I have two sets of comments about the film, one is in the Lenten Meditations to the right, the other is below under "It is as it was."
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Do You Recognize This Jesus?
Ken Woodward's comments on The Passion from Op-Ed Contributor: Do You Recognize This Jesus?:
"Most Americans worship in churches where the bloodied body of Jesus is absent from sanctuary crosses or else styled in ways so abstract that there is no hint of suffering. In sermons, too, the emphasis all too often is on the smoothly therapeutic: what Jesus can do for me.
More than 60 years ago, H. Richard Neibuhr summarized the creed of an easygoing American Christianity that has in our time triumphantly come to pass: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.' Despite its muscular excess, Mr. Gibson's symbol-laden film is a welcome repudiation of all that.
'The Passion of the Christ' is violent -- no question. Although Mel Gibson the believer identifies with a traditionalist movement that rejects Vatican Council II, Mel Gibson the artist here displays a thoroughly Catholic sensibility, one that since the Middle Ages has emphasized Jesus as the suffering savior crowned with thorns. Martin Luther, too, would have recognized in this film his own theology of the cross."
"Most Americans worship in churches where the bloodied body of Jesus is absent from sanctuary crosses or else styled in ways so abstract that there is no hint of suffering. In sermons, too, the emphasis all too often is on the smoothly therapeutic: what Jesus can do for me.
More than 60 years ago, H. Richard Neibuhr summarized the creed of an easygoing American Christianity that has in our time triumphantly come to pass: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.' Despite its muscular excess, Mr. Gibson's symbol-laden film is a welcome repudiation of all that.
'The Passion of the Christ' is violent -- no question. Although Mel Gibson the believer identifies with a traditionalist movement that rejects Vatican Council II, Mel Gibson the artist here displays a thoroughly Catholic sensibility, one that since the Middle Ages has emphasized Jesus as the suffering savior crowned with thorns. Martin Luther, too, would have recognized in this film his own theology of the cross."
It is, as it was
Well, I saw it. Overall I liked it.
I thought it did a great job in portraying the cultic action of the Jewish priesthood offering the "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". God is the supreme actor in the Passion as Jesus reminds Pilate, and I did hear what Jesus says to Pilate (that is from the Scripture) in a way that I never heard before..."what do we do with the power that God has given us?"
I've heard a ton of talk about the movie since I've seen it. Rabbi Marc Gelman liked it and thought it resurrected a "real" portrayal of the roots of Christianity in a day when religion is often portrayed in a cartoonish way.
Other rabbi's have condemned it, one saying that all the Jews had "bad teeth." Since everyone in the movie was either a Jew or Roman and Jesus had great teeth, I'm not sure what movie he saw.
But perhaps that is the point about a movie like this, we see what we want to...we go to it looking for confirmation of our preheld views.
Some things that I liked in particular were:
Seeing the Passion from the view of the Blessed Virgin Mary...
Seeing the Eucharist from the view of John...
The interspersing of scenes that in someway made the gave additional interpretation to the events that were taking place.
Overall the movie serves as an excellent meditation on Christ's passion and it's lack of focus on the resurection (only hinted at) gives the viewer a way to apply the passion of Christ to their daily life.
Things that I think were weak:
The opening Garden scene I thought was poorly done. The focus was on the devil (another weakness...), the apostles after being told to stay awake--literally wake up and do watch Jesus (they don't in Scripture--rather they go back to sleep), and Jesus is never sent an angel to strengthen him. I know that some aspects of Anne Catherine Emmerich's vision has supplied this scene, but even her vision is more intersting as the devil displays before Christ all the misinterpretations of his message and the futility of his suffering on the mass of the future humanity--this could have placed the whole passion in context).
I thought there could have been more focus on the cultic action of the Temple and tied that in with Jesus' passion and the hostility of the Jewish priests.
I would have like to have seen the "darkness" that overtakes the whole land to be more eerie than just an impending thunderstorm.
But overall, here is a Passion of Christ that portrays Christ as a man not a wimp, as someone entering a battle and fighting it courageously until it is finished.
I thought it did a great job in portraying the cultic action of the Jewish priesthood offering the "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". God is the supreme actor in the Passion as Jesus reminds Pilate, and I did hear what Jesus says to Pilate (that is from the Scripture) in a way that I never heard before..."what do we do with the power that God has given us?"
I've heard a ton of talk about the movie since I've seen it. Rabbi Marc Gelman liked it and thought it resurrected a "real" portrayal of the roots of Christianity in a day when religion is often portrayed in a cartoonish way.
Other rabbi's have condemned it, one saying that all the Jews had "bad teeth." Since everyone in the movie was either a Jew or Roman and Jesus had great teeth, I'm not sure what movie he saw.
But perhaps that is the point about a movie like this, we see what we want to...we go to it looking for confirmation of our preheld views.
Some things that I liked in particular were:
Seeing the Passion from the view of the Blessed Virgin Mary...
Seeing the Eucharist from the view of John...
The interspersing of scenes that in someway made the gave additional interpretation to the events that were taking place.
Overall the movie serves as an excellent meditation on Christ's passion and it's lack of focus on the resurection (only hinted at) gives the viewer a way to apply the passion of Christ to their daily life.
Things that I think were weak:
The opening Garden scene I thought was poorly done. The focus was on the devil (another weakness...), the apostles after being told to stay awake--literally wake up and do watch Jesus (they don't in Scripture--rather they go back to sleep), and Jesus is never sent an angel to strengthen him. I know that some aspects of Anne Catherine Emmerich's vision has supplied this scene, but even her vision is more intersting as the devil displays before Christ all the misinterpretations of his message and the futility of his suffering on the mass of the future humanity--this could have placed the whole passion in context).
I thought there could have been more focus on the cultic action of the Temple and tied that in with Jesus' passion and the hostility of the Jewish priests.
I would have like to have seen the "darkness" that overtakes the whole land to be more eerie than just an impending thunderstorm.
But overall, here is a Passion of Christ that portrays Christ as a man not a wimp, as someone entering a battle and fighting it courageously until it is finished.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Great Book on Prayer--Excellent Book for Lent!
This is without a doubt one of the best books on prayer, gestures and growing closer to God through Christ that has appeared on the scene in the last fifty years...
Day of Ashes
I am posting Lenten meditations that are bits and pieces of a book that I'm currently working on at a another site that you can access by clicking on the "gate" at the right.
Here is origin of this day from CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ash Wednesday:
"The name dies cinerum (day of ashes) which it bears in the Roman Missal is found in the earliest existing copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary and probably dates from at least the eighth century. On this day all the faithful according to ancient custom are exhorted to approach the altar before the beginning of Mass, and there the priest, dipping his thumb into ashes previously blessed, marks the forehead -- or in case of clerics upon the place of the tonsure -- of each the sign of the cross, saying the words: 'Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return.' The ashes used in this ceremony are made by burning the remains of the palms blessed on the Palm Sunday of the previous year. In the blessing of the ashes four prayers are used, all of them ancient. The ashes are sprinkled with holy water and fumigated with incense. The celebrant himself, be he bishop or cardinal, receives, either standing or seated, the ashes from some other priest, usually the highest in dignity of those present. In earlier ages a penitential procession often followed the rite of the distribution of the ashes, but this is not now prescribed. "
Here is origin of this day from CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ash Wednesday:
"The name dies cinerum (day of ashes) which it bears in the Roman Missal is found in the earliest existing copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary and probably dates from at least the eighth century. On this day all the faithful according to ancient custom are exhorted to approach the altar before the beginning of Mass, and there the priest, dipping his thumb into ashes previously blessed, marks the forehead -- or in case of clerics upon the place of the tonsure -- of each the sign of the cross, saying the words: 'Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return.' The ashes used in this ceremony are made by burning the remains of the palms blessed on the Palm Sunday of the previous year. In the blessing of the ashes four prayers are used, all of them ancient. The ashes are sprinkled with holy water and fumigated with incense. The celebrant himself, be he bishop or cardinal, receives, either standing or seated, the ashes from some other priest, usually the highest in dignity of those present. In earlier ages a penitential procession often followed the rite of the distribution of the ashes, but this is not now prescribed. "
Boston Abuse Victim Found Dead
From My Way - News:
"Patrick McSorley, a victim of defrocked pedophile priest John Geoghan who spoke openly of the deep scars left by clergy sexual abuse, has been found dead, his lawyer said on Monday.
Mitchell Garabedian, who represented McSorley and dozens of others who said they had been abused by Geoghan, confirmed reports that McSorley's body had been found in downtown Boston, but declined further comment on the cause of death.
Boston police declined to comment, but said they had responded to a report of a 'sudden death' in that neighborhood early on Monday.
'He was a loving father, a caring son, and a hero to all survivors of clergy abuse,' Garabedian said. He said he had spoken with McSorley on Friday and that he seemed 'fine' at the time.
McSorley, 29, was a public face of the victims during the clergy sexual abuse scandal that erupted in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston two years ago."
"Patrick McSorley, a victim of defrocked pedophile priest John Geoghan who spoke openly of the deep scars left by clergy sexual abuse, has been found dead, his lawyer said on Monday.
Mitchell Garabedian, who represented McSorley and dozens of others who said they had been abused by Geoghan, confirmed reports that McSorley's body had been found in downtown Boston, but declined further comment on the cause of death.
Boston police declined to comment, but said they had responded to a report of a 'sudden death' in that neighborhood early on Monday.
'He was a loving father, a caring son, and a hero to all survivors of clergy abuse,' Garabedian said. He said he had spoken with McSorley on Friday and that he seemed 'fine' at the time.
McSorley, 29, was a public face of the victims during the clergy sexual abuse scandal that erupted in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston two years ago."
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Not a Violation of Church Law Then...?
Here is a strange story with the reasoning that when he might have done it wouldn't have been a violation of Church law? Perhaps this explains what we'll be reading about on Friday. Evidently, according to who ever made this statement at the Vatican, it was okay then but not now. Unbelievable!
From Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - U.S. Headlines:
"The Vatican has reinstated a U.S. Navy chaplain as an active priest after he was placed on administrative leave amid sex abuse allegations, Detroit Roman Catholic leaders said.
The Rev. Brian Bjorklund, 64, was suspended last summer over allegations he molested a 17-year-old boy in his early years in the ministry. He was ordained in 1966.
Vatican leaders say the alleged contact was not a violation of church law at the time, though it is now."
From Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - U.S. Headlines:
"The Vatican has reinstated a U.S. Navy chaplain as an active priest after he was placed on administrative leave amid sex abuse allegations, Detroit Roman Catholic leaders said.
The Rev. Brian Bjorklund, 64, was suspended last summer over allegations he molested a 17-year-old boy in his early years in the ministry. He was ordained in 1966.
Vatican leaders say the alleged contact was not a violation of church law at the time, though it is now."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)