Flaw Of Blood

[Paladin D]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea3.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea3.asp[/url]

I'm doubting whether or not to order this magazine. Though in September 2004 edition (the free sample I got), they have several letters complaining about the article. From the editor's reply, it appears nothing was done about it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I didn't read the whole thing, but it sounds like the editorialist took the scourging scene and removed if from the context of the Divine Mercy.

He noted that the soldiers scourging Christ at the pillar noticed that his blood had sprinkled on them. Not only did he misinterpret this as unnecessarily violent, but he missed the theological point, i.e. that the sacrifice of Christ is for everyone, even those who carried out His actual, physical death...that even they were washed in His blood.

[cmotherofpirl]

Her point is that some people might focus on the blood and not on the sacrifice.
Not a bad article.

[vianney]

She fails to realize that the scourging seen was taken from the Dolorious Passion by BLESSED Anne Catherine Emirch.


Its not like Gibson just made that seen up and used his own version to depict it.

[Apotheoun]

The irony in her article is that she sees all of these minute theological details and insights in the film, while simultaneously arguing that the violent and bloody nature of the film makes it almost impossible to see anything but Christ's physical suffering. Clearly, she saw past Christ's physical torture, and in that sense she refutes her own position.

[Paladin D]

[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=16888"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=16888[/url]

[Guest T-Bone]

A little off topic, but regarding the film...

It never occured to me what the part of the Gospel when Barabas was freed and Christ was sentanced meant.

[Oik]

The Passion of the Christ is [i]the[/i]movie on my list.

I have heard people say, this is the most violent film ever made, though I have seen worse violence in film.

I have heard people say, that this movie focus' on the physical suffering and agony of Christ, though my fondest memories of the film are the relisations I can to when meditating on these physical sufferings.

I have heard people accuse Christians of being too traditional, then too, modern, though is seems that nowadays the story of Christ has been questioned to the point of whether He actually existed.

From the article:

[quote]Once Christ’s whole body is turned into a wound, the viewer can never escape it: His mind becomes so absorbed by it that all of the other poignant, theologically profound gestures and signs in the film are eclipsed.[/quote]

Saint says, we must work out over salvation with pain and suffering. My point here is that I applaud Gibson for creating a situation we can not escape. Christ suffered died and was buried. Gibson wanted to show the Truth of Christ's suffering in a physical, inescapable way.

Why is this so profound? Humanity has turned a way from suffering and created ways to escape it. Gibson creates this inescapable so we are left with the question, What are we to do with suffering? Humanity has stopped asking the question because humanity sees suffering evil. Our Catholic Faith, the Truth of Christ, teaches us that suffering is to be embraced, that suffering is redemptive.

As for the suffering eclipsing the other parts of the film, I disagree. What is our Salvation without our Suffering? What is our Faith without Works? What is our Yes without Free-Will? Nothing. It is unfortuante that the author of the article was not moved and can not deep enough past the physical and embrace the core divine message, that is Jesus Christ, the Word, was Crucified, died, and gave us Life, just was we are called to renounce this world, die, and be Christ to others.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]I have heard people say, that this movie focus' on the physical suffering and agony of Christ, [/quote]

Mostly Protestants, I bet.

If Jesus the Christ would have led a long life, had children, and died from a heart attack at 50, where would the sacrifice be?

[Donna]

Well, Paladin, I don't know whether you should take this magazine or not.

All I know is, ever since I read Anne Katherine Emmerich, or had seen any pictures (usually older ones) depicting the scorging, etc, or had even thought [i]what would it be like to be crucified?[/i] , it is quite true, one can never be the same afterwards.

Or...seeing/learning about the Shroud!

And the saints always meditate on His wounds...so I find it hard to understand why Mel is being nit-picked for this.

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='T-Bone' date='Oct 5 2004, 12:50 AM']
Mostly Protestants, I bet.

If Jesus the Christ would have led a long life, had children, and died from a heart attack at 50, where would the sacrifice be? [/quote]
You would lose that bet.

[DojoGrant]

"The fact is that when we look at any depiction of the sacrifice of Christ—no matter how mild or graphic—man killing God is the most violent thing we will ever see."

That last statement really got to me.

[frozencell]

This movie was much more powerful and affecting then the "Protestant" version with the film "Jesus". The physical violence emphasized, for me, the true horrible nature of everything he went through. It does stamp those images on your mind, but that only led me to think about His sacrifice even more.

But, in regards to should Paladin take the magazine or not, we have to keep in mind that it was an editorial peice. It was just her opinion, not the opinion of the Catholic Church. Maybe the violence did eclipse the sacrifice for her, but I don't think this is a majority opinion. I like the magazine the last few times I've seen it.