Jim Caviezel, actor who played Jesus, says ‘Passion of the Christ’ sequel will be a huge event of film

[CathBoy1]

“Catholic” encompasses a pretty big scope - the movie can be Catholic and please some Catholics, while displeasing others.

I wonder what it is that is displeasing about the film to Catholics?

In my opinion the movie is decidedly Catholic, one of the biggest charges brought against the film in general is the graphic depiction of violence, however I would say that the entire Passion itself was quite violent, so it makes sense to me to depict it as such.

I remember reading a while back (I cannot remember where) mother Angelica talking about how strong her God is…

…when questioned what she was talking about she said that Jesus went through the Passion and lost every drop of blood by the time that He died so that when a spear pierced His side the last drops of blood were mingled with water and poured out because He had given every drop of blood.

When I think about that, I imagine it had to be quite a violent ordeal, honestly thinking about someone losing every single drop of blood, it must’ve been horrendous.

Apparently, Mel’s version takes a lot from the visions of Venerable Catherine Emmerich…

I’ve read some of it but never really got into it.

Yes, I read that book during lent a couple years ago and I could not put it down, that’s saying a lot as someone who has a very hard time keeping their attention on reading, I have read very few books (attention issues among other problems) and I read this particular book within a week, I couldn’t stop reading it I found it very interesting, I found the flavor was decidedly Catholic, others mileage may vary.

christianpost.com

Jim Caviezel on ‘Passion of the Christ’ sequel: 'It’s going to be the biggest… ​

“The Passion of the Christ” star Jim Caviezel recently shared new details about the highly anticipated sequel of the blockbuster hit.

“It’s called ‘The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection, ’ he said.

The first movie, “The Passion

On a related note Jim Caviezel appeared on Fox and Friends recently promoting his new film Infidel, towards the end of the interview he is asked about his opinion on a quote from Ronald Reagan, and in my opinion his response was a very powerful and moving commentary on the issues in the world today:

 

[twf]

In fact Scripture says that Our Lady was distressed when she couldn’t find the 12 year old Jesus. She never sinned, this we know, but she was also human. She didn’t relax and think “ah he must be in the temple so I’ll wait here.”… she was distressed and spent days looking for him.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Minor point, but this film takes place one day after Jesus’s execution, is Jim Caviezel not going to look a tad out of place now being what 15 or so years older?

 

[CathBoy1]

In a world where 30 somethings play teenagers on a regular basis, I think Jim Caviezel trying to pass as a 33 year old doesn’t seem to be too big a stretch

 

[DaveBj]

Minor point, but this film takes place one day after Jesus’s execution, is Jim Caviezel not going to look a tad out of place now being what 15 or so years older?

I think you may be underestimating what can be done with makeup.

D

 

[Inquisitor85]

Fair. Just don’t do a back to back screening of them and it’ll be fine.

 

[Aulef]

One gets that Jesus Christ has perfect awareness from dogmas taught by the Catholic Church such as:

• God is absolutely perfect
• God possesses an infinite power of cognition
• God is everywhere present in created space
• God’s knowledge is infinite
• God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simples intelligence
• Jesus Christ is God

Now it easier to see He had perfect awareness, right? Thus, not triping is just a consequence of these atributes. To trip is actually an imperfection of the act of walk or run. Since God can’t do anything imperfect, He could never trip.

Regarding the Virgin Mary, I never said she couldn’t experience human emotion. However, the way she experiences it is different than most of us. Why? Because of teachings by the Catholic Church such as:

• Mary was conceived without stain of original sin
• From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence.

This second teaching is the most important in this discussion because since she was free from concupiscence, it follows that she didn’t have antecedent passions; only consequent passions. This means her emotions were completely controlled by her intellect and her will. Thus, she could never despair, which is a passion of the irascible apetite that leads people to think they could not reach the desired good. And this is what it looks like in the movie on those two scenes with Mary I mentioned. Maybe Mel Gibson didn’t intend it but it looked like it anyways.

I hope I made myself clearer.

 

[TMC]

One gets that Jesus Christ has perfect awareness from dogmas taught by the Catholic Church

No, one does not. The Church does not teach that the incarnate Jesus was omniscient. (see, for example, CC 472) Certainly, Scripture records his lack of knowledge in some instances (see, for example Mark 5:25-34), and even records him falling down. Jesus could trip; and almost certainly did trip. He was fully human.

As to Mary, I don’t find your arguments there anymore convincing. You portray Mary almost like an emotionless machine. Of course Mary could feel despair, and every other human emotion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I read the book, " The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" before going to see the movie. It was very contemplative and things needed to be explained being the dreams Anne Catherine Emmerich had didn’t match historical things like how Roman Crucifixions were carried out.

However, Jesus was not the usual person convicted to death as other criminals were, and the Sanhedrin were much involved in planning his arrest, conviction and death.

Anyway, the new movie being planned, will probably have a contemplative element to it as well, and fundamentalists will have the same problem with it as they had with the Passion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Gibson actually removed a scene from the movie because it would be used as anti-Semitic

The scene is when Pilate gives the crowd of Jews before him the choice between sparing Barabbas, or Jesus. The crowd shouts Barabbas and Pilate asks, what is he to do with Jesus ? The crowd shouts, crucify him and then, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”

This verse was used by anti-Semitics to persecute Jews over the centuries. Gibson chose to leave that scene out of the film.

Also in the movie, the hand holding the first nail which is driven into the hand of Jesus, it was actually Gibson’s hand.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The only outburst I recall was when Gibson was drunk and a cab driver, who was Jewish, got into a debate with Gibson about Israel and the treatment of the Palestinians. Gibson argued that the Jews were the cause of the violence there. He was talking about the Israeli Government, not all Jews. However, the media got the story and twisted it.

 

[goout]

I might be one of the few Catholics that did not appreciate “The Passion”.
In my opinion the ponderous graphic violence was gratuitous. It was voyeuristic and pandering to some of the worst tendencies in our culture. The beginning scene in the Garden was the high point as far as being edifying.

Nothing everything that is real needs to be shown or should be consumed visually. Things that are sacred ought to be treated as such. (re pornography)

 

[Victoria33]

That certainly is one’s prerogative but it is based on Venerable Catherine Emmerich’s own writings which are “visions” or however one would have it of the Passion.

This is my understanding:

The book carries a “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” from the Church, so that means nothing in it is contrary to Church teaching.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The first film had lots of elements from medieval mysticism which it used to fill in the bits where the gospels were vague or didn’t cover at all . A lot of research must have gone into that . I thought all in all it was pretty faithful to the passion as it would have been understood in the later Middle Ages . If he is doing a sequel I am sure he will be similarly meticulous

 

[goout]

That certainly is one’s prerogative but it is based on Venerable Catherine Emmerich’s own writings which are “visions” or however one would have it of the Passion.

This is my understanding:

The book carries a “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” from the Church, so that means nothing in it is contrary to Church teaching.

https://images.bwbcovers.com/140/The-Dolorous-Passion-of-Our-Lord-Jesus-Christ-9781402591938.jpg

I wasn’t referring to the book, I was referring to the movie. I haven’t read the book.

 

[goout]

One gets that Jesus Christ has perfect awareness from dogmas taught by the Catholic Church such as:

• God is absolutely perfect
• God possesses an infinite power of cognition
• God is everywhere present in created space
• God’s knowledge is infinite
• God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simples intelligence
• Jesus Christ is God

Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
Classic support for his human development is scriptural: he

grew in knowledge and stature

and the trajectory of the Gospels themselves show the developing human condition that Christ truly shared in.

 

[Victoria33]

I wasn’t referring to the book, I was referring to the movie. I haven’t read the book.

It’s a movie based on the book.

 

[goout]

goout:

I wasn’t referring to the book, I was referring to the movie. I haven’t read the book.

It’s a movie based on the book.

Right I know that.
My comment addressed the movie, as that is the topic of the thread.

 

[Victoria33]

We might as well say there is too much blood in the Bible.

It’s the center piece of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

We are told we are to be washed in the blood of the lamb.

 

[goout]

We might as well say there is too much blood in the Bible.

It’s the center piece of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

We are told we are to be washed in the blood of the lamb.

Rather than repost my own words, can you tell me what my post said?