Protestant minister. I think I truly understand why they each have chosen their unique faiths. I myself am not anti-Christianity, Catholic or Protestant..... However, in the reading I have been doing, I fail to see what any of the points made by the conservative sides of both Cath/Prot debate have anything to do with anything the living Jesus taught. I am not a minister's son of the sort that rebels and becomes an atheist. Quite the contrary. However,neither do I consider myself a Christian in title. I reject the title solely on the grounds that I don't believe Jesus came to make us Christian. I believe that Jesus came to teach us something about the relationship between God and Man. If I were to call myself anything, I would most likely refer to myself as a "Child of God". Much like any child, I make my share of mistakes, but, hopefully, like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, God is still there with open arms when I realize my backward step and choose to continue the walk home. I believe in neither the Sola Scriptura (scripture alone- inerrancy of the Gospel) or the authority of the Holy Catholic Church/the Pope. And ultimately, all the reading of your previous letters on this webpage I stumbled onto today, with your discussion of Schisms or levels of propriety, sin, and doctrine fidelity have made my mind whirl and left a faint taste in my mouth that reminds me of the passages wherein Jesus debates/responds to the Pharisees and/or the Sanhedrin. I have spoken with many Catholics, priests included, even in Rome itself, and have yet to stumble across a person who could convince me that the Catholic Church is directly related to anything Jesus did or said. As for Mel Gibson's movie.... I can't wait to see it and I think that it is wonderful that he is doing his bit to bring to the public eye the story of a man who had something to tell the world about the meaning of Life(God) and I hope with everything in me that it inspires the contemplation of that very thing. Lord knows, there is precious little meditation on God being done in today's world. To paraphrase an author I appreciate greatly ...in today's world with all of our input, music, T.V., noise and bustling around, it is easy to see that we may be in a position that is too distracted to hear that "still, small voice" that Elijah heard. I pray that Mel Gibson's efforts are fruitful and I wish him peace and joy in whatever form of worship he finds himself most capable of re-linking (religio-greek) to God. (Traditionalist worship or otherwise, I could care less) Any thoughts, I would love to hear from any of you, but it would be better to e-mail me than to post it on this page although I may check back just in case. Much love, Brad Jenks

-- Brad Jenks (bradleyjenks@hotmail.com), October 05, 2003.

Brad,
By going it alone, or free-lancing at faith, you are close to denying the very reason for Christ's life. Christ came to save sinners; He suffered and died for us all. It is revealed to us by the holy apostles and His Church; grace is what Christ acquired for us as He died on the cross. The grace necessary for our salvation.

You are keeping away from the fulness of His grace, which cost Him so dearly. You keep away by not conforming to His Will. Not the Church's will, Jesus' divine Will, which He wants us all to conform to. We have one Church, and we conform with her to Christ's pattern for salvation. Not a human pattern, but His.

The Church isn't the work of men at all. She is Christ's established kingdom on earth, where all believers must come for salvation. We are ONE people in her, who is His Bride. (The subject of denominational churches is altogether secondary to this greater, over-riding condition which Christ has willed for His followers.)

In the Old Testament, Israel was One People; which was brought out of bondage not as free-lancers or autonomous Israelites. They went from a people enslaved to a new single organism under the Law of Moses; in the Covenant he made with Yahweh for the chosen people.

We know this was God's Will because Christ Himself was born into this world as a Son of the Law. A Jew. He didn't just abrogate the Old Covenant. He made with our Almighty Father in heaven a New Covenant; ratified in His own blood, dying on a cross. This Covenant is sacred to us all, and to the Father. We have no other avenue to salvation, only Christs'. And this New Covenant is what makes us His Church; a new Israel. We recognise in the Church His standard; the rule by which our salvation is accomplished in this life. We are not entitled to choose a different Church; nor make our own covenant privately with God. It's Jesus' Church, or it's the wilderness!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 05, 2003.

Brad, can you clarify something please?
You wrote: "However,neither do I consider myself a Christian in title. I reject the title solely on the grounds that I don't believe Jesus came to make us Christian. I believe that Jesus came to teach us something about the relationship between God and Man."
Do you believe that Jesus is God -- the Son of God made man? Or do you believe that he is just a human being, not divine?
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 05, 2003.

Well, All of the stuff Chavez said is well and good, but, I don't believe that all of the stuff that he listed, (which is too considerable for me to rewrite) is stuff that Jesus really intended to impress upon us. I believe that many of the things that developed in the early church (by that I must also remind everyone that there was not just one early church.....there were a few groups and they often had very different views on Jesus) were things that they took Jesus to mean, whether it was what was intended or not. To answer the other question asked of me, I don't believe that Jesus "is" God.....Certainly not God in God's entirety, but, I do agree with something that a friend of mine said. He told me that he thought that God was always making efforts to reach out to us, and I think that Jesus was one of the those efforts, perhaps one of God's greater efforts. Nevertheless, I do have a sense of the 'Other'-ness of Jesus, but, I don't equate Jesus with God out of my own fear of idolotry. I also do not reject the trinity entirely. I believe it is a beautiful metaphor to describe something that may be true to a degree. I have no doubt that God was in that man, but, to what degree, I don't really give it a lot of thought..... Primarily because I believe there is more than the paschal lamb idea behind his death. I believe there are other elements. As for Jesus'/God's Church/Bride and the way we are to be..... I do believe that there is a way for people to be. My work with children has very much affected the way I see religion. I understand the 'New Covenant' to not be a new covenant, but, a better understanding of the old covenant. More mature, grown-up, but, that much more difficult because of the increased level of responsibility. Making the rules less important than the ethic is something that parents have been doing with their 'of-age' children since time began. I believe that it requires more responsibility and (in Buddhist terms) "mindfulness" as well as.........self sacrifice. But, after Jesus died, as is our very human habit, we were uncomfortable with the level of responsibility and we built up a structure and a hierarchy and doctrine that was never intended. But it sure does make us feel safe....There is a pitfall however. The tendency toward exclusive behavior (Crusades, Spanish inquisition and the repeated schisms found in the Catholic and especially the Protestant churches) Besides, if this really were a "New Covenant" between God and Man, would it really be for the purposes of labeling us 'Christian'? Or would it perhaps be more for the purposes of bringing us home as the 'Children' that perhaps we all are. Jesus was a Jew. His friends were Jews, his family were Jews and Paul (without whom there would not likely be a worldwide 'Christianity') was a Jew, a Jew 'in Christ', yes, but still a Jew. I also believe (I can hear the claims of heresy now......!) that Buddha stumbled onto what Jesus was sent to teach. It came in very different terms to be sure, from a very different culture. But, I also belive that to deny that which God has provided for other cultures is to deny that God loves all of his creation. I don't believe that Buddha and Jesus are the same, do not make that mistake, but, my understanding of Jesus and Christianity has been greatly shaped by my readings in comparative religion. Before I sign off, I would just like to remind everybody who believes in Apostolic authority, that, Jesus frequently railed against the Disciples for not understanding him or his points. Similarly, many composers wrote many pieces for a certain person, for a certain voice, and then they sprinkled their letters to their loved ones or colleagues with anxiety about the fact that their soloists simply didn't understand what they wanted. That is, again, with the composer 'right there' to coach them through. But, many years after the death of that composer may come along a singer who looks at the music and simply 'gets it'......... He/she understands the composer's intentions innately and can then share it with everyone. But, how many years later is this.....? Authority is not so clean-cut as we would like to make it. Keep the responses coming, I like to be made to think, ponder, and consider all angles. Yours, Brad

-- Brad Jenks (bradleyjenks@hotmail.com), October 08, 2003.

My only favorite movie of Mel Gibson , that is this movie !!

One of my favorite movies all time: that is this movie

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 08, 2003.

Brad:
I notice many I's in your reply. You say, ''I don't believe that all of the stuff that [Gene] listed, (which is too considerable for me to rewrite) is stuff that Jesus really intended to impress upon us. I believe, I say,'' etc.,

What one man believes is no standard. You are free not to believe what God commanded. God gives us free will. For practical purposes, your reluctance to believe me is based on not knowing me. --If you thought I knew what I was talking about, it might help you to believe. I'm a cypher to you today. Leave my word out of it; fire me and hire Jesus Christ:

He said: ''I tell you and you do not believe. The works that I do in the name of my Father, these bear witness concerning me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them everlasting life; and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch anything out of the hand of my Father. I and the Father are One.'' (John 10, :25- 30.)

Jesus built His Church; and His sheep live within this fold. Not for nothing, Brad; He gives us everlasting life. Eternal life is what Jesus meant, saying ''What my Father gives me is greater than all.''

Jesus says, ''My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they FOLLOW ME.'' And we do!

But for whatever reason, you have no need to follow Jesus, nor have you believed so far in the works He does. He said, ''These bear witness concerning me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.'' He talks about the unbeliever!

He promises us we will never perish. He says ''I and the father are one.''

These are all Catholic articles of faith; we are His sheepfold. Go ahead, then and remain outside; giving credence to Buddha instead of Christ; arriving at false conclusions because your mortal intellect is your God. All our faithful have eternal life from Jesus Christ, whereas, your intellect will die someday; as Buddha died once. Buddha who denied life, choosing Nirvana after this life. OBLIVION.

God converts good intellectuals, and He converts the slow-witted equally.

Buddha was only a man. Jesus is God come down from heaven and become Man for our salvation. How do we know? By faith, not just intellect.

But also by His holy works which give witness. They bear witness which intellect cannot ignore; we believe by intellect AND faith. We are the sheep whom He knows; we follow Him. He gives us the grace to believe in Him, and we are His.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 08, 2003.

After watching this picture I went home and made a cup of tea then went to bed. Next day I woke up and smashed my house up screaming in pain. I felt every lash of the whip and nail driven through the lords hands and feet. The agony of the cursed thorns sticking in my head! why me why should I feel this pain.... A voice in the mirror said "because you mocked me and laughed at my pain"

I did it was comical watching Jesus fall and writher in pain only for an instant because of me in the present interpreting an event which took place 1774 years ago.

take my advice and dont laugh during the film it may twist your mind like its done mine.

Respect

Padraig Pearse hon ilm

-- Padraig Pearse (p44dym@yahoo.co.uk), April 02, 2004.