 |
An Adventist Perspective on Mel Gibson's ‘Passion’ and Theater-Going in 2004, pt. 3
Larry Kirkpatrick ++ Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists ++ March 20, 2004
In our first consideration of the Passion movie, we thought together about how people would mistake an emotional reaction to the film for a spiritual one. In our second look, we embarked on a detailed comparison of the Bible with the Passion and with Anne Emmerich's writings, upon which the movie was largely based. We were shocked by the overt, apparent, unhidden and undiluted Catholic theology permeating this movie. Today, a closer clook at that theology, which Protestants and Evangelicals by the bushel are placing themselves under when they see this movie.
Is it a Catholic movie? Ask John Caviezel, the actor who portrayed Jesus. He had a visit with the Pope on Monday. What does Caviezel say? “When you see Mel Gibson's film, is it Protestant? Is it Muslim? Is it Catholic? What do you see? It is very Catholic, very universal. It is a great way to introduce people to what it means to be Catholic.” (Zenit.org, “Jim Caviezel Tells of Meeting With Pope,” March 16, 2004). He went on to speak of the film as Catholic in the sense of universal. But it's OK John, we understand. We are not fooled. According to the article, to portray Christ, Caviezel states that he, “began with the rosary, the rosary led me to confession, confession led me to the Mass, every day, and always when I have the Eucharist in my body, I feel more like being in Christ.” (ibid.).
Ellen White wrote, “In those countries where Catholicism is not in the ascendancy, and the papists are taking a conciliatory course in order to gain influence, there is an increasing indifference concerning the doctrines that separate the reformed churches from the papal hierarchy; the opinion is gaining ground that, after all, we do not differ so widely upon vital points as has been supposed…&rdquo (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. 563). We regret it. But we understand it.
Today we shall zero-in and make a comparison of key Catholic salvation doctrine with the biblical understanding. The contrast is shocking.
Characteristics of Roman Catholicism
Quickly now, what are some of the characteristics which, according to Scripture, stand behind this power? Join me at Daniel chapter seven. In verse 7, a beast arises unlike all that have gone before it. It is pagan Rome. Out of pagan Rome arises a little horn, a papal horn (verse 8). It maneuvers in power-plays among nations, even plucking up three. The horn has eyes like those of a man and a mouth speaking great things. Verse 20 shows this power causes the fall of the three horns and in verse 21 we find him making war against God's people. He is a religious power. Verse 25 tells us that this entity speaks great words against God, persecutes God's people, and seeks to change God's times and laws. He is foretold as attacking the seventh day Sabbath. Daniel 8:11 speaks to us of a demonic attempt also to take away the daily. Revelation 13 shows that in the end, the papal power receives worship and is involved in an oppression of conscience. Hopefully we are getting the picture.
A false worship is presented to the people of earth in the end-time. The daily is taken away, An attempt to blockade Christ's most-holy-place ministry in the heavenly sanctuary for His people is made by demonic forces. Christ's highly priestly ministry as Melchizedeck priest is counterfeited by an earthly ministry of priests offering a different means of salvation than the biblical one. These things frame what now follows. The remainder of this message will contrast the false with the true in a very simple way.
Truth and Error Contrasted
The Fundamental Problem
We can compare the unbiblical and the biblical understanding of salvation in terms of several direct contrasts. First, the direct contrast concerning what the fundamental problem of redemption is all about.
Felix Culpa
In the Catholic church, the Fall is where man broke God's rules, damaged himself, and thus all men became guilty. To the Catholic, the fall is a fortunate event—a felix culpa (See Catechism 412), a “happy fault,” or what has also become known as the theory of the “fortunate fall.” A special portion of the Latin Mass, offered on the Saturday before Easter almost universally in the Catholic Church until Vatican II went like this: “O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorum,” translated, this is “O blessed sin [literally, happy fault] which received as its reward so great and so good a redeemer.” (See http://www.ksu.edu/english/baker/english233/g-felix_culpa.htm, accessed March 18, 2004, 3:44 p.m. PST).
Since the gospel problem as understood by the Catholics is fundamentally a legal problem, the fall of Adam is understood to make the whole race guilty, introducing all humans into a state of sin. The Catholics call this “original sin.” Hopefully we all realize that this raises the question of whether God is being fair or not in condemning man and then saving him. Did God plan man's situation so that the race had to fall in order to know Christ better? Did His plan for mankind from the beginning include the “fortunate fall” of Adam?
Inspiration says otherwise. First of all, in Scripture we find no evidence that God desired Adam and Eve to take the course they did, and we do find evidence to the contrary. He told them not to sin (Genesis 2:17). Again, inspiration says the opposite. Consider these three statements from the pen of Ellen G. White:
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. (Desire of Ages, p. 22).
Had Adam and Eve never disobeyed their Creator, had they remained in the path of perfect rectitude, they could have known and understood God. (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 291).
It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God's law. (Steps to Christ, p. 62).
These statements make it clear that the Fall of man was unnecessary. We should also remember that God did not tell Adam and Eve “For in the day that thou eatest thereof I will kill you,” but, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” (Genesis 2:17). Death is a natural consequence of sin. There is such a thing as divine wrath, but it is exercised as a natural result of sin. The creation of God is designed to function as the domain of unselfishness. This is life. Operation outside of this framework is self-centered and leads inevitably to sin and death. The penalty of sin is inwrought in sin. Yes, God exercises wrath and divine justice, but it is not His preference. Such is always a “strange work” for Him (Isaiah 28:21). Sin contains its own wages.
Thus, at the Fall, Man went against the created order and damaged himself. The Fall was unnecessary. It was not a part of God's intended plan for man, yet He was ready for it, and He introduced His plan of redemption. Whereas in the Catholic view God comes out appearing arbitrary, manipulating events and bringing about a felix culpa, in fact, God did not cause this. The biblically sound answer to the Fall is not to consider it to be a fortunate providence, but to realize that it was considered a “terrible emergency” which God was ready for should it eventuate. In any case, the problem is not that God's arbitrary rules were broken, but that humankind was damaged when they chose to sin, and now in His dealing with the matter, God's character has been called in question.
The great controversy is not about a legal problem imposed by an arbitrary God, but about a healing solution wrought out by a loving Creator at risk of being misunderstood. Thus we see at the beginning a problem with the Catholic viewpoint. It makes God arbitrary and offers a legal and mystical solution, when in fact, God is not at all arbitrary and he offers mankind a therapeutic and realistic solution. Competing viewpoints on God inevitably highlight either Him as being apparently arbitrary or fighting within His own principles of fairness to heal man and vindicate His name in the great controversy that has ensued. Let us ask ourselves this question then, especially as we consider what follows: Which way does Mel Gibson's “The Passion of the Christ” go?
Solutions Contrasted
Eucharist
The solution to the problem as offered by the Catholic Church is legal and mystical. The solution offered by God in Scripture is therapeutic, vindicating, and spiritual. To the Catholic, Jesus is a mystical super-human sufferer. He cannot be like us because then He would be guilty, like us, of original sin. He is understood to be conceived in a very unique way with the humanity that Mary had. What humanity did Mary have? According to Catholics, a humanity as they say Jesus bore, one altogether unlike ours, untainted by original sin. So, Jesus does not suffer as we do, and yet, His physical suffering becomes the major aspect of salvation. And not just His physical suffering, but ours too as we save ourselves!
As we saw, the Fall was, to the Catholic mind, a good thing. But now let's look at Jesus' suffering. This is very different than our own understanding. Yes, Jesus suffered physically, but consider this statement from Desire of Ages, p. 753: “The withdrawel of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man. So great was this agony, that His physical pain was hardly felt.” It was not physical suffering that Jesus experienced so much as a spiritual and emotional suffering. Is there some way that suffering actually makes us better? I mean imposed suffering? If so, then have we not taken exactly the wrong course in building Medical Centers to help relieve suffering? Ellen White says, “God reaches hearts through the relief of physical suffering” (Maranatha, p. 185, emphasis added).
Nevertheless, let's see what the Catholics teach:
(Catechism 607): [Jesus'] redemptive passion was the very reason for his Incarnation.
(Catechism 609): In suffering and death his humanity became the free and perfect instrument of his divine love which desires the salvation of men. Indeed, out of love for his Father and for men, whom the Father wants to save, Jesus freely accepted his Passion and death…
(Catechism 617): [Jesus'] most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.
But there is something very different here. For the Catholic mind it is the torment of physical suffering Jesus experienced that pays a penalty, that saves us. But in fact, while one aspect of His sacrifice for us included His physical sufferings, what did we find? He hardly felt them! It is His life fighting against sin, His perfect character offered to the Father in place of ours that ransoms us, that opens the door of salvation to us. But the Catholic participates in Jesus' offering, himself having a part in the offering Jesus makes…
(Catechism 618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the ‘one mediator between God and men.’ But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, ‘the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery’ is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to ‘take up [their] cross and follow (him),’ for ‘Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps.’ In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven. [except for this note, all brackets and parenthesis in original.]
Here is a blending between truth and error. Jesus did indeed die for our sins, but is the essence of the gospel our joining with Christ in some “paschal mystery”? You see, this all runs considerably deeper than it may first appear.
What happens all the way through Gibson's film? Jesus suffers extraordinary physical pain. Why is that? Is that theologically significant?
Very!
Consider a few sections from the Catechism:
Catechism 1330): [The Eucharist is called] The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.
(Catechism 1367): The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ‘The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.’ ‘In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner… the sacrifice is truly propitiatory.’ [Note: Online version omits last portion of this section.]
(Catechism 1370): … In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.
(Catechism 1405): … Every time this mystery is celebrated, ‘the work of our redemption is carried on’ and we ‘break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ.’
(Catechism 1402): … O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us…
(Catechism 1414): As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
This only captures a bit of the fact, but consider what we have just in the above. The Eucharist is connected to the Passion of Christ. The Eucharist is understood to be the same as Christ's offering on the cross, even called the same sacrifice. Who is making the sacrifice? A priest. The sacrifice then of the Eucharist is propitiatory. That is, it appeases God. The Eucharistic sacrifice is offered by the church. In fact, remarkably like the movie, the Catechism says that “In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.”
Do you recall what we were told about the movie last week, how Mary is found at the foot of the cross spattered with Jesus' blood, kissing His feet? Are you getting the picture yet? Mel Gibson's “The Passion of the Christ” is an enacted Eucharistic offering! It is an animated Eucharist! How many Adventists do you know who would knowingly take Eucharist from the priest? But Adventists who are going to this movie are partaking of an animated Eucharist. Open wide now.
But we mentioned the mystery part, the ambiguous, secret part. That's what a mystery is—something secret. Now in the Bible you will find that the mysteries are almost always things that are revealed. But in Catholicism you will find that mysteries remain mysterious and mystical. But again, let's consider some quotes on this from the Catholics:
(Catechism 1357): … [In the priest's offering of the Eucharist, the bread and the wine] have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.
(Catechsim 1378): Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. ‘The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.’
(Catechism 1393): … the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins… ‘Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.’
(Catechism 1405): Every time the mystery is celebrated, ‘the work of our redemption is carried on’ and we ‘break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ’
You see, eating the Eucharist is taking a magic food that cleanses us of sin. Forget Celebrex or Condroitin. Close the health food stores. Christ is mysteriously present through the Eucharist and this presence means a cleansing from sin. Or so the Catholics teach. You even bow down to the piece of bread because by pronouncing the magic words the priest has turned it into Jesus.
So Jesus becomes a mystical sufferer of physical pain that God the Father receives in payment for our sins. This movie begins with the garden scene—where Jesus' suffering in His “Passion” began, and but for the last few moments of the film, focuses on His physical suffering until His death. This movie is a moving-picture of the Eucharist, and that is exactly how Gibson and the catholics involved understand the film, we may be assured. What did the actor portraying Jesus, Caviezel, say? That in portraying Christ he, “began with the rosary, the rosary led me to confession, confession led me to the Mass, every day, and always when I have the Eucharist in my body, I feel more like being in Christ.”
Caviezel got it exactly right. Which means exactly wrong. Because the Eucharist is a teaching filled with heresy. No man turns bread into Jesus no matter how much Latin he utters out. Now they will say, no the man doesn't turn the bread into Jesus, God does. But if so, it is in response to the priest who is offering the sacrifice “for the church.” This is just blasphemous. Let's take a moment to talk about the truth.
Jesus' high priestly priesthood is contrasted with the old Levitical priesthood in Hebrews 7:23-28:
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man [Jesus], because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
This is very simple. This same text is very handy when you are working with Mormons who, like the Catholics also claim to have an all-important earthly priesthood. Notice here the facts. Levitical priests could not continue their ministry indefinitely because they eventually died. In exact contrast to them, Jesus endures forever. Thus, once His ministry as Melchizedek high priest commences, it will never end. Who makes intercession? Jesus! Not Mary or the saints, just Jesus, and that is more than sufficient! How often does Jesus our Melchizedek high priest need to offer up sacrifices? Not every day. But in Catholic churches all over the planet Mass—Eucharist—is offered every day by the priests. But Jesus did this once when He offered up His life on the cross. The Catholic teaching is that their Eucharist is the same sacrifice as the one on the cross, but this cannot be true, for the presence of Jesus only comes into the bread at specific times as the priests pronounce the words just so. And this sacrifice, which is what they themselves call it, if offered over and over again. This is a counterfeit for Jesus death for us on the cross. Join me at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures.
Now think about this. If Jesus died once for our sins, and is now risen again, how can He be offered over and over again in the Mass? Which is it? Is He truly risen or is He presently suffering and dying? Which is it? And the answer is, “This is a mystery.” It sure is!
Actually, Jesus is a personal and loving Savior. He is a self-giving character. But God does not need our continual propitiation. Jesus' loving life, His perfect divine character needs no supplementation. The price for sin has been paid 2000 years ago at Calvary. Today Heaven's work goes forward for every soul who is willing for it to in their behalf. The Holy Spirit is at work to change hearts that actively submit to Him. But the offering of Christ has been made. See Hebrews 10 for more on this.
Lastly on this point, let's hear from a Greek Orthodox priest who saw the movie, and comments on the suffering aspect:
Mel Gibson's passion is a monotonous and misleading exaggeration of one aspect of the scriptural Christ's suffering and death to a distorting degree. His Jesus is God's suffering servant whose passion is virtually reduced to his being ridiculed and beaten with a sadistic brutality far beyond what the four gospels record. The film's relentless emphasis on Christ's physical sufferings which, contrary to scripture, begin already in the Gethsemane garden, and the almost comic ugliness of the villains—the priests, the soldiers, Judas, Herod, Barabbas, the devil figure and its child, the faces in the crowds—capture the viewer's attention and serve more to conceal, rather than reveal, the fullness and depth of the passion's multiple meanings.… His paying the debt on the cross to redeem humanity is not the debt of pain and punishment that God must exact from sinners to assuage his wrath and satisfy his justice. It is rather the payment of the debt of righteousness, truth, mercy and love that God alone requires of his creatures in the keeping of his commandments. (Fr. Thomas Hopko, “Mel Gibson's ‘Passian’ Monotonous and Misleading,” http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/HopkoPassion.shtml, accessed February 10, 2004, 5:24 p.m. PST.)
That's called hitting the nail right on its head. The film is filled with Jesus' passive obedience as He is forced to suffer, but it leaves out His life of active obedience, day-by-day living-out truth. Just watching this film, you won't learn very much about what God is like. Jesus' teachings, almost all of them are left unspoken, with no example of living them given.
Penance
Another piece of the false solution offered by the Catholic theories, and connected with this movie, is Penance. What is penance? It is an addition to God's forgiveness by our works. It is making sure He forgives us by adding some works of our own. If that sickens you, it should. Here are some references:
(Catechism 1437): Reading sacred Scripture, praying the Liturgy of the Hours and the Our Father—every sincere act of worship or devotion revives the spirit of conversion and repentance within us and contributes to the forgiveness of our sins.
(Catechism 1460): The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, ‘provided we suffer with him.’…
The priest is granted power to forgive sins for God. This is blasphemous, but added to it is this salvation by works business. The priest, after hearing private confession, can assign to the church member penance to do. Whatever is assigned, it helps us because, so say the Catholics, “we suffer with him [Jesus].” But no, that's not it. God does not forgive us through a merely human priest, or require of us these works to expiate God's wrath toward sin. Jesus takes this for us. We can add nothing to it! Ellen White outlines the experience of Martin Luther in coming to this very realization:
As his convictions of sin deepened, he sought by his own works to obtain pardon and peace. He led a most rigorous life, endeavoring by fasting, vigils, and scourgings to subdue the evils of his nature, from which the monastic life had brought no release. He shrank from no sacrifice by which he might attain to that purity of heart which would enable him to stand approved before God.… Luther was still a true son of the papal church and had no thought that he would ever be anything else. In the providence of God he was led to visit Rome. He pursued his journey on foot, lodging at the monasteries on the way. At a convent in Italy he was filled with wonder at the wealth, magnificence, and luxury that he witnessed. Endowed with a princely revenue, the monks dwelt in splendid apartments, attired themselves in the richest and most costly robes, and feasted at a sumptuous table. With painful misgivings Luther contrasted this scene with the self-denial and hardship of his own life. His mind was becoming perplexed.At last he beheld in the distance the seven-hilled city. With deep emotion he prostrated himself upon the earth, exclaiming: ‘Holy Rome, I salute thee!’—Ibid., b. 2, ch. 6. He entered the city, visited the churches, listened to the marvelous tales repeated by priests and monks, and performed all the ceremonies required. Everywhere he looked upon scenes that filled him with astonishment and horror. He saw that iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. He heard indecent jokes from prelates, and was filled with horror at their awful profanity, even during mass. As he mingled with the monks and citizens he met dissipation, debauchery. Turn where he would, in the place of sanctity he found profanation. ‘No one can imagine,’ he wrote, ‘what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, “If there is a hell, Rome is built over it: it is an abyss whence issues every kind of sin.”’—Ibid., b. 2, ch. 6.
By a recent decretal an indulgence had been promised by the pope to all who should ascend upon their knees ‘Pilate's staircase,’ said to have been descended by our Saviour on leaving the Roman judgment hall and to have been miraculously conveyed from Jerusalem to Rome. Luther was one day devoutly climbing these steps, when suddenly a voice like thunder seemed to say to him: ‘The just shall live by faith.’ Romans 1:17. He sprang to his feet and hastened from the place in shame and horror. That text never lost its power upon his soul. From that time he saw more clearly than ever before the fallacy of trusting to human works for salvation, and the necessity of constant faith in the merits of Christ. His eyes had been opened, and were never again to be closed, to the delusions of the papacy. When he turned his face from Rome he had turned away also in heart, and from that time the separation grew wider, until he severed all connection with the papal church. (Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, pp. 122, 124, 125).
Such is the contrast between biblical Christianity and Catholicism! The fact is, there is a terrific difference between the Catholic concept of penance and the Christian concept of forgiveness and salvation apart from our own works. Ephesians 2:8-10 has the balance: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
Nothing we do merits our salvation. We cannot. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. All our own works invested with merely our own righteousness are filthy rags (Isaiah 64:4). Even any work that God does in us must be His work. Our part is to actively submit; He does the work. We have nothing of which to boast. Even so, God's purpose does include that in our experience good works appear. But they are not saving works. No Seventh-day Adventist would make statements like these Catholic statements about contributing to our own forgiveness or salvation in a meritorious way.
Mary
Remember what the Catholics themselves are saying: that Gibson's movie is “profoundly Marian and Eucharistic.” What is all this about Mary? Last week we heard some creepy things about the movie, how Mary had this supernatural connection between her and Jesus, how there were times in the film where He could hardly even go on but her eyes locked with His eyes and seemed to give Him a mystical recharge or something. What was that? And why, when the Bible only shows Mary present during these last twelve hours of Jesus' life exactly one time (in John 19:25-27), does Mary appear in the movie in almost every single scene?
The answer is found in the fact that, Roman Catholics, having by their mistaken teaching of original sin made the whole of humanity guilty, and Jesus so very different and distant from us, made Mary into a strange kind of intercessor fitting just between us and God. Where we bear a fallen humanity that is guilty and also we are not God, Jesus bears a humanity that is completely different than our own but He is God. Mary is has a humanity that is very different than ours, but she is not God; so she fits right in between the Catholic's view of Jesus and us. Let's see what the Catechism says.
(Catechism 487): What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.
(Catechism 491): Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: ‘The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.’
(Catechism 493): … By the grace of God, Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
(Catechism 494): … Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:
(Catechism 964): Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. ‘This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death’ it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:
Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: ‘Woman, behold your son.’
(Catechism 966): ‘Finally the Immaculate virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as queen’… ‘You [Mary] conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.’
(Catechism 968): Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. ‘In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.’
(Catechism 969): ‘This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.… Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.’
(Catechism 971): … The Church rightly honors ‘the blessed virgin’ with special devotion.
(Catechism 1477): ‘This treasury [of merits of the “saints”] includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.’
(Catechism 1478): An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.
Those amazing lines need but little explanation. Mary was redeemed from the moment of conception, was preserved completely from original sin, she never sinned even once throughout her life, she suffers with Jesus in His physical suffering, her prayers intercede for us, and the merits from her life go into the church's treasury of merits, and can lessen the suffering of souls in purgatory or be purchased through indulgences. Can we begin to see why the pope has called her “Co-redeemer” six times?
Finally, Catholics pray to Mary. We could give many examples from the mouth of Pope John Paul II, but let's keep it simple. Here then is one example from the common Catholic prayer of the Rosary:
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy! our life, our sweetness, our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus; O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary.
Is Mary our life and hope? Colossians 3:4 says that Jesus is our life. And Jesus is our hope according to 1 Timothy 1:1. And is Mary really the Mother of Mercy? God was a God of mercy before Mary ever existed (Psalm 52:8). Furthermore, for Mary to be counted as the “Queen of heaven” is to usurp the role of the church as bride. Jesus is King but the only queen spoken of in Scripture is pagan (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). How many intercessors are there? Jesus plus Mary plus a great crowd of saints? Turn with me to 1 Timothy 2:5, 6: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Hebrews tells us over and over again that Jesus is our Mediator, insisting that His role is unique (Hebrews 7:25; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; Romans 8:34). Only the Holy Spirit joins Jesus in intercession for us (Romans 8:26, 27).
In contrast to the Scripture, what did the Catholic priest say about this film and Mary?
All of these elements make the movie profoundly Marian and Eucharistic. Gibson shows that Mary's participation in her Son's sufferings is not simply that of a loving mother; it is the sharing of the ‘New Eve’ in the Redemption accomplished by the new Adam.… Gibson's film will create new and unforgettable images of Mary: Mary who soaks up her Son's blood from the paving stones; Mary who runs to Him as He falls; Mary whose communion with her Son's sacrifice is as obvious as the blood on her lips and cheek at the foot of the Cross.” (Rev. John Horgan, “With gratitude—A Priest Views The Passion.” Catholic Educator's Resource Center, (January, 2004), http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0199.html
Wrapping up
For the Catholic the issue of the gospel is paying-off God, for us, the issue is God is both healing us and vindicating His own character. These are very different focii. For the Catholic, salvation is accomplished through the church, for the Protestant, Jesus in His heavenly Sanctuary mediates for us—without Mary's aid—forgiving and giving power to overcome. Jesus works for us and in us with our cooperation, but the merit is all His from His death on the cross, and the work of the Holy Spirit is transforming in its nature, changing us so that we actually become like Jesus day-by-day.
Our faith does not require Mary to go about after Jesus soaking up magic merit, or her intercession for us in heaven in addition to Jesus. It does not require a human priesthood beside Jesus' Melchizedek priesthood. We do not win heaven by suffering with Jesus or eating a piece of bread. The ideas of Roman Catholicism have “Paganism” stenciled all over them. We say this not in anger or haste, but evenly, looking at the prophetic warning of the power that would come and then observing through its salvation theology that it has indeed come. Jesus’ true ministry for us at the cross and in the heavenly sanctuary has been replaced, or at least attempted to be replaced, in Catholicism, by the Mass, the suffering and intercession of Mary, and personal penance or salvation by works. These things are errors which our spiritual fathers Protested against and often paid with their lives for saying so. If I said these things 500 years ago I have said to you today, I would be burned at the stake. And I may yet be tortured at some time not far future for telling you the truth this day. If so, I trust God to help me.
Let us conclude this day with an awareness that co-operating with God is not necessarily suffering in the pagan manner promoted by the false church. God will help us spiritually to be changed. He will save us in His way according to the Bible, and not according to the pope. Or Mary. Or Mel Gibson. We have no business letting Hollywood cable into our minds. We must guard the avenues to the soul. We should not walk into a theater—short of at gunpoint—and fill our minds with the sub-Christian propaganda of this film. It is a product of the beast. But we are not in darkness.
Are we?
