Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ"

[sinjin smithe]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A prominent Jewish leader on Friday asked actor Mel Gibson (news) to make certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion.


Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was concerned because an article to be published in the New York Times Magazine portrays Gibson as a traditionalist Catholic opposed to the reforms of Vatican (news - web sites) II.


Heir said, "Obviously, no one has seen 'The Passion' and I certainly have no problem with Mel Gibson's right to believe as he sees fit or make any movie he wants to. What concerns me, however is when I read that the film's purpose is to undo the changes made by Vatican II."


He said that Vatican conclave was convened to deal with several critical issues, including the rejection of the notion that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.


"If the new film seeks to undo Vatican II ... it would unleash more of the scurrilous charges of deicide directed against the Jewish people, which took the Catholic Church 20 centuries to finally repudiate," he said.


Gibson is completing the self-financed film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ and a friend of the Gibson family is quoted as telling the Times that Gibson will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, "perhaps as no film has done before." Gibson is directing the film.


The friend, Gary Giuffre, a traditionalist Catholic, also said that the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- a reference that some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial, the article said.


A spokesman for Gibson had no comment, saying he had not seen the article. Sources close to the actor said Gibson's religious views and those of his family were known.


Discussing his film in a recent TV interview, Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. He said, "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth."

LA Rabbi asks Gibson to reconsider film (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=598&ncid=600&e=6&u=/nm/20030308/film_nm/leisure_passion_dc)

[Warren Bensinger]

Greetings to all:

I looked through the headings in this thread line and couldn't find anything about this subject. If it is somewhere else please advise.

My question is:
A friend of mine is working sound for a Independent Church in the area and they are going to show the Mel Gibson's DVD "The Passion of the Christ". He sent me a message asking me what the Orthodox view of this movie is and I haven't seen anything written about it.

Apparently this is a big push by all the "Graham" type churches. The write up talked about buying out theaters to show the movie and then present there "arm twisting" to mislead 15% of the viewers to there piews.

Other than the fact that the real understanding of the work "PASSION" is not discussed does anyone have any comments?

Thanks.
warren
t.s.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Warren,
There is an article on the topic of Mel Gibson's movie by Frederica Matthewes-Green. It is called "The Meaning of His Suffering" and can be found on her website: frederica.com/articles. I at least, feel that this article draws some very important points from an Orthodox perspective that bear serious consideration.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Warren Bensinger]

Father Bless:

Thanks for the info. I'll skip over to her site and take a look.

Thanks.

w.

[Fr John Wehling]

Warren,

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

Here's my two cent's worth...

The Orthodox tradition warns us of the dangers of images in prayer and elsewhere, primarily, I think, because our images are created and there is the ever present danger that we will mistake them for (in the case of God, uncreated) reality. Thus the strong apophatic thrust of Orthodox theology.

When we see a movie we are seeing images. Now, in some cases, this is not such a bad thing, because we are seeing created images which are communicating created realities. For example, the Lord of the Rings. This is a book "imaged" onto the screen. There is no doubt that seeing the movie might affect the way we read the book forever after. But with the LOTR (the book) we are not talking about revelation, so if our reading is affected by the movie there is no real religious or spiritual danger, no matter how worthwhile we think the book might be (I happen to think it worthwhile).

But with the Passion it is a different story. If we see the movie and afterwards, reading about the Passion of our Lord in the Gospel, hearing it read at the Divine services, listening to the hymns of Holy Week, etc., we see images of the movie in our mind, then we are in danger of confusing these created images with the uncreated revelation of the Son of God crucified, something we don't want to do. I, personally, do not want to struggle with an image of our Lord as He has been portrayed through one actor or director's interpretation of His passion, no matter how good or supposedly "authentic" it may be.

As I said, my two cent's worth, for what it's worth.

Peace to you,
Fr John

[Warren Bensinger]

Father John, Bless:
Thanks for the warning about the images. Good thought. I have a continuing problum with that and of course with TV, movies and the internet don't help myself with the problum. I'm thinking the Desert Fathers had the same worries and there fix was to seal the end of the cave or cell door.
Not too usefull in my case, cause of my wondering feet and then my wife wouldn't enjoy it too much.
Thanks again.
warren

[Annick T.]

Hi!

I know this one Orthodox discussion but I thought my two cent's worth ideas ;-) could help.

I know the movie wasn't only inspired of the Gospel. They inspired themselves of the writings of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich and maybe one saint (sorry I don't remember). Her writings may be found on Internet easily. Since it was realized by a Catholic, there is probably traditional Catholic "ideas" on the Passion. There is a lot of Saints that wrote on the Passion... some had revelations (little r). I think it is not one interpretation of the Passion (if he inspired him some writings of a ven.).

I read a bit what was said on frederica.com' site. It is a bit long so I didn't have time to read it all.
Your point of view is interesting. Maybe I could show one other side of the medal?
Someone told me the Orthodox have a devotion (if that's the word) for the transfiguration and the Catholics have a devotion for the Cross, (the way of the Cross, the sufferings of Jesus, consideration on the Passion, etc.) The devotion is not meant to concentrate on the sufferings... and not Jesus Christ. Those considerations bring us to reflect on the humility, love, generosity, etc. of Jesus Christ. By considering the Passion, we see extraordinary virtue! There is also other things the way of the Cross (for ex) can teach us about Jesus. I think the Catholics adopted well the "theory" that Jesus Christ is the Lamb that died for our sins and give us life... Generally (!) Catholics (I say Catholics but I could well say Christians)know Jesus died on the Cross for us but some never stop to consider how, why, etc. They don't realize how Jesus suffered! Some movies show only Jesus on the Cross few minutes without much blood... but that's not the reality and I guess everybody knows it. Jesus Christ gave all His blood for us and the sufferings on the Cross lasted 3 hours. We shouldn't pity Jesus Christ but love Him, stay with Him at the foot at the Cross when a lot of his beloved went away... Movies should try to be nearer to the truth they can, if not what good can they be?

I admit the images may stay in the mind but it is just a supposition. If one has a strong devotion or knowledge, the movie will only help them consider things they never did. One can look a different images... icons... it is just meant to help them make one devotion, I guess. One should always know that the Revelation is the Bible. The Catholic Church doesn't put any revelation, apparition, etc. above the Bible, not at all. They are careful about it and every Christian should do so.

Oh! If you want to see a movie really based on the Gospel, you can see the Gospel of John. I have seen not much things based on personnal interpretation (or even traditions), it is really based on the Gospel.

Dear Father Wehling,
I happened to read that the author of LOTR was written by a faithful Catholic that didn't like all the attention they had on this novels (some reads them like if it is the Bible, having almost a devotion for them... that's bad). I just thought that could interest you. Maybe you can see parallels with our Christian faith.

Love,
Annick

[Demetrios Galanidis]

Thank you, Father John, for your insight. I had not this considered the "created image" aspect. I find your advice to be worth perhaps a bit more than "two cents". I must guard that I do not stray in similar fashion in other things as well, I am sure.

Demetrios

[Clement Alexander]

Father John

Forgive my intrusion; I am a long time reader. After I red your response to Warren I could not get beyond the point you raised about the danger of images in prayer. I believe father that this was the teaching of Evagrius Ponticus,
And as much as I admire the spirituality of Evagrius I believe that this teaching is
Not altogether Orthodox. Because the images of the events in our Lord earthly life
Are images from the created world and all the fathers agreed that depicting the images
Of those events is permitted and also beneficial and educational this is what we do
Exactly with our Icons that we venerate and cense and kiss just because they depict events from the Gospel and the earthly life of our Lord and the Saints.
When it comes to Gibson‘s movie I believe that if it is faithfully adhering to the Gospel
Narrative and if it does not have any heretical views then it is Ok, and yes I think it is fine
If it draws 15% or even 1% of the audience to Christ.
I think that as Orthodox we should be OK with this movie showing in theaters but I also think that it should not be promoted in our churches nor it should be used in our Sunday schools, because our faith is not about a movie from the contemporary culture of the ethnos nor about a story told in a movie theater. For us I believe the events of the life of our Lord and savior, the incarnation the baptism in the Jordan the transfiguration on the mount the passions the death on the cross, the burial and the resurrection on the third day are not just a story that happened long, long time ago in a far, far away land, rather they are events that are happening at every instant of our lives for they are events that transcend the visible created being, and even though they happened in history they transcend history.

Please forgive my intrusion, and if I have erred in my opinion please set me straight.

In Christ Clement A

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Annick,
When I read your considerate post I thought of a writing of St Tikhon of Zadonsk: Confession & Thanksgiving to Christ, Son of God, The Saviour of the World. It is true that at times we as Orthodox almost fear to meditate upon how Christ has suffered for us; we can stress the Resurrection over His Crucifixion so much that our faith becomes cold & rational, for as St Isaac the Syrian has said: (this is not an exact quote)'do not dare to speak of your resurrection before you have gone onto your cross'. So it is true that thru such Holy Fathers as St Tikhon of Zadonsk and also St Simeon the New Theologian there is a sense in which we can profitably look upon the sufferings of Christ.
But my dear Annick, the Church first asks us to be sober in all things- yes,not cold or rational; but rather to be very careful about a kind of emotional response to Christ's sacrifice for us.
You speak well when you refer to the fact that "Jesus Christ is the Lamb that dies for our sins and gives us life." No true Christian should ever deny this. But then you say "Some movies show only Jesus on the Cross a few minutes without much blood..but that's not the reality and I guess everybody knows it." But actually the Gospel goes into little detail about Christ's sufferings on the Cross and nothing about blood. Here is where Frederica Matthews-Green's article is very useful; the reality we focus on in the Church is not the details of Christ's suffering but rather the fact of His love for us. Why is that? It is so easy to fall into an emotional and subjective state wherein we are speaking about Christ but in reality we are dwelling on our own feelings ABOUT Christ.
Here two dangers lie ahead; 1)subtly and without our quite realising it we fall into a state of emotional 'empathy or sympathy for Christ' which we mistake for a true spiritual life. 2)by relating to Christ emotionally, 'empathising with His sufferings' (in truth the Evangelists are almost silent on this issue because who could humanly know or understand His suffering?) we no longer see Him for what He is- the God-man Jesus Christ Who dies & rose for us- rather He becomes in our eyes the 'good man' Jesus.
This point is extremely important for us: Christ is not two different people; a Divine God Who rises for us and a 'Good Man' Who suffers for us. We will fall into delusion if we contemplate on Christ as if He has two different sides; as if in the West you meditate on the one while in the East we meditate on the other! Rather Christ is the One God-man Who both suffered & rose. His sufferings in fact are divine. Without this there could be no Resurrection- and without His Resurrection there could be no resurrection for us. Let me end with a passage of St Tikhon of Zadonsk that wonderfully expresses the loving repsonse of an Orthodox Christian: "You have accomplished a deed so sublime that my mind cannot grasp it! You, the Lord, the King of heaven & Earth, have come down from Heaven, and have given Yourself flesh of the Virgin Mother of God, and have suffered, have been crucified, have shed Your blood, for me, for the sake of Your servant! What a sublime, a sublime wonder!"
In the love of Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Annick,
After my last post I remembered that there IS one reference from the Gospels to the blood of Christ which does relate to His Crucifixion; it is Jn.19:34 "one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and at once there came out blood & water." I should have remembered this (and I don't have the excuse of old age!) However this is usually interpreted by the holy fathers as relating to the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and not to His sufferings.
Also I did a search for the word 'blood' in a Gospel word search engine and found no hits when related only to the Crucifixion(except again for the one above). So I think the overall point still holds up- ie for a very good theological reason the Evangelists do not dwell on the suffering of Christ at His Crucifixion.
In Christ- Fr R

[Denise Marie Johnson]

Dear Fr John,
Thank you for saying in words much better than what I had also thought. We should believe because we hear the Word, and we have icons in church and our homes. We should not believe more because of strong emotion stirred up by a commercial movie. I, too, am concerned that the images from the movie would linger for a long time in my imagination as I read the Gospels. Perhaps this movie is for those with not such strong faith. It is not necessary for most, if any, on this board.
denise

[Daniel Jeandet]

Yes, that is a good point Father.

I have read alot of articles about this movie and the common thread that seems to run through all the positive responses (mainly from protestants, American protestants), is that the film has an enourmous emotional impact and really seems to leave the people with a strong sense of thier guilt for Christs passion and death.

I wanted to ask the people here, who have good knowledge of Orthodox Theology, if this is the way we should feel about it. I wonder if we can consider ourselves as being guilty in the way the protestants and Catholics do. Surely we did not force God to do what he did. What is the Orthodox view on this type of thinking?

I dont think I will see this film, it starts during Lent over here and I am going to try to not see any films during lent, and perhaps we should not need to see this movie, we who have the fullness of truth in Orthodoxy.

[Photini]

Dear Father Raphael and Father John,

Thank you very much for your posts. You have helped me before I even had to ask.
My family (save my sister and her husband) are all Protestant, and have started getting very excited lately about the release of this movie. I haven't really said anything, but usually have the gut feeling that it's better I not see it. I already have too hyper of an imagination, and sometimes struggle with very vivid dreams and nightmares. (Jurassic Park gave me a recurring dream for several years!) Realizing this and then reading your thoughts above, I will decline the invitation to see the movie.
In Christ,
~photini

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Daniel,
Surely we are all guilty of Christ's death in the sense that we all share in the same human sin for which He died. And in some careful, sober way to aknowledge this can increase our love for what Christ has done for us. But I believe more often than not we run the risk of simply falling into an emotional state and missing the point for us of Christ's Crucifixion; ie that we might find our life in Him.
This is so important it cannot be repeated enough times- my spiritual father once told me, "you are mistaking the psychological for the spiritual." This was difficult to understand at first. Many years passed before I began to understand that our aim was to aquire Divine grace thru a life in Christ. In some vague way before this I just 'felt' that a Christian was supposed to act in some 'moral' sort of way, 'feel' some sort of way, etc. At the time I did not see that this type of moral 'Christianity' inevitably leads to a subjective emotional or intellectual state; you may have great thoughts & feelings but you are always on the outside looking in. And one day you come to recognise the inner emptiness that still remains and ask, 'what went wrong?'
This Daniel I believe is the chief danger in dwelling on 'feelings' (even seemingly good ones)
in the spiritual life. If they become the main driving force of our Christian life we can reach a real dead end or delusion. This is why I feel that Fr John's comments are very much to the point.
Another point- the focus and intent of our Christian life (especially Great Lent) is to recognise & repent of our sin; and from this find our life in Christ. The focus on 'feelings' will prevent this; they can easily become a kind of 'mind candy'. From this we can see how subtly there is a slide into pride.
There is a wisdom in the Evangelists & holy fathers that we can never exhaust; what they are is of the Holy Spirit. Not only their words speak but also their silence. The lack of personal detail about Christ, about His Crucifixion and many other things indicates a profound truth about the wisdom of God. Human portrayals of Christ enter into the Holy of Holies and set before us a 'humanised' or debased image of Christ; what is not of the Holy Spirit even if it its intent is good can produce a distorted image. What will happen to those who look on these images and take them for what is of the holy Spirit?
In Christ-Fr R

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Clement Alexander,
Forgive my answering your post which was addressed to Fr John but it brings up a topic dear to my heart as a monastic.
I believe that you have confused two different issues: images in prayer and images which are icons.
When you refer to prayer it is the universal guidance of the holy monastic fathers that we not allow images or imagination to play a role. It is not Evagrius who first taught this; rather he simply learnt it from the other monks of the Egyptian desert whom he lived with. This is a proper Orthodox teaching.
Images which are icons however are a different matter; obviously they are proper within the Church. This is precisely because they do not represent someone's imagination but are likenesses of a divine or holy reality.
Mel Gibson's movie is an attempt to create an image of the Passion of Christ; hopefully Mr Gibson had good motives. But it is not an icon. The icon issues forth from the Church guided by fasting, prayer and specific canons; we cannot easily say the same for a movie. Images in a movie are much more sensual and often distort our understanding of the 'prototype',in this case Christ. An image is true within the Church to the extent that the one who produced it is pure in heart & mind- can we really say this of Mr Gibson some of whose movies are morally ambiguous or even foul?
Please don't misunderstand me-I don't believe all movies, books, etc are evil. On the contrary especially if we live in the world these things can be quite morally helpful. But my point is that we should never mistake these things as being equal to images of the Church- and also we should strive to be guided by the Church in discerning their worth.
In Christ- Fr R

[Fr John Wehling]

Clement A,

Good to hear from you. A few responses to your post.

First, it is true that Evagrius has a negative view of the imagination, particulalry in regard to its use in prayer, but this view was upheld by the later fathers of the Orthodox ascetic tradition as well. We find many instances in the Tradition similar to this, in which a view that was held originally by, or which was associated with, someone who was suspect, was accepted by the fathers, while other aspects of their theological or practical teachings were rejected. So not all teachings associated with, for example, Evagrius, are "guilty by association." Some were accepted as true and helpful in working out our salvation and were, therefore, "baptized" by the Church and set in their proper context. Thus, in my opinion, the teaching regarding the imagination and the danger of created images.

Icons, as you point out, are indeed created images. However, they are quite different from other forms of created images, such as movies and even from later, realistic, western religious art. Their very nature as two dimensional representations does not lend to too much engagement on the part of our imagination. They show in a simple, and if I may say, unadorned, way God in the flesh, and in the case of icons of biblical scenes, God in the flesh accomplishing the salvation of mankind. They are simple representations and not the highly interpretive presentations of, for example, a movie. And it is the "highly interpretive" part which, I believe, the Church tradition finds dangerous. Whether it is my imagination at work in prayer, conjuring up biblical scenes from my stock-pile of images, thoughts, and ideas, or whether it is Mel Gibson's imagination at work providing those images, thoughts, and ideas for me, there is still the danger that I will substitute these created things for the reality.

Peace to you, Clement A.,
Fr John

[Daniel Jeandet]

Thankyou for your response Father.

I dont think Ill be seeing this film. I cant see how it can help any of us. Do we rush out to buy the latest Roman Catholic book about one individuals vision of Christs passion, who claims the Holy Spirit is working through him? If this were a book, not a movie, we wouldnt even be discussing it, we would dismiss it straight away and we would have to dismiss it because it is outside the Church but claims to speak for the Church. This is what people outside of the Orthodox way feed themselves and each other on, we dont need that and maybe it might harm us. But I dont know really.

One thing I will add. I went to the website for the film, and I was looking at the information on the different actors. It says how the actress that plays Mary Magdalene appeared in a lingerie television commercial and it says that in this commercial she sent pulses racing throughout the world.
O.K, Im not trying to make a big moral statement or anything, but do these people really get it? Will my pulse race in a similar way while I witness the brutal R rated scenes of a guy dressed like Jesus having his face smashed in, or is it a different sort of pulse race?

[Annick T.]

Dear Father Raphael,
You have shared with me some delightful treasures in your Orthodox Church. Now is my turn to share the writings of one saint, St Alphonse-Marie de Liguori. I found this part about the crucifixion in the Considerations about the Passion. It is the first Christian writing (almost) I have read, so I have probably remembered some parts of it and thought everybody believed it.
It is in French, I’ll do my best to translate it. If some parts don’t make sense, it is entirely my fault.
“O Heaven! What a sight to see the Son of the Eternal Father crucified between two criminals! That is exactly what Isaiah had predicted (Is 53, 12). Saint Jean Chrysostome, considering Jesus on the cross, cried out with admiration and love: “I see my Savior in heaven between the Father and the Holy Spirit; I see Him on mount Thabor between two Saints, Moses and Elijah; and how am I seeing Him crucified on Calvary between two thiefs?” But that had to be so; because, according to the divine decree, it was so that He had to die, to expiate by His death the sins of men and save them, in accordance to the prophecies of Isaiah.
That same Prophet made this question: “Who is this man so beautiful and so strong that comes from Edom, the clothes color of blood?” (Is 63, 3). Edom indicates the red color, but a little darker, like we see it in the Genese (Gn 25, 30). This demand is followed by one answer, and, according to the interpreters, it is our Lord (in French it surely means Jesus Christ) that speaks: “It is I that profess the justice, and show myself great to save” (Is 63, 1).
The Prophet ask again: “Why are your garments red, like those of one treading the winepress?” (Is 63, 2). And the Lord answers: “I was the only one to tread the wine; no man was with me” (Is 63, 3). Through this winepress, Tertullien, saint Cyprien and saint Augustin hear the Passion of Jesus Christ, in which His clothes, that is to say His sacred flesh, was all covered with blood and wounds, according to what says John in the Revelation: “He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.”. Saint Gregory said that, in the winepress that Isaiah speaks, our Savior was crushed and crushed (French: means at repetition, a lot of times). He was crushed because, in His passion, He overcame all demons; and He was crushed because His adorable body was broken in the torments like the grape in the winepress, according this other text of the same Prophet, already quoted: “Yahweh was satisfied to crush Him by sufferings” (Is 35, 10).
Here is this divine Master that was “the most beautiful of all men” (Ps 44, 3), here He is, on the Calvary, so disfigured under tortures that His sight is one horror to who looks at Him. But He seems much beautiful at the sights of the souls that love Him; because His wounds, His bruises, His flesh torn, are as much marks, as much proves of His love for us. Listen to one poet that expresses really well this feeling:
When we consider you, o Savior of my soul,
So ill-treated for us by the hand of the executioner,
The heart grateful of your love enflames,
More you are torn, more you seem beautiful.”
The Saint continues on with very beautiful quotes of the Bible and Saints and other considerations. I found the French text on www.livres-mystiques.com/ (http://www.livres-mystiques.com/) . This site contains some writings of saints but I don’t agree with everything there is on this site (just by the way).
I think the Passion may be understood wholly not only by the Gospels. The Old Testament and the Epistles speak about the sacrifice. For example, the Psaume 22 (21) makes us well understand the words of Jesus Christ on the Cross… I know St Paul speaks about the Passion some times…
I just wanted to tell you Father that you remembered well this part where Jesus’ heart was transpierced. On the Cross, I think it is only part about the Blood of Jesus Christ but it not the only part in the Passion. “His sweat becomes like drops of blood that falls on the ground” (Luc 22: 44). That is the place in the Gospels I remember. I couldn’t find other parts when I thought there were there… (?) I remember Veronica swept His holy face covered of blood and spit… We know Jesus Christ lost blood in His agony, then He was ill-treated by the guards, He was scourged (it was worst than now), He was crowned with a crown of thorns, He carried His Cross (must have opened the wounds and made some others), He was crucified and lastly one soldier pierced His heart.
Maybe the Shroud of Turin helps to consider His wounds?
I appreciate your post. Being sober is important. It is being impassible and dispassionate. I think this is about having no self-interest… about searching no extraordinary events or miracles but just love our Lord and do His Will… It is surely important to remember Jesus as Man and God always and not dissociate those two “natures”. It is why we must marvel at the humility of Jesus on the Cross!! That’s why we must follow Him everywhere He goes… even on the Cross! And Jesus Christ is the proof of God’s love, He is love!
If that console you, it seems some Christians have problems being balanced. Some Catholics I know see the Passion of the Lord with sadness and looks at it with not much joy. But it shouldn’t be absolutely like that! It is by the Cross that we are saved and brought to resurrection! We have things to share together!
I hope my post was good. It is maybe worthier than two cents since I used a part of the writings of one Saint! lol
Love in and with Christ,
Annick
Ps. I haven’t seen the movie. Maybe it is to help in our devotion, maybe it is to bring some people back to Jesus. I don’t know who said it and how, but someone said the Cross was the best way to bring people to God… well, it was not like that, but if we keep the idea, it is good.

[Daniel Jeandet]

I dont know if this means anything and I dont want to say bad things about anybody, but keeping in mind the Orthodox doctrine of causality -

http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/orthodox-doctrine-causality.html

- its interesting to note that while filming on "Golgotha" the man playing the part of Jesus was struck by lightning. They say it was coming out of his ears.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Annick,
Thank you so much for your kind post and especially the effort you must have taken in the translations. It shows a good & kind heart more open to talking than arguing.
You have remarked on how the Orthodox try to emphasise sobriety in their spirituality & its great importance. This is so that as much as possible we may live truly in Christ and not our own emotions and not (as we find in so much of contemporary Christian spirituality) confuse one with the other. This is so much the more critical when it comes to the Passion & Resurrection of our Lord for who could ever worthily repay in love to Christ what He has done for us? What as Christians are we called to in the face of such love as Christ's Passion?
In some way our struggle to discover how to relate to Mr Gibson's movie may relate to this larger question. Is the effort of Mr Gibson worthy of the Church or not? Is it in any or some way similiar to the love of a true Christian for our Lord? It is not easy to find answers to these questions but in an important way the struggle to find the answers is a part of our Christian reaponsibility living here in the 21st century. We are in the world but not of it.
You Annick are probably aware of the Schism that occured within Christendom in the 11th century. The Orthodox do not accept the modern viewpoint that none of this mattered or was just the result of a few grumpy old men. Primarily the Schism was a seperation over what were contradictory ways of perceiving what the Church is; and this seperation still tragically remains to this day. It is therefore no surprise that we see the Passion of Christ in such fundamentally different ways right up until nowadays.
What are these differences? The atonement theory of Anselm is a major root of the problem for the Orthodox; Anselm held to the view that God's anger was offended by man's sin and that the guilt incurred could only be payed for by Christ since He is pure from sin & God Himself. Thus in this view the Passion of Christ is legal payment for the sin of man. As in your quote: "But that (ie Christ's Passion) had to be so, because according to divine decree, it was so that He had to die to expiate by His death the sins of men & save them in accordance to the prophecies of Isaiah." But we do not agree Annick that it 'had to be so', since the Passion occured from the free will of Christ and not from legal neccesity. The fact that Christ freely offers Himself is exactly the expression of Christ's love for us- if it had to be so how could it have been love?
Anselm with his Cur Deus Homo & atonement theory is not the originator of what ocurred in the West- rather he is an expression of what was already occuring within that Christian society. Up until the 9thc-11thc centuries both East & West think with the same churchly mind (we Orthodox are only beginning to learn this recently) tho thru different linguistic & cultural expressions. It is largely one unified Orthodox society. In Anselm however we hear a voice not only different from this but quite seperate in tone & direction; it is distinctively rationalistic and strongly influenced by Classical philosophy. What further happens in the West to divide us? With the gradual seperation from the Partristic way of seeing the Church there comes a gradual seperation from a patristic spirituality, piety, way of life. Something occurs within the soul that fragments it (read Matthew's post about the heart & other excellent posts also); it becomes divided into a cold rationalism and a bubbling emotionalism; these two war with each other and mark western culture & spirituality with a kind of dynamic restlessness to this day. All of this affects how the Pssion is seen.
I will end here for now as we could go on forever and indeed to continue this discussion in later posts could be profitable. In ending just let me share that as usual I do not see things in just black & white; on the one hand there is a real seperation of vision between many of us within present-day Christianity. But on the other hand what with the decay of Christian values within the society we all live in we can appreciate the love of others for Christ and connect in whatever way is God-pleasing.
In Christ- Fr R

[Richard Leigh]

To all and sundry,

This looks to be an interesting discussion and I have a few thoughts on the root of it and on most of the shoots that have grown from it.

First off, I had heard that Gibson's movie is strictly a presentation of the Gospel According to St. John. Having said that, I must say a little about how information is passed from one to another, and received by one from another with I hope more than a nod in the direction the holy fathers show us regarding the goal of illumination.

Before I launch into that though let me say that the congregation I am a part of is highly interested in the negative press the movie is getting from the Jews who rail that it is anti-semitic. We are working on preparing martials to answer that charge. Anything that will get people talking about the Lord is a good thing, in our opinion, becaues we dearly want for their sake for them to be introduced to Him. We believe it is His desire as well, and will use every oportunity available.

Then maybe about the concern of the Graham type churches (LOL). Yes, anyone who wants to be obedient to Mt.28:19 will consider any communication of the Gospel a good thing and want to be part of its dissemination. Of course, a lot of stock will have been placed in its truthfulness.

All of you readers will want to ask yourselves how well you know the gospel account and can you be of assistance to anyone who doesn't but has seen the film when they start asking you questions about it and your faith? This doesn't mean you will have to have seen the movie, BTW, but knowing the Gospel is essential.

Dear Father R., yes, it would be St. John to point out what only he among the disciples witnessed, that a soldier drew blood and water from our Lord's own side. He mentions this again in the fifth chapter of his first epistle, where he declares that it was the Lord who came "by water and the blood" with the Spirit as witness (1Jn.5:6-8), and he makes much mention of blood in the Revelation [Apocalypse] (particularly that the shed blood of the lamb is redemptive, [1:5:9], and that by it and the word of their testimony the Accuser of the brethren is conquered [12:11]. It is interesting, don't you think, that the one who would make the most of "light" would also be the one to make so much of blood, and that no doubt because that is where the life is.

As to the images that "go through one's mind" of course images appear to the minds of those of us who see whenever information, true or false comes to us however it comes. You might like to know, FWIW that it is easier to "process" what comes from our reading (I don't know about hearing, but I assume it to be the same), and this probably because it is our own construction. What we see before our eyes, visual images that bombard us in, say the movies are not processed well at all because, I think, so little is left to the imagination.

I think it is probably important to remember as the fathers teach that "we are not our thoughts" (this information was given me in lectures by an Orthodox deacon on Unseen Warfare, I'm sorry I can't give any real citations), oremotions, and thus to "stand aloof" of them, so to speak, observing them as they "run through the mind."
At this point, it is wise to suggest that one speak to one's spiritual advisor about this, and pay attention to any advice he or she might give, particularly about prayer. But this will be of some aide in "processing" what comes through the senses.

Thus of course we must avoid the sensational, but we needn't fear all "affenctive" or feeling responses to what comes in, at least if we "watch them at the gate." Remember that the Greek word for compassion in Scripture, splangthna is associated with the midrif, as a corresponding Hebrew word, rahamim is particularly with the womb. It is in being passive to them, that gives the passions their negative association, and human beings were not created to be "led around" by a noose of any kind. We thus submit our wilfullness to the Author of Freedom Himself.

The Fathers, I think, are constantly reminding us how to "obey the first commandmant" which is to "Have no other gods besides He Who Is (Ho OWN, as it were), who'd delivered "from the land of Egypt, the Houlse of bondage." and so, no images of Him, until, of course, He became "imaged" in the Son of Man, born in the likeness (and in his own case) image of God.

So of course throughout life we will necessarily make use of the senses, but if we can make it senseible use, and under the watchful oversight of the King of Kings, as we constantly work at bringing all before Him as often as possible, we will perhaps someday find true illumination.

Regarding J.R.R.Tolkein, it is true that he was a devout Catholic, and one of his sons is even an RC priest. Regarding TLOR He said that his lembas or elvinbread was holy communion, but he dinstanced himself allegory and wouldn't have any of his stuff read as such, which is probably why this about the bread only came out once. But the work is a study of human response to evil, complete with dealing with temptations to power, and especially about sins of manipulative control of creatures from the very least to the very great. In his letters, he explains quite a lot. Of course I cannot really say, but I don't think his world view is "unOrthodox."

Anyway, just some thoughts,

Yours, Richard

P.s., it is a good idea, in my opinion, to be as watchful as personal prejudice, and ignorance, as it is of passion. --RL

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Richard,
In your latest post you write; "Anything that will get people talking about the Lord is a good thing in our opinion because we dearly want for their sake for them to be introduced to Him." This I find to be a troubling idea, also reflected in the media reports about what different churches are doing with this movie. Richard- our main effort as Christians is not to 'get people talking about the Lord' or to 'introduce them' to Christ. Many who listened to Him when he preached or who had just heard about Him 'talked about Him.' But as the Gospel informs us, "many turned away." Our main effort is that people listen to Christ and have faith; and without conversion faith is impossible. It is in this sense that we could at least question the assertion that Mr Gibson's movie actually does faithfully represent the Gospel of St John; the Gospel is not simply an historical narrative, a 'story' which we can then transfer to a movie screen. It is the true image of Christ as revealed by & within the Church thru the Holy Spirit; and it is also that Christ Who seeks to draw us to repentance. Only to the degree that the representation of this Gospel image is true as the Church defines it should this be taken as being equal to what the church offers to us. Again I question the extent that this movie Christ is truly Christ and I question whether by watching this movie one is any closer to true conversion which after all must involve a long-term struggle of repentance.
Of course it is possible that someone may eventually truly find Christ thru this movie- I do not discount the possibility; but still is it not true that this movie then could only at best serve as a 'threshold' experience something which may lead one to the Church but could not possibly replace it? And I suppose that is the point here- usually conversion or strengthening of the faith is accomplished from within what is fully of the Church- using what is from outside of the Church to convert others must be handled with great sobriety & discernment- otherwise exactly what are we converting people to? Thus it is my feeling that we must be very careful Richard about saying that this movie, "is His desire as well."
You do Richard bring up many interesting points concerning what is useful for bringing people to faith; in my own poor mind just to get some clarity I have come up with a kind of 'formula'.1)there is what is from fully within the Church; normally this is what should be used to bring people to the Church. 2)there is what is not from fully within the Church but which is morally helpful; with discernment this may be used. 3)the two should never be confused.
I do not think you should confuse Mr Gibson's movie & Tolkien. Remember that a basic claim for the integrity of Mr Gibson's movie is that it is an authentic representation of the Gospel; Tolkien never claimed this for his books.
Lastly when you brought up the issue of 'images' and 'seeing' I remembered the advice of St Nikodemos of Mt Athos; "Guard your sight well then for it is more refined {ie. than the other senses}...But those images which we have impressed upon our imagination through our eyes, and curious eyes at that, we either cannot wipe them out at all or we can only after much time & great effort." Movies are not equivalent to the Holy Gospels.
In Chrsit- Fr R

[Melissa]

Dear Richard - A brief response to your most interesting post #406.
The visual sense is less well processed in so far as the images themselves are concerned, that is accurate. However, what I believe we also need to consider is that the emotions caused by or in response to the images are stored differently, in the older, limbic, part of the brain, and are extremely powerful. They become "knee-jerk" responses that are very hard to process because de facto they interrupt the chemical processing of higher brain activity from occurring. Hence the frequent persistance of the visual symptoms of PTSD.
However, it is very possible to process the emotional impact of visual experiences;, it takes prayer, self-reflection, and often, verbal processing to "move" the emotional memory into a (more) cognitively processed memory. {Not everyone is able to do this, however.} At that time the individual does have a measure of control and insight available again, and could presumably discern (on his own or with help) the origin of the emotional response. That would help with the necessary discrimination that Fr. Raphael mentioned in his recent post to Annick (may have been on a different thread): This is so that as much as possible we may live truly in Christ and not our own emotions and not (as we find in so much of contemporary Christian spirituality) confuse one with the other.
In faith and Christ's love,
Melissa

[Annick T.]

Hi!
Here some quotes from the Bible. Thought it was good to share it with you. I don't know if the translation is good but here it is:

Galatians 1 3-5
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father;
to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Eph 5 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Heb 10 5-10 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired,
but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. Then I said, `Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,'
as it is written of me in the roll of the book." When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

I will read all the posts before answering.
Glory to God!

Annick

[Daniel Jeandet]

Ultimately, Heresy is to live a false spiritual life. One of the main things about the modern heretics, including those within our Orthodox Church, is the lack of inner life and the concentration on external worship and deriving "spiritual experiences" from the material and sensory and emotional worlds alone. Its sad the way the protestants and Catholics and some others get so caught up in these things, music, instruments, dancing clappping, yelling and now movies. They anticipate and wallow in these emotional and material jolts that seem to generate some kind of zealos feeling or deep affectation in the confused and scattered energies of thier inner selves that have not known, or have not recognised the peace of Christ, that is not given as the world gives. The best thing the Orthodox could do is to not see in this movie in thier thpousands and millions, simply because they do not need to. It may bring people to Christ, that is up to God, he uses all sorts of strange stategies to wake us up, he used some wierd ones with me! But what does it say to my protestant or Catholic friends that I am niether for nor against this film, but simply dont need it?

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Melissa,

Thank you for your insightfull post. It added so much to what I had to say.

Dear Fr. R.,

Yes, I think we are "on the same page," although you misread me if you think I was confusing Tolkien with Gibson, or, much more, if you thought I was comparing the screenwriting of his work with that of the Holy Spirit's! I was merely addressing someone's comments about his.

I think I said I am aware of the sinful human dificulty with the sensorium for spiritual perception, but I will listen to anything more you have to tell me about it.

Dear Daniel J,

I can't imagine how anyone could "need" to see a film. OTOH, I know that many critical sorts will want to see this one in particular, and do so to "review it" for whatever they consider objectionable content. I would very much like to talk with them regarding anything they might consider objectionable about the life of Christ as presented by St. John.

Sincerely,

Richard

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Richard,
From your last post I would say we are very much "on the same page". In any case before this discussion (and there is one ocurring with our clergy group also)I did not give much thought to this movie and if I did I was a bit 'in favour'. The discussions have helped me tremendously. I think now that it is only proper from the Orthodox perspective to point out that the images of Christ in the movie do not correspond to the Gospel-image and can be harmful (actually a comment that affected me a lot was someone who said that these images of Christ would stay with her and trouble her). Something I believe we forgot about was to compare the image of Christ in this movie with that of the traditional icon of the Crucifixion; the difference is a whole lesson in itself. But this is not the same as saying this movie image of Christ is evil; so after all due caution who knows?
We have brought up the issue of humility and of how to be humble. There are different views about this movie within Orthodoxy but a more grievous division is between seeking in humility Christ's guidance thru His Church and basically asserting our own self-will. Humility as I think Fr Gregory was saying, is to start by saying to oneself;"I am not sure". (Forgive me father-I may be pulling on the original intent of your words like an elastic band!) It is to seek the guidance of a spiritual father, of the Scriptures, the writings of the Holy Frs; to train ourselves to hear the voice of the Church when others speak (wasn't this discussion often trying to be faithful to the issue of iconography?); to set aside our own self-will.
Contrary to this is the decision already made before seeking counsel; the more it hears something contrary to its self-will the more it throws up a defensive wall; humility has little room here.
I believe in the fullest sense that our discussions are only valid to the extent that they are 'exercises in humility.'In Christ- Fr R

[M. Rallis]

Father Raphael, Richard Leigh, Daniel J., and all:

Thanks to this particular discussion thread my family and parish priest now look at me like I’m suffering some kind of paranoia about Gibson’s movie. At our parish bible study, a group was planning to go together to the opening of the movie, and another parish group even mentioned renting a van so they could all go together. I tried to just say, “slow down, shouldn’t someone screen this movie from an Orthodox perspective first, before we adopt the seeing of it as a parish group activity?” Well, then it started. “It’s just a movie.” “Didn’t you ever watch The Ten Commandments?” “What could possibly be the harm?” And from my wife,”are you spending too much time on the computer with that Monachos thing again?”

All of which caused me to reflect on why I was already having my guard up about this movie, even before reading the discussion here. And I think it has to do with my perception that the movie is being marketed as something more than just good entertainment, but rather as some type of religious experience. I’ve enjoyed watching The Ten Commandments on more that one occasion, but cannot recall DeMille ever referring to having to attend church daily in order to properly direct the film, nor hearing stories of actors converting because of their association with the film. It puts me on my guard that the hype for this film would give one the impression that Gibson was some type of 21st century iconographer, using film as his medium, and that his movie is already producing “miracles”.

Someone seeking entertainment can go see a movie if they choose. Someone seeking a religious experience of Christ’s Passion ought to observe, to the best of their ability, the fast (physical and spiritual) of Great Lent, and then attend all of the Holy Week services, especially the Orthros Service of Holy Friday which is celebrated on Thursday evening during Holy Week. This particular service is long by our current standards, and includes the reading of twelve Gospels, all dealing with the passion and crucifixion. Many avoid the service due to its length, yet most who take the pains to attend, even once or twice, soon find it to be a service that is longed for, and not to be missed, if at all possible.

There is a moment, during this service, when the crucifix bearing the icon of our crucified Lord, is brought out in procession by the Priest, then is placed on a stand on the raised area in front of the Iconostasis. During this procession the priest chants:

"Today is hung upon the Tree, He Who suspended the land in the midst of the waters.
A crown of thorns crowns Him, Who is the King of Angels.
He is wrapped about with the purple of mockery, Who wrappped the Heavens with clouds.
He received buffetings, Who freed Adam in the Jordan.
He was transfixed with nails, Who is the Son of the Virgin.
We worship Thy Passion, O Christ.
Show also unto us Thy glorious Resurrection."

The faithful then come forward to light a candle, and reverence the icon of our crucified Lord while the chanters are chanting one of the most beautiful of our hymns, at least in the Byzantine musical tradition one of the most beautiful:

“They took away my garments from Me,
and put upon Me a scarlet robe;
they set upon My Head a crown of thorns,
and gave a reed into My right Hand,
that I may break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Personally, I get a feeling that our Lord, through His Church, has blessed us here to, in some way, share in the experience of the events that took place 2000 years ago. I also get the feeling that He blesses me by holding back His angels, to keep them from grabbing me by the collar and removing me from so holy a place and moment.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Michael,
The reaction of your brothers & sisters in Christ to the points you brought up seem to show a defensiveness and minds already made up. As Orthodox Chrsitians we are obliged to try through humble searching to discern the truth of what the world presents to us, even (or more) what is presented as 'religious'. A mind made up can indicate a degree of self-will. In this sense we must come with minds open to being guided by the Church; otherwise the risk is great to us.
I watched the interview this week with Mr Gibson & the American media. I simply wanted to see what he is like in order to discern further. First he seems like a genuine, well-intentioned man. And he is truly committed to his traditionalist Roman Catholic faith. Several things he said however gave me pause: first he said openly that the movie was his own vision (exact words) of the Passion; ie he was guided in some sense by his Roman Catholic faith but also the particular image seen thru the movie is the result of his personal view of Christ's Passion. While Mr Gibson was speaking about this it was quite easy to see that his view of the Passion was definitely based on the Roman idea of the atonement theory, but with a greater emphasis on Christ's sufferings AS A MAN. This indeed is a crucial point I would have missed otherwise. Mr Gibson has given Christ's Passion a further humanistic turn; it is in fact relying on a deep & human sympathy for Christ's suffering and in fact this greatly informs his 'vision' of the Passion, its meaning and its presentation. This is also why Mr Gibson relied on the writings of Emmerich (which he openly admitted) to emphasise what he felt was a necessary stress on copious amounts of blood & gore. Now I do believe that all of this points to something very problematic for us as Orthodox Christians if we accept this movie as reflecting in truth what the Evangelists say or more crucially if we take this as being equal to a Churchly presentation of Christ & what lead us towards Himself. So Michael I very much agree with you- perhaps we could see this movie like 'The Ten Commandments'; or like 'Touched By an Angel'; but this is not the Church; it is not equal to the services of Great Friday.
Lastly let me point out something that should be important to us: the connection between the image & its human creator. In Orthodoxy we know that this relationship must be ascetic; at one point however in the interview when the issue of one of those who criticised Mr Gibson was brought up he revealed his great anger- not just irritation-and the fact that he had referred to him with foul language, for which no apology was offered.
'The Passion of the Christ' is not an icon of the Passion of our Lord and Mr Gibson is no iconographer; he is simply a well-intentioned Roman Catholic trying to convey in his own terms his love for Christ as he sees Him.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Further to my last post. Upon further consideration I wonder if I was correct when I said that Mel Gibson's movie may be seen like 'Ten Commandments' or 'Touched by an Angel'.
After all, we are talking about the central event of Christ's economia for us: His death(and thru this His resurrection). What could be more crucial than 'getting this right'?
It is for good reason that past movies were very reticent about portraying Christ's Passion; of course we can just say that they were not Orthodox so it doesn't matter anyway- but I don't think that one can deny that past portrayals of Christ did stress more His majesty, they were more sober and of course they were careful. These are things, all things considered, which could be respected by us as Orthodox Christians. But the present effort of Mr Gibson is marked by boldly going into that 'where angels fear to tread'; or at least SHOULD fear to tread! Secondly what of all the visiual blood & gore that Mr Gibson purposely uses in order to obtain his moral purpose (ie. provoke a strong sympathetic reaction)? Does this really lead to us following Christ in an Orthodox sense?
I suppose I went back to this post to ask your help brothers & sisters in Christ- I now wonder if these two observations concerning Mel Gibson's movie- 1)boldness & 2)provoking an emotional response thru what is a sensual medium (movies); do these point to a deeper problem with thinking we may turn to things such as movies to lead us to a life in Christ; is it only coincidence that this movie relies on two chief hallmarks of our present day: boldness & a certain reliance on the senses? Or perhaps i am giving too much significance to something which mat serve a good purpose?
In Christ- Fr R

[Rebecca]

Dear Michael,

Not to add to the skepticism being levied on you by your family, but I think you raise an interesting perspective on the topic. Your comment about observing the movie from an Orthodox point of view is important, imo. Obviously, each of us should always strive to do that in all things we encounter in the world (including Charlton Heston's biblical movies).

I don't know if I will see the movie, but it's interesting to contrast the "iconographies" here, and perhaps it's just an extension of the differences one can see when one compares the 'realism' and physicallity of say, the Sistene Chapel with the traditional iconography in Orthodox cathedrals?

The thing that strikes me, though, is what you point out about the "desire to experience." If I am not going pea-brain again, I recall that Sunday is the commemoration of the Resurrection..not only Holy Week, but each week we can enter into this experience.

I also am recalling the life of a saint I once read...he was an actor in Greece back in the first few centuries AD, and one of the plays they did was a parody of one of the Christian services. My memory is very fuzzy, but I do recall that during one of the performances the actor had a religious experience and after that he became Christian and no longer participated in these plays.

Of course this does not glorify the play (or movie, etc), but our Lord works in mysterious ways...

[Alexis L. Williams]

Dear Michael,

Greetings in the Lord!

I thought your message made a great deal of sense, especially in your last paragraph where you said "Personally, I get a feeling that our Lord, through His Church, has blessed us here to, in some way, share in the experience of the events that took place 2000 years ago."

I have always been taught that Our Lord, when we attend the divine services, allows us to mystically "be there" and take part in that which we are commemorating. So, for example, during Holy Week, we are not only commemorating the events of Our Lord's life, but are actually there, taking part in these events. And, on Holy Friday, we don't just commemorate the Saviour's Crucifixion, but God allows us to actually witness His Passion. And thus it follows, His Resurrection as well.

And so, while I didn't have plans to see Mr. Gibson's movie in the first place, I especially find myself wondering now: Why would I want to go watch a dramatic recreation of Our Lord's Passion, when in less than two months I'll be able to go to church and actually be there? Why settle for a pale reenactment, when one can have the real deal?

If I have said anything wrong, please correct me and forgive me.

With Love In Christ,
the sinful reader Alexis

[Annick T.]

Hi dear brothers and sisters,

I tried to read all the posts but before I finished reading them, I forgot the firsts (!). They are very good and I do agree there is some caution to take before seeing the movie.
What I thought while reading the posts is: we cannot consider a movie equal to the Bible, equal to the teachings of the Church, to the most holy sacraments, to the writings of saints. If we consider a movie in that way, I recognize we can only refuse to see it. Someone would have to be incredibly proud to wish to make such a movie.
Maybe the movie fits more in evangelization. We are in a world where there is full possibilities to evangelize and the Holy Spirit may call us to use them. It may be songs, movies, plays, retreats, Internet, pilgrimage, books, etc. Those techniques are not called to be equal to the Church, but to bring people to the Church. If the movie is not perfect, I would not be surprised, what is perfect until heaven? I am sure it doesn’t intend to be perfect either…
Here is a part on New Evangelization. The New Evangelization is not meant to go against the Bible (it is mentioned before that it is according to the Gospel) and it is meant to bring people back to sacraments.
“ b) An evangelization which is «new in its methods»: «An evangelization will be new in its methods - affirms the Pope - if every member of the Church becomes a protagonist of the diffusion of the message of Christ... Evangelization is the duty of all the members of the Church»(6). In this way, new perspectives are opened to develop a concept of mission and of evangelization, with the effective involvement of the different ecclesial subjects, with the respect and the harmony of different tones and ministries and with the consequential opening to new and various environments of evangelization.
c) An evangelization which is «new» in its expressions, which, according to the words of John Paul II, are: «if you keep your eyes attentive to what the Lord says, if you know how to acquire a firm understanding of the truth of Christ, if you announce the Good News with a language that everyone can understand»(7).” THE HOLY SPIRIT: PROTAGONIST OF THE NEW EVANGELIZATION (found on www.vatican.va (http://www.vatican.va))

“905 Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, "that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life." For lay people, "this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world."440
This witness of life, however, is not the sole element in the apostolate; the true apostle is on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful.441
906 Lay people who are capable and trained may also collaborate in catechetical formation, in teaching the sacred sciences, and in use of the communications media.442” The Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church

Knowing that my words are worth no paper, I’ll paste here what someone with your position (I don’t think she was Orthodox, I mean she had the same thoughts like the majority of you).
www.zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org) Viewing the Finished "Passion";
Brutal, but Not Gratuitous
By Delia Gallagher

ROME, FEB 19, 2004 (Zenit.org).- I must admit, I was not chomping at the bit to see Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ."

For one, I had heard it was violent, and I cannot stomach violence. Then, I already knew the story and its ending; and all of the pre-release polemics, far from inciting my curiosity, made me feel already fed-up with the film.

But then the call came: an invitation to a private pre-release screening of the final version. Well, we all know, calls must be answered. And that is how I ended up, on Valentine's Day, at the movies with Jesus.

So: it is very violent. It was almost too much to bear. My overriding impression was: What horror! I forced myself to keep my eyes on the screen as the Roman soldiers' steel-hooked whips ripped into the flesh of a writhing Jesus, handcuffed to a marble block, leaving him after perhaps a half-hour of nonstop scourging, a mess of slashes oozing scarlet blood and yellow pus; chunks of his skin spattered on the white granite floor and on the faces of his drunken and mad torturers. All this before he had even been condemned to death.

A listless Jesus, hair matted with blood and one eye fully shut from the beatings, is then covered with a red haircloth digging into the fresh wounds, a crown of spiked thorns crammed into his bloodied head and taken before Pilate and the crowd for the famous "Crucify him!" scene.

Jesus is so completely physically reduced at this point that if one didn't know the story, one would expect him to die right there. The coming crucifixion, one thinks, will almost be a relief.

Is the violence exaggerated? Probably so. Is it a defensible use of artistic license? Yes, I think.

Any Catholic who has sat through years of annual memorials of the Stations of the Cross and three-hour-long Good Friday services with readings from the passion, will surely never have meditated on the suffering of Jesus in quite this way. The violence may be excessive but it is not gratuitous.

The figure of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, brings an emotional gravitas to the terrible violence and was the chief reason, I think, for the tears of those around me. For while it is difficult to completely identify with the suffering of Jesus, it is less of a stretch to understand the overwhelming pain of his Mother, who watches her son from beginning to end being whipped, tortured and nailed to a cross.

One understands why Mary is such a revered figure in Catholicism: not so much for her "fiat" when told she would bear the Son of God -- that was the easy part -- but her "fiat" in witnessing his suffering and crucifixion.

Any mother, indeed anyone who has ever loved, will know the wild pain of watching as a loved one suffers, unable to do anything, and the willingness to be put in his place, if only he could be spared.

The actress Maia Morgenstern, who plays Mary, is perfectly cast. She is not a delicate, innocent beauty, but an earthy and strong woman.

In one of the most poignant scenes of the film, after Jesus is scourged by the Romans, and the crowds disperse, Mary is seen alone with Mary Magdalene (played by Italian beauty Monica Bellucci), wiping up the blood-splattered pavement with white cloths.

It is a futile act; so strange in the context, yet that is exactly what a mother does: cleans up the mess in the midst of her despair. Theologians will also note here Mary's appreciation for Jesus' precious blood, but the purely human element is striking in its own right.

As to the accusations about the film's alleged anti-Semitism, I side with those who say that perhaps Jews and Christians will view this movie through different lenses. I, for one, did not notice any overtly anti-Jewish exaggeration of the original Gospel sources.

That the Gospels themselves may contain anti-Jewish elements is a debate that must be argued with the historical-religious context in mind and only the beginning of a longer debate about Christians' contribution to the history of anti-Semitism.

That Jews may fear a reprisal of anti-Semitic sentiment because of the film, is a concern that should be taken seriously. My guess, though, is that those fears will prove to be unfounded.

I have seen a checklist of "motifs-to-look-out-for" compiled by two Jewish professors from a U.S. university and circulated widely in anticipation of the movie, based on earlier script versions they had read. The checklist asks, for instance, if the Jewish men in the movie are portrayed as being scruffy, while the Romans are clean-shaven. I found myself answering "no" to this and most of the "possible motifs."

Another question of the checklist is: "Is it fair to say that the film is so violent in expressing Jesus' torture that the theater audience will be likely to feel outrage at those who perpetrated such a horrendous crime?"

Well, I can only respond for the 12 people in the theater audience who saw the film with me (three of whom were not Christian): One is so spent by the end, that the reaction, far from outrage, is total silence.

It is a violence that moves one to tears, not anger; and invites one to reflect not on the Jews, but on Jesus."

I don't want to be stubborn, I too think nothing is black or white. I naturally try to show the opposite side and my opinion is nothing but final until I see the movie. I feel positive about it because they didn't had bad intentions, they went to mass before each day of movie making... also because I don't take it as equal to things said previously.

Love,
Annick

[Rose]

Most certainly, no movie can "accurately" portray the life of Christ. However, the world being in it's present state, I've wondered if perhaps God will bring good out of this movie, as He brings good out of all things. In this age of lack of morals and belief in God, perhaps the world *needs to be shocked* by this portrayal. I will be curious to see what impact it has on the morals of society. Many secular movies have as much as or even more than Mr. Gibson's movie. Maybe all the blood and gore will draw more people to see it.

All movies are the "vision" of the director. This is certainly not an Orthodox film and I don't think it is a "Catholic" film. It looks like our media has succeeded in overcovering this "news" story and making it a promotional success. After the superbowl incident, female rock stars kissing on stage, gays marrying, profanity being aired acceptable, etc., it might be a good time to put Christ in the theater's spotlight.

Lastly, if I may, I would object to the name of this thread "Mel Gibson's Passion". The film is "The Passion of Christ". Two separate subjects no doubt.

[Photini]

Dear Father Raphael & everyone,

I personally do not think you are putting too much significance on this. Millions of people are going to be seeing this movie, and taking it as an accurate portrayal of Christ.
I have seen statements from very prominant Protestant Christian figures (i.e. Billy Graham, Thomas Schuler, etc.) that are stressing the importance of this movie for using as an evangelizing tool, and for drawing those who are spiritually lost.
There is a company already publishing a Bible with pictures from scenes of the movie in it!
https://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ibsdirect.storefront/en/catalog/1101?AD=passionoutreach

I also came across this site, which made me sick to my stomach: www.hollywoodjesus.com (http://www.hollywoodjesus.com)

This sheds alot of light (at least for me) on things. It just seems out of control to me...just craziness. I am so thankful for Monachos, and everyone here.

With love in Christ,
~photini

[Rebecca]

I once heard someone tell of a Catholic parade that takes place during holy week each year in the Phillipines. For the parade, a young man is actually nailed to a cross, and the cross carried through the city. On seeing the horrified look on my face, the gentleman told me it was a very high honor for the young man who was chosen.

I haven't been paying much attention to hype about this movie, so am not in a position to really comment about it...it may be a horrible thing, or it may be an insignificant thing.

Is it advisable to see it? I think I could have done without seeing the brief previews I saw yesterday which were brief images of the blood and gore referred to.

imo, the interesting quesiton is why is it that in Orthodox iconography, we see a different image of the crucifixion? In the daytime services of Holy Friday, we have the taking down from the cross, where the priest removes the icon from the cross and wraps it in a white cloth...but why a different visual image than the realism that one would expect in the movie?

Certainly, even without 21st century technology, our church could have chosen to emphasize the physicality in ways that this movie seems to, but why did she not?

[Annick T.]

Dear Rebecca,

The Roman Catholic Church does not encourage such violence. I remember at the tv they said the Church disapproved those acts.
There is different things, some are culturals and in some regions, others are in all the Church.
I personnaly do not approve those acts, ascetism should be hidden and one should consider the Passion with the Bible or with a way of the Cross or with a vigil and a mass or liturgy (or in other ways approved by his Church).
Annick

ps A movie cannot replace a celebration in one Church, nor the most holy Sacrifice.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear brothers & sisters in Christ-I am also coming to the same point that many of you are. There is an important point that the Church is trying to make with its portrayal of Christ's Passion in the services of Holy Week. Throughout there is a great reticence concerning the bloody aspects of Christ's suffering. Some have also referred to the similiar treatment in the icon of the crucifixion and the taking down of Christ's body from the Cross. It is obviously important that this whole reticence is the same as that found in the Gospels. So I wonder what is the Church trying to say thru this?
I am not sure that this was a consciously thought out process; rather I take it that the description of Christ's Passion that the Church has given us is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is thus more 'authentic' or 'real' than anything else could possibly be.
There is a profound wisdom here; a sobriety so that we do not un-knowingly go astray. How is that? Unless guided by the Holy Spirit we risk falling either into intellectualism or emotionalism. The reality we project which we take as being spiritual and real can easily be just projections of our own subjective ideas & feelings. I must concur with those who are warning about this film; even Annick in the article you kindly quote the author claims there is no gratuitous violence while at the same time providing descriptions that are shocking; 'oozing blood, yellow mucus, skin spattered'; what does this have to do with the Gospel? Also I think many of us would be shocked that the Theotokos is approvingly portrayed as 'earthy & strong' rather than 'delicate & innocent'. I wonder if this is even 'traditional Catholic'; it bears many resemblances to 21st century man and his inner space.
In closing let me ask forgiveness from you all as we prepare to enter that holy season of the Great Fast; may we all together attain Christ's glorious Resurrection.
In the love of Christ- Fr Raphael

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Rebecca,
As it is forgiveness Sunday, I ask your forgiveness, as well to all members of Monachos.
Let me simply point out to you, that the word "parade" as mentioned in your post # 59 is truly a religious "procession". I was a Missionary assigned there. And, during Holy Week, various Barrios hadthese Processions depicting the Stations of the Cross. Every one participated in this "Sacred Drame" the Priest leading the prayers, and everyone joinging in.-- somewhat like a Medeivel Mystery Play, though one man was "honored" to carry the wooden cross to the destination of Golgotha in the "processions", no person was actually crucified. but, everyone did enter into the whole Drama with much Faith and Love, uniting into the Way of the Cross with Jesus Christ.

I was always impressed by the loving attention of simple people as they enterred seriously into the Mysteries of our Salvation.

Marie Duquette

[Photini]

The below statement is something I quote from one of the websites I linked in my previous post. It led me to ask whether seeing such graphic portrayals of the Crucifixion would eventually (unconciously) cause a person to become somewhat desensitized to the Icons of the Passion that we have in church. More especially to people like me...a baby convert, and to potential converts to Orthodoxy. (I tried to make it in italics, but can't figure out how.)It is describing a Byzantine Icon of the Crucifixion.

"Through the centuries Christian depictions of the Crucifixion of Christ became so decorative that they lost the original passion. Beautiful works of art indeed, but they became nearly bloodless with no evidence of real emotion or pain. Artistic depictions of the Passion were reduced to a mere religious symbols. These works of art have deep connection to the faithful, but no connection to rest of the world apart from their obvious decorative beauty. Neither of the depictions below have the crown of thorns, nor evidence of the whipping, nor emphasis on blood, pain or passion. All the characters look bored, even Jesus looks bored. Again, no passion."

When I read Mr. Michael Rallis' post #79 in this thread, I remembered my son last year (8 years old) who during the service for Holy Friday was moved to tears through much of the service.
Thank you so much.

I also ask everyone's forgiveness for anything I have said or done that has offended you.

Your little sister in Christ,
~photini

[Rebecca]

Annik,

Interesting to learn that the RC church frowns on the Philippine tradition. I didn't know that, and the gentleman I spoke with was strongly saying it was a real RC tradition. I'm not saying you're wrong, just explaining my limited perspective on the thing.

I must confess that I just did a google search to see what was said about the Philippine "festival" in general, and found several sources that confirmed what you say about RC disapproval.

Also interesting, though, was to see at www.catholic.org (http://www.catholic.org), not only was there a link to buy tickets to Gibson's movie with the following endorsement:

If you haven't gotten tickets to The Passion of the Christ yet, go to Passion Tickets to reserve your seats. We saw a pre-release version of the movie a few weeks ago and can say that there isn't a better way to begin your Easter preparations.

but also a book for sale with scene by scene analysis of the movie from a Catholic perspective with the following endorsement:

"A Guide to the Passion" was written to help moviegoers understand the many artistic and theological aspects of the movie. Through this understanding, we not only get into the mind of the movie’s creator, but also into the mind of the Creator.

as well as free "resource kits" allowing Catholic parishes to hold seminars about the movie...

Anyway, just thought above was interesting...

Best Regards...

[Fr Averky]

Dear Friends,

I think I have mentioned this , but I just got home from the hospital-again-on Friday, so I forget. I did better than the Atkins Diet, I lost 14 pounds in three days, causing my blood pressure to fall to 56/46. But I feel much better now,

At any rate, Mr. Gibson's concept of the crucifixion of our Saviour stems from the teaching of the Latins that salvation took place on the cross when God the Father sent abudant Sanctifying Grace down upon His Suffering Son, far more than ws needed, and the Virgin Mary, since she was standing near the cross, also received this over abundance. As Fr. Raphael notes correctly, the Orthodox Church does not speak of the bloody suffering of Christ, and if you look at an Orthodox crucifix, there are two notable aspects differing from those of the Catholics ( who rarely display them anymore). One, Christ is not wearing the crown of thorns, and to, He is not looking heavenward in bloody agony, but his eyes are closed peacefully, as if He were in repose.

I personally would hve no interest in seeing this film and myself would not even suggest it to a fellow Orthodox Christian.

A question; Has there yet been a serious and objective evaluation of this film from any good Orthodox source? I meqn someone like a learned hierarch or theologian? I would really like to be informed when one comes out.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Dear All,

in light of this fascinating discussion about the wisdom (or not) of going to see Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ", could I ask for an Orthodox perspective on the Oberammergau Passion play?

seeker

[Owen Jones]

Has anyone seen THE PASSION yet?

[Pavlos]

This is an interesting question.

Frankly, I am torn. I cannot decide if I want to see it or not. I have viewed some still photos from the film on the internet and I personally am not sure I want to view that level of gore and barbarism especially as I am trying hard to still my thoughts and passions for Great Lent.

One of the great gifts God has given me is a mind that stores and recalls things easily and with great accuracy. I am not sure I want those images stored away. Once a few years ago, I was hired to sing at a "lenten" service at a local protestant church. It turned out the service was titled "The service of the 3 Nails". They would read passages from the Passion along with other material then in pitch blackness the pastor would pound a large spike into a beam. This happened three times. It was a chilling effect and has never left me.

For myself and my strength, I will probably not see it. My parish is considering renting a theater and seeing it as a large group and having a discussion afterwards with the priests. I think this is a decent idea but again I will probably not go.

May Christ strengthen us all for Great Lent

-L
Pavlos

[Melissa]

Yes, Owen, I've seen it.
I wrote this about my first impressions of the movie; there may be more later. I do talk about the final scene, so if that bothers anybody who might still see the movie, don't read this.

We debated about seeing The Passion of the Christ movie, and I read as much as I could about why to or not to see it, on Monachos and elsewhere. We decided to see it this afternoon.
I would like to share some of my thoughts about it, to help my further reflections, and in case anybody's interested in reactions to the movie. These are personally stated, of course, and not deep or theological.

My initial thoughts about “The Passion of the Christ” movie-

It is a movie.
Jim Caviezel is a talented actor, not Christ. It was easy not to make mistakes about that in the movie.
It is graphic and bloody, as everyone said it would be, but that did not draw my (emotional)attention unduly, and is not what I remember most clearly now. There were two things I did not watch, and they were probably not the most graphic, but in recognizing my common humanity with those who were brutalizing Jesus, they hurt me the most.

The image that lingers most in my mind is from the final scene – it is the profile of His face, and then (we see He is alone in the tomb, sitting near His empty robes, clothed in clean white raiment and unblemished, burial robes visible on a stone pallet in the background) He stands.

What have I come away with? Awe and love for the Theotokos, and a fresh realization of my sinfulness and poor faith. Her faith was so pure; and she was also a mother in pain, who knew her Son was the Truth, and that she would stand by Him and give Him her love, faithfully and with dignity, in all His suffering. If I could have a small amount of her faith and love, my cup would indeed overflow.

We ended the day by going to Jordanville for a Vesper service that was perfect for us. (My apologies to you, Fr. Averky, because we didn't have time to talk to you about this; but it's NOT why we were late). That service in it's beauty, dignity, mystery and majesty, had a more profound effect on us than the movie - as I would hope it would!

What I think today is that we went to the movie as a movie, not a religious experience; we went with another committed Christian couple; we are secure in our faith, sinful as we are. The movie was not bad for us in any way I can presently discern, but that may not be true for everyone who sees it. It's not anti-Semitic in any way any of the 4 of us could find. It has left me with a few questions from my Protestant years that I don't know how Orthodoxy thinks about - like, was the crucifixation up on a hill, or was it near the temple? Did the Roman soldiers get drunk and laugh and mock (I think so)? If accurately portrayed, their scorn, derision, and laughter were almost unbearable. And, do you capitalize the same way when talking about a movie that attempts to say something about Christ's life, as when referring to Christ our Saviour, and in the Bible, etc.??

Please ask questions if you have them, and guide me if you see I need it in these reflections.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. May no one fall into sin because of me.
In Christ's love,
Melissa

[Jake]

Being an Orthodox Christian "lay" person, I have seen this movie.

I have basic understanding of Orthodox Christianity, and Christianity in general, I read the Bible daily. I'm a young college student; I have taken History classes that deal exclusively with Christianity.

I was deeply moved by this movie. There were moments were I truly wept during the movie.

The feeling that the movie left me with was a greater appreciation of the suffering of Christ, there is no doubt about that.

But I do not see how this can somehow be a negative, how this can effect me in a negative way as a Orthodox Christian. Because I got the feeling that some of the posts on this topic seem to imply that, that by seeing this movie, I would somehow be influenced in a negative way by it.

Can somebody address this issue, who has more knowledge on Orthodoxy than me?

Thank you, and please forgive me if I come across as arrogant or insulting.

[Melissa]

Dear Pavlos -
As you might have been able to tell from my previous post on this topic, I think it's very important for each of us to assess ourselves - what our priests have to say about seeing the movie, what we do internally with visual stimuli, the state of our faith, what else is going on in our lives, etc. This is a powerful movie, perhaps most particularly in it's ability to create an emotional response to Christ's suffering, which may or may not be a good thing.
What you said indicates that you're making such an assessment for yourself, which is great.
A bit more-
In our time and culture, we don&#39;t know what crucifixion was like, but in Christ&#39;s time and culture they did, which may be a rationale that makes sense in favor of seeing the movie and getting a greater understanding of what <u>may</u> have happened &#40;I don&#39;t know how much research Mr. Gibson did&#41;.
However, it&#39;s my belief that to become too attached to those images and feelings is what could be destructive, because they could then interfere with my abilitiy to discern the source of my response to Christ in the Church tradition, let alone in liturgy and other services, and in private prayer. If Christ suffered in victory over sin and death through His suffering and resurrection, it&#39;s His Resurrection that seems to me to be most important. And I think the movie pointed in that direction, since for me the final scene was the most powerful as I experienced it through my admittedly weak but hopeful and persistent faith.
In Christ&#39;s love,
I ask for your prayers,
Melissa

[Ender Wiggin]

I have seen it, and my experience is similar to that of Melissa.

[Warren Bensinger]

Melissa:
Thanks for your discription. I&#39;m glad you had a chance to enjoy true worship after.
I&#39;ve been ask if I was going to the movie and depending on who ask I say: &#40;simple answer&#41; No cause I&#39;m a week person and I&#39;d cry all the way through it. But to those that would understand I say: &#40;long answer&#41; I don&#39;t want to pay $xx.xx to go see my self beaten and nailed to a cross.
It took me a while to remember this last one, even though I&#39;ve said it all my Christian life. I am a part of the body of Christ. I was crucified with him. This has helped me nail to my cross my thougths and passions. Hopefully I can get to the point of &#34;no longer living but Christ living in me&#34;.
Learning to Love.
warren
To all, please forgive me for the many things I&#39;ve said or thought in the past year that would hurt you.

[Janice Chadwick]

Fr. Raphael and Michael, I also don&#39;t think you are putting too much emphasis on aspects of this film. I belong to several boards, and it bothers me that so many people have bought into the hype of this film. I&#39;ve noticed a tendency to almost view those who have reservations about this film as being almost non-Orthodox or non-Christian. It&#39;s almost as though they&#39;re being considered heretics because they have reservations. I&#39;ve noticed anger because there are reservations about the film.

Fr. Raphael, after reading your last comments about Mel&#39;s talk at the movie screening you went to, it cements even more my resolve to not see the film. First of all, I don&#39;t handle very violent movies very well &#40;and I don&#39;t want to change that because I don&#39;t ever want to get &#42;used&#42; to violence and bloodshed&#41;. I couldn&#39;t handle the battle scenes in Gibson&#39;s &#34;Braveheart&#34; movie and that was on video, not on the big screen. Also, I don&#39;t need to get all those images of the crucifixion burned into my mind. The Gospel narratives of the crucifixion, plus the Holy Week services do an excellent job of keeping the crucifixion in your mind. St. John the Theologian witnessed Christ&#39;s crucifixion in person and he didn&#39;t feel the need to give a blow-by-blow narrative with all the attendant blood and gore, and maybe he had a very good reason to do so. Of course, the other Gospels don&#39;t do this either. I think Frederica Matthewes-Green made some excellent points in her two columns on this film. My priest has some reservations about this film, which he discussed with us at coffee hour this past weekend when someone asked him about it.

[Maximos Darnley]

I have a very similar reaction to this discussion to that of Pavlos. Perhaps I&#39;ll avoid the film for the present.

As a relatively recent convert to Orthodoxy &#40;Pascha 2000&#41; I have found the discussion on Mel Gibson’s film most informative. It is difficult to avoid exposure to discussion and reviews of the film at present. The film is certainly receiving a lot of media attention.

My exposure to Christianity was initially through Protestantism, something with which I could never engage. My mother, being a Roman Catholic, ensured that I was also exposed to Roman Catholicism. This too I found most difficult to recognize as having relevance to me although it seemed undeniably richer in its expression of spirituality that the Post Reformation Church. As a child, I remember being particularly frightened of those images of Christ’s bleeding heart, also the brightly painted statues of the Crucifixion. It seems that Roman Catholicism in particular emphasizes Christ’s suffering.

Discovering Orthodoxy was a turning point in my life. For me Orthodoxy operates on a different level to Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. I have found in a real sense that the church is the spiritual body of Christ. The Paschal period in our church reminds me that through Christ’s sacrifice we are given the opportunity to be restored to our original state. His life and his teaching provides the way for us in the process of Christification.

As a sinner the point to me seems to be one of working on my salvation. Lent is a time when I begin to confront all of the fleshly passions that underpin my capacity to sin. For me this is not a time for another’s construction of Christ’s passion to be allowed to assume such prominence in my journey.

Thank you all for such an informative discussion.

Yes, may Christ strengthen us all on our journey through Great Lent.

Maximos

[Br Paul]

CONGRATULATIONS!! Mel Gibson.
You accomplished what you set out to do!!
After so much talk and controversy on this Movie, I went and saw it.
Did I enjoy all the BLOOD!! NO!!!
The Violence!! NO!! I am not a masochist.
Did I leave disliking Jews! NO!! What about the Romans!! NO!!
Did the Movie MOVE me? YES!
What I saw was horrific and so was the suffering of Christ. It was in your face, no need for the imagination. Is it possible for a persons imagination to imagine the suffering of Christ unless you are present? I thank Mel Gibson for sharing his view of the Passion of Christ. It moved me a lot. But what really moved me was in the last few minutes of the Movie. After seeing the suffering of Christ. We saw the Resurected Christ, Triumphet! over death.
Thanks be to God. It is very good timing during this lenten period for all Christians.
Br Paul

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

No, Owen, and I don&#39;t much want to. Christians seem on the whole happier with it than Jewish viewers, to judge by printed reactions. And this week&#39;s &#34;Time&#34; magazine says that the film resonates with the era - of the 1300s, that is. But I don&#39;t see how this degree of violence and gore reinforces the message of salvation; rather does it seem to pander to the readily prevalent &#34;Gladiator&#34; mentality that revels in bloody torture for its own sake.

My earlier question &#40;previous post&#41; about Oberammergau, BTW, was motivated by my recollection as a young Anglican of people saying that any representation of Christ on stage or screen risked being seen as blasphemous. This would seem to me to be a tad puritanical, hence my interest in Orthodox thinking on the point.

seeker

[Melissa]

Dear Maximos, and all -
Christ&#39;s physical agony was awful in the movie, yes, and yet - as I reflected on your &#40;Maximos&#41; memory of the Roman Catholic bleeding heart, and the painted statues - in my memory of seeing them, I agree with you - they were frightening -&#34;icky&#34; is the real word that came to me - and affected me in a very different way than the movie. I like them less.
That said, please don&#39;t understand my following comments as defending the movie; as more reactions come to me, I&#39;m just mentioning them, as a way to help me clarify them. I feel great respect for each person&#39;s decision, and I learn from your all of your comments.
Mr Gibson was not making one of his action movies when he made this movie - and he could have, he constructs that genre well for those who like it. The difference is clear, however. I think we always construct an image of an event from another&#39;s viewpoint, unless we saw it ourselves, so I personally didn&#39;t have any problem with that concept as I decided about seeing the movie. What I had to decide was &#40;since I value the Church a lot more than the movie&#41; would the screen images interfere with my ability to maintain the traditional Orthodox iconic images? I decided they wouldn&#39;t, and that has proved to be true. I didn&#39;t experience any &#34;gladiator mentality&#34;, although we all may assess such things differently. I still don&#39;t know if historians know what a Roman scourging and crucifixion would have been like -if they do know, this may have been an accurate portrayal whether we want to face it or not; and if they don&#39;t, this was perhaps more likely to have been exaggerated, or at least, only Mr. Gibson&#39;s imagination of a crucifixion.
We have a Jewish community here and among the people I know, some are afraid to expose themselves to potential anti-Semitism because it hurts, so won&#39;t see it and find out; others think they don&#39;t need to see a movie about Christ and are therefore indifferent to it; and some have seen it and were not at all offended. History is history. Jewish people were also clearly shown helping Jesus - bringing Him water, offering cloths to wipe His face, carrying the cross, grieving.
Was the movie necessary? Probably not, at least for Orthodox believers. I&#39;m not sure I&#39;d vote in favor of my church renting it or going to see it as a whole - I don&#39;t think I&#39;d want to give it that much significance, because it isn&#39;t an Orthodox movie, and I&#39;d be concerned that if people see it without thinking through why they&#39;re seeing it, they may get lost in their emotional response. I don&#39;t think that would be helpful.
A theological question - from Warren&#39;s point about being members of the body of Christ - I always thought that meant post-Resurrection; that I participate in nailing Him to the cross in my sinfulness; and that my repentance as a memebr of the Body of Christ partly means I take up my cross of sins and keep working to live according to Christ&#39;s command - are any of these thoughts Orthodox? I realized &#40;thank you, Warren&#41; that I don&#39;t understand this point.
I think I&#39;m done talking about the movie itself. My thanks and prayers to all of you for &#34;listening&#34;.
Melissa

[Janice Chadwick]

I have a disclaimer to add to my last post. My priest didn&#39;t say we shouldn&#39;t see the movie or anything like that. This is my decision.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Please note that I&#39;ve moved all messages and threads dealing with Mel Gibson&#39;s new film to this current thread, Mel Gibson&#39;s &#34;Passion of the Christ&#34; in the Casual and Personal Conversation topic area. Please keep posts on this theme within this single thread, for the sake of ease in locating conversation.

INXC, Matthew

[Warren Bensinger]

Melissa:
Excuse my loose quote of Gal. 2:20. St. Paul discribes that &#34;we are crucified with Christ&#34;.
I should have put the ref. in for clarification.
I&#39;ve appreciated reading your posts as well as everyones on this subject. Of course it&#39;s great reading everyones posts on all the subjects.
May God grant us Grace to make the best use of this Great Lent period.
Learning to Love
warren

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Melissa, and others,
Your posts on the &#34;Passion&#34; I am reading with interest, and reverence. But, I feel that the word &#34;icky&#34; does not, for me, who have been raise R.C. express the TRUTH of the LOVE that Jesus the Christ has for us in allowing His most Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance at the Crucifixtion. The depiction of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is for me a &#34;symbolic&#34; expression of Infinite Love, as expressed in His message to Saint Marguerite Mary, &#34;Behold this Heart that has so loved the world, and has received so little in return! does enhanse my devotion and love for Him who gave His life and blood for our salvation.
with respect,
Marie Duquette

[Fr Averky]

Dear All

I myself have no intention of seeing the movie. The rececent review from New Yorker magazine states that the character of Christ, His love, mercy, compasson and foriveness which marked His entire life is in no way exprssed. The viewer is exposed only to violence and hatred, which leaves the story rather one dimensional, I would think. I know that I do not want to see it, bcause I know I could not bear the beating and torturing of Christ., even on film. One review points out how very fixated on bloody suffering Mel Gibson is, and that he seems to have a lot of personal anger, and that that anger is seen in the brutality of many of his films like Mad Max, Brave Heart and Patriot.

In regards to blame, St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow says:

&#34;Who is guilty for the death of Christ? Was it the Roman soldiers? No, because they were following orders. Was it the Jews? No, because by their own law they could not put Christ to death, but had to ask Rome to do it. Was it the Procurator, Pontius Pilate? No, for we clearly see in the Gospel that he did everything in his power to save the life of Our Saviour.

How is it then, that those people, who could not, or would not have put Christ to death end up doing so? Because, each group, each person had to play his part in what was the Divine plan by God the Father for the salvation of mankind. It was by this means that God the Son was to offer Himself for the salvation of mankind.&#34; &#42; [ It was by this Divine condescension that we have been saved.]

&#42;&#40;Paraphased from &#34;Orthodox Life,Jordanville, NY&#41;

We are all to blame, and we all continue to be to blame. I would hope that if anyone who sees this movie comes away from it having learned a leson, I pray that that lesson will be that we are all guilty; we are proud, self-willed, disobedient, full ov ourselves, puffed up, and live our lives in a fog, not learning from the past, continuing to fall and repeat old sins and mistakes, we pass each day weighed down with worldly concerns and the pleasures of this world as well, not thinking about God enough, and not turning to Hiim, for we would rather rely on ourselves than to put our trust and hope in God; and we have little concern for the future other than the comforts of this fallen world., never taking into account that at an untold, unexpected time, we can be called before the dread judgement seat of Christ. We like to think of God as merciful, but we overlook that He is also just.

I do not know if many of you are familiar with the Wonder-working icon of the Mother of God &#34;Unexpected Joy.&#34; On this icon, you see at the left, a large of icon of the Mother of God holding her Divine Son. The side where our Lord was pierced with a lance can be seen.

To the left, there is a man kneeling before the icon of the Theotokos. Below all of this is a story which starts, &#34;There was a man who was a robber, and each time he was prpearing to steal from unsuspecting people, he would kneel in front of this icon and ask the protection of the Mother of God for the evil misdeed he was about to commit.&#34;

The story continues, &#34;One time when he was kneeling before the holy icon, and was making his usual request, he noticced that blood was puoring out from the hands and side of the Boy-Saviour. Exclaiming aloud, &#34;My God, He is bleeding!&#34; Then he heard the gentle voice of the Mother of God, who said to him, &#34; O Sinful man, do you not realize that when you come before my hoply icon with your blasphemous prayer, you open the wounds of my? Son. He loved you enough to die for you., and yet you sins and sin, and it causes His wounds to bleed anew?&#34;

The man was so moved, by the realization of how much he had hurt His Saviour, that he threw himself before the icon and crying out in repentance, said, &#34; Forgive me, forgive me, wretched sinnere that I am! I repent of my foul and evil deeds, and henceforth, like Zachaius, I will pay back fourfold what I have stolen, only please forgive me, I beg of you!&#34; Because of the swift repentance of such a long-time sinner, the icon is therefore called &#34;Unexpected Joy.&#34; My monastery is possession of a wonder-working copy of this holy icon, and we serve molebeins before it for those in need.

Dear beloved Brothers and Sisters, for this Lent, let us look at ourselves, and see what sins we have that we commit again and again, in which we too add to the wounds of our Sweet Lord, who gave up His life for us in such a terrible fashion as is potryaed in the film. Keep in mind that the mockery, the spitting, every one of the kicks, the slaps, the beatings with whips came from our terrible sins, which we rarely if ever, even consider. May God bless and help all of us!

Yes, our Lord suffered and it was a terrble thing, but it happened for our sake, and I would hope that an Orthodox Christian having seen the film will reflect upon what he must do in order that he &#34;might be converted and live.&#34;

Sinful
hieromonk Averky
who prays for you

[Melissa]

Dear Marie,
I am so sorry, please forgive me, for I am sure I offended you. That was a thoughtless characterization, and I was not at all considering the feelings of others, especially those who had been raised in the love and reverence of those images with which I am less familiar. I can be very self-centered, as showed up in that part of my post. I truly beg your forgiveness, and I appreciate your bringing this to my attention.
God blesses me with humbling experiences rather than striking me down, and I am forever grateful for that.
Respectfully,
Melissa

[Rose]

If I can impose an opinion, we can all find media quotes to support our viewpoints.

The rececent review from New Yorker magazine states that the character of Christ, His love, mercy, compasson and foriveness which marked His entire life is in no way exprssed. The viewer is exposed only to violence and hatred, which leaves the story rather one dimensional, I would think.

I find it interesting how each person is receiving this controversial film. Some say it&#39;s horrible; some say it&#39;s wonderful. The talk shows all full of well meaning people commenting on Mr. Gibson personally, how much money he&#39;ll make, his father, who the actors are, the set designs, the language, the location, the motivation, the biblical quotes, and on and on and on. At present, we are mainly exposed to the USA&#39;s film release critiques. I&#39;ll be curious to see how this cinema is also accepted in the rest of the world.

Please excuse my remarks if you find them offensive, Father Averky.

Brother Paul, your comments are interesting.

Rose

[Annick T.]

Dear All in Christ,

Thanks Father Averky for your post.
I have no such theology to offer :-&#41; but only what I know. I just went to see the movie I wanted to share it with you.
I missed the beginning because I went to buy popcorn... well, anyway, I haven&#39;t missed much.

Here are my thought:
- I saw nothing contradicting the Gospels. They were some things added but they didn&#39;t contradict the Gospels... it was even surprising after the agony when Jesus-Christ &#40;the actor, let&#39;s say&#41; answered: I am He. Then Judas came to kiss Him. One apostle cut the ear of one soldier and Jesus-Christ heals the soldier. It is according to all the Gospels.
There is also symbols and words and things not everyone can understand &#40;like myself before my conversion of heart&#41;. Like when Jesus says I AM &#40;the name of God&#41;, Satan... I don&#39;t think one Christian that never read on the Passion can understand all that happens but you know... It is not so bad. I mean, the movie was probably made for Christians that know about the Passion &#40;read the Bible, in other words&#41;.
A thing that was not according to the Bible was that Jesus-Christ felt more than three times. In the Bible it was told three times that Jesus felt. But well, then again, does it contradict the Bible?
I thought it interesting that Satan was in the movie, tempting Jesus-Christ, there when He suffered, torturing Judas and one of the two men on the crosses beside Jesus-Christ. But I felt it maybe exaggerated to some point. Ex. If the black bird on one of the two crosses would have just been there, it would have been enough.
Also, one must be prepared to see the movie in the meaning that if one thinks Jesus-Christ didn&#39;t suffered very much, it&#39;ll be a shock.
One may cry through the movie, I almost cried few times... I was crushing my bag of popcorn while they were scourging Jesus-Christ, but well, it was nothing to traumatise someone. It made me look at myself, how I hesitate to suffer for Jesus when He did that for me &#40;and you&#41;, it made me think about the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Blood that I will take tomorrow... all the people that don&#39;t go to the mass or liturgy... It made me repentant, willing to pray, it gave me zeal to work for Jesus-Christ in my school.
One should see with some knowledge about the Passion. If he doesn&#39;t, then I agree some images or aspects may stay in the mind. If he studied it, it&#39;ll have positive effects. But I think there is positive effects for a loottt of people. At the end of the movie, many stayed, moved... silent.
My father thought it excessive. He said &#34;You almost want Him to get to the Cross faster&#34;. Well, I didn&#39;t think it excessive. I read writings of saints about the Passion of Christ and all of them agree: Jesus suffered to excess for us with love.

The movie is good and is probably making miracles for a lot of people.

One thing that was not said about this movie was the &#34;flashbacks&#34;. There is scenes not just of the Passion and they are very much meaningful. One even quotes one part of the Bible &#40;there is many many quotes&#41; where Jesus-Christ says He had the liberty to chose to lay down His life to His Father command &#40;I don&#39;t know the part, sorry&#41;. I loved those parts. One part, the Cène &#40;which is in the Passion according to some saints&#41;, was also very meaningful, in the good moment of the movie.

It is a good thing: maybe some protestants will agree the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus-Christ and that Mary, our most Holy Mother is... the gate to Heaven, our Mother. lol! I am not serious, may everyone love God and serve Him with what God gave them &#40;not that I approve heretics&#41;.

It is all that I have to write... One positive aspect of this movie may be seen on this forum. Some gave beautiful thoughts on the Passion... beautiful stories.

All Glory to God!

Love,
Annick

ps. I say Jesus-Christ but one should make the difference when I talk about the Jesus-Christ in the movie and the real one.
pps. Sorry for my errors.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Brother Paul,

Your words: Said like a good Aussie! and I am sure you can relate very well to Mel Gibson, for although an American he grew up in Australia. I have to rely upon the comments of others, because I will not see the movie. I hope you have a good Lent!

Fr. a.

[Allen Jacobson]

Greetings. Hieromonk Averky quoted posted, among other things, the following: I myself have no intention of seeing the movie. The rececent review from New Yorker magazine states that the character of Christ, His love, mercy, compasson and foriveness which marked His entire life is in = no way exprssed. The viewer is exposed only to violence and hatred, which leaves the story rather one dimensional, I would think. I know that I do = not want to see it, bcause I know I could not bear the beating and torturing = of Christ., even on film. One review points out how very fixated on bloody suffering Mel Gibson is, and that he seems to have a lot of personal = anger, and that that anger is seen in the brutality of many of his films like = Mad Max, Brave Heart and Patriot.

I read those reviews and I saw the movie last night. I thought as I = viewed it that the reviewer and I were not seeing the same movie. How could = the reviewers miss the love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness that was = evident in the film? How could they say Mel Gibson is &#39;fixated on bloody = suffering&#34; and &#34;seems to have a lot of personal anger&#34; when it is all done in the context of his life and ministry and the giving of Himself as the lamb = of God, the bread of life, the living water? One might believe the = reviewers had already made up their minds to write negative reviews and then = looked for things that they could say negative. That may or may not be the = case, I don&#39;t know their hearts. All I know is what I saw. It was not as they said. I was profoundly moved and came away with a renewed sense of my unworthiness and renewed appreciation for what Christ has done for me = and everyone else. Also, I did not come away &#34;hating Jewish people&#34; or, for that matter, hating Italians for what their Roman ancestors did. As my priest noted: most of the people in the movie &#40;as, indeed is the case = in the Gospels&#41; who did bad things to Jesus were men. So should we say = that the movie will make us hate men? Please don&#39;t believe the negative = reviews referred to above. I wholly, unequivocally disagree with them.=20

[Br Paul]

Dear Fr Averky,
Oh Yes, I am a Aussie, Australian Orthodox.
The reasons for my comments, had nothing to do with being a Aussie or Mel Gibson living here for a time.
The different comments from people around the world and the comments of Mel Gibson for the reason he made the Movie, made my decision to go and see it for myself.
We are all individuals and we perceive with our eyes differently. We are free,our freedom was won by the suffering and death, most of all the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
One good thing about this Movie is it has people thinking and talking about what they believe.
It makes us focus on our Faith in this season of Lent. Lets thank God for that.
I hope to moving south soon, the Monastery is near completion. God willing, Easter.
Your prayers and blessing Father.
Br Paul

[Marie-Duquette]

Dear Melissa,
Your message has been taken to heart! You are certainly forgiven; as, I myself often need forgiveness. Thank you for expressing yourself so sincerely. Yes, I was born and raised RC; and, for me the Life of Jesus, the Christ was of such great importance, especially, meditations and contemplations on His Agony, Passion, Death and Resurrection. These are part of my very life and breath. The Love of Jesus Christ for me a sinner, and His revealing His deepest Heart -- not necessarily the physical heart, but His Infinite Heart of Mercy which is poured out upon me from His Heart pierced upon the Cross. For, this I am thankful; as well as the deeper insights given me through the reading and pondering of the Fathers, Mothers, Saints of the OC. God&#39;s love and blessings upon you each day.
Marie Duquette

[Daniel Jeandet]

I want to make my own movie about the Gospel one day.

I would like my movie to follow the life of a man, who from birth, is pretty much living the worst type of existence you could imagine. I might make him an orphan, a slave child who escapes or something like that. My film would follow this mans life, as it takes its course across a few middle eastern villages, about 2000 years ago, as he pursues an increasingly wretched life of crime, drunkeness, violence etc. If the viewers are observant, they will notice little things going on in the background, like crowds of people gathering on hills, or a man sitting by a well speaking with a woman. Maybe in one scene he walks past a big building, oblivious to the men being chased out and dragging thier money-changing tables with them. I think at one point in the film this unfortunate man stops on his way walking between two villages to give a dehydrated stranger who is walking in the opposite direction, a cup of cold water from his water-bag &#40;or whatever these people used to carry water&#41;. In the end, we see this guys life degenerate until he is finally caught by some soldiers with stolen goods, jumping over the walls of some kind of official building ,and is beaten until he loses conciousness. In the background of this scene of his capture, we faintly hear a cock crow and if we look carefully, we see a man stumling out through the gates of this official building, and collapsing on the ground with his head in his hands, weeping bitterly. The final scene in the movie finds the criminal, whose whole depraved and tragic life we have witnessed, regaining conciousness while being dragged up a hill and nailed to a cross. He is hoisted up, there is a small amount dialoge, obviously with others who are also hanging on crosses, but we are never shown them. As the screen fades to black, we hear the final line of the film, &#34;Today you will be with me in paradise&#34;.

I hope that post is appropriate to this thread.

[Daniel Jeandet]

I dont know if anyone has already posted this article or quoted from it, I just found it on another Orthodox message board.

This is the only official Church comment I have seen about this movie, so I think it is worth noting.

----------------------------------------------

Greek Orthodox leaders tell flock &#39;Passion&#39; isn&#39;t accurate

February 26, 2004

BY CATHLEEN FALSANI Religion Reporter


Leaders of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Chicago have sent letters to all of their parishes warning clergy and the faithful that some of the theological ideas expressed in Mel Gibson&#39;s film &#34;The Passion of the Christ&#34; are not part of their tradition.

&#34;It distorts the gospel message,&#34; said the Very Rev. Demetri Kantzavelos, chancellor of the Chicago diocese, which includes 59 parishes in Illinois and five other Midwestern states. &#34;The errors that deviate from the gospel are profound.&#34;

&#34;My fear is that this might be the only &#39;gospel&#39; that people see or read,&#34; he said.

&#34;The Passion&#34; chronicles the final 12 hours of Jesus&#39; life, including more than an hour of graphic depictions of brutal scourging and crucifixion. Gibson has said the film is based on New Testament accounts and other scholarship.

A critique of the film also released by Kantzavelos for the diocese said Gibson&#39;s interpretation of the death of Jesus &#34;distorted the ultimate meaning of Christ&#39;s passion&#34; and was &#34;beyond the embrace of Orthodox Christianity.&#34;

&#34;The Orthodox Christian tradition has never focused attention on nor explicitly promulgated an &#39;atonement theology&#39; as central to church teachings,&#34; Kantzavelos wrote in the critique. &#34;The point of Christ&#39;s death was to triumph over death and make a way for each of us who come after him to join with him.

&#34;The film misses this point,&#34; he wrote. &#34;In Orthodox Christianity, we are asked to identify with his victory, not with his suffering alone.&#34;

Kantzavelos said that Metropolitan Iakovos, head of the Chicago diocese, felt compelled to send the cautionary letters to parishes after many called the diocese for guidance about youth and church groups viewing the film.

&#34;Having just the passion -- the 12 hours -- lifted and compacted into two hours without Christ&#39;s social gospel message or his healings . . . renders the movie gratuitously violent for no reason,&#34; said Kantzavelos, who saw the film Monday. &#34;I was not profoundly moved. I was profoundly disturbed.&#34;

Gibson&#39;s spokesman did not return a request for comment.

&#34;The Passion&#34; focuses almost entirely on the suffering of Jesus, with a short depiction of the resurrection -- about two minutes at the end of the 126-minute film.

[Melissa]

Thank you, Marie. It sounds like in our love for Christ &#40;and perhaps in other things!&#41; we have something in common.


Alan, Thanks for your well-stated comments on the movie. I agree that the reviewers saw something else http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif...

Melissa

[George Hawkins]

For my part, I have no intention of seeing this movie. We have the Gospels, we have Holy Week. Whether it is well-made and faithful or not, Ifeel disturbed by the idea that the crucifiction and ressurection of Our Lord is reduced to and trivialised to a movie, something to eat popcorn and drink coke while watching. Still, one spin off, one of the reviewers here in New Zealand said afterwards he went to read the New Testament to see how closely the movie was to the Gospel &#40;it would seem he was previously somewhat unfamiliar with the Gospel accounts.&#41;

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All,
Many years ago as a Protestant,&#40;Southern Baptist&#41; I sat in a service listening to a man speak about the sufferings of jesus during the last few hours of His earthly life. He related how he had once been an on-duty EMT in Houston, Texas, when answering the call. He arrived on the scene to find a man who had been drug, practically from one side of the city to the other. It was then , he said,that he understood the passage where the Gospel says that Jesus was beaten so much that He wasn&#39;t recognizable.
I have not seen The Passion of The Christ, but I know, that for some strange reason Christians in the West, and actually the world over, have innoculated themselves with nothing more than a &#34;nice picture&#34; of Jesus on the cross, without any idea of the torture and suffering Jesus went through. I think that this movie will help people/Christians, to understand what Jesus endured, so that they might sing,&#34;...the cross before me, the world behind me, no turning back, no turning back.&#34;
I have been in Catholic countries where men&#40;flagellantes&#41; have beat themselves bloody as a sign of devotion, as they journeyed to a specific site. I -in my Protestant smugness-thought they were &#34;nuts&#34;. I still don&#39;t quite understand, nor emotionally comprehend that level of devotion, or if such a spectacle is necessary.
I once lay in a hospital recovery room affter being in ICU while they tried ot figure why I was acting weird. I had fallen from a motorcycle jump, and my lungs were in shock. But as I lay in that room, it occured to me that we so often say the words ,&#34;Jesus loves you&#34;, and they&#39;re no more than dead words, falling from dead lips. Mel Gibson&#39;s &#34;The Passon of The Christ&#34; should change that for a lot of people.

Moses&#40;the sinful and unworthy servant&#41;

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Marie,

By no means do your words offend me, but I found your post calm, loving, and ionformative. Forgive me if my words bothered you, but I got the information concerning the RC&#39;s view that salvation took place at the Cross from my oldest and of of my dearest friends, a Dominican priest, whom I have known for over thirty years. We have discussed the differences and issues between our Churches for yers, and not once have we argued, but listend to each other with patience and love.

I thank you for your observations on Monachos, and I hope to see more. May your Lent be blessed.

In Christ,
hieromonk Averky

[Fr Averky]

Dear Rose,

A further apology:: I got confused, and my most recent post is directed to your post number 11. Marie, I apologize to you for the mix-up, but I appreciate your words as well.

Having been raised a Roman Catholic, I can understand your views, but now they simply are different from what I now live as an Orthodox Christian. Your words are always kind and thoughtful, and I do appreciate your presence as well.

God bless you withn a good Lent
Humbly
hieromonk Averky

[Fr Averky]

Beloved in Christ
Brother Paul,

Thank you for your gracious answer, for I really was speaking &#34;tongue in cheek&#34; when I mentioned your being an Aussie. As you know, we have several parishes in Australia, and have had so many fine priests who graduated from our seminary and who have made excellent pastors in the diocese of Sydney and New Zealand.

I rejoice to hear that your monastery is nearing completion, and I pray it will be the place for you to struggle until you repose in the Lord-for a monk could not wish for more. Have a spiritually beneficial Great Lent, bringing you to the Bright Pascha of the Lord.!

With love in Christ,
hieromonk Averky

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ
Allen,

I want to express particular gratitude for your level-headed, calm, and enlightening post. I still will not be able to see the film, given my emotional make-up, and because of recent severe illnesses, I am even more emotionally fragile than usual. As I said, I could not bear to see such manifest cruelty, if even to an actor in a film.

All of you have seen the film has obviously come away with his own impressions of the film, and in that sense it is a success: each of us is at his own level of spiritual life and understanding, and Mr. Gibson has obviously used what he calls a &#34;shocking&#34; dramatization of the last hours of our Saviouir, and if even a few have been moved to repent and to turn to Christ, asking His mercy, then it has played a good part for many.

In these last days, when our hearts have grown cold, and we wander in our fog of worldly confusion, perhaps this graphic film will shake up a few of us badly enough that we will be more mindful of our souls and eternal life.

A litttle aside, as a Roman Cathoilc, I attended St. John&#39;s, Collegeville.

God bless you and yours. Have a spiritually fruitful Lent.

In Him who suffered for our sake,

hieromonk Averky

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

Well, I shall celebrate the Lenten season in traditional style by taking part in a performance of Bach&#39;s St Matthew Passion &#40;at 7.30 pm on Maunday Thursday, 8th April, in St John&#39;s Smith Square, London SW1 if anyone is interested&#41; and awaken what remains of my Christian instincts by singing in as many settings of Lamentations as I can. I still remain unconvinced that this film is worth seeing, in spite of its use of Latin and Aramaic texts. Where is the redemptive element in maintaining such a concentration on the horrifically violent physicality of the event? I confess I just don&#39;t understand where the flagellants and their Islamic counterparts &#40;in the 10 day Ashura event, as celebrated in Shiite areas - devastatingly, in the case of Iraq and Pakistan yesterday&#41; are coming from.

seeker

[Sarah Mikhail]

Hello all,

Hope you are all having a blessed lent,
thought i would add my 2 cents in terms of feelings about this movie.

I had made up my mind to see this movie without much forthought and bought into thr &#34;hype&#34; however because discussions on this forum made my do my own reading i went into the movie a lot more informed and aware of what the church&#39;s veiw was.

i saw thw movie the day it came out by myself....and my impressions are mixed, it definatly had an emotional effect on me in that i cried pretty much fromt he time i went in to till the time i left, but my tears surprizingly were not related to what was happening on the screen i cried at things that were quoted from the bible that reminded me of my own sinfulness and god&#39;s love i cried when things reminded me of parts of the paschal services which usually move me to tears and i think the fact that i was to be meeting my confession father for confession and was already feeling repentful only added......i thought that it was not a bad movie although as i said to a friend as soon as i got back &#34;if i haad taken 2 hours to contemplate the end of Christ&#39;s life and listened to some of the paschal chants i probably would have come away with the same feeling&#34; i thought it was interesting that i had made 2 hours in my schedual to see this movie but do not do that on a regular basis for the gosple it self........it upset me that people went into the movie ate and drank through it and left without batting an eyelid it felt almost blasphemous&#40;although it was a much different experience for some of my church friends who said the whole theater didn&#39;t move for about 5 mins after the movie finished&#41; I definatly felt that this was somthing that should be experienced through formal worship and often i felt wrong to be sitting in a chair like i should be standing or prostrating or somthing.

i thought that if i was watching it as a non-christian it probably wouldn&#39;t have had much of an effect on me and i thought that i might not have understood WHY this man was beated and crusified and i don&#39;t know if i would have fully understood the resurrection so i&#39;m not sure if it acheived it&#39;s aim in terms of an evangelical tool.

anyways those are my poor and long winded thoughts
thanks for listening
In IC XC
Sarah

[Rose]

I saw the movie yesterday and would like to share some thoughts.

It was a good movie, not a great movie. Leaving the theatre, I felt emotionally drained but still I also felt an emptiness in the message the film gave. Yes, the scourging was horrific. There was hardly a single part of Christ&#39;s body where His skin was not ripped and bleeding. The role of Mary &#40;who was addressed by the apostles as &#34;Mother&#34;&#41; was well done. The costumes and flavor of the scenes looked authentic.

However, I reflected that the emptiness I felt was the absence of Christ&#39;s life and resurrection. It was similar to taking the whole of scripture and focusing on only ten lines for two hours, losing the context of who Christ really was. &#40;I don&#39;t know if what I&#39;m saying is clear.&#41; Christ&#39;s flashbacks were too few but, of course, gave the viewer a different focus from the goriness of the crucifixion scenes. I can see how many Roman Catholics have identified with this film and I think Mel was true to his beliefs. I suppose what I&#39;m trying to state is that though Mr. Gibson&#39;s efforts should be acknowledged, there was too much missing, in my estimation, to be considered an outstanding film. Would I want to see it again - not really. Am I glad I saw it the first time - not really.

Rose

[Herman Blaydoe]

I have seen this comment in several places, but have yet to see the actual reference.

Where in the Gospels does it mention that Christ was beaten to the point where He was unrecognizable?

[Melissa]

As I read everybody&#39;s reactions to the movie, whether they&#39;ve seen it or have chosen not to see it, I&#39;m grateful to this community for allowing each other to have and express different opinions, and to support each other in our efforts to be faithful.

I find most challenging to myself right now George&#39;s comment about the crucifiction and ressurection of Our Lord is reduced to and trivialised to a movie, something to eat popcorn and drink coke while watching.. I felt a deep response when reading that line - I agreed in the sense that I want no disrespect to fall on Christ because of me or something I supported in some way...and yet I saw the movie; I know many now who have been deeply affected, apparently for the better, by it. I also know the devil uses anything he can to eventually get us to sin - arousing our passions in many seemingly innocent ways.
I can&#39;t say I yet regret having seen the movie, but I wonder, because there is so much that is beyond my understanding. What has been unleashed? I also believe its not beyond God&#39;s ability to use even something like this movie to work good in the world, and it seems to me our world needs much working of good...yet we&#39;re told, if I understand correctly, that things will get worse, evil will appear to predominate often disguised as someting that appears good, Christians will be persecuted, the day of the return of our Lord will come as a surprise. What can I do but follow the Church, and did I do that in seeing this movie? If my priest had said not to see it, or if the Church leaders had said don&#39;t see it, I would have obeyed. In exercising my own will, was I faithful or not?
These are rhetorical questions, prompted in me by the movie in this case, but not unfamiliar. In a more general sense they&#39;re the things I was thinking and feeling when we were Catechumenates; how best can I follow Christ? It&#39;s in living the tension of that question that I find my way, sometimes before I err or sin, sometimes after.
Please pray for me, a sinner.
In Christ&#39;s love, Melissa

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Daniel J,
About your &#39;movie&#39;: there is a tradition that when the Christ-child with His family was fleeing from Herod to Egypt they were stopped by robbers. When the chief-robber saw the Christ-child at the breast of His Mother &#40;the Theotokos&#41; he marvelled and said, &#34;If God were to take human flesh Himself, He would not be more beautiful than this child!&#34; And so the robbers took nothing from the Holy Family.
Many years later it happened that this same robber whose name was Dysmas was crucified to the right of Christ&#39;s Cross and we know that this good thief repented of his whole life as Christ said to him, &#34;today you will be with Me in Paradise.&#34; This account is found on page 373-74 of the Prologue of Bp. Nikolai Velimirovich for December 26. When I read your post it seemed intuitive in some deeper way of the Church tradition.
Another thought about criminals finding Christ; the book Crime & Punishment by Feodor Dostoevsky can be read during Lent with great profit. This deals with a young man &#40;Raskolnikov&#41; who is deeply disturbed by pride and self-absorbtion; he decides he will commit a &#39;justifiable crime&#39; by murdering an old money-lender. Much of the book deals with this young man&#39;s plunge into madness until he admits to and repents of his crime; from this repentance comes his regeneration. Dostoevsky&#39;s three other major books- The Idiot, Devils, and The Brothers Karamazov also all deal with Orthodox themes; briefly- the destruction of man when he is Godless & his regeneration in Christ.
In Christ- Fr R

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Moachos community,
I have just finished reading the following article:http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2004/02/25/. What struck me most in reading this was the warning that once we have seen a visual image of a certain character in a movie it becomes almost impossible to remove this image from our minds when we return to the original book. This to me brings up an important point which I want to ask, not in a confrontational, but rather genuine way of those who have already seen this movie &#40;as a priest I have to advise real people&#41;.
Since the above point is often correct and we all seem to be agreeing that this movie image is not identical to that provided by the Church then how can we be confident that this movie can in fact lead us to an Orthodox response to Christ?
Isn&#39;t in fact this the heart of the matter and the reason for disagreement? That the movie provokes a reaction no-one is any doubt; at its most positive it also seems that these reactions acknowledge Christ&#39;s sacrifice for us. But are these reactions &#39;whole&#39; and complete in an Orthodox sense? &#40;Much as those outside of Orthodoxy have a love for Christ but this is not identical to that love we find within the Church&#41; Do these reactions lead to true ascetic repentance, to deepening our life of self-denial, to taking up our cross and following Christ as occurs within the services? Or would you say that the movie is more a potential doorway to an Orthodox life in Christ?
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Allen Jacobson]

Father Averky, thank you for realizing I was not criticizing you nor any other person&#39;s decision not to see the Passion if they choose not to = because they think that too graphic depiction of suffering may adversely affect them. I see nothing wrong in this. I do think that if anyone sees = violent films as so commonly found in secular media that there is a great deal = of difference in the violence of the passion and that in other films. I = don&#39;t believe the violence in the Passion is gratuitous. But I will concede = that perhaps the film is not for everyone. And it certainly is not a = criterion of faith. If one reads the Gospels and meditates on them prayerfully, particularly the passion accounts in them, that is certainly better = since the Gospels are the inspired word of God. But many of us need aids to meditation at times &#40;hopefully the strong among you can appreciate that&#41; = and as an aid to meditate on the Gospels I found the film helpful.

So you went to St. John&#39;s! You are a convert apparently to Orthodoxy, whereas I am a convert to Catholicism &#40;from an Evangelical Church&#41;. I = might ask if there is any connection between your move and St. John&#39;s but I = won&#39;t go there. I do have a friend who, back in the 70&#39;s, thought about going into the priesthood and took a 6 month leave from his work to go to St. Johns. He came back and continued his work. He is now happily married = and has a family. =20

I am sorry if you are not in good health. Please accept my prayers on = your behalf for health. but even more for strength and grace and hope and for = the Spirit of Christ to fill you each day and fulfill His will for you perfectly. I think He does fill you and may He continue to do so.=20

In Christ

[Allen Jacobson]

”It distorts the gospel message,&#34; said the Very Rev. Demetri Kantzavelos, chancellor of the Chicago diocese, which includes 59 parishes in Illinois and five other Midwestern states. &#34;The errors that deviate from the gospel are profound.” To what errors is Very Rev. Knatzavelos referring, I wonder. And “distorts” seems a bit misleading to me. Does the film contain parts that, strictly speaking, are not in the canonical Gospels? Yes. But some of them are contained in later Christian tradition &#40;e.g. St. Veronica, the name Dismas for the “good” thief to name a couple.&#41; Other parts are poetic license or simply the imagination of the director as to things that are not mentioned in the gospels &#40;I won’t go into all here for the sake of those who have not seen it but still may&#41;. One that has already been mentioned publicly numerous times is the figure of Satan. Though one can quibble about how Satan “appears” surely one cannot quibble that Satan was behind the scene working in people and events to try to thwart God’s will can they? Even the Scriptures say that Satan entered into Judas at one point. But I don’t see distortions in the sense that the director is trying to make the Gospels say something they don’t say.

As to Very Rev. Knatzavelos’s characterization of Orthodox theology: “The Orthodox Christian tradition has never focused attention on nor explicitly promulgated an &#39;atonement theology&#39; as central to church teachings,&#34; … &#34;The point of Christ&#39;s death was to triumph over death and make a way for each of us who come after him to join with him.” Well, I must defer to him on that as I have received no formal instruction in it and do not claim to know any details about what is unique to Orthodox theology. I do wonder how a way is made for each of us who come after Him to join with Him without any atonement. If atonement theology is not central to Orthodox theology, as he seems to claim, it is a new and interesting &#40;for lack of a better word right now&#41; revelation to me as an observer and as one who hopes for the Christian unity that Christ prayed for. But I realize I may misunderstand him and, in fairness, one does not always get accurately and fully quoted in the secular press.

What is a bit surprising is that Mel Gibson should be criticized for having primarily Christ&#39;s suffering, not his social Gospel or his healings, in a movie entitled &#34;The Passion&#34;. Hello! This is Lent. &#34;Passion&#34; refers to Christ&#39;s suffering. This is indeed a film meditation upon Christ&#39;s Passion, that is His suffering. Why criticize a filmmaker for truth in advertising? I mean, it&#39;s not &#34;The Gospel of Christ&#34; or &#34;The Resurrection of the Christ&#34; or &#34;The Healing Ministry of Jesus&#34;. Its &#34;The Passion.&#34; So what do you expect to see in a movie so titled? He did include a very short scene on the Resurrection anyway, as the Rev. concedes. It may have been &#40;I don&#39;t know&#41; for perhaps the very reason about which Very Rev. Knatzavelos might have been concerned, i.e. that people who have not or will not read the Gospels might understand that the suffering is indeed not the whole story. It is only, in the words of a pop Christian song, &#34;the end of the beginning&#34;

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

PS to my last, giving notice of the Byzantine Festival in London, which is now in progress; and especially of 2 concerts involving one of my choirs &#40;the English Chamber Choir&#41; and a specialist Byzantine chant group from the United States, Capella Romana. These concerts are, respectively,

&#40;1&#41;on Tuesday 9th March at 7.45 pm in the Queen Elizabeth Hall; Hildegard of Bingen Chants and Hymns, Christos Hatzis De Angelis, John Taverner Let Not the Prince be Silent, Ivan Moody The Passion of St Katherine &#40;world premiere&#41;, Michael Adamis Radiant Cloud &#40;UK premiere&#41;, John Vergin When Augustus Reigned &#40;UK premiere&#41;
&#40;2&#41;on Thursday 11th March at 7 pm in St Paul&#39;s Cathedral; John Taverner The Myrrh-Bearer, Christos Hatzis The Troparion of Kassiani, Kassiani chants including the Troparion, John Taverner Dum transisset Sabbatum, Andrea Gabrieli Maria Magdalene.

Then on Saturday 13th March there is to be a presentation of Music for the Mother of God from the Byzantine tradition, Hail, Bride without Bridegroom, by Capella Romana at 7 pm in the Greek Cathedral of Haghia Sopia, Moscow Road London W2.

Come if you can!

seeker, &#40;who is spiritually uplifted by this music&#41;.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Allen,
Yes it is a fact that the &#39;atonement theory&#39; is a major sign of the divide that still seperates Orthodox & those-not-Orthodox. For a good explanation of this and its presence within the movie see:http://www.frederica.com. &#40;Click &#39;essays&#39;; then &#39;The Meaning of His Suffering&#39;&#41;. In a real sense I feel that what Frederica Matthewes-Green is expressing gets to the heart of the disagreement about this movie.
In western theology Christ&#39;s sacrifice &#40;His Passion&#41; &#39;satisfies&#39; or atones for man&#39;s sin; this sacrifice is directed to God the Father in order to &#39;pay&#39; for man&#39;s sin. In the Orthodox vision Christ sacrifices Himself for man thru His Passion; but the victory over sin is not due to Christ &#39;satisfying&#39; the Father but rather because Christ as All-living God tramples down death.
On the level of piety this also gradually results in the profound differences between Eastern & Western piety in regards to the Passion. In the West there is a strong emotional sympathy or identification with Christ&#39;s human sufferings; thus the graphic portrayals of Christ on the Cross and &#39;meditations&#39; on His suffering. Eventually in the West we see a focus on the moral work of Christ in both Catholicism & Protestantism. Lest we simply ascribe this to a difference in emphasis between East & West it should be pointed that in reality the difference is due to a profound theological divide. In Orthodoxy we must always focus on Christ as Pre-eternal Word of God Who is both Divine & human in nature. The sobriety of our liturgical hymns & of our services actually reflects this theological fact; even if we do not know theology in our minds this sobriety keeps us from going astray, from &#39;missing the mark&#39; in regards to how we see Christ. And in fact this is the greatest danger & temptation if we focus incorrectly and in an emotional way on Christ&#39;s humanity. We mistake the strong feelings that result for Orthodox piety.
As with my last posting I would ask those who saw the movie in a more postive way &#40;Melissa?&#41;: In what sense would you say that the movie has effected people in an Orthodox way? &#40;Again forgive me- the question is genuine not confrontational&#41;. My concern as a spiritual father &#40;besides the possibility of subtle temptations&#41; is that &#39;deep effect&#39; actually mean deep and enduring repentance; the taking up of an ascetic life of self-renunciation.
In Christ- Fr R

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Monachos community,
Further thoughts- Amidst the discussion concerning &#34;The Passion&#34; &#40;both at Monachos & elsewhere&#41; there have been numerous references to the movie depiction being &#39;objective&#39; and based on research concerning the actual physical effects of crucifixion. But are we really sure that in Christ&#39;s case this was so?
I ask this because I was considering the descriptions of martyrs&#39; deaths in the many Acts &#40;or Lives&#41; of the Martyrs that exist. Here also as far as I can recall there is little reference to gore. Apart from the issue of sobriety in how these things are decsribed could it also be that the suffering of the martyrs like that of Christ was in fact &#39;different&#39;? We know from the accounts themselves that the Holy Spirit made the martyrs &#39;be&#39; different as they endured death and that this was not simple moral courage. In fact their sufferings were a witness &#40;martyrios&#41; to the new life in Christ they were already partaking of as they suffered. So isn&#39;t it possible that in fact the physical aspect of their sufferings was also different, that their physical sufferings were transfigured and thus less &#39;blood & gore&#39;? And if this is so with the martyrs who are servants why not with the Master Christ? Isn&#39;t this a crucial fact which Orthodox imagery conveys?- suffering as transfigured through the Holy Spirit.
Just some thoughts and awaiting your response.
In Christ- Fr R

[Melissa]

Hmmm. My unedited response to Father Raphael may have just gotten accidentally posted, incomplete and unsigned...if it doens&#39;t show up in a day or so I&#39;ll try again; if it does, forgive it&#39;s incompleteness...!
Melissa

[Rose]

Dear Sarah, You were so right in your remarks:
...it upset me that people went into the movie ate and drank through it and left without batting an eyelid it felt almost blasphemous&#40;although it was a much different experience for some of my church friends who said the whole theater didn&#39;t move for about 5 mins after the movie finished&#41; I definatly felt that this was somthing that should be experienced through formal worship and often i felt wrong to be sitting in a chair like i should be standing or prostrating or somthing.

I felt the same way when I saw people sharing popcorn and candy while watching a depiction of their Savior dying. Also at the showing I attended some people clapped when it was over. I thought to myself they were saying &#34;Yeah God!&#34; - like it was &#34;Rocky&#34;.

And all this leads to your question&#40;s&#41; Father Raphael: Do these reactions lead to true ascetic repentance, to deepening our life of self-denial, to taking up our cross and following Christ as occurs within the services? Or would you say that the movie is more a potential doorway to an Orthodox life in Christ? Sadly I would think the answer is &#34;no&#34; to each. Perhaps I&#39;m underestimating the viewers&#39; responses, but I can&#39;t help thinking it was viewed as &#34;a movie&#34; and nothing beyond that. It was His life and His death. I wonder how many made the connection to their life and their death. Time will tell I suppose.

Now I&#39;m retreating from any more comments on this film and will go back to lurking and learning from all of you. Thank you for allowing to voice my opinions.

Please pray for me,
Rose

[Melissa]

Dear Father Raphael - I feel nothing confrontational from you, and in fact deeply appreciate your thought-provoking questions and comments. They help me understand in a more profound way my faith and my response to the movie, and I&#39;m learning more about Orthodoxy, also. I actually had a response to your post ready, and it somehow disappeared as I was trying to edit it! Since my disclaimer made it on, but not the longer post, it&#39;s now in &#34;internet space&#34; somewhere! I&#39;ll try again -

What struck me most in reading this was the warning that once we have seen a visual image of a certain character in a movie it becomes almost impossible to remove this image from our minds when we return to the original book.
This is true and is due to the way our brains process chemically - a bit different in each of us dur to prior life experiences.

Since the above point is often correct and we all seem to be agreeing that this movie image is not identical to that provided by the Church then how can we be confident that this movie can in fact lead us to an Orthodox response to Christ? We can&#39;t.

... at its most positive it also seems that these reactions acknowledge Christ&#39;s sacrifice for us. But are these reactions &#39;whole&#39; and complete in an Orthodox sense? &#40;Much as those outside of Orthodoxy have a love for Christ but this is not identical to that love we find within the Church&#41; No, I don&#39;t think so.

Do these reactions lead to true ascetic repentance, to deepening our life of self-denial, to taking up our cross and following Christ as occurs within the services? Or would you say that the movie is more a potential doorway to an Orthodox life in Christ? Perhaps, in certain people, but there is also danger. I am aware of a deepening of my sense of sinfulness, of His desire for me to live according to His commandments, and of the love Christ has for all of us - but not because the movie caused it, it was already in me, and the movie didn&#39;t disturb it.

Back to the physical for a minute - I believe part of your point is similar to what I was saying in an earlier post - we must know how we process visual stimuli before seeing this graphic movie. It is entirely possible for Orthodox viewers to find their emotional response to the movie will cause the visual stimuli to be more deeply embedded, thereby interfering with their previous more emotionally neutral &#40;and theologically correct for Orthodox&#41; images from the Church. This could be problematic, and is of course not limited to the movie under discussion. For most people, the images will fade, or help is available &#40;which begs the question - should we be seeing something that may mean we need help to get over it?! Another reason to &#39;know thyself&#39;&#41;.
For those physical reasons, let alone the theological ones, I do not ever recommend this movie to anyone, although I will talk about my experience of it.
Theologically - I absloutley agree with you about the danger of responding with too much emotional identification to Christ&#39;s suffering - it&#39;s one thing to be able to view the movie with some distance provided by a strong faith and an Orthodox grounding, and another to respond out of emotionality &#40;to much passion&#41; to His suffering, giving less importance to His resurrection, and His victory over death. This could be a very subtle, hard to detect shift.
During the movie, and during the discussions about the movie, I found myself vulnerable to the same passions I&#39;m most vulnerable to in daily life. I could see how a person not as aware of their visual processing and/or their emotional responses as I&#39;ve had to become due to my work, might have a lot of trouble, because in my sinfulness and imperfection I also had to resist the temptation to over-identify emotionally. I mean no pride about the first half of that statement, I&#39;m simply trying to illustrate possible differences among people.
Therefore, we can&#39;t be sure how people will respond, and should in my opinion continue to be careful about recommending it or not, even to non-Orthodox.
I think it could easily interrupt an Orthodox person&#39;s ability to discern a faithful response from a too emotional response. It might also, however, cause non-Orthodox to feel closer to Christ in His suffering, and perhaps arouse an interest in how the Church responds to Christ. It follows then that it could be a stepping stone to a deeper faith. I guess my own assessment is this: It&#39;s not &#39;necessary&#39; for Orthodox to see this movie, because we already have the fullness of the faith, and don&#39;t need to be &#34;shored up&#34; in this particular way. We have services, priests, spiritual fathers, monastics, tradition, prayer life, Orthodox friends, discussion communities ...and most importantly, Our Lord and Saviour, to shore us up should we need it.
This feels a bit wordy, and disorganized - I pray for forgiveness if I&#39;ve said anything in an offensive way.
In Christ,
Melissa

[Allen Jacobson]

Father Vereshak:

Thanks for the reference on the difference between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox view of atonement. I will follow it up. Thanks also to you, Father Averky and everyone else for the discussion. I appreciate the insights and the earnestness and zeal to follow Christ faithfully displayed by posters to this discussion. That is an inspiration to me.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Melissa,
Thank you for your kind & well-thought out response. I believe this helps us to &#39;gel&#39; our thoughts: we must have caution about placing too much at the feet of this movie but on the other hand as you say, &#34;it could be a stepping stone to a deeper faith.&#34; If I am &#39;hearing&#39; you correctly you are saying that it&#39;s not safe to remain in the &#39;space&#39; of the movie but if it is a jumping-off point to something better... And I feel I could accept this also.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS I have also twice lost my posts to &#39;inter-net space&#39;; I think it&#39;s when you compose a post then send it and it doesn&#39;t connect with the server then it can disappear. Maybe Matthew knows a technical solution.

[Hermit]

No suffering? &#34;I thirst&#34;. &#34;My God, why have you forsaken me?&#34;

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

But, Herman, as a Vatican-based cardinal has remarked after seeing the film, we learn nothing from it of why Christ has come to this pass, such as the clash between His message and the hard- line &#40;and opposing&#41; positions of both imperial Rome and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Would some introduction of these rather important themes not render the film much more powerful and instructional to viewers many of whom, certainly in the UK, have had absolutely no grounding in the Christian story or the history of the era?

seeker, who still does not intend to see the film.

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

PS to my last post; sorry, Herman; it was meant as a response to Hermit.

seeker

[Olga]

Might I add my ten cents&#39; worth on the movie. If the publicity claims this film to have been exhaustively researched and authentic to Scripture, then how can the following be explaned?
1. Peter denies Christ at the interrogation by Caiaphas &#40;whose name is spelt Caiphas both in the subtitles and in the end credits&#41;, not outside in the courtyard while warming himself by the fire
2. Mary Magdalene as the adulterer saved from stoning
3. The inscription on Christ&#39;s cross in Latin and Hebrew, but not in Greek.
Your opinions are welcome.

[Joshua Greve]

This is my first posting to &#34;Monachos&#34;, so be gentle http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif. After looking over these recent posts, I must say that I am impressed with the points made form both perspectives.

I saw this movie the second day it came out and I too was &#34;deeply moved&#34; by it. How has it affected me in an &#39;Orthodox&#39; way? A few ways actually.

It moved me to a deeper repentance. Now obviously, no movie on it&#39;s own is going to have a long-term effect on my walk with Christ, but it did remind me, or better yet help focus in more on what Lent is about and gave me the initiative to delve into it deeper.

As far as the accuracy of the movie goes? It was 100% accurate &#40;I believe&#41; to the message of Christ&#39;s Passion. Who cares if some details were different? If you do, don&#39;t see the movie and PLEASE don&#39;t use it to base your next History project on http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif. Who knows if Mary truly said &#40;I&#39;m para-phrasing&#41;, &#34;My son, my son, when will you deliver yourself from this?&#34; during the scourging and if she even saw him being scourged? The point of this &#40;if I may dwell on this example a bit more&#41; is to remind &#40;or to inform, depending on the person&#41; the viewer that this torture is not forced upon Christ, but that He voluntarily took these sufferings upon Himself. Before Mary said that, I was seeing Christ as a pitiful victim, despite the fact that I knew otherwise from what the Divine Liturgy reminds us of every week &#40;&#34;when he was given up, or rather, gave himself up...&#41;. Mel Gibson used his poetic liscense to remind us of Christ&#39;s love. When I cried at times during the movie, it made me feel pity for MYSELF, not for Christ, for if I had always been faithful I would not be guilty of scourging Christ &#40;since I hold the Orthodox view on Original Sin&#41;, of spitting on Him, of driving the nail through His hand, and, in the end, of attempted Deicide.

This movie was a powerful expression of God&#39;s Love. Think about it... God became Man! He went through everything Humanity goes through: conception, birth, adolescence, hunger, thirst, joy, sadness, intense suffering, utter loneliness to the point of feeling abandoned by His own Father at the Cross... and then death. All of these feelings and events were real... think about that! And then He transformed &#40;or better put, He restored&#41; humanity through the ressurection! The Glorious Ressurection which means that we one day will too! God is so amazing! Just ponder that for a day. It&#39;s become so cliché, &#34;God became Man&#34;, but it is beyond profound &#40;that&#39;s why the Jews were so offended and the Greeks beyond perplexed&#41;, and this movie tries to make us ponder that exact Mystery.

I should also point out that my devotion to Mary is more personal after having seen The Passion. She is my Mother! Perhaps it seems pitiful that it took Hollywood to make realize this and not just know it like one knows the answer to a Math problem, but it&#39;s true. This movie portrays Mary not as a Queen &#40;although she is our Queen&#41; but as a real-life mother of skin, bones and tears and through her we know Christ in His humanity. Perhaps this movie will call protestants &#40;albeit on an individual level&#41; to at least a deeper appreciation of her as Christ&#39;s mother &#40;if not their own&#41;, if not a personal relationship with her, and ultimately &#40;if God wills&#41; for them to come to a fuller understanding of Christ&#39;s church. THe biggest scandle to me is not so much that they don&#39;t ask for her intercession, although it is sad in itself &#40;like an Orthodox that doesn&#39;t read the Bible&#41; but that so many don&#39;t even pay attention to her importance and her example. That&#39;s heart-wrenching.

We can make all kinds of scholastic, theological and philosophical hypercriticisms of this imperfect movie, but in the end no one can deny that on many people it has had a positive effect... and yes, an Orthodox effect. Both sides, against and for, need to remember that this is only a movie. There have been many movies about Jesus before this and no one was really worried one way or another about them, this one just happens to be done well &#40;and by a faithful Christian rather than by Mr. Turner for TNT&#41; and doesn&#39;t make Christianity look like a Disneyland religion.

Again, this movie is not for everyone and it has nothing to do with one&#39;s weaknesses or strengths, but rather it has to do with the fact that we are just different.

In Christ,

Joshua

PS: I just want to say that this is such a wonderful message board &#40;Monachos in general&#41;. Even when there are heated discussions on the other more philosophical/theological boards they almost never get childish or rude. God bless this site!

[Melissa]

Dear Joshua,
Welcome! And thanks for your post re: the movie. I especially appreciate your reminder that it&#39;s just a commercial movie, thus by interpretation, not a religious undertaking, because that helps us all focus on our experiences of the movie, which, no matter what they were, are probably the more important things to be thinking about.
I look forward to your presence on Monachos.
In Christ,
Melissa

[Diana Wright]

For those of you who have seen The Passion of the Christ, now that public passions have gone elsewhere, how do you feel about the movie in retrospect?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As a priest who observes parishioners I would say that seeing this movie made no long-term changes in the people that I know. By this I mean their involvement in the life of the Church.
Some who were visibly moved by the movie came to one service afterwards but then fell back into old habits of not really having a life in the Church.
So in the long-term I saw no positive effects on Church life from this movie. And that was my question from the beginning when the movie came out. Would its effects be similar to those who go through an experience of conversion while attending the Church- eg it&#39;s services, etc.- or not? Granted that a lot of people who attend one church service also never convert or change or commit on the deeper level to the Church. But my point is different than this. Why do those moved from within the Church tend to commit themselves to the Church while so many more of those moved by this movie do not really commit or deepen their Church lives? Last year when this discussion came up many reasons were given for the difference. But basically I think it all comes down to how the grace of the Church works in such a much more profound way on a person, really profoundly changing them if they respond to this grace. Where I am still questioning is what role if any a movie or such similar things can play in our life in Christ. I suspect that the best it can do is support whatever is already there. I think that now we have had time to look more carefully at the long-term effects of the movie we can see that being moved outside of the Church no matter how powerful this may be will often not lead to what we would call a real conversion. If seeing the movie moved one enough to attend a church service then one still needs to commit oneself beyond this.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Marie-Duquette]

Seeing a movie, even this &#34;Passion of Christ&#34; which stirred so much emotion, is one thing! But, true commitment to &#34;following Christ Jesus&#34;, picking up our cross each day, is quite another!

Emotions are quick to change, resulting in the forgetfulness of the impact that this movie could have had upon a person.

True commitment to Christ Jesus and the Gospel Way of Life is a daily and challenging, demanding ascetisism, repentance, and continuous re-focusing upon the &#34;one thing necessary&#34; that was spoken to Mary in Luke 10:38-42

As we prepare to enter the &#34;most Holy and Great week of Lent&#34; reliving the Passion of Christ with Him, after the 40-day Fast, I have this question, &#34;Why and How do we Orthodox Christians relate to this Holy Week?&#34;

marie-duquette

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

Hi,

Best movie on Our Lord I&#39;ve ever seen?

Jesus of Nazareth

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

I LOVE Holy Week,

For that matter, I can&#39;t get enough of the Lent. The final Akathist, yesterday the final Presanctified &#40;we don&#39;t do the Friday one&#39;s&#41; It a real loss really.

I can&#39;t get enough of being in Church. I really can&#39;t. I&#39;m so looking forward to the week and then enjoying Monday&#39;s Bright Week service &#40;I wish I had work start later for the rest of that week so I could go to the Liturgies&#41;

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I was wondering if anyone knows the answer to the following question about Holy Week?
This coming Sunday we celebrate the Entry of Christ into Jerusalem &#40;Palm Sunday&#41;. Scripture then says that after Christ entered into Jerusalem He was preaching in the Temple. This we follow in the services from Holy Monday through Holy Wednesday when in the services and Gospels we hear Christ preaching in the Temple.
What I am wondering then is this: I can find no trace in the Scriptures of how much time Christ actually spent preaching in the Temple in between His entry into Jerusalem and His Betrayal & Passion &#40;maybe an oversight on my part&#41;. Where does the idea of 3 days come from? Do we have a witness in Scripture about this? Is there a tradition about this length of time? Or is the 3 days more a convention- a telescoping of this time into 3 days so that it fits properly & liturgically into Holy Week? Sometimes I think it would be helpful to have a written out time-line for Holy Week.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Marie-Duquette]

Father Raphael,

As we begin the Great and Holy Week I was reminded of your question concerning a &#34;Time Line&#34; for the activities and words of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures.

This intregues, me also, especially while listening to the Services, the Canons, etc.

So, I looked into the internet for:
Chronology of Jesus in the Holy Week

I found a very interesting CHART put out by the following: www.bibletime.com/chart/passion (http://www.bibletime.com/chart/passion)

Hope this is helpful to you.

May this Great and Holy Week be special for you this year.

marie_duquette

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Marie,
Thanks for the time-line. It&#39;s just what is needed to understand more clearly what happens during this Holy Week.
Do you know however why the chronology seems a day too early from the Lord&#39;s Supper to Gethsemane, Christ&#39;s betrayal to His trial- all on Wednesday instead of Thursday? Probably I&#39;m just confused.
Another note of interest connected to the question about the first three days of Holy Week. On another site someone provided some info about the Holy Week of what appears to be the Syrian Oriental Orthodox. It&#39;s interesting that there were the same references for the beginning of Holy Week to Christ preaching in parables with a reference to the parable of the wise & foolish virgins. This is where we hear of the Bridegroom which for us of course provides the inspiration for the much-loved Bridegroom Matins of the first three days of Holy Week.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Marie-Duquette]

Father Raphael,

The &#34;Bridegroom Services&#34; I find are so very beautiful, depicting the &#34;Beauty of the Bridegroom&#34; as He comes to invite each person/soul to respond to His Divine Love, and receive from Him the &#34;Bridal garment&#34;. I find that the three services are a kind of &#34;gradation&#34; to the invitation and to its response.

1. &#34;the fig tree&#34; -- no fruit when the Master seeks some!
2. The &#34;virgins and their oil lamps&#34; -- only half are ready at the summons of the Master in the middle of the night. They had fallen asleep while a-waiting the coming of the Bridegroom. Some negligence involved when five of the virgins had not enough oil for their lamps. Virginity is a great gift to offer the Bridegroom, but it seems that &#34;oil&#34; to keep the lamps burning is most important. I wonder about this &#34;oil&#34; ...

3. the &#34;sinful woman&#34; -- total repentance with an undivided heart, as she anoints the feet of Jesus. She receives &#34;mystical fragrance&#34; from Him, who pours out, it seems to me, a &#34;re-newed virginity of heart&#34; upon her who is fully attentive to the Bridegroom of her soul.

Concerning the seeming &#34;confusion&#34; about the chronology of days being a day too early from the Supper to Gethsemane, I read in a footnote of the Jerusalem Bible, the following:

note d from the verse in Matt. 26:17 &#34;Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread ...&#34;

The Dead Sea Scrolls have recently revealed a community which, following a solar calendar, always celebrated the Passover supper on a Tuesday evening. It is possible that Jesus did the same. If so, the synoptics have fitted into a few hours juridical processes which in fact took days.&#34;

... which could account for the seeming &#34;gap&#34; in the chronology of the Passion Week.

I suppose our organized minds would like everything to be ordered and in sequence. Though, this is truly not necessary, is it? Enterring into &#34;Mystery&#34; is simply that! Believing, Hoping, Loving without knowing the details, but only the One who calls, a-waits our total response to His Divine Love.

&#34;Acquire a heart ready for God, Oh my soul! ...

. . . a heart watchful, awake, ready and repentant, and open to the Divine Bridegroom!

marie_duquette

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Marie-duquette writes:


Some negligence involved when five of the virgins had not enough oil for their lamps. Virginity is a great gift to offer the Bridegroom, but it seems that "oil" to keep the lamps burning is most important. I wonder about this "oil" ...

St. Seraphim of Sarov makes exactly this point in his conversation with Nicholas Motovilov. As virginity is already a virtue what is it which the foolish virgins were lacking? The grace of the Holy Spirit- which is the aim of the Christian life.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[leandros]

Marie-duquette writes:
&#39;Some negligence involved when five of the virgins had not enough oil for their lamps. Virginity is a great gift to offer the Bridegroom, but it seems that &#39;oil&#39; to keep the lamps burning is most important. I wonder about this &#39;oil&#39; ...&#34;

Sister Marie-duquette,

Virginity is the absolute &#39;gift&#39; to offer for a Bride, but the &#39;oil&#39; in the lamp provides light for the Bridegroom to see the Bride.

You have to go back in time when people first heard this story.There was no electricity, no lights in the dark night. There was no light when the bridegroom arrived in the scene &#39;at midnight&#39; hour. Then the foolish virgins asked for oil for their lamps from the prudent virgins. Why did they need the oil? They did not have a light source to illuminate themselves in the night so that the Bridegroom could see them. Having no oil in the lamps, made them faceless virgins. Of course no Bridegroom could accept a Bride in the dark.

In this context - this was quite easy for people of pre electricity years to understand - the virginity is not enough, nor are all other virtues, as long as the human that relates with Christ is faceless, a non-person human being.

What turns the relation with Christ into Heaven is a personal relationship with Him. To have &#39;light&#39; all over your &#39;face&#39; so that you live the experience of entering the &#39;the wedding feast&#39; is not as a result of your virgin nature but it is the result of being a Person. That is why the Lord answered to the foolish virgins: &#39;Truly I say to you, I do not know you&#39; &#40;Matthew 25:12&#41;. Because never before had they shown their faces to Him &#39;, as a result of not having &#39;oil&#39; in the lamps.

That is why the Lord warned us: &#39;Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man will come&#39; &#40;Matthew 25:13&#41;.

[Eleftheria]

marie-duquette writes,&#34;...I wonder about this oil&#34;
Our spiritual father once referred to the oil that the 5 foolish virgins lacked as the proper protection/guarding of the 5 senses. That is, if we fail in guarding any one of our 5 senses, then we will lack the oil to light the lamp of the throne of our Lord. That throne, of course, is present in each of our hearts.

[Marie-Duquette]

leandros,

Christ is risen!

Thanks you for your response! But, I still do wonder about the &#34;oil&#34; in the Parable of the ten virgins, as i contemplate this Parable.

And, now I find your response confusing, at least for myself. You seem to equate the lack of oil to being &#34;faceless&#34; in the sight of the Bridegroom because lacking oil means, lacking light. Perhaps it is &#34;love&#34; which equates the &#34;oil&#34; . . . as St. Seraphim of Sarov&#39;s experience with Motovilov which seems to make more sense for me; that is, equating the &#34;oil&#34; with the presence of the Holy Spirit in a relationship with the Bridegroom. The two meeting face to face have no need of an exterior Source of light, as you meantion in a time of no electricity. The Light needed to enter the Bridal Chamber comes from an interior Source, which is the Holy Spirit.

So, even in the darkest dark of night, the love that unites brightens the night with the brightest Light. You cannot buy love or &#34;oil for the lamps&#34;, it is a Gift freely given by each person in the relationship, in the watchfulness, attentiveness, readiness and openness of Presence to one another, in a total forgetfulness of the individual self.

Being &#34;faceless&#34; is a frightening thing, don&#39;t you think? There are too many &#34;faceless&#34; beings on this earth, because in general we are more concerned with &#34;self&#34; than with the &#34;Other&#34; in the Mystery of Presence!

marie_duquette

[leandros]

Dear marie_duquette,

I think I failed to express myself.

Let me try again: In old times of non-electricity there was a need for a lamp with oil in order to have a face to face meeting. Christ is saying that if the virgin has no oil for her lamp then the meeting is going to be literally blind. So every bride has the need to light herself, to show her face to Him as a person.

The point is that everyone is a virgin by nature. Virginity is a natural quality; it does not express the virgin person but the status of her nature. So everyone can be virgin in nature. But Christ is talking about nature qualities not being enough for a personal relationship. Everyone has a lamp &#40;the human nature&#41; but not everyone has a &#34;face&#34;. The bride has to be a person, she has to light his/her own face. The oil is not a God given gift. The bridegroom is not coming to receive the virginity, he is coming to relate with the bride in a personal relationship.

The oil is the wisdom of the wise virgins to understand that the bridal reality refers to seeing each others face, not partaking to each others nature - for that they take oil-light source with them. The oil is the willingness to show your self to God as an authentic person, not as an authentic nature.

The virgins without oil, are not understanding the personal relation that is involved in the bridal reality. They never had oil with them. They thought that their virgin nature is enough. For them seeing each others face was not important.

All brides nevertheless carry with them the lamp, because by the lamp/symbol Christ is showing that bride nature - human nature - has everything that is needed to become personally manifested but the will to be a person. This will has to be provided by brides themselves.

Let me rephrase the parable of ten virgins: there were ten humans that started a life long journey to meet God, their nature was appropriate for this cause like a virgin is appropriate for a bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and the other five were prudent. For, when the foolish took themselves &#40;after they have born as humans&#41;, they thought that all that they needed was their nature, so they accepted themselves as faceless beings &#40;without oil&#41;. But the prudent when they took themselves &#40;after they have born as humans&#41;, they realize that they had to become persons, that they needed a personal lifestyle &#40;oil&#41; that would lighten their lives and that would allow them to engage into personal relationships with others. As time passed, so they also pass away because this was part of their nature. After some time God came to meet them. In the hearing of His coming &#40;after death, they return to life&#41; all ten of them realized that God was coming to relate with them as a person, and not to relate with their human nature. So, the five that had lived a non-personal life they were still just that: faceless humans unable either to present their faces to God or see God&#39;s face. They asked for help from the other five persons in order to become also persons. But they failed because a face can only present one person alone and not two. Then they started seeking to buy &#34;personalities-faces&#34; &#40;oil&#41; by dealers. So what they actually did was to prepare for the time-being. They did not have the internal need to show their authentic faces to God, they never felt this need - they never felt the personal relationship as a way of life. They just had to adjust in the new reality. While they were away God came and met with the five prudent authentic persons &#40;who had oil&#41;. After some time the five foolish returned, asking to meet with God with their new fresh &#34;faces&#34; of theirs. God did not relate with them because they were still faceless persons, with market &#34;faces&#34; attached over them.

The five prudent people were asking for a personal relationship with God. So they needed a face in order to see and to be seen.That is why they spend their lifetime with a face&#40;oil&#41;.

The five foolish people were asking to enter into bridal chamber. They had to attach the faces from the market as a requirement of the instance. They had no genuine face of their own. They had no interest into seeing and being seen. God was irrelevant for them; the bridal chamber was their goal.That is why they spend their lifetime without a face&#40;oil&#41;.

The Bridal Chamber is the holy light that St. Seraphim of Sarov&#39;s is enlightened with, and Motovilov was experienced.

[Marie-Duquette]

Leandro,

All this sounds very philosophical to me, and I just wonder where you have gotten this explanation about the Parable of the Ten Virgins or bridesmaids, as stated in the Gospel of Matt 25:1-13

If these are bridesmaids, they are the attendants to the Bride and Bridegroom. And, are invited to bring lamps to enlighten the bridal chamber or hall where the wedding is to take place that night, upon the arrival of the Bridegroom. To me it has nothing to do with &#34;having or not having electricity in those days&#34; ... I read and pray the Parable as of &#34;TODAY&#34; in my life in Christ.

I still believe that the foolish bridesmaids were negligent, inattentive, failing to bring enough :oil&#34; to the celebration to which they were invited. That does not mean that they are not persons or having no face as I understnd you to be presenting the above post. I just don&#39;t relate to your explanation.

I don&#39;t think that you understood what my posts were all about, when I first posted about the Bridegroom in the first place.

Please forgive me, but I am not approaching the Bridegroom or the Parable as a philosopher, but as a lover in repentance and prayer. And, for me the OIL is the Presence of the Holy Spirit in my life, as I strive to follow Christ Jesus each day in repentance and continued love, until He comes unexpectedly

I get more and more confused by your long explanation. Please give me your references so that I can slowly look into this explanation that you present.

marie_duquette

[Marie-Duquette]

Leandro,

For me a person loses &#34;virginity&#34; when that person loses the central focus of life, as did the bridesmaids in the Parable. When a person becomes the center instead of Christ Jesus and God-Trinity. Then the person becomes a &#34;harlot&#34; or &#34;idolatrous&#34;

Sorry, that I am not relating to your presentations.

marie_duquette

[Theopesta]

forive me all to intering not in the accurat and sutable time
Fa. Raph.qutation:{Where does the idea of 3 days come from? Do we have a witness in Scripture about this? Is there a tradition about this length of time? Or is the 3 days more a convention- a telescoping of this time into 3 days so that it fits properly & liturgically into Holy Week?} post no.591, I don&#39;t know if this is sutable anthwer or not:
1- we learn that the lord is the true pascha lamb
2- the sympolitcal lamb was kept up from the tenth day until the fourteenth day &#40;ex12: 3-6&#41;
so, in our tradition monday, and tuesday, and thuesday, and wednesday, this is the days of kept up of jesus between bethany, and the temple.
also, on monday: mark11: 12- 17..
tuesday: mark 11: 20- 27..., 13: 1- 3
the oriental orthodox tradation learn us that: Jesus leave the temple in the tuesday evening, decided to not return again to the temple mat 23: 38-39,
He spend wednesday in bethany,
I hope I under stand your piety

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you for that information Theopesta Dem. Exodus 12:1-11 is the third reading from the Vesperal Liturgy of St Basil the Great on Holy Saturday. Indeed it does speak of a kind of &#39;setting aside&#39; of the paschal lamb from the tenth to the fourteenth days at which time it was to be sacrificed. So it wouldn&#39;t be surprising if there was Patristic commentary interpreting these days as correlating to the days of Holy Week.
In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[nurse-aid]

Don’t you think, when it stillness then is nothing to say….
Like when ocean is calm, no waives, songs free, still, obeyed…
And no meter what comes and no meter you do, you are slowly emotion,
Just do what you do…Without up high and without cry,
just in the middle of any feelings, flying inside…
No future, no past, right now is moving fast, you cannot control it,
that present, were you now belong…right now is now passed.
And this existence is true wile it goes, it is never stops,
never ending process of dying and born all of those…
Those moments, those pictures, those knowledge, those us..
Connections of past, present and future combined in HIS blast!
Blast of whole times, whole years and all, whole universe endless
times in ONE and for ALL!
And nothing is left, nothing exist by itself…Connected and whole,
trust in this Plan my dear, trust HIM, HE is your own!

[leandros]

marie-duquette,

God&#39;s way is Christ, I believe you are in this path.

Regarding the ten virgins parable,you can find a homily of St. John Chrysostom here: http://ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-84.htm

[Marie-Duquette]

Leandros,

Christ Jesus said it Himself, &#34;I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.&#34; And, it is always my hope and desire to grow into Christ Jesus and allow Him to be more present and alive within my soul. With the Grace of the Holy Spirit I believe that this is possible. I am inclined to say &#34;I know that this is possible, for &#34;everything is possible with God.&#34;

Thank you for the reference to Homily 78 by St. John Chrysostom. ccel didn&#39;t work for me. So I looked into other web sites. And, finally printed out the Homily. Will read, study and pray it slowly, in the Light of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Christ is Risen!

marie_duquette