[PPActionnGuys]

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

[obegeLype]

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

[mQb0aVZe]

Has anyone seen THE PASSION yet?

[excholza]

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.

[zatronanec]

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

[exchpaypaleg]

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

[valensds]

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?

[IntinyBut]

Father Bless:

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

Thanks.

w.

[Bill-Watson]

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

[Greapyjeory]

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

[Greapyjeory]

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

[excholza]

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?

[Greapyjeory]

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