In anticipation of one of the greatest films impact-wise to ever open, we are counting down to Opening Day on Ash Wednesday when in theaters everywhere people will be moved by the Traditional inspiration of Mel Gibson who many see as a Hollywood movie star, but True Catholics see him as an evangelist in the purist sense.
A true Apostle for the Truths and Traditions of the Church Christ founded. Mel has set on celluloid what has always been set in stone: the everlasting reminder of why Christ died for each and every one of us. We have that reminder daily in the Latin Mass when the alter Christus - the priest offers Him up as a propitiatory sacrifice in an unbloody manner to the Father for us. Prayerfully this movie will move the hearts and souls of millions to return to the Truths and Traditions of Christ's True Church. For advance tickets, see The Passion Tickets
Posted: Jan 31
Other endorsements from Curial Members
While the official line of the Vatican is that 'it is as it was' wasn't, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos who was the celebrant at the much-ballyhooed "Latin Mass" in St. Peter's last year - the first and last by the way of the year - is on record as saying the following about the impact the film had on him:Unshrouding the shroud of subterfuge against 'The Passion of The Christ' through The Shroud of Turin
Another Source Verifies Gibson's 'Passion' Account
"I experienced moments of profound spiritual intimacy with Jesus Christ.I would gladly trade some of the homilies that I have given about The Passion of Christ for even a few scenes from this film."
Also Archbishop John Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, communicated quite clearly the essence of the movie:
"...if they're critical of the film, they would be critical of the Gospel."
We would add that the last comment is totally in line with Our Lord's words in John 15: 20, "If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My word, they will keep yours also."
Posted: Jan 30
by Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004
"We did not know. Nobody ever told us."
– Pope Pius XII, after learning what the Shroud of Turin revealed about the extent of Christ's suffering.
An arrogant gang of so-called scholars and journalists is conducting a very public crucifixion of Mel Gibson for daring to make his new film, "The Passion of the Christ," and it's about time that the motives behind their attempt to destroy him were examined.
To begin at the beginning, after being alerted to the film by Gibson's appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show and by a sleazy New York Times magazine smear of Gibson's father, a group falsely depicting itself as an official arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) got its hands on a shooting script of the film, then in the first stages of production in Italy, and charged that it was a historically flawed work that would promote anti-Semitism.
Unreported was the real motive behind the complaint: This group of Catholic and Jewish revisionists doesn't think very highly of the New Testament, which the Roman Catholic Church for 2,000 years has insisted was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore, as other Christian churches agree, unerrant.
Based on these scholars' own historical research, which simply contradicts the most basic tenets of Christianity, they charge that the New Testament is based on the prejudices of the apostles and rigged by their successors. One of them even claimed that the Gospel accounts of Christ's passion and death were written to curry favor with the Romans – the same Romans who returned the favor by gleefully executing many of them.
After their first attacks on the film based on their perusal of a stolen, rough, shooting script were met by the rejoinder that the film, then simply titled "The Passion," is solidly based on the Four Gospels and is therefore factual, the critics charged that the Gospels themselves can be construed as anti-Semitic and therefore any script based on them can be expected to stir up anti-Semitism among viewers.
To put it simply, these revisionist scholars are telling the world that the Gospels can't be trusted and, by implication, that the biblical story of Christ's passion and death is at the very least partially fictional because it is slanted in favor of the Romans and, in their warped opinions, historically inaccurate.
But the details in the New Testament accounts of Christ's passion and death are not the only evidence backing their authenticity. There is another source – one just as vivid as Gibson's film in showing the incredible horrors Jesus endured in the last 12 hours of his life.
That source is the Holy Shroud of Turin, an artifact that has been subjected to much of the same kind of treatment Mel Gibson is now enduring.
I know a few things about the Shroud of Turin. I have been intrigued by it since I was a young boy, studied it for years, wrote a small book about it in 1996 and, just as Gibson has done, concentrated on Christ's ordeal at the hands of his Roman tormentors and executioners.
My motives were the same as Gibson's: to reveal in the most graphic manner possible what our Lord endured for all of us, to show the extent of his love for a flawed mankind.
The Shroud has been called "The Fifth Gospel." Experts of all kinds, from forensic medical examiners to widely respected Israeli horticulturists, have testified as to its authenticity. Others have all but demolished the widely reported Carbon 14 testing that allegedly dated the Shroud to the 14th century.
What the Shroud depicts are the terrible wounds inflicted on Jesus by the scourging. It reveals that the Lord was whipped by Roman flagrums, some 120 marks caused by double-thonged flagrums with barbell-shaped pieces of metal or bone embedded in their tips.
The Shroud reveals that Jesus was scourged by two men, one taller than the other, and that all over his torso his flesh was deeply lacerated and torn from his body by the thongs and their cruel tips.
The Shroud reveals the wounds inflicted on Christ's head by the so-called crown of thorns and shows it to have been a cap rather than a crown. Christ was the only victim of crucifixion ever to have such a cap placed atop his skull.
The Shroud, whose image does not penetrate the linen but floats mysteriously on its surface, is stained with his blood, which did sink into the fibrils.
Step by step, Christ's final hours can be traced. The face of the man on the Shroud bears mute testimony to the beatings he endured at the hands of Romans, his knees show the contusions caused when he fell on the rough surfaces as he carried the patibulum, the crosspiece of his cross, to Calvary. And his shoulders show the wounds caused by the 100-pound patibulum digging into them.
The Shroud shows the nail marks in his wrists, testifying to the agony Christ endured when the nails rubbed against the great and highly sensitive median nerves located there.
In my book, "Sancta Sindone," I was able to follow Christ as he endured the final 12 hours of His life, just as Mel Gibson has now done. His source was the Gospels, mine the Shroud and medical experts who interpreted what it showed.
Our accounts agree in most details. (Mel shows Christ carrying the complete cross; the Shroud shows he carried only the patibulum, which on Calvary was affixed atop the stipes, the upright piece embedded in the ground. And Mel shows the nails being pounded into Christ's palms, while the Shroud shows them penetrating His wrists).
The whole story is told in my book, which, although dated and overcome by new evidence of its authenticity, allows the reader to learn the basic facts about the Shroud and follow Christ step by step to Calvary. My book can be read free in its entirety on my personal Web site, "Wednesday on the Web." (http://www.pvbr.com/Issue_1/sindone.htm)
Read it and then go see "The Passion of the Christ." It has a vitally important message I am convinced, along with Mel Gibson, that the Lord wants delivered in these troubled and faithless times. It is a message of complete love, a message that tells us: "This is what I did for you – every single one of you. Now follow me and love one another."
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for . He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.
Posted: Jan 29
'R' for Rah! A big rah-rah!
It's official. The Passion of The Christ will be rated 'R'
With the announcement that The Passion of The Christ will be rated 'R', some may be scared away from seeing it or taking their young teens. Here is one time 'R' should be taken in the context of the three 'R's' - Readin, Riting and Rithmetic because it will be an education, a lesson all will never forget. If you plan on "going to school' on taking stock of your life, you could not choose, outside of the confessional and attending Holy Mass and receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity on your tongue, a better vehicle than Mel Gibson's masterpiece The Passion of The Christ now just 27 days from launch.
Michael Cain, Editor
In truth, I never thought I would be promoting an 'R' rated movie on this website so vigorously. But the 'R' rating according to the standards of today's mores was adopted for times when there was blatant nudity, sex and excessive violence in a film. Yet violence, even nudity, when pertinent to the story such as Stephen Spielberg's holocaust film, could be accepted because it depicted evil in such a visual way. Much moreso does Gibson portray evil in contrast to good in The Passion. Evil does exist and to pretend it doesn't or buy the new age rot that the devil is merely a figment of superstitious medieval minds is the fast lane on the slippery slope to perdition. One thing throughout the Gospels, other than the love and peace of God as God intended not man, is Our Lord making all aware that evil does indeed exist and is most powerful if we do not heed His aids. But we do not and cannot live in a vacuum. We must confront evil each and every day. The Sacred Scriptures are crutch through these obstacles of evil.
Mel has managed, through the grace of the Holy Ghost to illustrate this so vividly not in just one stereotyped image as the devil with horns, but in a child, a beautiful woman, a snake, and various other entities that might seem good but upon closer look are truly hideous. Evil always masks itself as anything but evil. This was Mel's correct Catholic reasoning as he told Raymond Arroyo in an interview last Friday night on The World Over. Yet, Arroyo thoroughly dropped the ball when being interviewed by Deborah Norville on Monday night. He could easily have dismissed the entire anti-Semite slur against Gibson just as Mel so brilliantly syllogized that in no way was he anti-Semitic, but Arroyo let Norville lead him by the nose. So typical of Novus Ordo reporters who are afraid to contradict the pabulum they've been handed by the VaticantwoArians. Memo to Arroyo: You weren't given an 'exclusive' because you were EWTN, but because Mel was hoping he could reach more Catholics to what the Church truly teaches. It was quite evident how you skirted the entire issue of Traditional Catholicism and the Latin Mass in your interview. So typical of the newChurch puppets. Please tell me, who gives you your marching orders these days with Mother Angelic basically out of the picture?
You see folks anyone who is truly Catholic is weaned on the Crucifix - the bloody, mutilated corpse of the God-man hanging upon the Cross. Why? To show how much He loved us that He would offer Himself in such a humble humiliating manner, being ridiculed, mocked and tortured beyond recognition. "No greater love does one have than he give his life for another" What Christ did was above and beyond any call of duty. It is called Divine Love! Mel could have toned it down. But that would not have been true to the Gospels. Mel could have cut back on the violence, but it is highly doubtful the message would have been so powerful. Isn't it ironic that those who are the squeakiest wheels about the violence, who infer that many will have to 'exit' the theater during the scourging scenes, are often those who don't give a thought to the silent screams in the wombs where so many millions are being mutilized, ripped limb from limb, head from torso - yes, abortion can be even more bloodier and even worse visually than Christ on the Cross?
Finally, in hammering home the very reason all of these invectives have been launched at Mel. they have their source in what I wrote about late last summer:
Today, that is not important for Jews, Arab, Buddhist, Hindhu, Animist and what-not are given a free pass to practice and preach for conversion is no longer necessary. Therefore they do what they want but the freedoms and aberrations allowed by the Vaticantwoarians are never reciprocated by the apostate false religionists. Yet the pandering ecumaniacs within the Vatican proletariat blindly press on without realizing the one-sided futility of their proposals.
They fail to realize one cannot deal with the devil. Ever!
Hopefully this is something Mel Gibson realizes as the Freemasons and Zionists continue to blackball him and his masterful movie The Passion, trying to squeeze him out of finding a reputable distributor. As Robert Moynihan, editor of INSIDE THE VATICAN wrote in his editorial, "Passions over The Passion" in the August 2003 issue:
"It seems clear that driving the Catholic debate on The Passion is not so much fear that it is anti-Semitic, but fear that it is based on traditional Catholic doctrine. When attacks against Gibson and The Passion are made in the coming months, one would do well to ask to what degree an attack is based on the reviewer's distaste for the actual words of the New Testament."
That is one of the burrs in the side of the Vaticantwoarians, that Mel, a devout Traditional Catholic, is dead set on evangelizing the truths of the Gospels and not the feel-good ecumaniacal compromising that has gone on way too long to the detriment of so many. It is not just the Zionists who want to silence Mel, but another group far more fearful of Gibson - the Vatican II proponents who realize with Mel's popularity, prowess and piety that the faithful who now wallow in the Novus Ordo huts, will realize Mel is right and flock to the Latin Mass just as all members of the crew did each and every day prior to shooting. Nothing wrong with that! No wonder miracles have occurred on the set because Mel has his priorities together and is not afraid to live his Faith and share it. That's true evangelization. (Iconoclasts of Ill-will, Idiocy and Insanity!
And so for the first time ever we will enthusiastically promote an 'R' rated movie with much gusto. What might represent 'restricted' for all other movies, here could not possibly have any other rating than 'R' for Religion. The True Religion Christ passed down in Divine Revelation. Thanks, Mel.
Posted Jan 28:
CBS “THE EARLY SHOW” DISTORTS MEL GIBSON’S REMARKS
Catholic League demands apology from CBS for deliberate deception
On January 23, Mel Gibson was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo on the EWTN show “The World Over”; the discussion centered on Gibson’s yet-to-be released movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Clips of the interview were shown on several TV shows, but only one has stirred controversy: “The Early Show” that aired today on CBS. “The Early Show” ran the following exchange between Arroyo and Gibson:
Gibson: “The film collectively blames humanity for the death of Jesus. Now there are no exemptions there. All right? I’m the first on the line for culpability—I did it. Christ died for all men, for all times.”
Arroyo: “Including the Jewish people?”
Gibson: “Yeah. They’re part of the human race….”
The problem is with the introductory comments made by Rene Syler of “The Early Show.” Here is what she said prior to the clip: “Some critics say it’s anti-Semitic because it blames Jews for the Crucifixion. In a TV interview Gibson does not deny it.”
Catholic League president William Donohue commented as follows:
“CBS has now added to the ruthless campaign against Mel Gibson and his movie. The statement by Rene Syler of what Gibson said was dishonest. To the extent that viewers accept her conclusion, they might well think Gibson is a bigot. But any fair-minded person who reads what Gibson actually said knows that CBS has acted unethically. CBS owes Mel Gibson an apology.
“The movie is a month away and the campaign against it has reached a fever pitch. The Catholic League is ready for the fight and will not be silenced by those who want to dictate history—past, present and future.”
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Ave
New York, NY 10123
(212) 371-3394 (Fax)
Posted Jan 27:
Mel Gibson's 'Passion'
Posted: January 26, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
By Barbara Simpson
Mel Gibson is the bravest man in Hollywood. Perhaps, he's the bravest in the country, all because of a movie. It's called "The Passion of The Christ" and it opens on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25.
His isn't just the courage of a man facing physical danger in a job or in a lifestyle. Gibson endures that and more – much, much more.
He's under fire for his life and beliefs, his morality and for his religion. It's not often, in this day and age, that anyone faces that kind of challenge. When it happens, it's often a private hell. Gibson's hell has been very public.
Mel Gibson wanted to produce a film about the Passion of Christ – the last 12 hours of His life, up to and including the Crucifixion. He says it's a film he had to make and he spent $25 million of his own money to do it. When he approached studios for financing or distribution, they scurried away like rats.
Gibson wanted to use the Gospels as the basic script. He wanted it in Aramaic, the language of the time. He wanted it as the Bible presents it, without sanitizing the horror of the suffering and death. He certainly wanted it without the usual Hollywood touch of sex and heresy. It was to be as close as possible to portraying what actually happened. He did it.
Gibson risked everything, knowing that if he lost the gamble, he'd not only face the financial ruin, but in the eyes of Hollywood, he'd be done – a failure and a fool.
He's endured a stolen script which was publicly reviewed, the screening by the New York Post of a bootlegged copy of the film to select people for "review," scathing commentary by people who never saw it, persistent accusations of anti-Semitism and, beneath it all, boiling contempt for Catholicism and believers.
Despite this, Gibson's screenings of the film have drawn almost unanimous praise. But, personally, he's drawn fire and his defenders have been trashed. The latest is the pope!
Frank Rich, did it in the New York Times. Obviously his nose is out of joint because (in his words) he is "one of the many curious Jews who have not been invited to press screenings of "The Passion."
Hey Frank, I'm one of the many curious Catholics who hasn't been invited either. And I'm in the media and a conservative, too. So baby, you're not alone. Buy a ticket!
Not having seen it doesn't stop Rich from ripping the film. He admits he depends on hearsay and second-hand opinions. But when it was reported that Pope John Paul II had a screening of the film and said "It is as it was," Frank went berserk.
He tore into Daily Variety for describing John Paul as "a playwright and movie buff," commenting lest anyone doubt his credentials.
Hey Frank, the pope is a playwright and also acted and directed in his youth and always loved movies.
As for the pope's assessment of the integrity of the film, in case Frank didn't notice, the pope is an expert in theology, the Bible and the life and death of Christ. Somehow, I'll take his comments more seriously than those of a newspaper writer, scared to death that a film, filled with traditional religion, might be successful.
Not content to revile the pope, Frank Rich jumped on the bandwagon of asserting the film encourages anti-Semitism, involves political partisanship and, that it panders "to church-going Americans."
Hey Frank, what happened to target audiences?
Going further, he excoriated columnist Robert Novak (who saw the film and said, it was not anti-Semitic) not for his "review," but for his coverage of the presidential campaign (!) calling it "spiritual McCarthyism"!
Now who's playing politics?
When Gibson – whose father was skewered in a major piece in the New York Times Magazine – defended his film, Rich dismissed Gibson as playing "hard-knuckle religious politics."
The arrogance of professional moralists who persist in attacking traditional Christianity is breathtaking.
Hollywood and the media have no use for people with consistent beliefs. They certainly have no use for people with religion, especially, if that religion is Roman Catholic. Gibson's double sin is not only that he's Roman Catholic, he's traditional Catholic – Latin Mass, against abortion – one who prefers the Church before Vatican II opened the doors to modernism and in the process lost much of what made Catholicism what it's been for 2,000 years.
God help the person who stands up for what he believes and who puts his money where his mouth is.