DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay, I think Gibson's Passion may not receive a nomination not because of the content, but because of the controversy surrounding the film. The controversy was mostly Gibson's own doing, as it helped garner a load of cash at the box office - I suspect that he knew this would be the case...but no one can fault him for that! Savvy business move.

I also suspect that Gibson cares little whether the film wins an award or not.

Jack,
I suspect that even without the controversy The Passion would not be nominated.

Maybe I'm a cynic?

God bless,
Jay

The people spoke at the box office. Christians, including Mel, do not expect or need secular approval. The movie was made for the message of heavenly rewards, not for the worldly rewards. How can the world movie makers or Hollywood reward something that is not of their own making and something of which they disprove (despise). There votes are not without bias.

They will find an excuse, like the movie was in a foreign language so it will be considered as a foreign film.

John,

It is ironic that you suggest the film was made for heavenly rewards & not earthly rewards since Icon Productions was no doubt quite happy with the controversy generated by the movie - nurtured by both Mel Gibson and the Media. The controversy guaranteed the millions of dollars raked in at the box office.

Earthly rewards!

And how about the guy out in California who created and is selling Jesus' nails??? Three nails, welded together and strung on a necklace. Beautiful!

This is typical of our day and age I suppose. It does not suprise me that the globes or the oscar did not give the Passion a nod. With a nation that is trying to remove God from everything will only lead to self destruction. The day is going to come when our Lord and Savior will pick up His hand that has protected our great nation for so long. How can they ignore this? We Christians spoke at the box office! The only thing we can do is continue to pray!!! God Bless, visit my site www.ledministries.com

I can not believe that "Passion of the Christ" didn't receive even one nomination. Not even for a foreign film. It's sick. They can dote on a movie that revels in alcohlism, one that is rebelious, and even one that is about someone whom most of us don't even know or care about. What did Howard Hughes do for you? Did he die for mankind? No. He reveled in his millions, which is what Hollywood seems most interested in...money. Maybe they're just jealous...or sorry that they did not back Mel's film. I mean, it was only the third top grossing film of the year. Maybe they're sorry they didn't join in. Pity.

I was watching the Golden Globe and inquired though goggle.com why the Passion of the Christ wasen't nominated. I turned the TV off and realized that after watching the show for the last 30 years that it is nothing but political. I will also boycott the Oscars.

All of Hollywood has not "snubbed" this film. At the People's Choice Awards Gibson received a standing ovation from a crowd of his Hollywood colleagues after the film received the award for "Best Picture." Gibson responded that he knew his film was against Hollywood tradition and this award was the one that really meant something to him. However, I was also disappointed that the Hollywood Foreign Press ignored this film that "moved the world." I also turned off the television during the Golden Globes. What I find interesting is that "Desperate Housewives" won several awards. I would say that this show also creates some "waves" of controversy. Wouldn't you???

God Bless,
Jean

It didn't get nominated because it's not a good movie. Bad acting, not interesting, weak message, and too gory to communicate anything of worth.
Bad movie, nothing more.

Passion was not only a movie, was more a message to people. If you are Christian you like the movie a lot, if you are not than You don't.
And that tells us something about the Golden Globe, Oscars etc.
Have a good day everybody!!!

I am in complete agreement with the other like-minded believers who've posted that say Mel's film was made not for human recognition, but because this true story needed to be told again to a dying and lost world.....his reward is definitely in the heavenly's were "moth & rust" cannot destroy....Hollywood has no appeal at all for me....I feel so sorry that so many do not know the truth about Christ in what Mel Gibson's movie portrayed. All we can do is pray for them. Not getting the Oscar nod is a trivial matter in God's eyes...but showing Christ to a lost world is where the prize is....It is no surprise to us that Hollywood shuns anything the has to do with Christ...it is just sad....God bless....julie

It is amazing to me to read comments by so many Christians who have fallen lock-stock-and-barrel for a movie like Gibson’s Passion – even to the point of calling it a divine gift from God above. This is a far cry from the overly simplistic polarization by fans of the flick such as that iterated by Silviu; “If you are a Christian, then you like the movie a lot, if you are not than You don’t.” Good guys – bad guys. GOOD GUYS: Jesus, Mary, Pilate(?), Pilate’s wife(?) – BAD GUYS:“the Jews”, and especially Caiaphas and the rest of the “mob” called the Sanhedrin.

Well, I am a Christian, and a Catholic one at that, and Gibson’s Passion represents anti-Judaism at is subtlest best…and potentially dangerous worse.

Folks, you fail to recognize perspective! And so long as this is the case, then voices of those so called “Christians” who deride the movie, and those Jews who “just don’t get it” will remain silenced from the discussion.

Perspective means everything. Let me offer an example. The bloggers of this WebLog have spent a lot of web space outlining how wonderful, divine, and what a clear historically accurate, unadulterated utterance of the TRUTH that Gibson’s Passion is – and what an injustice it is that Hollywood will not give it an award. Along the way, dissenter’s opinions are simply misinformed, jaded, or purposefully trying to undercut the proclamation of the Gospel in this the most powerful evangelistic tool since the
B-I-B-L-E itself!!

Then, when the film Luther is released, suddenly perspective means everything! What a lousy movie Luther is! Horribly misrepresents the papacy! Historically inaccurate!

Ah yes…the Catholics are a little put off by this reformed-affront.

Suggestion: If you want to see a recent “Jesus movie” of the best quality, and authentically faithful to the biblical text, rent The Gospel of John movie.

http://www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/

This movie is fantastic because it is exactly what it claims to be, nothing more or less. Unlike Gibson’s movie, with all of the hype generated by Icon Prod. and Gibson, there are no false claims about the fidelity to the text or the accuracy of the history (as best we can know it) – no cutting & pasting together of the most anti-Jewish texts available from the four Gospels. The Gospel of John is a wonderful and moving film, with reasoned cinemagraphic(?) interpretations of every verse/scene of the 4th Gospel. I hope the makers of this film offer versions for the synoptics.

Jews – and Catholic Christians like myself – are not complaining about this movie because it is honestly nothing more or less than what it claims.

Peace!

I think that THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a beautiful comtemplation on the love of GOD.. to allow His son to suffer for the sins of mankind to the point of death.Now if you do not understand how much love GOD has for mankind,this film will be folly to the non believer.The world loves it own and they hate CHRIST,always have ,always will.Hollywood is made up of worldlings and they hate CHRIST.The Oscars are a wonderful platform to prove thier hatred and they will do it with style and great showmanship.And when JESUS CHRIST returns to earth,HE also will come with great style, showmanship and POWER AND AUTHORITY,so all this being said,What Hollywood does is of no consequence......KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE..JESUS IS THE FIRST BORN OF THE NEW CREATION...AND WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT TRUMPET BLAST..THANK YOU MR GIBSON FOR A WONDERFUL TESTIMONY TO THE SUFFERINGS OF OUR LORD.NO GREATER LOVE HAS EVER BEEN SEEN THAN THAT OF JESUS!

UPDATE: The Passion did get nominated for three Oscars. Some are calling this "Hollywood Guilt" on display.

God bless,
Jay

Ok Jay! Three nominations: cinematography, original score, and make-up. Shoot! It might even win one.

Cinematography? Alright, nice panoramic visuals of the Holy City.

Original score? Good music; haunting.

Make-up? Well, when you spend so much time - 1/3 of the flick?? - on an aspect of the passion narratives that the authors themselves only give one or two lines...I guess thats worth some kind of an award.

Just poking fun!

For the relative majority here who are only capable of seeing the glory and wonder of Gibson's Passion, you may want to consider the following new title from Fortress Press:

Presumed Guilty: How the Jews Were Blamed for the Death of Jesus by Peter Tomson.
Format: Paperback 160 pages 5.5 x 8.5 inches
Item No: 0800637070

http://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/item.asp?clsid=157801&isbn=0800637070

It is still amazing to me how so many of my Catholic sisters and brothers fail to recognize the reality of perspective and how it impinges upon this movie. That, coupled with a prevalent naivate regarding the history of the the earliest believers in Jesus Messiah - the apostles in Judea and their expression of Judaism as well as Jesus' expression of Judaism - make for a potent mix of anti-Judaism, unwitting as it might be.

Read folks! Read!

Blessings

Calling Mel's film anti-Semitic is like calling the New Testament itself anti-Semitic.

According to the official "Passion Of the Christ" website the script "was adapted from a composite account of The Passion assembled from the four Biblical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

Additional material was taken primarily from the writings of two mystics: the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and "The Mystical City of God" by St. Mary of Agreda.

In every instance in the film where it portrayed action taken by the Jews, or interaction with the Jews, the film remained faithful to the New Testament.

At the height of media attack against the movie some groups actually used the argument that it meant nothing that the film was true to scripture because the New Testament itself is anti-Semitic.

Siding with that viewpoint tends to put an end to any intelligent discussion.

Whether or not Pope John Paul II actually gave his approval to the film or not is a moot point; other Vatican high officials approved it as being an accurate portrayal of scripture. On the Protestant side even Billy Graham went on record as saying the film was true to scripture. That's good enough for me.

In addition to my own familiarly with the New Testament that tells me the film was a faithful portrayal on all key points, I would rather take the word of Vatican Officials and the good Dr. Billy Graham than that of people who insist that anti-Semitism is somehow "hidden" or "woven" into the fabric of the film.

Read folks read? Certainly. But read the comments of people whose lives have demonstrated that you can trust their judgment; people whose lives have been open for public scrutiny for many years. Not someone who is just offering their latest "opinion of the moment."

Thanks Mel.

Peace,
Frank

Thanks for your two cents Frank! However, you should know, as would anyone, that you or I could very easily cut-and-paste texts and scenes from the four Gospels and piece together a perhaps even more anti-Jewish "Passion of the Christ" than even Mel did (Anti-Jewish, not anti-semitic!). I should think THAT would be considerably less than "faithful" to the Gospel narratives.

Any, and perhaps ALL intelligent discussion can begin first after one simply cuts-and-pastes together their own "passion," and measures it against Mel's. Or better, why not let the Gospels stand on their own, as we have them??? Un-manipulated!

To my knowledge, only one film maker has done that - that would be Philip Saville with his movie The Gospel of John. THAT FILM, Frank, is indeed a faithful portrayal of John's Gospel. Moreover, for that film, legitimate biblical scholars were consulted including Peter Richardson, Adele Reinhartz, and Alan Segal.

There is nothing "hidden" or subtle about the anti-Judaic character of Gibson's Passion to anyone who is familiar with the Gospel texts. Throughout the film it is hard not to ask "Now, why did Mel choose THAT line from Matthew, and NOT the line from the Gospel of...?" OR, "Why did Mel choose THAT detail from John, and not this detail from...?" It all does add up!! Add up to what?

A pretty bad movie!

Dear Mel, next time, leave you scissors and glue at home and learn a lesson from Mr. Saville.

But then again, Thanks Mel! Thanks for the lesson in marketing strategy, and yes, for a teaching moment.

Peace.

Sorry Jack, but angry hot flashes just don't make it; not with me and certainly not in, ah, well, intelligent conversation.

Just for the record, Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians who may be of any religion they choose.

The attacks claiming that "The Passion of the Christ" was anti-Semitic (not anti-Jewish) were made primarily by Jews, with the Anti-Defamation League leading the charge. Last time I checked that was a pretty Jewish bunch. Check their website; you'll easily find usage of the term anti-Semitic plastered all over their pages. You might also go back a few months and read the newspaper articles of the period to refresh your memory.

Or perhaps you think it's a bit more dramatic to say anti-Jewish rather than anti-Semitic? Theatrical enthusiasms aside, that's your privilege; go for it.

Thank God it's a free country. You're free to hate Mel, his movie and even me. People died to give you that right. I have no intention of trying to interfere with it.

But really, splitting hairs about whether the slurs were anti-this or anti-that at this late date seems a bit hollow, don't you think? The movie has been shown and will be shown again. It has been attacked and will be attacked again; truth always is. Accept it and move on. Yawn.

The only folks still trying to kick sand in the other guys face over this thing are people involved in a late night "hobby" debate like this one. Whoops, that includes me too, doesn't it? Rats.

Do you really think anyone is reading this stuff other than you and me? Maybe we should both get a life.

On the other hand perhaps we've not hit the right "anti" button at all. How about anti-Catholic? Will that work? That's real popular now-a-days.

Hitler and Goebbels subscribed to the theory that if you scream a big enough lie loud enough and long enough you eventually get some people to believe you. With them, propaganda was an art form.

The really scary thing is that those guys KNEW they were lying. The anti-Mels actually BELIEVE what they're saying. Yo, that gives me the chilly-willies. (Or is it the anti-willies?)

Of course we all know the anti-Mels have better discernment and insight about the true nature of Mels film than Dr. Billy Graham and the Vatican put together. Right? I say, right? Hello?

Oh well, if it was good enough for H & G, who knows; it might work for the anti-Mels too.

Good luck.

Peace,
Frank

Well, Frank, although these “hobby debates” are indeed not attended to by hardly anyone (except the blogmaster perhaps), they may be of some value in helping one formulate and articulate what one thinks one knows. And of course, personally, at times I find it amusing to engage. But not in petty, rancorous discourse with someone I do not even know, let alone therefore could I possibly even “hate” as you suggest.

Thank you for the instruction on what constitutes a semite, but it wasn’t necessary. On the other hand, instruction is apparently in order regarding what the phrase “anti-Jewish” refers to in the context of Jewish-Christian discourse. While anti-Semitic refers to prejudice against a particular type of people (see you helpful definition), anti-Jewish refers to historically attested Christian prejudice against the religion of Judaism. Particularly troublesome emanations of Christian anti-Judaism include Christian Triumphalism & supercessionism – both heartily disavowed by our present Pontiff.

Granted, Gibson’s Passion has been attacked “from all sides,” including the fringe left, the most substantive critique has come from moderate perspectives – religious and not – including the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, and the committee formed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in the summer of 2003 to review the movie’s script. That committee’s report is available along with a wealth of other considered criticisms of Gibson’s Passion at the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning website: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/

And, yes, much time has passed since the movie was released, and I have accepted and in fact, begun to be thankful for it – namely, as a teaching instrument to instruct people about Second Temple Judaism, the Gospels, and Christian anti-Judaism.

For that, I am truly thankful to Mel.

Peace!

Despite what negativism this film may have generated I would like to point to the words of Pope John Paul II on this film for I believe we can learn from them:

It is as it was.

Have we seen an increase in hate crimes toward Jews? No. Have we seen any deterioration in dialogue between the Jewish and Christian communities? No.

Enough said. This film is about to be re-released, if you haven't seen this film yet take the time to go see this wonderful film.

In Christ,
Joe

Joseph!

That is a fine response from the Holy Father, I remember when it was first reported.

It is unfortunate, I think, that Christians who completely disregard the phenomenon of “perspective” when it comes to this film, have co-opted these five words (“eleven letters”!) as a slogan blessing the film. I have no doubt that the Holy Father, if pressed, would articulate a keen awareness of the problems with the film. Again, I do not think at bottom, that the film was constructed with anti-semitic intent – and perhaps not even anti-Jewish; I prefer to say of Mel that “he knew not what he was doing” (except of course, when it came to milking the controversy to guarantee a big box office pay day). Nevertheless, many of my Jewish brothers and sisters, and Catholic brothers and sisters have issued a voice based on alternative perspectives. Fans of the flick simply and confidently say, “they’re wrong!” Well, they are not wrong.

Below is another perspective on Gibson’s passion from the perspective of Fr. John Pawlikowski, director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program of the Cardinal Joseph Bernardin Center at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago (released last year just before Lent).

“The late Vincentian Father Bruce Vawter, who taught for many years at DePaul University , once wrote that "the trial and death of Jesus have to be reconstructed rather than read from the Gospels." Scriptural scholars such as Vawter and official church documents make the point that the details of Jesus' death cannot be understood simply by reading the texts in isolation from their social context. Only with such background information can a person arrive at the "literal" meaning of these narratives.

It is in this context that the Catholic and Jewish scholars who examined the original script of Mel Gibson's projected film "The Passion of Christ"---myself included---have found it seriously wanting.

The working script we reviewed, as well as the rough cuts now being shown to select audiences, have as their major storyline a depiction of a cruel and vengeful high priest Caiaphas leading a cabal of hateful Jews to force a weak-kneed Pontius Pilate to put Jesus to death. In the end, they blackmail him into doing their dirty deed. But from biblical and historical scholarship we know that Pilate was a powerful tyrant who fully controlled the political situation. No way could the Jews of Palestine have blackmailed him.

He, not the Jewish leaders, was primarily responsible for Jesus' death. That is where the film is not in keeping with Vatican II and Catholic teaching. Gibson also relies on extra-biblical materials from the mystic Venerable Catherine Emmerich which are tinged with anti-Semitism. Certainly films can present Jesus' suffering and death in a powerful way. But they must remain faithful to the church's current understanding.

"The Passion of the Christ" does not. Gibson, in fact, rejects those teachings as well as modern biblical scholarship and thus stands outside of official Catholicism today.”

I cannot see this film as a “wonderful” film. My sensibilities as a Christian disallow such blanket approval of a film that plays so fast-and-loose with its cut-and-paste procedure of constructing its harmonized version of the Passion of our Lord from four Gospels that were not written with the intent of ever being harmonized in this way. Indeed, to the extent that I believe this, no, KNOW this to be in fact, the case, NO harmonized re-construction of the Passion of our Lord can stand to reason, let alone, to faith.

Peace Joe!

Jack,

First, again, let's not forget about the fruits...many have come back to Christ due to this film...that's a fact.

Second, I am completely unaware of any increases in national or global anti-semitism due to this film.

Third, your comments about "who" was responsible for the death of Christ are disappointing for, ultimately, all of us were responsible. Yet the tool that executed this terrible event in the history of man was undoubtedly the Jews and the Romans...together. In fact, regardless of what modern theologians might want to claim the Scriptures are clear on this matter:

Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar." When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat at a place called The Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of the Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Here is your King!" They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.
- John 19:12-16

Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him; I will therefore chastise him and release him." But they all cried out together, "Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas - a man who had been throw into prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder. Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus; but they shouted out, "Crucify, crucify him!" A third time he said to them, "Why what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him." But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. - Luke 23:13-23

Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified." And he said, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified." So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this righteous man's blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" He then released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified. - Matthew 27:20-26

"The Passion" Isn't Anti-Semitic, Says Vatican Aide; Rome's Jewish Community Wanted the Film Condemned

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 11, 2004 (Zenit.org).- A Vatican spokesman says the film "The Passion of the Christ" cannot be considered anti-Semitic without also regarding the Gospel the same way.

Joaquín Navarro-Valls made this statement in response to a request from Riccardo Di Segni, chief rabbi of Rome, who, after seeing the film Tuesday, asked that the Vatican condemn it officially.

The film "makes us go back to a period before the Second Vatican Council," the rabbi contended.

In statements published today by the Roman newspaper Il Messaggero, the director of the Vatican press office said: "The film is a cinematographic transcription of the Gospels. If it were anti-Semitic, the Gospels would also be so."

"It must not be forgotten that the film is full of 'positive' Jewish personages: from Jesus to Mary, from the Cyrenian to Veronica, including the moved crowd, etc.," Navarro-Valls stressed.

"If such a story were anti-Semitic, it would pose a problem for the Judeo-Christian dialogue, because it would be like saying that the Gospels are not historical," he said. "One must realize the seriousness of these affirmations."

That there have been no official statements does not mean that the Church condemns the film, Navarro-Valls said.

In fact, he said, the film "has nothing anti-Semitic about it. Otherwise, it would have been criticized" by the Pope and by his aides in the Holy See. The Holy Father saw the movie in December.

Navarro-Valls referred to a Vatican II declaration that pronounces itself against anti-Semitism.

"The declaration 'Nostra Aetate' was issued by the Catholic Church and, if it has not reacted in this case, it means that it has seen no reason to do so," he explained. "Otherwise, the hierarchy would have spoken out -- either the Vatican or the local episcopates."

Navarro-Valls revealed that some time ago, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, came to Rome to make contacts in the Vatican on the issue.

"Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, replied: 'I don't see anything in this film that can be considered as anti-Semitic,'" the Vatican spokesman continued.

"The secretary of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Father Norbert Hofmann, explained to [Foxman] that the Church has pronounced itself against anti-Semitism with the declaration 'Nostra Aetate,'" he concluded.

In Christ,
Joe

You are failing to see the point Joe. Me and “the rest of like-minded academia” are only trying to point out the validity of perspective. Another “bottom line” is simply this; many Jews who have seen the film consider much of it to be anti-Semitic, and they are not likely to be persuaded by the Vatican that it is not. Further, many Roman Catholics believe the film to be anti-Jewish if not anti-Semitic, and some even the latter. Now here’s the upshot Joe; Catholics, like myself, who think the film to be anti-Jewish (at least), consider the source of this spirit of the film to lie NOT in each or either of the Gospels, but rather in the cutting and pasting together of particular scenes from each Gospel to weave an apparent whole. MANY TEXTS/SCENES ARE LEFT OUT in favor of others. When this is done, the artist (that would Mel) necessarily constructs another message – it is unavoidable. In the end, there are only a few elements of Gibson’s work that reflect the spirit of the Gospels – indeed, the salvific death of our Lord is one such element. But that gem of an element is surrounded by so much chaff.

“The rest of like-minded academia” and I do not in any way “work around” any of the texts in each of the individual Gospels in our comments on the film. Gibson, on the other hand, does this carte-blanc and full-throttle by the very act of cut-&-paste!!! For one, and only one instance, take what John’s Gospel reports as the Chaiaphas’ reasoning behind seeking Jesus’ execution:

“But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.’” (Jn 11:49-50).

This reasoning is quite understandable as one of Caiaphas’ most important roles as High Priest (and liaison between Rome and the Jews) was to protect, as best he could, his own people from un-necessary lethal reaction from Rome. Jesus was causing an uproar – the Nation was at risk!

Gibson’s Caiaphas, on the other hand, was blood-thirsty, malevolent, and personally-maniacly bent on Jesus’ destruction. I wonder why John 11:50 was left out of Gibson’s script!! I know the answer…it portrays an aspect of Caiaphas, according to John, that Gibson was not interested in portraying in the film.

You’ve no need to be disappointed in me regarding who was responsible for Jesus’ death, for you and I are theologically speaking, in agreement: We, you and I and the world entire are responsible. BUT, the historical means (historical responsibility) behind Jesus’ death was principally, PRINCIPALLY that of Pilate. Jesus was CRUCIFIED on the charge of sedition (INRI!!!) – a Roman execution for a crime against Rome! Historical means are indeed, wrought by G-d. But they do not constitute the theological reasoning behind the crucifixion of our Lord.

Joe, when people who are completely unfamiliar with the Gospels go and see Gibson’s Passion, THAT becomes for them, THE Gospel. You certainly can remember how when we were young Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth was, to a large extent, the embodiment of the Gospel for us. When we became older and more mature, and more widely read in the four Gospels, we began to shape the contours of Gospel message in a viable, and life-giving way – for ourselves, and perhaps for others too.

G-d bless Gibson’s Passion for the people it brings to the four Gospels. G-d help us, insofar as the Passion simply informs some about the good guys and the bad guys, ACCORDING TO MEL!!, i.e. those who are not drawn to the four Gospels, and our Lord contained in them.

Here is a survey question posed by PRINCETON SURVEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL to 1,004 people by telephone from Feb 5-6, 2005, and the frightening results!

QUESTION:
Do you believe that the Bible's accounts of Jesus Christ's arrest, trial and crucifixion portrayed in the movie (Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of Christ) are literally true, or are not literally true?

RESULTS:
Yes, literally true - 24%

No, not literally true - 14%

Don't know - 62%

[Source: LexisNexis Academic Universe]

Wow! 24% of the 1,004 viewers of the film questioned here think that Caiaphas and several other members of the Pristhood and Sanhedrin WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT AT JESUS’ SCOURGING at THE ANTONIAN FORTRESS adjacent to the Temple!!!! THE DAY BEFORE PASSOVER!!!! (62% just don’t know for sure!).

Fact??? No member of the Priesthood, let alone any religious Jew at all, would have been there, for the Fortress was unclean! And people died there, a lot of people, and often too! Thus, corpse impurity would have been a factor. Since it takes more than a week for corpse impurity to be remedied according to Torah, and since Passover was so near…I trust you see my point.

Of course, however, some people will choose to believe that Gibson’s Caiaphas was an accurate portrait – that he and many others didn’t give a rat’s rump about Torah, the Temple Cult, Cultic purity, etc. etc. RUBISH!!!!!

Finally, as far as violence directly related to Gibson’s Passion. Joe, you know as well as I that the sick members of society who have been and will be pumped-up by Gibson’s movie will probably not advertise it! Polls are plentiful of the good affects of Gibson’s Passion, NOT the other way around (“Gallop polls 1,004 German skin-heads…”??? – I don’t see this happening – but it may have, who knows?). BUT, you and I know that it is a historical fact that Passion plays emerged first in European contexts, and that they historically evinced anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews. This is undeniable! And to simply say that there have been no reports of violence directly related to Gibson’s movie (a passion play on film) – and believe that NO violence has thus happened because of it – is irresponsibly naïve!

Here is some more “perspective”:

A Muslim perspective: “I think that Jewish organizations are correct in saying that anti-Semitism has increased in Europe, and I also think they are correct in saying that Arab and Muslim youths are responsible for a large part of it, by attacking Jewish individuals and centers. I also think that the movie 'The Passion of Christ' will help in increasing anti-Semitism wherever it is seen around the world.” [NEWSPAPER ESSAY BY JIHAD AL KHAZEN, AN ARAB RESPONSE TO THE RISE IN ANTI-SEMITISM (AL HAYAT, LONDON, APRIL 16, 2004)].

Another Muslim perspective: “Hanan Nsour, a veiled, 21-year-old Muslim in Jordan, came out of "The Passion of the Christ" in tears and pronounced her verdict: Mel Gibson's crucifixion epic "unmasked the Jews' lies and I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews." ["The Passion of the Christ" is a hit among Arabs, By NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD, Associated Press Writer, Dateline: CAIRO, Egypt].

A Jewish perspective: “BERLIN - Prominent German church and cultural figures expressed concern Thursday about the violent portrayal of Jesus's final hours in Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of The Christ, while a former Jewish leader described it as anti-Semitic. The film opens March 18 at German movie theaters.

Another Jewish perspective: Hamburg's Roman Catholic archbishop, Werner Thissen, told ARD television there was a danger that "the spectator sees only the blood and not the message of redemption." ['Passion' raises concern in Germany ahead of release; Ap. Melissa Radler Contributed To This Report. The Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2004].

A final Jewish perspective: “In the initial weeks since the American opening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," critics of the enormously successful film have received some hate mail and there have been several instances of Jewish schoolchildren being called "Christ-killers." But there's been no known anti-Jewish violence that can be traced to the movie, according to the Anti-Defamation League.” [CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY 'PASSION' HAS ENERGIZED CATHOLIC-JEWISH TIES, by Ira Rifkin, The Jerusalem Report; April 9, 2004].

Joe, this last, perspective is instructive; “no KNOWN anti-Jewish violence” underscores how most perpetrators prefer cover. On the other hand, regarding critics of the film receiving hate mail…I personally know one biblical scholar who served on the USCCB’s committee that reviewed Gibson’s script of the movie (the review was negative!). She is Paula Fredriksen (a Jew), and she has received many hate letters AND death threats from “Christians” simply because of her out spoken perspective on Gibson’s Passion.

Perspective Joe!

I am aware of the fruits of this movie, and am thankful that G-d works through what is, to my mind – and the minds of many other Roman Catholics – a bad movie. On the other hand, our un-mitigated enthusiasm for the film should be kept in sober check!

I will stick with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – the B-I-B-L-E! – and the Church’s official teaching on the topic Nostra Aetate, et al.

Peace my friend.

And you are failing to see the validity of reality, Jack. The Jews and the Romans "physically" crucified Jesus Christ....period. The Gospels make that clear. Does it necessarily follow that we blame or hate Jews? Absolutely not, if we truly follow Christ. Yes, we are all responsible for Jesus' death, in that He died to free us from our sins, no one is arguing that. Again, where are all the hate crimes that "you and other like-minded academia" would insist are the natural ramification of such films? Nowhere to be found...

I will say it again....look at the fruits of this film.

In Christ,
Joe

Hey Guys! I stumbled into this by accident. Wow! What a bunch of smoke and no fire.

Jack, I guess we don't have to look any farther to find the guy who will gleefully "cast the first stone." You da man!

Everyone is wrong but you; the scriptures are wrong, the Roman Catholic Church is wrong, Christians in general are wrong - Gee Whiz!! You're smarter than all of em, huh?

And all that Jew hate stuff is "really" taking place, but no one can see it because it's all under cover? What covers you lookin' under there, Jack?

Go for it pal; even paranoids have real enemies.

You seem to enjoy being the under-under dog, so I won't spoil your fun. Keep waving those old newspaper quotes; you'll fan up some fire out of all this smoke yet.

Note to Joe: Don't waste yer time buddy. This guy is riding his own train, on his own rails, going to a destination of his own choosing. You're not gonna change his mind. Facts mean nothing, evidence means nothing, truth means nothing. He's havin too much fun to see the light now.

I may have gotten here by accident, but I'm leaving on purpose.

Adiós, buckaroos.

Hey Larry,

Thanks for your penny’s worth of wisdom here.

1) There is nothing I know about the Gospels, Judaism, Jesus, etc. etc. that you or anybody else cannot find out for themselves. You are the only one to blame for your own ignorance on this or any other subject that you bother speaking up about. Ignorance is a much longer train to nowhere Larry.
2) I do not know more than the Catholic Church, as you put. In fact, I offer great credence to the Church’s various responses to this film. It was the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops – not I – that called together a committee to review the script of Gibson’s Passion. You can read the results for yourself on line (link in a previous post). But then, I know that if you did actually read it yourself, you couldn’t offer the insults that you do…you’d have to insult the Church.
3) The scriptures are not wrong…Gibson is!

Tell me, Larry or Joe, where in any of the four Gospels does it relate that Caiaphas and other priests and members of the Sanhedrin were present (not to mention Mary and Pilate’s wife lurking about the Antonian Fortress as well) at Jesus’ scourging? Chapter and verse will do.

Or,

Where in any of our Gospels is Jesus chucked off a bridge, dangling with chains; or where does his cross float 2 or 3 feet off the ground? Chapter and verse please?

Or,

Where in the Gospels does it relate how Caiaphas approaches Jesus on the cross and privately derides him “one last time”? Again, chapter and verse will do…I’m easy goin’ here.

Oh, and finally,

Where in the Gospels does it relate how at Jesus’ death the very structure upon which stood the ark of the covenant (in the Holy of Holies) crumbled into pieces?

Joseph, I have seen the movie. There are parts of the film I actually like! There are other parts that I am appalled by given Gibson’s claims to “fidelity to the Gospel narratives” and ancient history. Have you bothered to read the USCCB’s report on the script???

All I’m sayin’ Joe, is that the folks who do not like this film, even those Jewish sisters and brothers of ours who consider much of it to be anti-semitic, think that way because of their own, unique perspectives – and those perspectives need to be considered carefully by “us Christians” who don’t want to think anything but warm fuzzies about the flick.

How dare we go to the Jew – in light of the history of Christian violence against Jews – and demand that s/he produce documented evidence for violence against Jews because of Gibson’s Passion. For gosh sakes Joe, people still can’t agree if video games like Grand Theft Auto, or DOOM, cause violence or not – but they can all agree that The Oregon Trail produces great results in kids…you see?

Praise G-d for the work G-d has done to bring folks home by means of this film. And when we are done praising G-d, why don’t we listen, listen to the perspectives of others who have a historical, and cultural stake in the production and dissemination of films like this.

Peace of Christ Jesus our Lord!

Jack,

It's art...where did God the Father have a "caucasian, physical body" as Michaelangelo portrays in the Sistene Chapel? The theological meanings of the Passion are sound... The Jewish "old covenant" was no longer valid after Christ.

Tell me this, where in the Gospels does it say that the Jews weren't responsible for the death of Jesus Christ? Chapter and verse will do.

In terms of perspective Jack, the BTK killer had some unique perspectives on why "binding, torturing and killing" other human beings was okay....should we consider those or should we call reality what it is? In a practical sense, Protestant theology has some "unique perspectives" on the Eucharist, the priesthood, apostolic succession, Mary, etc...should we consider those as well? Or should we call a spade a spade? Considering doesn't immediately require embracing or accepting. Considering and agreeing are two completely different things.

This is where we part ways, I refuse to condemn a movie as not "good" or "honest" just because a certain group of individuals were offended by it. The fruits of this film and the effects on the individual lives of so many people speaks volumes about the "quality and authenticity" of this film...period.

You reference the "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" but completely brush off the commits of the Vatican:

"If such a story were anti-Semitic, it would pose a problem for the Judeo-Christian dialogue, because it would be like saying that the Gospels are not historical," he said. "One must realize the seriousness of these affirmations."

This is my last post on this matter. You can believe what you will but you have yet to provide substantial proof that this film is leading any one away from Christ or generating anti-semetic behavior. To quote the Pope again:

It is as it was.

Joe,

Gibson's Passion ceased to be "only" an artistic expression when he and Icon Productions began making claims that it was "historically accurate" and "faithful to the Gospels." After such claims are made in the public arena, the film was rightly placed under different scrutiny than most movies normally are.

The Gospel of John clearly idicates that Rome, and so Pilate, was principally - historically (not theologically!) - responisble for Jesus' death at chapter 19, verse 19: "And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS."

"INRI"!! This is a Roman criminal charge, leveled against a (perceived) crime against the Roman Empire - the crime? Sedition! Hence the charge. Not "blasphemy" or anything like that...SEDITION! Jesus was executed the way any and everyone else accused of sedition was...crucifixion, preceded of course, by scourging.

Re: your interesting comments about G-d's reneging on G-d's promises to Israel..."the Jewish Old Covenant no longer valid."???

Read Romans 11. Also, here is a quote from The Pontifical Biblical Commission's 2001 Study on
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

"To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ. It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one "Testament," but two "Testaments", the Old and the New, which have complex, dialectical relationships between them. A study of these relationships is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the Christian Church and the Jewish people.

By "Old Testament" the Christian Church has no wish to suggest that the Jewish Scriptures are outdated or surpassed." [II,A,1 - §19]

THe Jewish Scriptures are the utterance of the Covenant!!! They are not outdated, or surpassed!

This too shall be my last.

Grace and peace.

Dear Jack, first of all let me say that I have begun to wonder whether or not you are Catholic as you claim.

Your "stone wall attitude," continuing to stand behind the outdated (and now disproved) negative comments about TPOTC, rejecting all current and obvious positive evidence to the contrary; in particular your rejection of the approving statements on "The Passion of the Christ" released by the Vatican (and the USCCB) puzzles me.

Everyone of course, myself included, looks for and quotes information that will support their point of view; that's not what I mean. But hey, when time and accumulated evidence proves you wrong, most people eventually admit their error. Humbling, yes, but honorable. It's your continual rejection of the evidence that's right before your eyes that causes me to wonder what your agenda really is.

If you really are concerned about "perspective" as you say, you might like to know that the viewpoint you express here makes it difficult, at least for me, to recognize you as a Catholic. Frankly, you come across as more of a Jewish "mole" in not so deep cover.

For instance; your spelling of God as G-d is most often a Jewish act of respect for the name of Yahweh. While I have seen it used by Christians, it is not a Christian habit by any means.

Your "stone wall" is similar to the one put up by the ADL. Go to their site and check out the information they post relating to TPOTC. The passage of time and all accumulated evidence to the contrary, they haven't backed off of their stand one inch either. If a person read only what the ADL has to say, you'd think we were still living in the early weeks of the year 2004.

My doubt of your "authenticity" is not intended as an attack or an insult, just a voicing of my perception based upon your rather extensive comments in this blog.

If I'm wrong and you are indeed Catholic, then I humbly submit that you might be easier to recognize if you read and took to heart more of your Catechism and less of the writings of those who have chosen to attack your Church.

Hey, Jack; all the "Chicken Littles" were wrong, the "sky did not fall" and there is no value in continuing to play the little boy who cried "wolf." As regards "The Passion of the Christ" there is NO wolf Jack; hidden or otherwise.

You constantly throw down the gauntlet of writings by Jewish academics as if they offered the definitive statements on Mr. Gibson's film and the New Testament in general.

Wrong.

The Jewish perspective of New Testament writings (and therefore Mr. Gibson's film) is necessarily very different than the Catholic view.

Catholics accept the New Testament right along with the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God. We believe that the men who committed the Gospels to paper were under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

A Jew, no matter how well schooled and qualified to comment on the Torah and other Jewish writings, cannot view the Gospels in the same way that a Catholic does. If they did then they would also have to see them as the writings of God the Holy Spirit and accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah that they have been looking for; hence, end of conflict. We know that is not the case.

As Jews, they see the Gospels not as the writings of God, but of men. Even worse, they were written by men who turned their back on the true faith of Judaism.

Therefore they feel completely free and justified in looking for "human error," such as anti-Jewish sentiment.

If I am a Jew, true to my faith, then it is in fact impossible for me to give an unbiased opinion on the possibility of error or so called anti-Jewish writings in the Gospels.

You have, however, made at least one comment that I agree with. Your attempt to nullify Larry's comments (you didn't) included the remark "You are the only one to blame for your own ignorance on this or any other subject that you bother speaking up about." I wonder how willing you are to apply those same words to yourself?

Your question "Have you bothered to read the USCCB’s report on the script???" is the case in point.

Yes Jack, I've read it. I also know that the USCCB RETRACTED their negative comments on supposed anti-Semitism in the film; and I quote:

"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) retracted critical remarks made about the film last April by its ecumenical and interreligious committee, which suggested that the film might be anti-Semitic.
In remarks released Wednesday on Catholic News Service, three staff members of the USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting said the film might be overly violent but not anti-Semitic.
"Concerning the issue of anti-Semitism, the Jewish people are at no time blamed collectively for Jesus' death," said a review by Gerri Pare, David DiCerto and Anne Navarro. "Rather, Christ freely embraces his destiny."

Here is just one link to the above quotation as published in the Washington Times.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040226-113738-4289r.htm

Now, Jack; are you going to stand with "your Church?" The USCCB had the good sense, honesty and humility to repent of their former inaccurate stand. Do you?

Fred (a Catholic)

Thank you for your care-full response Fred. I appreciate your considered perspective on the matter. Because of time constraints, I offer an incomplete response.

I am a Roman Catholic, and one as steeped in the Catechism as you may be yourself. I have as well, taken a long and continued look at the Vatican’s efforts at the Christian-Jewish dialogue, and have been pleased with subsequent efforts at education, that is, stressing the importance of understanding Jesus’ Judaism, as well as the other articulations of Jewish faith prevalent in the pre-70.

The Judaism that perceives the Gospels as writings of men and not G-d, is that which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism (post-70). After the destruction, the Rabbis at Javneh sought to, and in fact did solidify Judaism into one, coherent expression/articulation. In Jesus’ time however, we have learned that that was not the case. Hence, Jesus is now rightly being perceived by NT scholars (Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant) as deeply imbedded in his religious context. What this means is that other Jews practicing their unique expression of Judaic religion, not perceiving Jesus to be their Messiah, would have thought that every other expression of Judaism was wrong too!

So, it is wrong to perceive “Judaism” as such – that is, as a single, coherent solidified & unified religion that rejected Jesus – as rejecting Jesus while he was alive, and even immediately after his death and resurrection. Many Jews did in fact recognize Jesus Messiah – Peter, James, John, Paul (!!) – and none of them believed themselves to be anything else but faith-full Jews practicing – living and breathing – they’re understanding of Judaic faith. That fact of the matter is this: the reason why the majority of Jews did not recognize Jesus to be their Messiah – regardless of they’re different articulations of Judaism – is because the world was/is not yet redeemed; there is still hurting and killing on G-d’s holy mountain; the wolf is not lying down with the lamb; the lion is not eating straw; and the infant is not playing as the adder’s lair.

I am aware of the USCCB’s re-response re: Gibson’s Passion as not being anti-semitic. I too, do not believe the film to be anti-semitic, and have made this clear, I thought. Nevertheless, since history proves time-and-again, that passion plays simply do serve – unfortunately – to whump up the anti-semites, to say this has not/will not happen is just ridiculous. The USCCB has not rejected the findings of the committee that point out the problems with Gibson’s cut-and-paste job on the Gospels.

I’ve included below an un-cut portion of a memo released by the USCCB’s Office of Media Relations which expresses my concerns clearly – especially the second paragraph. I think it is instructive.

COMMUNIQUE OF THE CATHOLIC-JEWISH CONSULTATION COMMITTEE

Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishop
And the National Council of Synagogues
May, 2004
Catholic and Jewish representatives, at the semi-annual meeting of the Catholic-Jewish Consultation Committee in New York on April 20, 2004, shared with depth and intensity their respective views on the film, "The Passion of the Christ." While for many Christians, the movie represents a work of artistic beauty that can provide the opportunity for faith values to be expressed on the screen in a way that has broad appeal, for other Christians and most Jews it recalls the Passion Plays of the past. Those dramatizations of Jesus' death in medieval and indeed modern European history often precipitated violence against Jews by triggering the insidious notion that "the Jews" were and are collectively guilty of the death of Jesus.

Even though Jesus, His mother, the Apostles, indeed all in the picture who are identified with Christ were Jewish, the film's depiction of the Temple leaders and its essentially ahistorical use of the Gospels could be twisted in an anti-Semitic way. We have reports of a few incidents where Jews are once again being taunted as "Christ killers," and those who have raised questions about the film have received antisemitic mail.

Though no major anti-Semitic incidents have been reported in this country or in Europe, it is with deep concern that the Consultation received reports that the film is being utilized in some countries, most regrettably in some Arab lands, to foment anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish feelings. It is with great dismay, especially on the Catholic side, that, where relations are already difficult due both to long-standing and more recent policy differences, we see elements of ancient Christian anti-Jewish teachings now threatening to infect the Muslim world. We pray that the spiritual leaders of both Christianity and Islam will guide their faithful away from any such anti-Semitic implications.

Pope John Paul II has made it abundantly clear during his long pontificate that anti-Semitism is a sin against God and humanity and that the Church's teachings must never be perverted for the dissemination of such sentiments.

[http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-094.shtml]

Peace Fred!

Fred,

I thought you’d be interested in reading a couple of paragraphs from the same movie review at Catholic News Network that you cite to claim the USCCB “retracted” its comments. This is from a movie review (nothing official from USCCB, though the authors are staff members – director, staff, and consultant of Film and Broadcasting) written by Gerri Pare, David DiCerto and Anne Navarro of the Catholic News Service. [http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/04mv276.htm]

“However, the most visually distinctive representatives of Jewish authority -- the high priest Caiphas (Matia Sbragia) and those in the Sanhedrin aligned with him -- do come across as almost monolithically malevolent. Caiphas is portrayed as adamant and unmerciful and his influence on Pilate is exaggerated. Conversely, Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov) is almost gentle with Jesus, even offering his prisoner a drink. This overly sympathetic portrayal of the procurator as a vacillating, conflicted and world-weary backwater bureaucrat, averse to unnecessary roughness and easily coerced by both his Jewish subjects and his conscience-burdened wife, does not mesh with the Pilate of history remembered by the ancient historians as a ruthless and inflexible brute responsible for ordering the execution of hundreds of Jewish rabble-rousers without hesitation.

However, while the members of the Sanhedrin are painted in villainous shades, the film is abundantly clear that it is the Romans who are Christ's executioners (a fact corroborated by both the Nicene Creed and the writings of Tacitus and Josephus).”

All of the points made in these two paragraphs are points that I have been making over-and-again and which make you and others here at DeoOmnis uncomfortable. Now, the USCCB has not asserted that Gibson’s Passion is anti-semitic, but it has asserted that the potential for it IS REAL!!!

Call me stonewall! Though I fail to see how one wouldn’t refer thusly to folks who only see the “wonder of truth” in the film while sweeping aside opinions & perspectives of other Catholics & Jews simply because they see (many) problems.

Peace!

Joe,

Re: your comments about G-d reneging on G-d’s covenant with Israel.

Below first, are just a few words of our present Pope John Paul about G-d’s faithfulness to G-d’s covenant with Israel.

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
Sydney (Australia), 26 November 1986

4. Where Catholics are concerned, it will continue to be an explicit and very important part of my mission to repeat and emphasize that our attitude to the Jewish religion should be one of the greatest respect, since the Catholic faith is rooted in the eternal truths contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the irrevocable covenant made with Abraham. We, too, gratefully hold these same truths of our Jewish heritage, and look upon you as our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

For the Jewish people themselves, Catholics should have not only respect but also great fraternal love; for it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and the Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God who has called them with an irrevocable calling.

GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday 10 October 2001
Canticle of Jeremiah (Jer 31,10-14)
Liturgy of the Hours of Lauds on Thursday of the first week

4. The Canticle's invitation to rejoice does not lose its meaning. Indeed, the final reason for rejoicing on which it leans remains firm, and we find it in some very intense verses that precede the verses we use in the Liturgy of the Hours. One must keep the verses in mind while reading the expressions of joy in our canticle. The verses describe in vibrant terms the love of God for his people. They indicate an irrevocable covenant: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer 31,3).

Here are some words of Walter Kasper regarding G-d’s covenant with Israel as it is addressed in the document Dominus Jesus.

JERUSALEM, 19-23 NOVEMBER, 2001
PRESENTATION BY CARD. WALTER KASPER
The Jewish-Christian Dialogue:
Foundations, Progress, Difficulties and Perspectives

Dominus Jesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God. On the contrary, it declares that God’s grace, which Christians believe is the grace of Jesus Christ, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, that is, the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.

Joe, your comments about G-d’s “old covenant” with Israel being “no longer valid” perhaps should be re-considered carefully. Beside all that has been written, said, and done by Pope JP 2 – not to mention what is being done by many other Catholics around the world regarding Jewish-Christian dialogue – the idea that G-d’s covenant with Israel as no longer valid collides miserably with what we know of Second Temple Judaism and covenant, “the Law,” and covenant keeping. Indeed, though the prescripts of covenant dealing with the Temple cultus may practicably be no longer valid – since the Temple is gone! – can you really say that the portions of the Jewish Law – “Torah” as faithful Jews refer to the 613 mitzvot – which deal principally with maintaining peaceful relations between “myself and my neighbor” have been abrogated by G-d??

For the Jew today, piety is constituted by three things: prayer (includes repentance), study of Torah, and deeds of loving kindness. All of these aspects ring true, in one way or another, to our Catholic faith – one reason why I believe it is our Catholic Church that leads the way in Jewish-Christian understanding from the Christian perspective. These acts of piety, elements of Jewish-Judaic faith, are not (never were) understood by most Jews to be what “saves.” Rather, it is G-d that saves; that is, a G-d who keeps promises!

Blessings.

Jack,

Hey, that's a lot to digest. If you're going to hit me with two messages to one I'm going to have to call a time out to digest all the new input.

Seriously, I've got to hit the road for a few days to pay attention to making a living.

I'll get back to you next week.

God's Blessings,
Fred

Let's disregard the money Mel Gibson get from this movie. Oscar and Golden Globe represents the quality of film. Is the film an Oscar item?
I watched and like the others I was touched by this movie. Hollywood was so prejudice about this movie.
WHY?

I'm 15 and a Catholic. Idon't know with you guys but I believe that Jesus died because of my sins.
It needs to happen because the scripture say so.My sin actually killed the Savior. But He have to die so that I will be saved. If you don't understand this basic belief I don't know why you became Catholic.This movie is about history and faith. You believe it or not it happened it's up to you. Did Jews killed Jesus? According to New Testament they did but then again they were part of our Salvation. God designed it not Mel. Kudos for him for making movies like this specially in time that
abortion, eutenasia and even pedophilia was justified by hollywood.
PS: Bob I think you did not understand the movie.

God Bless You and let's pray for peace.

You’re right Crista! Regardless of our discussion here about “who (actually) killed Jesus,” Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, as our Church teaches.

All of us humans are sinners, and we are all the “authors of Christ’s Passion,” regardless of who actually crucified our Lord. Jesus was handed over as part of God’s loving plan to redeem us sinners. This is the redeeming love of God our Father who gave his only Son to be the unique and definitive sacrifice – THE sacrificial lamb – so that our sins would be forgiven…so that YOU and I would be saved.

Jesus’ Passion is a mystery that I do not understand, and cannot understand fully. But I thank God for loving us so much that Jesus came to do what he did.

God bless!

Post a comment