Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Mel Gibson's sequel  (Read 74579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Mel Gibson's sequel
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2025, 04:51:33 PM »
Let me correct that for you:

"It's a movie based on judaized scriptures."


The very basis of our Catholic theology is that The Virgin Mary has exclusive license to crush the head of the serpent.

Book of Genesis 3:15

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In his "Passion", Gibson visually gave you the redacted, Protestant version of the Book of Genesis... and you didn't even notice it.
This is known as the Protoevangelium, fotetelling how the seed ( Christ) of Eve ( Mary) will crush the head of the serpent ( satan) and the serpent will bruise his heel ( Christ Crucifixion). I think that scene is exactly that, Christ , the seed of the woman crushed the head of the snake, but it cost Him his life in being crucified and dying for us to defeat death and lifting the expulsion of mankind from heaven.

Correct me if I'm wrong on Catholic theological teaching on this.

Re: Mel Gibson's sequel
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2025, 08:29:32 PM »
He's made some trash movies like any other hollyweird actor, no surprise there, that's just part of the " business,", the best hitters in baseball average about .300, that's roughly 3 out of ten hits every at bat, not every pic is gonna be a hr, but the man has acted, directed and produced some classics, a lot more than the majority of his peers.

I need more proof he's a mason than a few obscure , speculative pics. The man was raised a sed catholic, I highly doubt he ever joined such an anticatholic organization.


And the scene from the passion was probably symbolic of defeating the devil, more than taking away from Our Lady in Holy Scripture, IDK, I don't read the man's mind, has he ever commented on that scene publicly?
As for the adultery thing, just one of the many public problems he's gotta deal with, probably all wrapped in his issues with alchohol, I never daid the man's a saint. But I believed he's produced some pretty good stuff over the years, I'll take him and his fight with the jews well over fag, anti christian , dominated industry he works in.

I take it back.

On 2nd thought, Gibson is your image of a struggling, trad Catholic, drinker & womanizer, making it in jew-dominated Hollywood.

It doesn't matter what Catholic mockeries, scandals, heretical concepts or masonic signs he's performs for the world.




As long as he's wearing his Scapular... he's a real trad.




Re: Mel Gibson's sequel
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2025, 08:35:44 PM »
This is known as the Protoevangelium, fotetelling how the seed ( Christ) of Eve ( Mary) will crush the head of the serpent ( satan) and the serpent will bruise his heel ( Christ Crucifixion). I think that scene is exactly that, Christ , the seed of the woman crushed the head of the snake, but it cost Him his life in being crucified and dying for us to defeat death and lifting the expulsion of mankind from heaven.

Correct me if I'm wrong on Catholic theological teaching on this.

We all grew up knowing this.



Certainly, Gibson has a good bio-cover story.

But I think he didn't grow-up knowing this.


Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Mel Gibson's sequel
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2025, 09:02:37 PM »
While I hate the Protestants' anti-catholic, anti-Mary "re-interpretation" of Genesis, I always took the crushing of the serpent's head in the garden as Christ, who allowed His human nature to be tempted, decided at that moment to accept His death and reject the weakness of His humanity, as an example to all of us.

As much as it's true that Our Lady will "crush satan's head", we have to remember that Christ's death on the Cross was/is not the end of this prophecy.  Christ died, the Church was born, and 2,000 years later, we're still fighting satan.  Our Lady's victory is not yet complete.

But in the case of the Garden, and with Christ on the cross, He alone is Our Redeemer.  He alone sufficed to God the Father.  It is true that it was His victory, alone, who saved us from sin.  (Our Lady does play a mystical part in all of this, without question).

But the larger story, post-Crucifixion, post-Resurrection...THAT is when Our Lady took a part in helping the Apostles and praying for the Church.  So Her "crushing the head of satan" is ongoing and also, yet to come (God will give Her the final victory).

So, I think both are true.  Christ did crush satan's head through His crucifixion, because satan ruled all the world through sin.  But Our Lady will also crush satan's head at the end of time, through the Church, as the battle for souls wages on.  Our Lady plays a part in both victories, because the story from Eden long ago, is not finished until the end of time.

The prottys always focus on Christ's redemption and think that "the story is over" because "Christ died once and for all", and they believe "once saved, always saved".  This is their error.  Life goes on, the battle goes on, and Our Lady plays the most important part.  Of course, the prottys have no idea about this.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Mel Gibson's sequel
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2025, 10:43:54 AM »
Right, the Challoner commentary indicates that both senses are in fact true.  Our Lady did not crush the serpent's head in any way independent of Our Lord.  She too had been (pre-)redeemed by His Passion, and cooperated in it.

In the context of the film, where the serpent is engaged in THE greatest tempation in trying to dissuade Our Lord from redeeming manking, when Our Lord definitively overcomes said temptation, that is when one can say that at least for dramatic purposes it makes most sense to depict that scene.  So, what should Gibson have done, panned away to Our Lady, whever she was and have her crushing a serpent.  If nothing else, it just doesn't really flow from a dramatic standpoint.  Perhaps he could have found a creative way to work it in, but he didn't.  But I doubt Gibson was just cowering to Protestants, give much of the other content in the film, nor even did he shy away completely from the Jews, the way he depicted them, making them look really bad, petty, unjust, hostile, vindictive, hateful, and immature ... and made Pilate out to be a somewhat sympathetic figure by comparison, placing the blame squarely where it belonged, and of course adding himself in there where it's his hand in the scene holding the nail to help drive it into Our Lord's Hand.