Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Art and Literature for Catholics => Topic started by: Mark 79 on March 24, 2022, 12:15:32 PM

Title: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mark 79 on March 24, 2022, 12:15:32 PM
https://headlineusa.com/buzz-passion-of-the-christ-sequel/
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on March 24, 2022, 02:14:22 PM
I'm glad to hear it's still in production. Mel is a great director, so I have no doubts this will be outstanding.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: josefamenendez on March 24, 2022, 03:03:01 PM
I am thankful to Mel for providing all of those images ( From the Passion) to ponder while praying the Sorrowful mysteries- it has helped me a lot. Those images are what I visualize- its automatic now
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mark 79 on March 24, 2022, 03:05:54 PM
As you note, The Passion was a meditation of the Sorrowful Mysteries. The Resurrection will similarly be a reflection on those mysteries. I hope that Mel lives and works long enough to do the Joyful Mysteries.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on March 24, 2022, 03:13:06 PM
As you note, The Passion was a meditation of the Sorrowful Mysteries. The Resurrection will similarly be a reflection on those mysteries. I hope that Mel lives and works long enough to do the Joyful Mysteries.

Same.  Although the Resurrection apparently just deals with the First Glorious Mystery, or actually, the time between His death on the cross and His Resurrection.  I'd love to see him get through them all in this movie.

I must say, however, that I did not care for his casting of the Jєωess to play the part of Our Lady.  I didn't like her or her looks ... so that put me off quite a bit.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Kazimierz on March 24, 2022, 03:13:48 PM
Cinema actually to look forward towards. :pray::incense:
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on March 24, 2022, 03:40:00 PM
I must say, however, that I did not care for his casting of the Jєωess to play the part of Our Lady.  I didn't like her or her looks ... so that put me off quite a bit.
Her looks were very off-putting, yes, probably an appeal to the Protestant crowd that wouldn't believe that Our Lady would still look young and beautiful in her middle age. But I still think she gave a great performance as the Blessed Virgin. Kind of like his switch of Our Lord crushing the head of the serpent in Gethsemane, rather than Our Lady (although I still love the image regardless).
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/9a/73/959a73cd8e509adf6b6b92f0b1da89e8.gif)

I honestly think the best casting, thus far, of Our Lady was Olivia Hussey in Jesus of Nazareth:

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/pictured-olivia-hussey-as-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-photo-by-nbcnbcu-picture-id140634660)

I am thankful to Mel for providing all of those images ( From the Passion) to ponder while praying the Sorrowful mysteries- it has helped me a lot. Those images are what I visualize- its automatic now
It's the same for me. Especially the agony and the scourging, there's very few images of the scourging that can compare to what Mel filmed there. And the meeting of Mary and Jesus on the Way of the Cross makes me cry everytime:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH2wn47WByQ
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on March 24, 2022, 04:21:49 PM
Her looks were very off-putting, yes, probably an appeal to the Protestant crowd that wouldn't believe that Our Lady would still look young and beautiful in her middle age. But I still think she gave a great performance as the Blessed Virgin. Kind of like his switch of Our Lord crushing the head of the serpent in Gethsemane, rather than Our Lady (although I still love the image regardless).

I honestly think the best casting, thus far, of Our Lady was Olivia Hussey in Jesus of Nazareth:

It's the same for me. Especially the agony and the scourging, there's very few images of the scourging that can compare to what Mel filmed there. And the meeting of Mary and Jesus on the Way of the Cross makes me cry everytime:

I agree with the Olivia Hussey casting.

Morgenstein's (deliberate misspelling) performance was OK, but (and this is the fault of the writing) I absolutely detested that flashback scene (in your clip) where Our Lord as a Young Child fell going up some stairs, and she started frantically flailing her arms in panic and freaking out.  Our Blessed Mother absolutely never behaved in that manner.  You'd have thought the Lord had gotten run over by a mule rather than gently fallen (from a height of about 2 feet) onto a pile of straw.  Nor would she have hesitated for a single moment to go console Her Son, as is depicted in this scene.  St. John is having to practically plead with her to go, but she freezes.  When they finally meet, it's indeed very moving, but the stuff leading up to that should have been edited out of the movie as unbecoming of Our Blessed Mother.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on March 24, 2022, 04:34:36 PM
the stuff leading up to that should have been edited out of the movie as unbecoming of Our Blessed Mother.
Very true. The flashback is cringy no matter how you look at it. Honestly, its the last 30 seconds or so that get me anyway when He says "Behold I make things new"
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on March 24, 2022, 04:38:06 PM
Very true. The flashback is cringy no matter how you look at it. Honestly, its the last 30 seconds or so that get me anyway when He says "Behold I make things new"

Same.  When He says that, it's very moving.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Charity on March 30, 2022, 06:22:45 PM
I don't know why he left out the scene of the Temple guards et al immediately being cast frozen and held to the ground just before they took the Lord into custody.  That was a magnificent show of power and, of course, a miracle.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: 2Vermont on March 31, 2022, 04:47:30 AM
I agree with the Olivia Hussey casting.

Morgenstein's (deliberate misspelling) performance was OK, but (and this is the fault of the writing) I absolutely detested that flashback scene (in your clip) where Our Lord as a Young Child fell going up some stairs, and she started frantically flailing her arms in panic and freaking out.  Our Blessed Mother absolutely never behaved in that manner.  You'd have thought the Lord had gotten run over by a mule rather than gently fallen (from a height of about 2 feet) onto a pile of straw.  Nor would she have hesitated for a single moment to go console Her Son, as is depicted in this scene.  St. John is having to practically plead with her to go, but she freezes.  When they finally meet, it's indeed very moving, but the stuff leading up to that should have been edited out of the movie as unbecoming of Our Blessed Mother.
I never thought of that.  Perhaps she hesitated because she questioned whether she should get involved in the Passion.  

As for the casting, I wonder whether Mel chose that actress to contrast with the woman he chose for Mary Magdeline who was absolutely beautiful and yet a huge sinner.  Having said that, Olivia is still my favorite as well. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on March 31, 2022, 09:23:33 AM
It's admittedly been years since watching the flashback/Christ meets Mother scene, so maybe I don't remember the visuals all that well, but I always found it a wonderful scene. The Virgin is the perfect Mother and cannot but be moved with sincere compassion at her Child's most insignificant pain. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on March 31, 2022, 09:32:21 AM
It's admittedly been years since watching the flashback/Christ meets Mother scene, so maybe I don't remember the visuals all that well, but I always found it a wonderful scene. The Virgin is the perfect Mother and cannot but be moved with sincere compassion at her Child's most insignificant pain.
Feeling grief over the torture and execution of God Who took your own flesh and blood for His own is the most ordered expression of sorrow imaginable. So I don't ultimately see anything wrong with it, as cheesy as the flashbacks are.

(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/ygDjdph/f821d05f4b93ef664601ff6a7ae56128.jpg)

(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/GJ07JfV/ee19abae2b6b151a149ac18ac34b1da1.jpg)
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Integralism1234 on March 31, 2022, 09:34:55 AM
The kikes are going to plant something against Mel Gibson to make sure this movie doesn't get released. A "DUI", "antisemitic remarks". 

They hate the Passion because the Jєωs know they are the most responsible for the biggest crime of all time.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on March 31, 2022, 10:43:26 AM
Feeling grief over the torture and execution of God Who took your own flesh and blood for His own is the most ordered expression of sorrow imaginable. So I don't ultimately see anything wrong with it, as cheesy as the flashbacks are.

(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/ygDjdph/f821d05f4b93ef664601ff6a7ae56128.jpg)

(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/GJ07JfV/ee19abae2b6b151a149ac18ac34b1da1.jpg)
.
Do you find the flashback cheesy because you think the blessed mother would have withheld comfort from the Christ Child except for the most grievous of injuries? Not trying to be contrarian, it's just that I don't find the flashback cheesy at all and am trying to understand the argument. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on March 31, 2022, 10:51:23 AM
.
Do you find the flashback cheesy because you think the blessed mother would have withheld comfort from the Christ Child except for the most grievous of injuries? Not trying to be contrarian, it's just that I don't find the flashback cheesy at all and am trying to understand the argument.
I thought it was just an unnecessary addition to emphasize the moment, it kind of takes you out of the shock of what's going on with His walk to Calvary.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on March 31, 2022, 11:05:15 AM
It was definitely an emphasis. This might just come down to taste, then. I found the flashback welcome, since it presented a deeper/different perspective from Our Lady's view. I think it's conventional to claim she experienced the most and perfect grief for Our Savior. The flashback tries to communicate that grief. It's alien to us, because none of us raised the Christ Child, none of us (literally) bandaged his scrapes and bruises as the Blessed Mother did. Add to that of course that none of us were holier than her either. Anyways, it's quite uncomfortable (the flashback) and yet it should be. Useful to be reminded of how in our weakness and self interest, that kind of grief would break us. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on March 31, 2022, 11:13:52 AM
.
Do you find the flashback cheesy because you think the blessed mother would have withheld comfort from the Christ Child except for the most grievous of injuries? Not trying to be contrarian, it's just that I don't find the flashback cheesy at all and am trying to understand the argument.

My issue with it was the opposite.  She hesitated to go comfort Our Lord and St. John practically had to plead with her to go.  I find that insulting to Our Lady.  She would never have hesitated for a single second.  Also, the scene where the Child Jesus falls down gently onto some straw from his height of about 2-feet depicts Our Lady "losing it", frantically flailing her hands chasing after the Child and losing her composure.  Also an insult to Our Lady.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on March 31, 2022, 11:24:09 AM
My issue with it was the opposite.  She hesitated to go comfort Our Lord and St. John practically had to plead with her to go.  I find that insulting to Our Lady.  She would never have hesitated for a single second.  Also, the scene where the Child Jesus falls down gently onto some straw from his height of about 2-feet depicts Our Lady "losing it", frantically flailing her hands chasing after the Child and losing her composure.  Also an insult to Our Lady.
.
That's an interesting perspective. Is it true that she could not have been overwhelmed by grief, such that would account for hesitation (I assume you do not interpret the hesitation as deliberate, as though she were evaluating whether or not she should assist)? She was human like us and emotions are human features, not dissimilar from hunger or other physiological processes. The idea of her being overwhelmed with grief in a way that could be momentarily arresting does not strike me as anymore unbecoming than the idea of her being exhausted or hungry from the journey to Egypt.
.
I guess I don't remember the flashback well enough to agree with the depiction of her frantic and flailing, so I'll reserve a response to that part until I've refreshed my memory. Suffice it to say, I don't remember it as unbecoming but my memory could be off.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Marion on March 31, 2022, 02:59:40 PM
The kikes are going to plant something against Mel Gibson to make sure this movie doesn't get released. A "DUI", "antisemitic remarks".

They hate the Passion because the Jєωs know they are the most responsible for the biggest crime of all time.

The temple was destroyed and the Jєωs were scattered; punishment for deicide.

Today the Church is destroyed and the Catholics are scattered. The time of tribulation is going on, "a time such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time".

The latter punishment seems more severe, hence the corresponding crime too; Great Apostasy in spite of all graces.


Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: 2Vermont on March 31, 2022, 03:05:47 PM
My issue with it was the opposite.  She hesitated to go comfort Our Lord and St. John practically had to plead with her to go.  I find that insulting to Our Lady.  She would never have hesitated for a single second.  Also, the scene where the Child Jesus falls down gently onto some straw from his height of about 2-feet depicts Our Lady "losing it", frantically flailing her hands chasing after the Child and losing her composure.  Also an insult to Our Lady.
Like I said above, perhaps it was more about thinking she would be taking away from His Passion/intervening in the Passion knowing He was supposed to suffer.  

There was a book out at the time of the movie that had a number of questions that were answered to explain this or that about the scenes/Mel's choices.  I wonder whether this one was mentioned at all.   
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on March 31, 2022, 05:46:46 PM
Like I said above, perhaps it was more about thinking she would be taking away from His Passion/intervening in the Passion knowing He was supposed to suffer. 

That's not the way it came across to me at all.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 01, 2022, 12:58:39 AM
Also, the scene where the Child Jesus falls down gently onto some straw from his height of about 2-feet depicts Our Lady "losing it", frantically flailing her hands chasing after the Child and losing her composure.  Also an insult to Our Lady.

Our Lord would not have been capable of falling as depicted, imo.  She would not lose Her composure; He would not lose His balance in any situation other than the one on the Via Crucis.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Tradman on April 01, 2022, 08:14:58 AM
Same.  Although the Resurrection apparently just deals with the First Glorious Mystery, or actually, the time between His death on the cross and His Resurrection.  I'd love to see him get through them all in this movie.

I must say, however, that I did not care for his casting of the Jєωess to play the part of Our Lady.  I didn't like her or her looks ... so that put me off quite a bit.
The worst. She crucified the role.  
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: UMCGB on April 01, 2022, 03:39:40 PM
The temple was destroyed and the Jєωs were scattered; punishment for deicide.

Today the Church is destroyed and the Catholics are scattered. The time of tribulation is going on, "a time such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time".

The latter punishment seems more severe, hence the corresponding crime too; Great Apostasy in spite of all graces.


Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
This is true except, in the end, the Jєωs die uglier. They have the deepest recesses of hell reserved for themselves because, despite being chosen by God, they rejected His Son and murdered Him.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: UMCGB on April 01, 2022, 03:56:42 PM
I don't know why he left out the scene of the Temple guards et al immediately being cast frozen and held to the ground just before they took the Lord into custody.  That was a magnificent show of power and, of course, a miracle.
The Bible says they were knocked to the ground which shows the justice of God using physical defense and signaling to His captors the Divinity of Christ so they might convert. It terms of the physical defense being employed, God, also, allowed Peter to cut off the ear of one of Christ's captors before He commanded Peter to stop and, subsequently, healed his ear. The message here was not only to show that Christ is the true Messiah and His mercy to His captor by healing him, but also that physical self-defense is justified. This is consistent with Our Lord commanding His disciples to arm themselves with a sword and the early Hebrews to arm themselves in the Old Testament. Christ only commanded Peter to stop because the Passion and, ultimately, the Divine Sacrifice had to continue and be consummate. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 01, 2022, 05:29:26 PM
Our Lord would not have been capable of falling as depicted, imo.  She would not lose Her composure; He would not lose His balance in any situation other than the one on the Via Crucis.

That's a very solid point.  Our Lord with His perfection and without Original Sin, would have had perfect control over His Body and perfect mental attention (so that He could not fall from inattentiveness either) ... as depicted in that scene.  Yes, falling beneath the weight of the Cross was simply due to His Body being unable to physically bear the burden ... and was not due to clumsiness.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on April 01, 2022, 05:31:39 PM
That's a very solid point.  Our Lord with His perfection and without Original Sin, would have had perfect control over His Body and perfect mental attention (so that He could not fall from inattentiveness either).
Perhaps such a fall would be preordained by God as a trial for Our Lady?
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on April 01, 2022, 06:26:33 PM
If the Christ Child encountered no difficulties (I realize no one has said that, but if He was incapable of even tripping, it certainly raises the question) what exactly did the Blessed Mother *do* to raise Him? Is she as the perfect Mother purely theoretical? Because it is sounding an awful lot like she never had to comfort Him, never had to assist Him, never had to do any of the things that constitute actually being a good mother. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: 2Vermont on April 01, 2022, 07:31:57 PM
If the Christ Child encountered no difficulties (I realize no one has said that, but if He was incapable of even tripping, it certainly raises the question) what exactly did the Blessed Mother *do* to raise Him? Is she as the perfect Mother purely theoretical? Because it is sounding an awful lot like she never had to comfort Him, never had to assist Him, never had to do any of the things that constitute actually being a good mother.
I thought Christ was fully man and fully God.  I thought the Church taught that He was like us in everything but sin.  Therefore how wouldnt He be capable of tripping?  
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on April 01, 2022, 08:00:07 PM
I thought Christ was fully man and fully God.  I thought the Church taught that He was like us in everything but sin.  Therefore how wouldnt He be capable of tripping? 
.
Gladius and Ladislaus argued that he could not fall out of inattentiveness or clumsiness because He had perfect control over His body. 
.
I am not so sure. I think Our Lord underwent the same development all human children underwent, and that includes motor skill coordination. There are probably some differences in His development given His divine nature, but I do not think this is one of them. I imagine He was capable of tripping as a toddler. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on April 01, 2022, 08:04:24 PM
I thought Christ was fully man and fully God.  I thought the Church taught that He was like us in everything but sin.  Therefore how wouldnt He be capable of tripping? 
This is my understanding. It is part of His life of sorrow on earth to experience the same limitations and pains as regular men. The idea that He wouldn't suffer common things such as tripping dehumanizes Him, in a way.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 01, 2022, 08:32:39 PM
Who said that Our Lord would have encountered "no difficulties" or wouldn't have been "fully human"?  What we're saying is that He would not trip and fall out of mere clumsiness as depicted in the film, resulting from lack of control over His Body and / or being inattentive to where He was walking.  He spent His entire life in penance and subjected Himself to all manner of suffering, but of His own will.

To attribute to Our Lord various frailties, however, that are the result of fallen nature is not to "fully humanize" Him by any stretch.  That's one step away from saying that He would not have been fully human had he not felt the tug of His lower nature working against His will during temptations, that if, say, He were to have seen a beautiful woman, that His lower nature was drawing Him to impurity as happens to fallen men.  We have to distinguish what is fully human in an unfallen human being (i.e. what is essentially human) and those things that are the product of Original Sin.  Since He did not labor under Original Sin, Our Lord's Body was under complete and absolute control of His will, an extension of his intellect and will, and was limited only with its innate capabilities.  So for instance, at some point His muscles gave way under the weight of the cross and could endure no more.  His heart gave out from His suffering on the Cross.  But that's differen than saying He could fall out of clumsiness and inattentiveness.  I agree completely with Gladius.  I had never give this much thought, but once he said it, it makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: DigitalLogos on April 01, 2022, 08:52:40 PM
Okay, now I better understand what you mean and agree.

Which returns me to my initial question:
Perhaps such a fall would be preordained by God as a trial for Our Lady?
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: trad123 on April 01, 2022, 09:10:06 PM
This is true except, in the end, the Jєωs die uglier. They have the deepest recesses of hell reserved for themselves because, despite being chosen by God, they rejected His Son and murdered Him.




St. Alphonsus

Sermons for All the Sundays in the Year

SERMON XLVIII. NINETEENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST. - ON THE PAIN OF LOSS WHICH THE DAMNED SUFFER IN HELL.

https://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Liturgy/Liguori%20sermons_for_all_the_sundays_in_t.htm (https://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Liturgy/Liguori sermons_for_all_the_sundays_in_t.htm)



Quote
11.

(. . .)

The reprobate then shall hate and curse all the benefits which God has bestowed upon them. They shall hate the benefits of creation, redemption, and the sacraments. But they shall hate in a particular manner the sacrament of baptism, by which they have, on account of their sins, been made more guilty in the sight of God; the sacrament of penance, by which, if they wished, they could have so easily saved their souls; and, above all, the most holy sacrament of the altar, in which God had given himself entirely to them. They shall consequently hate all the other means which have been helps to their salvation. Hence, they shall hate and curse all the angels and saints. But they shall curse particularly their guardian angels their special advocates and, above all, the divine mother Mary. They shall curse the three divine persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but particularly Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, who suffered so much, and died for their salvation. They shall curse the wounds of Jesus Christ, the blood of Jesus Christ, and the death of Jesus Christ. Behold the end to which accursed sin leads the souls which Jesus Christ has dearly bought.



Little Sermons on the Catechism by Cardinal Corsi

Page 138 - 139

https://archive.org/details/littlesermonsont00corsuoft/page/137/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/littlesermonsont00corsuoft/page/137/mode/2up)



Quote
All these things which we have considered are well calculated to make comprehensible to us the priceless privilege of belonging to the Catholic Church, a blessing which we can never sufficiently appreciate, a grace which has been imparted to us by the mercy of God without any merit whatever on our part. He who has the misfortune of being born and taught in a false religion may turn to the true one, and many have done so. Yet it is extremely difficult to overcome the prejudices of training and education. Hence let us be most grateful to God for the precious gift of faith, and let us make use of it in the way He desires. Without this the blessing will be not only useless, but will merit for us greater punishment. What would it avail us, indeed, to be children of a holy Church if we were to lead lives in contradiction to her teachings?



Mystical City of God, Volume III, by Venerable Mary of Agreda

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/agreda/vol3/vol3.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/agreda/vol3/vol3.shtml)



Quote
538.

(. . .)

Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.





Quote
751.

(. . .)

Then and there the infernal spirits resolved to persecute and torment more grievously the Catholics, and chastise more severely those who should deny or repudiate the Catholic faith. For they concluded that these merited greater punishment than the infidels, to whom it is not preached.




St. Chrysostom

Homily 20 on Hebrews

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240220.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240220.htm)



Quote
9.

(. . .)

And what I just now said, that I repeat, that they shall suffer greater punishment, who, when they have enjoyed all good things, do not even so become better. For all shall not be punished alike; but they who, even after His benefits, have continued evil, shall suffer a greater punishment, while they who after poverty [have done this] not so. And that this is true, hear what He says to David, "Did I not give you all your master's goods?" 2 Samuel 12:8 Whenever then you see a young man that has received a paternal inheritance without labor and continues wicked, be assured that his punishment is increased and the vengeance is made more intense.  Let us not then emulate these; but if any man has succeeded to virtue, if any man has obtained spiritual wealth, [him let us emulate]. For (it is said) "Woe to them that trust in their riches" cf.Psalm 49:6: "Blessed are they that fear the Lord." Psalm 128:1 To which of these, tell me, would you belong? Doubtless to those who are pronounced blessed. Therefore emulate these, not the other, that you also may obtain the good things which are laid up for them. Which may we all obtain, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father be glory together with the Holy Ghost, now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.



St. Chrysostom

Homily 8 on First Thessalonians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230408.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230408.htm)



Quote
Would you see those also punished, who were of the number of believers, and who held fast to God, but were not of upright life? Hear Paul saying, "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us murmur, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents." 1 Corinthians 10:8-10 And if fornication, and if murmuring had such power, what will not be the effect of our sins? And if you dost not now pay the penalty, do not wonder. For they knew not of a hell, therefore they were visited with punishments following close at their heels. But you, whatever sins thou commit, though you should escape present penalty, will pay for it all There.

Did he so punish those who were nearly in the state of children, and who did not sin so greatly — and will He spare us? It would not be reasonable. For if we commit the same sins with them, we shall deserve a greater punishment than they did.  Wherefore? Because we have enjoyed more grace. But when our offenses are numerous, and more heinous than theirs, what vengeance shall we not undergo? They — and let no one think I say it as admiring them, or excusing them; far be it: for when God punishes, he who passes a contrary sentence, does it at the suggestion of the devil; I say this therefore, not praising them nor excusing them, but showing our wickedness— they therefore, although they murmured, were, however, traveling a wilderness road: but we murmur though we have a country, and are in our own houses. They, although they committed fornication, yet it was just after they came out of the evils of Egypt, and had hardly heard of such a law. But we do it, having previously received from our forefathers the doctrine of salvation, so that we are deserving of greater punishment.




St. Chrysostom

Homily 1 on the Acts of the Apostles

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210101.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210101.htm)



Quote
As if then we were banquetting with Christ Himself, and partaking of His table, let us do nothing at random, but let us pass our time in fastings, and prayers, and much sobriety of mind. For if a man who is destined to enter upon some temporal government, prepares himself all his life long, and that he may obtain some dignity, lays out his money, spends his time, and submits to endless troubles; what shall we deserve, who draw near to the kingdom of heaven with such negligence, and both show no earnestness before we have received, and after having received are again negligent? Nay, this is the very reason why we are negligent after having received, that we did not watch before we had received.

Therefore many, after they have received, immediately have returned to their former vomit, and have become more wicked, and drawn upon themselves a more severe punishment; when having been delivered from their former sins, herein they have more grievously provoked the Judge, that having been delivered from so great a disease, still they did not learn sobriety, but that has happened unto them, which Christ threatened to the paralytic man, saying, "Behold you are made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto you" John 5:14: and which He also predicted of the Jєωs, that "the last state shall be worse than the first." Matthew 12:45 For if, says He, showing that by their ingratitude they should bring upon them the worst of evils, "if I had not come, and spoken unto them, they had not had sin" John 15:22; so that the guilt of sins committed after these benefits is doubled and quadrupled, in that, after the honour put upon us, we show ourselves ungrateful and wicked. And the Laver of Baptism helps not a whit to procure for us a milder punishment.

And consider: a man has gotten grievous sins by committing murder or adultery, or some other crime: these were remitted through Baptism. For there is no sin, no impiety, which does not yield and give place to this gift; for the Grace is Divine. A man has again committed adultery and murder; the former adultery is indeed done away, the murder forgiven, and not brought up again to his charge, "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" Romans 11:29; but for those committed after Baptism he suffers a punishment as great as he would if both the former sins were brought up again, and many worse than these. For the guilt is no longer simply equal, but doubled and tripled. Look: in proof that the penalty of these sins is greater, hear what St. Paul says: "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy, under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:28-29

Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 01, 2022, 09:56:36 PM
Okay, now I better understand what you mean and agree.

Which returns me to my initial question:

It's possible of course that He could have willed such a fall, but the way it was depicted make it look like clumsiness.  Be that as it may, this is speculative on my part and that of Gladius, but what bothers me about the scene is the depiction of Our Blessed Mother as losing her composure, between the expression on her face and frantically flailing her hands in panic.  She never panicked beause she had perfect confidence in God.  Such "anxiety" bespeaks a lack of confidence and resignation to God.  Not to mention that it's silly.  For someone other than Our Lady, such a state of panic might be understandable had their child, say, fallen off a root, but the child in the movie literally fell and landed rather gently on some straw from his height of about 2 feet tall.  That reaction would have been pathetic even for an ordinary woman, much less Our Blessed Mother.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 01, 2022, 10:09:41 PM
If the Christ Child encountered no difficulties (I realize no one has said that, but if He was incapable of even tripping, it certainly raises the question) what exactly did the Blessed Mother *do* to raise Him? Is she as the perfect Mother purely theoretical? Because it is sounding an awful lot like she never had to comfort Him, never had to assist Him, never had to do any of the things that constitute actually being a good mother.

Is it not likely that being a completely sinless Mother of a Divine Child is rather different from being a fallen, sinful mother of a fallen sinner?  Much of the suffering that sinful mortals endure results from the effects of original sin, so absolutely all of that can be taken out of the discussion.  He was certainly never ill, so there goes that common form of motherly comforting.

She gave Him lifeblood, fed Him at the breast, prepared His and St. Joseph's meals, etc.  He was likely very cold at times, such as when born in a rude stable, and naturally She would do what She could to keep Him warm.  

Does anyone think She and St. Joseph taught Him to read and write, mathematics, etc?
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: UMCGB on April 01, 2022, 10:15:26 PM
[...]
Quote
538.
Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.


Your entire quotes are explaining fallen Catholics in comparison to other non-Jєωs. The Jєωs have a worse eternal punishment. Regarding the quote above, Judas was never baptized. He committed ѕυιcιdє after initiating the course that led to the murder of Jesus Christ by the Jєωs. He was cast into this worse cavern of hell because he was the first dead soul guilty of Deicide. A Jєω, of course.
Please, take a course in ecclesiology, theology, hermeneutics and critical thinking.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on April 02, 2022, 10:32:23 AM
Who said that Our Lord would have encountered "no difficulties" or wouldn't have been "fully human"?  What we're saying is that He would not trip and fall out of mere clumsiness as depicted in the film, resulting from lack of control over His Body and / or being inattentive to where He was walking.  He spent His entire life in penance and subjected Himself to all manner of suffering, but of His own will.

To attribute to Our Lord various frailties, however, that are the result of fallen nature is not to "fully humanize" Him by any stretch.  That's one step away from saying that He would not have been fully human had he not felt the tug of His lower nature working against His will during temptations, that if, say, He were to have seen a beautiful woman, that His lower nature was drawing Him to impurity as happens to fallen men.  We have to distinguish what is fully human in an unfallen human being (i.e. what is essentially human) and those things that are the product of Original Sin.  Since He did not labor under Original Sin, Our Lord's Body was under complete and absolute control of His will, an extension of his intellect and will, and was limited only with its innate capabilities.  So for instance, at some point His muscles gave way under the weight of the cross and could endure no more.  His heart gave out from His suffering on the Cross.  But that's differen than saying He could fall out of clumsiness and inattentiveness.  I agree completely with Gladius.  I had never give this much thought, but once he said it, it makes perfect sense.
.
I am not sure the usual course of child development can be considered a 'frailty.' I think that's very much what's at issue. Children are not born physically helpless as a function of original sin. They don't have to learn to walk, or run, or balance because of original sin or fallen nature. It's IN our nature to develop, to grow in excellence. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 02, 2022, 11:13:30 AM
.
I am not sure the usual course of child development can be considered a 'frailty.' I think that's very much what's at issue. Children are not born physically helpless as a function of original sin. They don't have to learn to walk, or run, or balance because of original sin or fallen nature. It's IN our nature to develop, to grow in excellence.

There are certainly natural limits, so for instance, I'm sure that Our Lord fell from time to time when He was first learning how to walk ... but those are due to inherent physical limitations.  What was depicted in the film was a clumsiness due to being inattentive.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Mithrandylan on April 02, 2022, 12:13:19 PM
At risk of being pedantic, inattentiveness comes in different varieties. For example, there is a difference between a grown man walking into a lamp-post while in public and a child misjudging the distance needed to take a step. One of these types of inattentiveness is vicious (the grown man, who by all accounts should understand how to 'look where he's going'), whilst the other very likely isn't vicious (children, quite innocently, do not have the same spacial awareness as an adult-- not by vicious defect, but simply by nature of their development). 

As far as interpreting the visual in question, it didn't seem to me a vicious kind of inattentiveness given the age of the child. If it was a vicious inattentiveness, the I think I agree with your point. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 02, 2022, 12:30:57 PM
OK, but Gladius and I are saying that any kind of inattentiveness is not possible for Our Lord given that He was not afflicted with the effects of Original Sin.  I don't want to spent a lot of time arguing about it.  It's not a matter of faith, just a conclusion I draw from the effects of Original Sin (to extrapolate back to someone who would not be effected by it), and you're entitled to your view on the matter.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 02, 2022, 12:44:08 PM
Let me play devils advocate here…I don’t see why Our Lord wouldn’t suspend his Divine intelligence/power, as part of suffering, and live like a “normal child”.  Scripture repeatedly tells us that the towns where Our Lord grew up rejected Him as the Messiah because they considered Him as a “normal man” and couldn’t accept He was special.  

Also let’s remember that Our Lord was 12 yrs old when He was “lost in the Temple” and Our Lady and St Joseph we’re surprised at where they found Him and His answer.  So, it’s implied His childhood was a normal one, not filled with daily miracles or suspensions of human frailty. 

I think it’s quite in line with His humility that He would hide His divinity, and live a normal life, until His 3 year public life.  

Just a thought. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: 2Vermont on April 02, 2022, 12:48:34 PM
Let me play devils advocate here…I don’t see why Our Lord wouldn’t suspend his Divine intelligence/power, as part of suffering, and live like a “normal child”.  Scripture repeatedly tells us that the towns where Our Lord grew up rejected Him as the Messiah because they considered Him as a “normal man” and couldn’t accept He was special. 

Also let’s remember that Our Lord was 12 yrs old when He was “lost in the Temple” and Our Lady and St Joseph we’re surprised at where they found Him and His answer.  So, it’s implied His childhood was a normal one, not filled with daily miracles or suspensions of human frailty.

I think it’s quite in line with His humility that He would hide His divinity, and live a normal life, until His 3 year public life. 

Just a thought.
Excellent post.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: trad123 on April 02, 2022, 01:00:33 PM

Regarding the quote above, Judas was never baptized.



The Mystical City of God, Venerable Mary of Agreda

CITY OF GOD PART II, THE TRANSFIXION BOOK VI

Chapter IV

THE DEVIL IS MUCH DISTURBED AND DISCONCERTED ON ACCOUNT OF THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST AND OF SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST. HEROD SEIZES AND BEHEADS SAINT JOHN; SOME PARTICULARS OF HIS DEATH.




Quote
355.

The Redeemer of the world, departing from Jerusalem and traveling about in Judea for some time, pursued the work of preaching and performing miracles. While He was baptizing and at the same time commissioning his disciples to baptize, as is recorded in the third and fourth chapter of Saint John’s Gospel, his Precursor also continued to baptize in Ainon on the banks of the Jordan near the city of Salem. But the Baptisms of the Lord and those of saint John were not of the same kind: for saint John continued to give only the baptism of water and of penance, while our Lord administered his own Baptism, that of real pardon of sins and justification, such as it is now in the Church, accompanied by the infusion of grace and of the virtues. To the mysterious power and effects of the Baptism of Christ was moreover added the efficacy of his words and instructions confirmed by the wonder of his miracles. On this account more disciples and followers soon gathered around Christ than around saint John, in fulfillment of the words of the Baptist, that Christ must grow, while he must be diminished (John 3, 22). At the Baptisms of the Lord his most holy Mother ordinarily was present and She beheld all the great results of this regeneration in the favored souls.



Chapter V

THE FAVORS BESTOWED UPON THE APOSTLES BY CHRIST, THE SAVIOR, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DEVOTION TO HIS MOST HOLY MOTHER, AND THE SAD PERDITION OF JUDAS ON ACCOUNT OF NEGLECT OF THIS DEVOTION.




Quote
375.

Judas was attracted to the school of Christ our Teacher by his forceful doctrines, and was filled with the same good intentions which moved the others. Powerfully drawn by these motives, he asked the Savior to admit him among his disciples, and the Savior received him with the bowels of a loving Father, who rejects none that come to Him in search of truth. In the beginning Judas merited special favors and forged ahead of some of the other disciples, deserving to be numbered among the twelve Apostles; for the Savior loved his soul according to its present state of grace and his good works, just as He did the others. The Mother of grace and mercy observed the same course with him, although by her infused knowledge She immediately became aware of the perfidious treachery with which he was to end his apostolate.

She did not, on this account, deny him her intercession and maternal love; but she applied Herself even more zealously to justify as far as possible the cause of her divine Son against this perfidious and unfortunate man, in order that his wickedness, as soon as it should be put into action, might not have the shadow of an excuse before men. Well knowing that such a character as his could not be overcome by rigor, but would only be driven by it to so much the greater obstinacy, the most prudent Lady took care, that none of the wants or the comforts of Judas should be ignored and She began to treat him, speak and listen to him more gently and lovingly than to all the rest. This She carried so far, that Judas, when the disciples once disputed among themselves concerning their standing with the Queen (as, according to the Evangelist [Luke 22, 24], it happened also concerning the Redeemer), never experienced the least jealousy or doubt in this matter; for the blessed Lady in the beginning always distinguished him by tokens of special love and he, at that time, also showed himself thankful for these favors.




Quote
376.

But as Judas found little support in his natural disposition, and as the disciples, not being as yet confirmed in virtue and not as yet even in grace, were guilty of some human failings, the imprudent man began to compliment himself on his perfection and to take more notice of the faults of his brethren than of his own (Luke 6,41). He permitted himself thus to be deceived, making no effort to amend or repent, he allowed the beam in his own eyes to grow while watching the splinters in the eyes of others. Complaining of their little faults and seeking, with more presumption than zeal, to correct the weaknesses of his brethren, he committed greater sins himself. Among the other Apostles he singled out saint John, looking upon him as an inter meddler and accusing him in his heart of ingratiating himself with the Master and his blessed Mother. The fact that he received so many special favors from Them was of no avail to deter him from this false assumption. Yet so far Judas had committed only venial sins and had not lost sanctifying grace. But they argued a very bad disposition, in which he willfully persevered. He had freely entertained a certain vain complacency in himself; this at once called into existence a certain amount of envy, which brought on a calumnious spirit and harshness in judging of the faults of his brethren. These sins opened the way for greater sins; for immediately the fervor of his devotion decreased, his charity toward God and men grew cold, and his interior light was lost and extinguished; he began to look upon the Apostles and upon the most holy Mother with a certain disgust and find little pleasure in their intercourse and their heavenly activity.

Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Tradman on April 02, 2022, 01:17:31 PM
Mary Agreda described the youthful Lord as very serious and my remembrance was that she said that although He was extremely sweet and accommodating, He was quiet, somber, distant and detached to the point of concern/wonder for Our Lady and St. Joseph.  I doubt He played like other children because He was often in prayer and suffering from His birth. The crucifixion was the culmination of a life of suffering. Our Lord wasted no time on frivolity and lived a very austere life.  The depiction of Him playing like other little boys wasn't in character, at least according to Agreda.       
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 02, 2022, 01:29:44 PM
Mary Agreda described the youthful Lord as very serious and my remembrance was that she said that although He was extremely sweet and accommodating, He was quiet, somber, distant and detached to the point of concern/wonder for Our Lady and St. Joseph.  I doubt He played like other children because He was often in prayer and suffering from His birth. The crucifixion was the culmination of a life of suffering. Our Lord wasted no time on frivolity and lived a very austere life.  The depiction of Him playing like other little boys wasn't in character, at least according to Agreda.     

I have no doubt but that He lived His entire life doing penance in repration for the sins of the world.  We see that even with the children at Fatima.  After they were shown the souls falling into Hell by Our Lady, they did very little else beside try to find ways to do penance in order to save souls.  Anything we see in the life of any saint with regard to holiness, we can be sure they were utterly eclipsed by Our Lord.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 02, 2022, 01:31:40 PM
Judas could not have been baptized, since he committed ѕυιcιdє before Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Baptism.  He may have received the baptism of St. John, that of repentance, but not the actual Sacrament of Baptism.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: trad123 on April 02, 2022, 01:45:05 PM
Judas could not have been baptized, since he committed ѕυιcιdє before Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Baptism.  He may have received the baptism of St. John, that of repentance, but not the actual Sacrament of Baptism.


The Mystical City of God, Venerable Mary of Agreda

CITY OF GOD PART II, THE TRANSFIXION BOOK VI

Chapter XXIV
OUR SAVIOR JESUS GOES TO THE BANKS OF THE JORDAN, WHERE HE IS BAPTIZED BY SAINT JOHN. SAINT JOHN HIMSELF THEN ASKS TO BE BAPTIZED BY THE SAVIOR.




Quote
268.

When saint John had finished baptizing our Lord, the heavens opened and the Holy Ghost descended visibly in the form of a dove upon his head and the voice of his Father was heard: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matth. 3, 17). Many of the bystanders heard this voice, namely, those who were not unworthy of such a wonderful favor; they also saw the Holy Ghost descending upon the Savior. This was the most convincing proof which could ever be given of the Divinity of the Savior, as well on the part of the Father, who acknowledged Him his Son, as also in regard to the nature of the testimony given; for without any reserve was Christ manifested as the true God, equal to his eternal Father in substance and in perfection. The Father himself wished to be the first to testify to the Divinity of Christ in order that by virtue of his testimony all the other witnesses might be ratified. There was also another mystery in this voice of the eternal Father: it was as it were a restoration of the honor of his Son before the world and a recompense for his having thus humiliated Himself by receiving the Baptism of the remission of sins, though He was entirely free from fault and never could have upon Him the guilt of sin (Heb. 7, 26).



Quote
269.

This act of humiliation in receiving Baptism in the company of those who were sinners, Christ our Redeemer offered up to the eternal Father as an act of acknowledgment of the inferiority of his human nature, which, in common with all the rest of the children of men, He had derived from Adam. By it He also instituted the sacrament of Baptism, which was to wash away the sins of the world through his merits. By thus humiliating Himself in this baptism of sins, He sought and obtained from the eternal Father a general pardon for all those who were to receive it; He freed them from the power of the demon and of sin, and regenerated them to a new existence, spiritual and supernatural as adopted sons of the Most High, brethren of their Redeemer and Lord. The past, present and future sins of men always remaining in the sight of the eternal Father, had prevented the effects of this Baptism; but Christ our Lord merited the application of this so easy and delightful remedy, so that the eternal Father was obliged to accept it in justice as a complete satisfaction according to all the requirements of his equity. Christ was also not deterred from thus securing this remedy by his foreknowledge of the abuse of holy Baptism by so many mortals in all ages and of its neglect by innumerable others. All these impediments and hindrances Christ our Lord removed by satisfying for their offenses, humiliating Himself and assuming the form of a sinner in his Baptism (Rom. 8, 3). This is the meaning of the words: suffer it to be so now for so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then in order to honor the incarnate Word and in recompense for his humiliation, and in order to approve of Baptism and establish its wonderful efficacy, the eternal Father gave forth his voice and the Holy Ghost descended. Thus was Christ proclaimed as the true Son of God, and all three Persons of the Holy Trinity ratified the sacramental rite of Baptism.



Quote
270.

The great Baptist was the one who reaped the greatest fruit from these wonders of holy Baptism; for he not only baptized his Redeemer and Master, saw the Holy Ghost and the celestial light descending upon the Lord together with innumerable angels, heard the voice of the Father and saw many other mysteries by divine revelation: but besides all this, he himself was baptized by the Redeemer. The Gospel indeed says no more than that he asked for it, but at the same time it also does not say that it was denied him; for, without a doubt, Christ after his own Baptism, conferred it also on his Precursor and Baptist. It was He that instituted this Sacrament afterwards as He made it a general law and enjoined the public ministration of it upon the Apostles after the Resurrection. As I shall relate later on, it was also the Lord who baptized his most holy Mother before its general promulgation, and He, on that occasion, established the form in which Baptism was to be administered. These facts were made known to me, and also that saint John was the first fruit of the Baptism of Christ our Lord and of the new Church, which He founded in this Sacrament. Through it the Baptist received the character of a Christian together with a great plenitude of grace, since he had not upon him original sin; for he had been justified by the Redeemer before he was born, as was said in its place. By the answer of the Savior: “Suffer it to be so now, that all justice be fulfilled,” He did not refuse, but He deferred saint John’s Baptism until He himself should have been baptized and have fulfilled the requirements of God’s justice. Immediately after his own Baptism He baptized saint John, gave him his blessing, and betook Himself to the desert.



Chapter XXIX

CHRIST RETURNS WITH THE FIVE FIRST DISCIPLES TO NAZARETH; HE BAPTIZES HIS MOST HOLY MOTHER; OTHER INCIDENTS DURING THIS TIME.



Quote
319.

The most blessed Lady also asked Him for the Sacrament of Baptism, which He had now instituted, and which He had promised Her before. In order that this might be administered with a dignity becoming as well the Son as the Mother, an innumerable host of angelic spirits descended from heaven in visible forms. Attended by them, Christ himself baptized his purest Mother. Immediately the voice of the eternal Father was heard saying: “This is my beloved Daughter, in whom I take delight.” The incarnate Word said: “This is my Mother, much beloved, whom I have chosen and who will assist Me in all my works.” And the Holy Ghost added: “This is my Spouse, chosen among thousands.” The purest Lady felt and received such great and numerous effects of grace in her soul, that no human words can describe them; for She was exalted to new heights of grace and her holy soul was made resplendent with new and exquisite beauty of heaven. She received the characteristic token impressed by this Sacrament, namely, that of the children of Christ in his holy Church. In addition to the ordinary effects of this Sacrament (outside of the remission of sins, of which She stood in no need), She merited especial graces on account of the humility with which She submitted to this Sacrament of purification. By it She accuмulated blessings like to those of her divine Son, with only this difference: that She received an increase of grace, which was not possible in Christ. Thereupon the humble Mother broke out in .a canticle of praise with the holy angels, and prostrate before her divine Son, She thanked Him for the most efficacious graces She had received in this Sacrament.







This is prior to the miracle performed at the wedding, at Cana.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Tradman on April 02, 2022, 01:53:26 PM
Judas could not have been baptized, since he committed ѕυιcιdє before Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Baptism.  He may have received the baptism of St. John, that of repentance, but not the actual Sacrament of Baptism.
Judas had the same opportunities the patriarchs had, and baptism wasn't absolutely necessary at the time, so his was a deep seated dishonesty and perversion of soul that was his undoing.  Perhaps avoidance of the baptism of John was the beginning of it.  
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Incredulous on April 02, 2022, 03:29:17 PM
As you note, The Passion was a meditation of the Sorrowful Mysteries. The Resurrection will similarly be a reflection on those mysteries. I hope that Mel lives and works long enough to do the Joyful Mysteries.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthestrangerfiction.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F10%2FArchiveOneEyePicture11.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)

"Thank you for your support guys... you're generous praise is making me blush... gosh, I think I'm gonna cry..."
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: josefamenendez on April 02, 2022, 03:33:33 PM
Maybe his eye offended God and he plucked it out..
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 02, 2022, 09:25:22 PM
Also let’s remember that Our Lord was 12 yrs old when He was “lost in the Temple” and Our Lady and St Joseph we’re surprised at where they found Him and His answer.  So, it’s implied His childhood was a normal one, not filled with daily miracles or suspensions of human frailty.

He wasn't "lost IN the Temple" like some clueless child who simply took a wrong turn on the way to the WC or the Holy of Holies.  Mary and Joseph left town as part of the larger caravan and didn't realize He had stayed behind to begin manifesting His wisdom.  They FOUND Him in the Temple, blowing the minds of the so-called Doctors, after they had lost track of His whereabouts travelling home.  "In quinto mysterio gaudioso, Inventionem Domini Nostri Jesu Christi contemplamur..."

No one is implying the performance of a single miracle or suspension of human frailty, so there ends that discussion.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 02, 2022, 09:28:54 PM
I think Our Lord underwent the same development all human children undergo, and that includes motor skill coordination. There are probably some differences in His development given His divine nature

Reread this and tell me it isn't a bunch of contradictory nonsense.  It's one or the other.

Who taught Him to read and write?  Math?
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Emile on April 02, 2022, 10:18:05 PM
I find Aquinas helpful in understanding our Lord's human frailty:

Article 1. Whether the Son of God in human nature ought to have assumed defects of body?

Objection 1. It would seem that the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm) ought not to have assumed human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) with defects of body. For as His soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) is personally united to the Word of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm), so also is His body. But the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) had every perfection, both of grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) and truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), as was said above (III:7:9 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4007.htm#article9); 9, seqq. (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4014.htm#articleJ)). Hence, His body also ought to have been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it.

Objection 2. Further, the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) saw the Word of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm) by the vision wherein the blessed see, as was said above (III:9:2 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4009.htm#article2)), and thus the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) was blessed. Now by the beatification of the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) the body is glorified; since, as Augustine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says (Ep. ad Dios. cxviii), "God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) made the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of a nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) so strong that from the fulness of its blessedness there pours over even into the lower nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm)" (i.e. the body), "not indeed the bliss proper to the beatific fruition and vision, but the fulness of health" (i.e. the vigor of incorruptibility). Therefore the body of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) was incorruptible and without any defect.

Objection 3. Further, penalty is the consequence of fault. But there was no fault in Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), according to 1 Peter 2:22 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/1pe002.htm#verse22): "Who did no guile." Therefore defects of body, which are penalties, ought not to have been in Him.

Objection 4. Further, no reasonable man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) assumes what keeps him from his proper end. But by such like bodily defects, the end of Incarnation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm) seems to be hindered in many ways. First, because by these infirmities men were kept back from knowing (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) Him, according to Isaiah 53:2-3 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa053.htm#verse2): "[There was no sightliness] that we should be desirous of Him. Despised and the most abject of men (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity, and His look was, as it were, hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed Him not." Secondly, because the de. sire of the Fathers would not seem to be fulfilled, in whose person (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) it is written (Isaiah 51:9 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa051.htm#verse9)): "Arise, arise, put on Thy strength, O Thou Arm of the Lord." Thirdly, because it would seem more fitting for the devil's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) power to be overcome and man's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) weakness healed, by strength than by weakness. Therefore it does not seem to have been fitting that the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm) assumed human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) with infirmities or defects of body.

On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 2:18 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb002.htm#verse18)): "For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now He came to succor us. hence David said of Him (Psalm 120:1 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa120.htm#verse1)): "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me." Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm) to assume flesh subject to human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) infirmities, in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us.

I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm) to be subject to human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) of the human race (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm), having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), which was brought into the world by Adam (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm), according to Romans 5:12 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom005.htm#verse12): "By one man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) entered into this world, and by sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) death." Hence it was useful for the end of Incarnation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm) that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Isaiah 53:4 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa053.htm#verse4), "Surely He hath borne our infirmities." Secondly, in order to cause (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm) belief (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) in Incarnation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm). For since human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) is known (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) to men (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) only as it is subject to these defects, if the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm) had assumed human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), nor to have true (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), but imaginary (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07672a.htm), flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Philippians 2:7 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/phi002.htm#verse7): "He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), and in habit (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07099b.htm) found as a man." Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), as related John 20:26 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh020.htm#verse26). Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) passibility and defects. Hence it is said (Hebrews 12:3 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb012.htm#verse3)) that He "endured such opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your minds."

Reply to Objection 1. The penalties one suffers for another's sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) are the matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm), as it were, of the satisfaction for that sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm); but the principle is the habit (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07099b.htm) of soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm), whereby one is inclined to wish to satisfy for another, and from which the satisfaction has its efficacy, for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm), as will be explained (Supplement:14:2 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5014.htm#article2)). Hence, it behooved the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to be perfect as regards the habit (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07099b.htm) of knowledge (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm) and virtue (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm), in order to have the power of satisfying; but His body was subject to infirmities, that the matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) of satisfaction should not be wanting.

Reply to Objection 2. From the natural (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) relationship which is between the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) and the body, glory (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm) flows into the body from the soul's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) glory (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm). Yet this natural (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) relationship in Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) was subject to the will (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm) of His Godhead, and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude remained in the soul (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm), and did not flow into the body; but the flesh suffered what belongs to a passible nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm); thus Damascene (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08459b.htm) says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15) that, "it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it."

Reply to Objection 3. Punishment always follows sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) actual or original, sometimes of the one punished, sometimes of the one for whom he who suffers the punishment satisfies. And so it was with Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), according to Isaiah 53:5 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa053.htm#verse5): "He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our sins (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm)."



Reply to Objection 4. The infirmity assumed by Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) did not impede, but greatly furthered the end of Incarnation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm), as above stated. And although these infirmities concealed His Godhead, they made known (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) His Manhood, which is the way of coming to the Godhead, according to Romans 5:1-2 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom005.htm#verse1): "By Jesus Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) we have access to God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)." Moreover, the ancient Fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), but spiritual (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) strength, wherewith He vanquished the devil (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) and healed human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) weakness.

Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: gladius_veritatis on April 02, 2022, 10:28:32 PM
I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm) to be subject to human (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) of the human race (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) that the Son of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm), having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), which was brought into the world by Adam (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm), according to Romans 5:12 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom005.htm#verse12): "By one man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) entered into this world, and by sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) death." Hence it was useful for the end of Incarnation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm) that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Isaiah 53:4 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa053.htm#verse4), "Surely He hath borne our infirmities."

Frailties such as "..death, hunger, thirst and the like..."

Not exactly germane with truly applicable specificity, but a wonderful excerpt all the same. Thank you.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Ladislaus on April 03, 2022, 07:34:00 AM
Yes, there are frailties ... and then there are frailties.  And that's the discussion here, as to which types of frailties would have been assumed by Our Lord (of His will) and which weren't.  We know for instance that He had no concupiscence or irascibility, since His lower nature was under control of His higher nture.  We have a lot of mental and intellectual defects as the result of Original Sin that were not assumed by Our Lord.
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: bilbobaggins on April 04, 2022, 02:54:18 PM
https://headlineusa.com/buzz-passion-of-the-christ-sequel/

Great stuff. i know he has another movie coming out about a priest that looked good. 
Title: Re: Mel Gibson/Resurrection
Post by: Miseremini on April 04, 2022, 03:27:25 PM
He spent His entire life in penance and subjected Himself to all manner of suffering, but of His own will.
So did he suffer only spiritually from birth to the passion?
We're talking about a movie here.  It was only Gibson's way of depicting that Our Mother throughout the life of her Son had his well being as probably her only concern.
Gibson could have shown a scene of Jesus being arrested in the garden,then a flashback to Our Mother consoling Him after he had been bullied by a group of kids.
It's a movie, and one man's vision of portraying it.
Let's be thankful he did it as well as he did.