"When Gibson returned to his faith, he acquired, from a nunnery that had closed down a library of hundreds of books, many of them quite old. He says that when he was researching "The Passion" one evening he reached up for a book, and Brentano’s volume tumbled out of the shelf into his hands. He sat down to read it, and was flabbergasted by the vivid imagery of Emmerich’s visions. ‘Amazing images,’ he said ` ‘She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.’ The one image that is most noticeable in "The Passion" is a scene after Jesus’ scourging, when a grief-stricken Mary gets down on her knees to mop up his blood."

Now, I don’t know if that scene or others of Emmerich’s ‘amazing images’ have made the final cut but it is not true that the Bible was Gibson’s sole source. The book can be found online at www.emmerich1.com. I did not read the entire book but here are two quotes that you, Christian, may wish to consider when giving thought to Gibson’s film, The Passion of Christ.

"Her angel-guardian used to appear to her as a child; and when she was taking care of sheep in the fields, the Good Shepherd himself, under the the form of a young shepherd, would frequently come to her assistance.  From childhood she was accustomed to have divine knowledge imparted to her in visions of all kinds, and was often favoured by visits from the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, who, under the form of a sweet lovely, and majestic lady, would bring the Divine Child to be, as it were, her companion, and would assure her that she loved and would ever protect her."

"Whoever compares the following meditations with the short history of the Last Supper given in the Gospel will discover some slight differences between them. An explanation should be given of this, although it can never be sufficiently impressed upon the reader that these writing have no pretensions whatever to add an iota to Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the [Roman Catholic] Church." (Emphasis mine)

It has also come to light that Gibson depended on another person and book in the making of his soon to be released movie. That is, Mary of Agreda’s The Mystical City of God. You can read about her at www.passion-movie.gnfi.org/html/mary_of_agreda.html. (Note: This is the correct address; however, you may have to Google ‘Mary of Agreda’ for a good link.) You, the discerning Christian, can reach you own conclusions as to what this all may mean.

Also, consider some comments about the movie by actor Jim Caviezel and his wife Kerri as spoken in an interview with Fr. Mario Knezovic for Radio "Mir" Medjugorje:

Jim Caviezel: "I first heard about Medjugorje in 5th - 6th grade. They said that it was like the apparitions of Fatima, Guadeloupe, Lourdes, and they quickly said that the bishop said that it was false... Many years later, I met my wife, we got married, and after a few years she went to Medjugorje. While she was there, I was filming "The Count of Monte Cristo" in Ireland. She called me in Ireland, I felt that there was a change in her voice, but I wrote it off very quickly, thinking: "That’s good for you, dear, who am I to take away from you spiritual experience?" She said that Ivan Dragicevic was coming to Ireland...I met with him a couple of times, and during an apparition, I felt a physical presence."

Kerri Caviezel: "It took me 15 years to come [to Medjugorje]. When I came, I knew immediately - from what I was feeling in my heart - that it was real. I haven’t seen signs or anything, but - I have been a Catholic for my whole life and I had never felt in confession as I felt when I was here. It was a tremendous healing."

Jim Caviezel: "The catharsis for me to play this role was through Medjugorje, through Gospa. In preparation, I used all that Medjugorje
taught me. Mel Gibson and I were going every day for Mass together. Some days I couldn’t go for Mass, but I was receiving the Eucharist."

Kerri Caviezel: "I pray that we are open to where ever Mary is leading
us and that in all the places where we go and to the people that we meet around the world, we may bring these messages."

Jim Caviezel: "This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.

(The complete interview can be found here)

There is much in the way of a Biblical response to this, so be a good Berean. I’ll just suggest 2Corinthians 11:14: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" and recommend a book called Messages From Heaven, an excellent Biblical response to the apparitions of Mary phenomenon.

Assuredly, it is difficult and perhaps foolish to attempt to ascertain the theological content of a movie without having seen it although the movie was described by many early reviewers as "theologically accurate" before it even had sub-titles. Aside from the opening scene beholding the words of the Prophet Isaiah "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities. By his stripes we are healed," few reviewers have commented in any detail on its theology. The "why" of the crucifixion of Christ and the "what it has accomplished" seems to have been lost in the graphically violent imagery and the discussion of whether or not the movie is anti-Semitic. Most viewers will likely reach their own conclusions as to these important questions based on their understanding of the Bible. This is evidenced in the different perspectives seen in reviews by and interviews with Protestants and Roman Catholics.

My reasons for not desiring to see The Passion of Christ has nothing to do with what some see as the film’s anti-Semitic bent. The Bible says "...it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief..." (Isaiah 53:10a). "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again" (John 10:18). Our Sovereign God had ordained the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory before the world (1Corinthians 2:7-8). Out of His love and mercy the death of Jesus Christ was wrought. The Biblical testimony of this fact is good enough for me and for this I am eternally grateful. Nevertheless, I do believe that this movie will fan the arising flames of anti-Semitism around the world. On this point, we’ll just have to see what happens.

There are two principle reasons why I will not see Mr. Gibson’s movie and I direct this opinion to person’s that have "obtained like precious faith" (2Peter 1:1); those who have repented of their sin, believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, placed their faith in Him alone and His substitutionary sacrifice for the salvation of their soul and have been born again by the Holy Spirit into the family of God. I’m not going to tell any member of Christ’s body to not see the film but my open question to believers is "Why would you want to?" The great euphoria among Christians in regard to the release of this movie seems more related to the anticipation of seeing the film rather than excitement about the golden opportunity this movie presents for reaching the lost with the Gospel. It would be desirous to hear more Christians looking forward to passing out tracts to moviegoers with the message of the Biblical gospel. Incidentally Christian, are we now encouraging people to view blood curdling violence because we think it may open someone’s eyes to the saving power of Christ? Has "the ends justify the means" mentality been employed here? The movie itself will not save a single soul! It is the gospel that "...that is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" (Romans 1:16). God has chosen to use the Gospel message as the instrument of salvation because it proclaims the Name that has the power to save. That message is not spread by bloody images on a movie screen. Therefore, I would encourage Christians to make plans and be ready to give the full Gospel message to those who have seen the movie instead of making plans to see it. Let us spread the message not only of God’s love but also His Holiness, the perfect standard of His Law that we have all transgressed, His coming judgment, man’s total inability to save himself through good works and religion, the necessity of Godly repentance and that Jesus Christ alone must be the object of saving faith.

So, here are the two primary reasons I will not see The Passion of Christ. The first is the idolatrous nature of the film. The second encompasses a number of related issues and is based on the professed and well-known testimony of Mel Gibson being "a devout Roman Catholic." Roman Catholicism and, in particular, the Roman Catholic Mass misrepresent and deny the completed sacrifice of Christ on the cross by claiming that the sacrifice of Jesus is continued in the Mass. For those of you who do not know what the Roman Catholic Mass means and how intimately Gibson is connected to it, hang tight. I’ll get more into what its content is, what it means and what it claims to accomplish later. More specifically, Gibson refers to himself as a "traditionalist Roman Catholic." Without going into much detail, traditionalists reject the ecumenical outreach of the Roman Catholic Church that was declared at Vatican II. They hold to the rites that were codified at the Council of Trent in the 16th century that still hold today. Be advised Christian, the Council of Trent, the solidification of Roman Catholic theology, produced over 100 anathemas or curses against us "heretics" outside of the Roman Catholic Church who refuse to submit to Papal authority and Roman Catholic teaching. Contrary to popular opinion, these curses have never been retracted and never will be. While many facets of false Roman Catholic doctrine are not an issue in regard to this film, it is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the logical connection that can be made, based on Gibson’s profession of faith, to The Passion of Christ that makes me uneasy. For now, understand this Church: Mel Gibson, the creator of The Passion of Christ does not consider salvation available to anyone who is not a part of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, he does not even consider his wife to be saved. Hear him in his own words:

"I [the interviewer] told Gibson that I am a Protestant, and asked whether his pre-Vatican II world view disqualified me from eternal salvation. He paused, ‘There is no salvation for those outside the [Roman Catholic] Church,’ he said. ‘I believe it.’ He explained, ‘Put it this way. My wife is a saint.  She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly, she’s like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus. She believes that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."  (reference)

If I could briefly pause here and ask, please, that you would not charge to my account the "judge not, lest you be judged" out of context guilt trip that is often laid on those who try to discern truth from error. I’m not judging Gibson’s eternal destiny in the Romans 2 sort of way. Rather, I’m judging "with righteous judgment" the theological ideology behind Gibson’s profession of faith and the resulting implications of which, to the degree that they depart from Biblical truth, are very serious and that, I believe, he cannot help but bring out in his movie. Understand that my righteousness is not the basis of this judgment; I have none of my own. The basis is the standard of Righteousness that is brought to light in the Bible.

So yes, a major reason I’m suspect of Gibson’s movie and the spirit behind it is his profession as a devout Roman Catholic. Those of you who know me are aware that my position on the Roman Catholic teaching of salvation is that it, at its very core, is works based and is therefore in direct opposition with the Biblical Gospel and Reformation teaching of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Simply put, if Gibson is a ‘devout Roman Catholic,’ one could rightly conclude that he rejects salvation by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) and therefore believes another gospel that could not have the power of God to save. You may think I’m being presumptuous in this conclusion. I believe it to be equally presumptuous to assume someone IS a born again believer as it is to assume that one is not. Perhaps even more so from a "practical implications" perspective. IF this is so (and I know some of you are steaming right now but remember I’m aware that it is not for me to determine someone’s belief in the ultimate sense) then the making of The Passion of Christ should be seen in a whole new light. Instead of being influenced and "directed by the Holy Ghost," it may then be an influenced and directed work of another spirit. IF this is so, then we should examine the meaning of and position that idolatry and the Roman Catholic Mass hold in Roman Catholic theology and practice and, by logical extension, in the mind of Gibson and the resulting influence it had in the production of his movie.

The possible application of 2Corinthians 11:3-4 may make some sense as I continue to lay out what I’m trying to say. Please keep this in mind:

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

We know our Sovereign God is on the throne and that "...all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). Nevertheless, we also know that the leash the Lord has Satan on will get longer as the end nears and the deception in the world will wax greater and greater. "Take heed that no man deceive you" (Matthew 24:4).

In regard to the charge that The Passion of Christ is cinematic idolatry, I’ll rely heavily on the thoughts of J.I. Packer from Chapter Four of his book Knowing God.

So why might Gibson’s movie be considered idolatry? Consider the Second Commandment which, incidentally, has been removed from official Roman Catholic teaching (Article 2, p. 518). Rome has split the Tenth Commandment in two so the Catechism still contains ten. The real Second Commandment reads:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).

Packer points out that if taken alone it would be natural to assume that the Second Commandment refers to the worship of images of false gods as described by Isaiah 44:9-20; 46:6-7 and about which Paul wrote of in Romans 1:23,25. "But in its context the Second Commandment can hardly be referring to this sort of idolatry, for if it were it would simply be repeating the thought of the First Commandment without adding anything to it" (p.44). Packer quotes Charles Hodge who says "idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images." For the Christian, these men understand the Second Commandment to be saying that "...we are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the Triune God, or of any Person of the Trinity, for purposes of Christian worship" (p.44). An obvious objection would be in the form of the Christian saying, "Well, I’m not going to see the movie as an overt act of worship." Fair enough, but I believe some (many?) will be drawn into a form of worship that is spiritually unhealthy and related to Packer’s point especially in a film that, by every single account, is extremely and graphically violent. Some sort of sympathetic identification with the person on the screen who we would see as the real Jesus Christ seems to me to be inevitable. "Well, the crucifixion was extremely violent and bloody" you may say. This no doubt is true, but don’t forget about the extra-Biblical sources Gibson has used. The death of Christ was violent and bloody but Gibson’s film is not THE crucifixion. This leads to an expansion of Packer’s point.

Many people say that images of Christ help them to focus their thoughts on Him in prayer or worship. In the context of the film, it is said to give the believer a greater appreciation of His sacrifice. Why would that be harmful? (Remember, my opinion is addressed only to those in the body of Christ. The movie may very well move some to be open to the message of the Gospel.) Packer maintains that the Second Commandment "...rules out the use of pictures and statues of Jesus Christ as a man, although Jesus Himself was and remains man; for all pictures and statues are necessarily made after the "likeness" of ideal manhood as WE [emphasis mine] conceive it, and therefore come under the ban which the Commandment imposes" (p.45). Many have and will disagree with Packer’s position as it would eliminate the use of images as evangelistic tools. Nevertheless, Packer maintains it must be a matter of crucial importance as is evidenced by the "frightening sanction" attached to it.

"The Bible shows us that the glory of God and the spiritual well-being of humans are both directly bound up with it" (p.45). The lines of thought in the Second Commandment relate not to the perceived helpfulness of the images but to "the truth of them." Packer continues with the following points: 1) Images dishonor God, for they obscure His Glory. He quotes Calvin: "A true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and hence...His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form. Therefore, to devise any image of God is itself impious because by this corruption His Majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is." This thought can be applied directly to the depiction of Jesus in The Passion of Christ. Packer points out that any image of Jesus "...inevitably conceals most, if not all, of the truth about the personal nature and character of the Divine Being who they represent" (p.46).

He continues,

"...the pathos of the crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of His Deity, His victory on the cross, and His present kingdom. It displays His human weakness, but it conceals His divine strength; it depicts the reality of His pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of His joy and His power. In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display" (p.46).

If this point indeed applies to the crucifix, I believe it would apply, in spades, to The Passion of Christ. I ask again, Why would a born-again believer want to view this depiction of our Lord? This is especially perplexing to me when many comments are heard like, "Boy, is that going to be tough to see" or "I don’t know if I can watch that!" It seems there is some sort of strange idea that the Christian is obligated to see this movie. You’re not!

2) Images mislead us, for they convey false ideas about God. "The very inadequacy with which they represent Him perverts our thoughts of Him and plants in our minds errors of all sorts about His character and will" (p.46-47). Church, we should get our idea of God from what He has revealed to us about Himself. This revelation comes to us through the Bible. Only from the Bible "...may we form a true notion of God; without it we never can. Thus it appears that the positive force of the Second Commandment is that it compels us to take our thoughts of God from His own Holy word, and from no other source whatsoever" (p.48).

If Packer’s analysis is correct and has application to The Passion of Christ, to see this movie could very well be spiritually damaging to many Christians. I guess you will have to decide that for yourself. As for me and my house, we will remain fixed on the image of the Risen Christ as described by the Apostle John:

"And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire, and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters" (Revelation 1:13-15).

‘Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame’ Hebrews 6:6b

This portion of Hebrews 6:6 is part of a passage (verses 4-6) that has led to a great variety of opinions from commentators as to its meaning. Is it about true Christians who apostatize and lose their salvation or is it about those who are not true Christians but people who have been awakened and enlightened? In short, the immediate context of this passage involves the issue of the eternal security of the believer and proves that if true Christians could apostatize, it would be impossible to save them; the sacrifice that was the basis of salvation would have been ineffectual. Whether you agree with that or not there is, apart from and standing alone, an undisputable principle applicable to any context in which it may be found. That is, Jesus Christ need never be crucified again and to think or ‘do’ so is to put Him and His work on the cross to open shame. It is clear from the book of Hebrews that the one sacrifice of Jesus was supremely sufficient for the atonement of the sins of man and therefore, will never necessitate repeating. The perfect sacrifice has been offered, completed and accepted by God the Father.

Upon His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus passed through "...a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands..." (Hebrews 9:11) in order "...to appear in the presence of God for us" (Hebrews 9:24). Jesus entered the heavenly throne room of God "...by his own blood..." (Hebrews 9:12) "...to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17). He "...entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Hebrews 9:12). The proof of the Fathers acceptance of this sacrifice came three days later when Jesus "...was raised again for our justification" (Romans 4:25) "...and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain; ye are yet in your sins" (1Corinthians 15:17). The Lord is seated on the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3; 10:12) "From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool" (Hebrews 10:13). "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14).

To repeat, Roman Catholicism and, in particular, the Roman Catholic Mass misrepresent and deny the completed sacrifice of Christ on the cross by claiming that the sacrifice of Jesus is continued in the Mass.

To explain in this section why I will not see The Passion of Christ, it will be necessary to rely on Mel Gibson’s own profession of being a devout Roman Catholic. In reading over a dozen reviews, nearly every one has confirmed this to be the truth. Furthermore, this understanding is clearly shown in Gibson’s comment, quoted in several interviews, that he attended Mass every morning during the shooting of the film because "...we had to be squeaky clean just working on this." (reference) Gibson went so far as to bring a priest in from Canada who would say the Tridentine Mass. When this priest had to leave Rome, where the film was being shot, Gibson found a French Traditionalist living in England who agreed to say Mass for him.

Following the Protestant Reformation, a standard Rite of Mass was imposed on the entire Latin Church at the order of the Council of Trent. This became known as the "Tridentine Rite." Some modifications were made in the centuries following. After Vatican II, an extensive revision of the rite was undertaken. For instance, the distinction between "high" and "low" Mass was removed as were many repetitions, ritual gestures, etc. Now as you recall, Gibson rejects the post Vatican II changes to the Mass. However, and this is the crucial point, the essential element of the Roman Catholic Mass, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, remains the same.

Gibson’s confession of faith and daily attendance at the Roman Catholic Mass should make it perfectly clear that he is who he says he is: a devout Roman Catholic. If devout or devoted is the proper adjective, this means that Gibson is dedicated, earnest and sincere about the Roman Catholic religion and therefore, the Roman Catholic Mass. If he is devout based on some other reason than understanding what Roman Catholicism represents, what the Mass is and what the Mass purports to accomplish, I will gladly stand corrected and, if given the opportunity, will personally apologize to him for erroneously characterizing his beliefs.

So what is the essence of the Roman Catholic Mass that Gibson so faithfully attended every day during the filming of The Passion of Christ? Most Christians could not begin to answer this question. It is very likely you are one of them; listen carefully.

The Mass is centered around the Sacrament of the Eucharist described by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "...the source of and summit of the Christian life (#1324). "In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking" (#1327). The core activity and primary purpose of the Mass is a sacrifice. Pope John Paul II wrote: "The Eucharist is above all else a Sacrifice. It is the Sacrifice of the Redemption and also the Sacrifice of the New Covenant" (On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist, no. 9). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in the Mass, Christ offers Himself to the Father through the hands of the priest (#1088). Furthermore, "The sacrifice of Christ and the Sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice . The victim is one and the same...only the manner of offering is different...the same Christ...is contained and offered in an un-bloody manner...this sacrifice...is truly propitiatory (#1367). Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church considers the Mass to be a true sacrifice (#1365).

"The august sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty commemoration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, where by the High Priest by an un-bloody immolation offers Himself a most acceptable victim to the Eternal Father, as He did upon the cross." (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 68)

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, each Mass, i.e., each sacrifice, applies to its participants, the saving power of the sacrifice of the cross. Do not Gibson’s words, ‘we had to be squeaky clean,’ then take on a whole new meaning? "For the Lord is appeased by this offering, he gives the gracious gift of repentance, he absolves even enormous offenses and sins" (Council of Trent, Session 22). To accept the teaching that the Sacrifice of the Mass is "truly propitiatory" is to believe another gospel. Sinners are "...justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past..." (Romans 3:24-25).

Of course, the Sacrifice of the Mass could not be a real sacrifice if Jesus was not literally present. "In the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained" (#1374, emphasis in original). The claim is made that the Eternal Creator is reduced to a bit of bread. Surely, this is the height of idolatry! The ingestion of this literal Christ during the Mass produces literal results. "Holy Communion augments our union with Christ (#1391)...preserves increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism (#1392)...separates us from sin..cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins (#1393)...strengthens our charity...and this living charity wipes away venial sins (#1394)...and preserves us from future mortal sins" (#1395).

Much could be given by way of a Biblical response to these false teachings. I’ll leave it to the reader to search the Scriptures , whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). If these assertions by Roman Catholicism and Mel Gibson, by virtue of his devout association, do not square with Scripture the relevant question is: What does this mean in the context of The Passion of Christ?

Going back to Hebrews 6:6b, "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" may it be suggested that this is precisely what Gibson and Jim Caviezel, another ‘devout Roman Catholic,’ did every day before filming a human depiction of Christ taking up the cross. I can’t help but believe that to Gibson the making of this movie is a sort of re-creation of the Mass and sacrificial offering to God. Reader, that is not so far-fetched in light of the fact that a devout Roman Catholic (I know some personally) believes that the One True God of the universe, during the Mass, is trans-substantiated into a piece of bread and held up to be sacrificed.

The writer, producer, director and financier of The Passion of Christ is part of a religious system that puts Jesus Christ to open shame thousands of times every day on its altars across the world. Show me in the book of Acts where the early church re-presented to the Father the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Could this possibly be under the influence of the Holy Ghost? Pastors:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over

the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the

church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For

I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter

in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:28-29). "Wherefore

by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).

Can individuals who are devoted to such a system be walking after the Holy Ghost? Can such a tremendously graphic and violent film, that by the makers own admission was influenced heavily by a stigmatist and mystic, be of the Holy Ghost? The Mass is the centerpiece of Roman Catholicism’s false system of worship that violates Jesus Christ and deceives its followers into thinking they are really honoring the Lord. Is this what The Passion of Christ is doing to both Christians and non-Christians alike? Is this movie a masterful deception and will it delude people into thinking that they are honoring God and Jesus Christ? Or is He being nailed to the cross again and again and again in theaters across the world just as He is kept on the cross in the Mass and with the Roman Catholic crucifix? Sure there is a scene of a mystic’s rendition of the Risen Christ but who will remember that? Unless you’re out there Christian with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ that fact will be completely lost in the blood splattered and mind numbing images. Will the lost head back to their dead Protestant churches for a continued diet of the feel-good gospel that has been stripped of the power to save? Will the faithful Roman Catholics go back to their cathedrals and continue to be fed, literally, more lies? This system, contrary to popular opinion, has not and will not change. Her doctrine is firmly established by long continuance. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" (Jeremiah 13:23a). They will continue to hear that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ opened the door to heaven but did not have the power to remove the stain of sin and their good works, the Sacraments, are part of the process of becoming justified and "...are necessary for salvation" (#1129).

I’ll leave you with a quote from Author, Theologian and Pastor John MacArthur:

"Catholicism is a false system. It is not the church of Christ, it is the church of anti-Christ. If you follow Catholic theology you’ll go to hell. I am not saying that to be unkind but to be truthful.  Being truthful is the only way to be kind."

Brethren of like precious faith, the maker of The Passion of Christ is devoted to this system. That fact may or may not make any difference to you. Ultimately you must decide for yourselves and your families what this means and how and if it has any relationship to The Passion of Christ. Do pray for Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel that the Lord will show them the deception to which they have fallen prey.



Comments can be directed to jlegare1@scc.net