3

I didn't watch that movie, I watched a Catholic Maronite priest saying that the Vatican issued a warning about the movie saying that it's not about the true message of Christianity.

The priest added that the movie is more about how the Jews and the Freemasons think of the Christ. Therefore it is delivering a false message about Christianity and the Bible and the theology. The priest advised against watching the movie.

Why would the Vatican be against the movie? What messages does the movie have that would concern the Vatican?

DJClayworth
  • 31,560
  • 5
  • 61
  • 127
Lynob
  • 600
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16
  • A good answer must understand the priest's argument as well as a general summary and impression of the movie. – Double U Apr 05 '14 at 22:36
  • @Anonymous I don't really care about what the priest's argument, I care more about the Vatican's argument, because they issued a warning for real, and I want to know why they did that – Lynob Apr 05 '14 at 23:15
  • 2
    Is there a verifiable source for this "Vatican warning"? – rvf0068 Apr 06 '14 at 00:08
  • @rvf0068 so you're asking me to answer my own question :) http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2014/02/catholic-controversy-over-son-of-god.html i didnt find any vatican text – Lynob Apr 06 '14 at 00:15
  • I'm not sure if I'm ready to make this an answer, but the complaining priest seems say that the movie omits theological points which are important to Catholicism (and which Protestantism disagrees with). His main complaint is that the Mass is not given sufficient emphasis in the Last Supper scene. The priest doesn't say (or imply) that his complaints represent the Official Vatican view. – DJClayworth Apr 06 '14 at 02:52
  • The priest's article also contains that magic phrase so beloved of complainers: "We haven't seen the whole movie but..." – DJClayworth Apr 06 '14 at 02:52
  • @DJClayworth actually I asked my question because of this priest but I don't think you can understand Arabic so I searched for an English article – Lynob Apr 06 '14 at 08:03
  • Watch out for those free masons, they ruin everything. – The Freemason Apr 08 '14 at 04:13
  • http://sharbelfaraj.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/vatican-against-son-of-god-movie/ – The Freemason Apr 08 '14 at 04:22
  • @TheFreemason so someone copied my post and created a blog from it... – Lynob Apr 08 '14 at 10:27
  • Is there a text translation as I do not see where Freemasons were mentioned. – The Freemason Apr 09 '14 at 04:36
  • "We haven't seen the whole movie but..." Okay, there's validity to that. But I always get a laugh when I read such a rebuttal to a critique of a book or movie, and then it becomes clear that the person writing the rebuttal didn't read the entire critique. (In this case I've neither seen the movie nor read the critique, so I have no opinion.) – Jay Apr 09 '14 at 06:49
  • @TheFreemason I'll do that tomorrow and notify you – Lynob Apr 10 '14 at 11:47

1 Answers1

3

There are many inaccuracies and omissions (listed roughly from worst to less worse):

  1. The piercing of the side of Christ didn't show blood and water spewing out!

  2. Mary Magdalen was constantly a tag-along with the disciples: when they were in the tempest in the sea and even during the "laying on of hands" after the Resurrection!

  3. Mother Mary was not in the Upper Room!

  4. Peter denied Christ 3× in the morning, in broad daylight, not before the cock crow, which we didn't even hear!

  5. Peter's faith was portrayed as though it, not Peter himself, was the rock upon which the Church is built, as though our faith makes the Church. This is Protestant ecclesiology. The Church still exists even when we are unfaithful.

  6. "The gates of hell will not prevail" etc. was omitted in Jesus' saying Matt. 16:18.

  7. "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" was omitted from the Our Father.

  8. The renting of the veil was not explicitly shown.

Jews, Catholics, and Protestants were all consulted in making this film, so your Maronite priest friend is right about it being more Freemasonic, syncretistic, or naturalistic than Christian.

See this for more info.

Geremia
  • 39,167
  • 4
  • 47
  • 103
  • 2
    Shouldn't that be 'rending'? I'd hate to have to surrender the damage deposit for that... I haven't seen the film, but point 1 may be due to ratings restrictions. For 2... wasn't Mary Magdalene one of the women tending to Jesus' needs? So it's plausible she'd be at some of the events, even if not mentioned. – Clockwork-Muse May 21 '14 at 09:43
  • I agree with the blood and water. However, we only know about people who are mentioned. That does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. So, the presence of Mary Magdalene and Mary at different events is possible, perhaps even likely--just not definite. Any attempt to fit the story of Jesus into 2 hours will inevitably result in some things being excluded. Some of the differences come from Luke's account rather than Matthew's. Overall, they had to make decisions. No two people would make the same ones every time. The Rock is not Peter, but Jesus, as Peter himself asserts. – Narnian May 21 '14 at 13:55
  • 2
    Just for the sake of clarity, these do not appear to be the official views of the Vatican. The source is another one of Geremia's posts on a Catholic discussion forum. – Jeff May 21 '14 at 14:13
  • To @Narnian: The question asked for a Catholic Perspective. I have not seen the film, but From a Catholic perspective if Mary Magdalene received "laying on of hands" or leaving out "you are Rock" will have great consequence. Also peter never said Jesus was the rock (Πέτρος). Peter said Jesus was the corner stone (ἀκρογωνιαῖον). Both are different. (Or may be you are referring to a different verse?) Jesus saying "You are rock" to peter has great deal of consequence to Catholic theology. – Jayarathina Madharasan May 21 '14 at 14:23
  • @JayarathinaMadharasan See this answer in regard to Jesus as the Rock. http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14744/how-do-protestants-interpret-matthew-1613-20/14768#14768. You are right, though, that this from a Catholic perspective. I'm just suggesting it's hard to squeeze everything into two hours. – Narnian May 21 '14 at 14:58
  • To @Narnian : I do know how protestants interpret that verse. Also leaving out some events is not the same as misrepresenting them. (Misrepresentation at least from a Catholic Perspective) – Jayarathina Madharasan May 21 '14 at 15:13