And who will check it for accuracy if they screw it up?
It will be an interesting experiment, anyway. I suppose I will see it just to see what happens. But there can’t be more than a few thousand people who could follow along with the dialogue.
Gibson spent 25 million of his own money on it. Is the main aim of this a revival of Aramaic? If the goal is strict traditionalism it’s an odd way to go about it. It’s gotta be a PR move.
Wouldn’t that Jesus fellah he’s so fond of prefer he give that money, to, I dunno, worthy causes?
Well, Mel IS getting the message across…I see it as a worthy cause.
From what I understand, Mel is going to truly show what kind of suffering Christ went through prior to being crucified. I hear it’s going to be quite explicit.
Why do you hate America?
::shrug::
Better this than the Catholic Church Defense Fund.
Whaaaa? Have I been whooshed?
I’ve only attended one or two Latin masses, having grown up in the post-Vactican Council II world of Catholicism. From that experience, as well as from attending a few masses in Italian and French, I have to say it’s pretty easy to follow along even if, like me, you don’t know Latin. The formula of the mass is still the same–you may not know the specific words in Latin, but if you’ve attended English masses, you can recognize when they’re doing the Gloria, the Our Father, and so forth. And you’ll know and recognize the story of the Last Supper, as intoned by the priest with every consecration of the Eucharist.
So, following up on Revtim and Walloon’s comments, I think anyone with any kind of Christian background should be able to follow along with the narrative–and even much of the dialogue–without subtitles. I’m personally curious to find out what Aramaic sounds like–I’ve never heard it spoken, to my knowledge.
And seeing Monica Belluci as Mary Magdalene will certainly make the film worthwhile viewing.
Yeah, but EWTN is rather traditionalist, in a way.
Still, Mel and Papa Gibson are not true Catholics, they’re Sedevecantists.
It doesn’t surprise me who he has playing Jesus, James Caviezel . That guy is supposed to be a devout Catholic - to the extent that he wouldn’t take his clothes off for the scenes with Ashley Judd in the movie High Crimes.
Is he NUTS???
That’s why it surprised me to see Mel Gibson on EWTN. As a Sedevecantist, if I remember the NY Times article and the other thread correctly, Mel wouldn’t acknowledge the authenticity of the Papal line of succession from John XXIII onward. EWTN certainly does.
I’ll agree that EWTN is very traditionalist, a casual viewing of shows like Web Of Faith, Living His Life Abundantly, The Apostle Of Common Sense and even The World Over demonstrates that. But wouldn’t acknowledging the authority and authenticity of those Popes including the current one, John Paul II, be a matter of dogma? The people at EWTN certainly do; does Mel? I realize Gibson has goals for his film other than commercial success, but wouldn’t this be kind of like doing business with the enemy for the sake of his film? Maybe it was a deal both sides felt was worthwhile, or maybe there were lots of preconditions (perhaps from both sides) before the interview was granted.
I just thought it was mildly understating (or misrepresenting) things to say you attend a church that still uses the Latin Mass when you: had the church built and pay the bills, the church has masses only in Latin for reasons of faith - not mere preference, and your personal beliefs could be considered heretical by the very church that the network you were appearing on exists on behalf of.
Then again as a former Catholic, I don’t have a horse in this race anymore anyway…
Was John XXIII the “anti-pope” in Avignon? Or has it been too long since I looked closely?
I have a feeling the network may not have known the extent of Gibson’s beliefs. They may have just been excited to get someone like Mel on their network, and didn’t go past that.
John XXIII is the one who initiated Vatican II.
As it been officially established that Mel Gibson is a “Sedevecantist”? I mean, as he actually made that claim? Or are we making that claim for him? Or conflating his father’s beliefs with his own?
A number of Jewish groups have expressed concern/gotten quite upset because they feel that Gibson is positioning the film such that it will show that the Jews were the ones who killed Jesus.
From my limited understanding, the crucifixion HAD to happen… so it wasn’t anyone’s fault, right?
But, at the time Pontious Pilate tried to get Jesus freed who was in the crowd yelling for his death? I read somewhere those weren’t the ‘real’ jews… is this correct?
Well, it’s kind of confusing… a lot of the problem being that by the time the gospel texts were fixed, the proto-christian authors (most likely 1st and 2nd generation disciples of the apostles, not the apostles themselves) were now writing for a majority graeco-roman convert population, and thus adjusted to what was “PC” at the time. Which did not include being sensitive to the Jewish community which, after all, pretty much had no choice but to dismiss the Christians as a wacko fringe cult.
Hey, if Mel wants to blow 25 mil on this, “Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam”, then more power to him. As long as it kept him distracted from another lame phoned-in action role for a whole year or so, that’s a net gain, I guess… And really, Aramaic… I guess it will play great in Christian communities in Syria and Iraq.
As for the John XXIII thing: there was an Anti-John-XXIII during the time of the Great western Schism, but eventually an actual legit Pope John XXIII came along in the late 50s-early 60s. Thing is, he set into motion the Vatican-II reforms which so many Catholics in the West seem so hung up about.
One of Gibson’s problems with Vatican II is that he feels they moved away from the original (blame the Jews) version of the passion. As has been pointed out, the gospels were written well after the fact for a gentile audience. The role of the Romans was apologized for and de-emphasized. Mark’s version of the trial before the Sanhedrin (which the other gospel versions are based on) is riddled with so many procedural and factual inaccuracies that most objective scholars now feel that it is mostly, if not entirely fiction. Also, the fact that the method of execution was crucifixion really lets the Jews off the hook. Crucifixion was a Roman method only, it was illegal for the Jews, and if “the Jews” had really wanted Jesus dead they could of stoned him. They didn’t need Roman permission.
Gibson’s film is supposedly only going to show the last 24 hours of Jesus’ life (arrest, trial, crucifixion) so the Latin and Aramaic dialogue probably won’t be that crucial. The story should be familiar enough that the audience will know what’s happening. Personally I really like the idea. I think it will give the film a great verisimilitude (and fortunately, I have three years of college Latin to fall back on, but I’m screwed on the Aramaic).
It seems like Gibson is screwing his own realistic vision a little by casting an anglo Jesus, and I hope he doesn’t go overboard with the Jews-killed-Jesus bit, but I’m very intrigued by this film.
Who exactly attends services at his church, I wonder. Even with his wife, father and children, that is only 10 people. I knew he was religious before, but reading some of these interviews is creeping me out a little.
As I understand it, the church is on Gibson’s personal property and basically belongs to him alone. He pays a priest to serve a Latin mass for him and his family only.
Personally, I quite like the sound of a Latin mass and can understand the asthetic preference but i think a lot of Gibson’s problems with the Vatican are political in nature. IIRC he became quite angry about the Pope’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq.