As a former Catholic, I resisted going to see Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of Christ, knowing Mel is a devout Catholic. I would never trust, depend or look to Hollywood for doctrinal instruction. However, with such Christians as Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Dr. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and organizations such as the 700 Club, TBN, Campus Crusaders for Christ, etc., as well as many area preachers praising this film as “theologically accurate” and the “newest, hottest evangelizing tool ever”, I felt compelled to go see the movie.

Watching this movie as a former Catholic I quickly saw that unless one has been initiated into the cult of Catholicism, or well read in its doctrines, that person probably won’t recognize all the symbolism and false doctrine cleverly hidden within "The Passion of Christ". I saw the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary, the scapular (a brown cloth that comes with a special promise to those who wear it...In the movie, the repentant thief has a crude version of it), the stations of the cross, a “chalice” instead of the Biblical “cup”, “St” Veronica, clothing that looked much like a nun’s habit, and of course, the Eucharistic imagery. But most of all, it reminded me of the place of Mary in Roman Catholicism, which makes the endorsing of this film even more alarming. To those of you who have endorsed this movie, let me just say:

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9)

How anyone can say this movie is “theologically accurate” is beyond me. They are either ignorant of scripture or never believed it to begin with! Be assured that this movie does not depict the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John! Events that did take place are omitted, and things that never happened were added. Not only does Mel take lightly the warnings to those who add to or take from the word of God, but so do those who endorse this movie!

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev.22:18-19) (Also read Deut.4:2, 12:32, Ecc.3:14, Prov.30:5-6)

In the movie, Jesus falls at least 8 times on His way to Calvary. Where is this in the scripture? In the movie, they beat and kicked “Jesus” the whole way to Calvary. Where is this in the scripture? In the movie, “Jesus” was tempted by Satan in the garden. Where is this in the scripture? In the movie, they flayed every inch of the body of Jesus, well beyond that which the law allowed (Deut.25:3, 2 Cor.11:24) or any human could endure. Where is this in the scripture? This movie seemed to depict what Satan would have liked to have done to Jesus, not what actually happened to Jesus. I often felt like Satan was using Mel to express his great hatred of the one true Biblical Jesus. One thing I know for sure, Mel Gibson’s movie presents “another gospel” and “another Jesus”.

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

Where did all this come from? According to an interview I watched on television, Mel contemplated committing suicide. He says all the things Hollywood offered him left him “empty”. Subsequently, he read a book by a demon possessed Catholic mystic and visionary, “St.” Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), an Augustinian nun at the Convent of Agnetenberg, Dulmen, Westphalia, Germany, who “suffered” from the stigmata (one who displays the wounds of Christ). Emmerich had detailed visions of the passion of Christ, which is documented in her book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, (Nihil Obstat: Georgius D. Smith. D.D. Censor Deputatus Imprimatur: EDM. CAN. Surmont Vicarius Generalis Westmonasterii, Die XXI MAII MCMXXVIII). After reading her book, Mel decided to make a movie of the passion of Christ. He said he did it for a “penance” for even contemplating suicide. It must be nice to make millions on your penance, Mel! Are you getting rich on this, or is the Catholic church? So when you watch this movie, whatever cannot be found in the Bible, can be found in her book with much greater details.

The movie begins in the garden at Gethsemane with “Jesus” being “tempted by Satan” (a female wearing a black robe and speaking with a man’s voice). It is evident that “Jesus” is terribly shaken and fearful by what Satan is showing him or saying to him. Mel isn’t very clear on this in his movie. When his disciples see him they are so shocked at his appearance that “John” asks if he should wake the others. “Jesus” replies, “No, John. I don’t want them to see me like this” (a rather ridiculous statement in light of how bad he will look later in the movie!). As soon as “Jesus” leaves, Peter says, “He seems afraid.”

This event never happened in the scriptures. However, in her book, Emmerich details the temptations and accusations hurled at “Jesus” in the garden by Satan, which goes beyond the ridiculous and causes “Jesus” to “writhe like a worm beneath the weight of his anguish and sufferings!” (The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 102) Again, this is taken from Emmerich’s book.

“John said to him: ‘Master, what has befallen thee? Must I call the other disciples?...Call not the eight; I did not bring them hither, because they could not see me thus agonising without being scandalised; they would yield to temptation, forget much of the past, and lose their confidence in me. But you, who have seen the Son of Man transfigured, may also see him under a cloud, and in dereliction of spirit; nevertheless, watch and pray, lest ye fall into temptation, for the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (ibid., 103).

Let me stop right here and comment on seeing the “Son of Man” in “dereliction of spirit”. The definition of “dereliction” is: “Neglect or willful omission; failure in duty….” (Funk and Wagnalls College Dictionary) A derelict is one who is “unfaithful” or “neglectful of obligation”. It’s evident that the spirit that was revealing the “passions of Christ” to Catherine Emmerich was NOT of God. Jesus NEVER failed in duty, nor was He EVER neglectful. That is blasphemy!

As soon as “Jesus” is alone again, the female Satan reappears. This time she asks, “...Do you really believe that one man can really bear all the burden of sin forever? No one man can bear that burden; it is too heavy, too costly.” Jesus falls shaking to the ground and a serpent rolls over his arm. During this whole time, we are left in the dark as to why “Jesus” is so tormented by what Satan is saying. It must be horrible because “Jesus” looks terrified. Remember, we cannot go to the Bible to find the answers because these events simply did not happen! To understand the mindset of Mel Gibson we have to go to his source, The Dolorous Passion of Christ, by Emmerich. Let’s take a look at Emmerich’s vision of what tormented “Jesus” in the garden:

“Amid all these apparitions, Satan held a conspicuous place, under various forms, which represented different species of sins. Sometimes he appeared under the form of a gigantic black figure, sometimes under those of a tiger, a fox, a wolf, a dragon, or a serpent. Not, however, that he really took any of these shapes, but merely some one of their characteristics, joined with other hideous forms. None of these frightful apparitions entirely resembled any creature, but were symbols of abomination, discord, contradiction, and sin—in one word, were demoniacal to the fullest extent. These diabolical figures urged on, dragged, and tore to pieces, before the very eyes of Jesus, countless numbers of those men for whose redemption he was entering upon the painful way of the Cross. At first I but seldom saw the serpent; soon, however, it made its appearance, with a crown upon its head. This odious reptile was of gigantic size, apparently possessed of unbounded strength, and led forward countless legions of the enemies of Jesus in every age and of every nation. Being armed with all kinds of destructive weapons, they sometimes tore one another in pieces, and then renewed their attacks upon our Saviour with redoubled rage. It was indeed an awful sight; for they heaped upon him the most fearful outrages, cursing, striking, wounding, and tearing him in pieces. Their weapons, swords, and spears flew about in the air, crossing and recrossing continually in all directions, like the flails of threshers in an immense barn; and the rage of each of these fiends seemed exclusively directed against Jesus—that grain of heavenly wheat descended to the earth to die there, in order to feed men eternally with the Bread of Life. Thus exposed to the fury of these hellish bands, some of which appeared to me wholly composed of blind men, Jesus was as much wounded and bruised as if their blows had been real. I saw him stagger from side to side, sometimes raising himself up, and sometimes falling again, while the serpent, in the midst of the crowds whom it was unceasingly leading forward against Jesus, struck the ground with its tail, and tore to pieces or swallowed all whom it thus knocked to the ground. It was made known to me that these apparitions were all those persons who in divers ways insult and outrage Jesus, really and truly present in the Holy Sacrament. I recognised among them all those who in any way profane the Blessed Eucharist. I beheld with horror all the outrages thus offered to our Lord, whether by neglect, irreverence, and omission of what was due to him; by open contempt, abuse, and the most awful sacrileges; by the worship of worldly idols; by spiritual darkness and false knowledge; or, finally, by error, incredulity, fanaticism, hatred, and open persecution. Among these men I saw many who were blind, paralysed, deaf, and dumb, and even children;—blind men who would not see the truth; paralytic men who would not advance, according to its directions, on the road leading to eternal life; deaf men who refused to listen to its warnings and threats; dumb men who would never use their voices in its defence; and, finally, children who were led astray by following parents and teachers filled with the love of the world and forgetfulness of God, who were fed on earthly luxuries, drunk with false wisdom, and loathing all that pertained to religion. Among the latter, the sight of whom grieved me especially, because Jesus so loved children, I saw many irreverent, ill-behaved acolytes, who did not honour our Lord in the holy ceremonies in which they took a part. I beheld with terror that many priests, some of whom even fancied themselves full of faith and piety, also outraged Jesus in the Adorable Sacrament. I saw many who believed and taught the doctrine of the Real Presence, but did not sufficiently take it to heart, for they forgot and neglected the palace, throne, and seat of the Living God; that is to say, the church, the altar, the tabernacle, the chalice, the monstrance, the vases and ornaments; in one word, all that is used in his worship, or to adorn his house...I could never detail all the insults offered to Jesus in the Adorable Sacrament which were made known to me in this way. I saw their authors assault Jesus in bands, and strike him with different arms, corresponding to their various offences. I saw irreverent Christians of all ages, careless or sacrilegious priests, crowds of tepid and unworthy communicants, wicked soldiers profaning the sacred vessels, and servants of the devil making use of the Holy Eucharist in the frightful mysteries of hellish worship. Among these bands I saw a great number of theologians, who had been drawn into heresy by their sins, attacking Jesus in the Holy Sacrament of his Church, and snatching out of his Heart, by their seductive words and promises, a number of souls for whom he had shed his blood. Ah! it was indeed an awful sight, for I Saw the Church as the body of Christ; and all these bands of men, who were separating themselves from the Church, mangled and tore off whole pieces of his living flesh. Alas! he looked at them in the most touching manner, and lamented that they should thus cause their own eternal loss.” (pp.112-113).

How “theologically accurate” is this? Here we have “Jesus” suffering because we Christians have rejected the “Real Presence” in the Catholic Eucharist and refuse to worship it. Where in scripture does it tell us to worship a piece of bread in the “Adorable Sacrament”? Not only will you not find the word “sacrament” in the Bible, but God is clear that He does not dwell in temples made by man’s hands! “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet” (Acts 7:48). And again, in Acts 17:24, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands”. Jesus already dwells in the believer, so there is no reason to go up to a Roman altar to get more of Him. (Rom.8:9, 2Cor.2:16, Eph.3:17, 1Cor.3:16) Keep in mind that the same demons that revealed to Emmerich all the extra beatings, kickings, flaying of skin done to “Jesus” (which you’ll see in the movie) also says you should adore the Eucharist and worship at the Catholic church. Are you beginning to see the problem here with saying that this movie is acceptable or “theologically accurate”? Do you see the problem that comes from allowing even one thing to be added to God’s word? It opens the door for other things to be added that are not found in the Bible. We dare not!

There was another disturbing event in the movie which takes place in the garden. When they go to arrest "Jesus", they strike him in the eye, leaving him blinded in the right eye throughout the whole movie. I'm not sure why Mel decided to blind the eye of the "good shepherd", when the Bible describes the "foolish shepherd" as having his "right eye darkened".

"And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened." (Zechariah 11:15-17)

In the movie, a young woman goes up to “Jesus” and takes her veil off and hands it to “Jesus”. The average Christian will think nothing of this, but the Catholic knew exactly what Mel was depicting. The woman is “St.” Veronica who supposedly was so moved by pity at witnessing Jesus struggling with his cross toward Golgotha that she wiped his face with her veil. “Jesus” rewarded her kindness by leaving his face print on the veil. This image is actually a painted portrait that arose during the fourteenth century. It comes from the Latin, vera icona, "true images", which was corrupted to "St. Veronica" and so gave rise to the pious legend!

The Catholic People’s Encyclopedia, Vol.3, 1052 states:

“VERONICA, SAINT. According to tradition, the woman who is said to have wiped the face of Christ while he carried his cross to Calvary, was called Veronica. The same name is sometimes given to the woman whom our Lord cured (the event is described in chapter 5 of St. Mark's Gospel). IN NEITHER CASE IS THE TRADITION SUPPORTED BY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, and neither is mentioned in the Roman Martyrology or list of saints” (Emphasis mine).

Knowing there is no “historical evidence”, Rome goes to great lengths to keep this fable of a “Saint” believed by the people. The Catholic People’s Encyclopedia, Vol 2, page 540 says:

“The ‘Holy Face’ or Veronica: The veil with which (according to a tradition which forms the subject of the Sixth Station of the Cross) a pious woman wiped the face of Jesus on his way to Calvary, and on which remained the imprint of his suffering face. It is kept in St. Peter's and is the third of the great relics. It is publicly venerated on the last four days in Holy Week, on Easter Sunday, and on the occasion of the closing of the Holy Door in jubilee years. The name ‘Veronica‘ may be a combination of Latin vera (true) and Greek eikon (picture), and then have been mistakenly thought to be the name of the woman whose veil it was. There is another ‘Veronica’ in the Lateran Basilica; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHICH, IF EITHER, OF THESE TWO RELICS IS AUTHENTIC. There are many replicas in existence. St. Teresa of Lisieux is often portrayed with a veil of Veronica because she had a great devotion to the Holy Face and added ‘and of the Holy Face’ to her name of Teresa of the Infant Jesus" (Emphasis mine).

Keeping in mind that they admit there is no historical background for this fable, they ask that we stand before this image at the stations of the cross and pray:

“My tender Jesus, Who didst deign to print Thy sacred face upon the cloth with which Veronica wiped the sweat from off Thy brow, print in my soul deep, I pray Thee, the lasting memory of Thy bitter pains. Our Father...Hail Mary...Glory be to the Father..."

It is the Roman Catholic practice during Lent to dwell on the sufferings of Christ and meditate on them through the 14 “Stations of the Cross”. These 14 stations of the cross are supposed to recall the most “prominent events” that took place as our Lord traveled to Calvary. Out of fourteen “stations of the cross”, five of them are out and out lies, and two of them are out of context, and Mel depended on them all in his movie except the eigth station.

First Station: Jesus is condemned to death.
Second Station: Jesus carries his cross.
Third Station: Jesus falls the first time.
Fourth Station: Jesus meets his afflicted mother.
Fifth Station: Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus to carry his cross.
Sixth Station: Veronica wipes the face of Jesus.
Seventh Station: Jesus falls the second time.
Eighth Station: The daughters of Jerusalem weep over Jesus.
Ninth Station: Jesus falls the third time.
Tenth Station: Jesus is stripped of his garments.
Eleventh Station: Jesus is nailed to the cross.
Twelfth Station: Jesus dies on the cross.
Thirteenth Station: Jesus is taken down from the cross.
Fourteenth Station: Jesus is buried in the tomb” (Outlines of the Catholic Faith, Nihil Obstat: George J. Ziskovsky, Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: John R. Roach, D.D. Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 1980).

Mel didn’t mind adding things that are not scriptural, but why did he omit the things that are? The eighth station of the cross is the “daughters of Jerusalem weeping over Jesus. Did Mel omit this part because Jesus says, “weep not for me, but weep for yourselves”?

“But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:28)

Mel made sure that all Rome’s doctrines and imagery of the Eucharist were reaffirmed in this movie. Catholics teach that Jesus instituted the Catholic Mass at the last supper. Thus, when you see the bread unwrapped, you see “Jesus” being stripped. When accusations are being hurled at Jesus at his trial, John 6 is quoted by an irate Jew saying that “Jesus” said men had to “eat his body and drink his blood for eternal life”. Of course there is no record that this accusation was made during the trial, but it sure has strong imagery for the Catholic or former Catholic!

Rome wants men to believe that their Mass is “identical” to Calvary. According to the 1990 Catholic Almanac, (p.212), “The sacrifice of the Mass is IDENTICAL with the Sacrifice of the Cross...the difference lies in the manner of offering which was bloody upon the Cross and is bloodless on the altar.” Identical yet different? Bloody but unbloody. 1 John 2:2 says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Yet, the Catechism of the Catholic Church admits that their Mass cannot take away mortal sins. “...The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins….” (#1395) How then is the Mass identical to the sacrifice of the cross? It cannot take away all the sins of the world. Rome’s insistence that the Mass is identical to Calvary falls in light of their own writings. Don’t look for reason or logic in Catholicism. You won’t find it.

I have to wonder if Billy Graham, Dr. James Dobson, and all the others approve of the psychic connection between “Jesus” and “Mary”. At one point in the movie, Mary walks around trying to sense where Jesus is being imprisoned. She finally feels his presence and lays her face on the ground where “Jesus” is chained directly underneath her. “Jesus” looks up, being strengthened by his mother’s presence, a very touching Catholic scene. This connection takes place throughout the whole movie. At the cross, we find “Mary” saying, “Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my Son, let me die with you.” It is here that those of us who were Catholic see the real doctrine of Rome being preached, that is, that Mary is a “Co-Redemptress”, a “Co-Mediatrix”. Pius XII defined Mary's role in the redemption of mankind:

"By the will of God, the most Blessed Virgin Mary was INSEPARABLY JOINED WITH CHRIST IN ACCOMPLISHING THE WORK OF MAN’S REDEMPTION so that our salvation flows from the love of Jesus Christ and His sufferings, intimately UNITED with the love and sorrows of His Mother" (1956 Encyclical, Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus).

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #964, we read:

“Mary’s role in the Church is INSEPARABLE FROM HER UNION WITH CHRIST and flows directly from it. ‘THIS UNION OF THE MOTHER WITH THE SON IN THE WORK OF SALVATION is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death’ IT IS MANIFEST ABOVE ALL AT THE HOUR OF HIS PASSION.”

Mel Gibson was true to the Catholic doctrine. There are many scenes where Mary nods her head to “Jesus” and he nods back as though to say, “Since you are here mother, I will be able to do this.” Shame on you Billy Graham….shame on you Dr. James Dobson...shame on anyone who condones this movie as “theologically accurate”! You have put a stumbling block before the unsaved Catholic!

Mel had several Jesuits helping him behind the scenes of the making of this movie. I cannot judge whether Mel is ignorant of Jesuit tactics, but Jesuits are masters at brainwashing. With the loss of so many members because of pedophilia scandals in the priesthood, the releasing of the movie during Lent seems more than just a coincidence. Since the Jesuits believed that if they could teach the youth they would belong to them forever, could it be that they are hoping to win all of us back to the “fold”? And just think...the Jesuits have the endorsement of top Evangelicals and Protestant leaders to confirm the “accuracy” of this movie. It sickens me.

The Jesuits regard the education of the young as the most important means of achieving their aim to brainwash.

“...for thus could the mind, reason and imagination of innumerable young people, from their first inclination towards independent thought and emotion up to full maturity, be permanently and systematically influenced in the best and most effective manner” (The Power and Secret of the Jesuits, Rene Fulop-Miller, 404-405).

Impressionable young children seeing this movie could well be seduced later in life to embrace the “Mary” of Roman Catholicism, especially in light of the positive reviews by so-called “Christians”. The Jesuits love this kind of publicity. It will strengthen their position at the right time! I know the tactics of the Jesuits, being a victim of their techniques myself. From the moment I entered St. Paul’s Catholic grade school, I was indoctrinated into the cult of Mary. I would be taught daily prayers to Mary (morning, twice at noon and at the end of the school day). I would be taught songs that glorified Mary and learn the use of rosaries, scapulars, candles, incense and image worship. I can honestly say that I was “saturated” with Mary worship. These are the tactics of Jesuits as admitted by “Father” Charmot, in La Pedagogie des Jesuites:

“The pedagogic method of the Company [Jesuits] consists first of all of surrounding the pupils with a great network of prayers...Let us not be anxious as to where and how mysticism is inserted into education!...It is not done through a system or artificial technique, but by infiltration, by ‘endosmosis’. The children’s souls are impregnated because of their being in close ‘contact with masters who are literally saturated with it’...At the front - it is characteristic of this Order - we find the Virgin Mary. ‘Loyola had made the Virgin the most important thing in his life. The Worship of Mary was the base of his religious devotions and was handed down by him to his Order. This worship developed so much that it was often said, and with good reason, that it was the Jesuits’ real religion’” (The Secret History of the Jesuits, Paris, 59).

From the chanting of “Ave” (which triggers the Catholic’s mind to “Maria”), to the repeated scenes of Mary being the strength that keeps “Jesus” going, the Passion of Christ is a Marian movie. It was meant to trigger the brainwashing we had as children back to the worship of Mary and back into the “fold” of the Catholic church. During the scourging, “Jesus” remembers his promise that the “Helper” would come. If you were never a Catholic, you would think they were talking about the Holy Spirit. But to a Catholic, the “Helper” is Mary! According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #969, we read:

“This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside her saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation...Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Medatrix.”

Catholics teach that Mary is the “sign” of hope and help till Christ returns.

“...Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #972).

Mel did indeed depict the Catholic “Mary” and not the Biblical Mary. There is no evidence in the Bible that Jesus looked to Mary for the strength to go on. The Bible says,

“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Christ.” (Hebrews 12:2)

If Jesus wanted Mary to have a special place in the lives of Christians, He had the perfect opportunity in His word to confirm this doctrine in Matthew 12:47-50. He could have said, “Bring my mother up here beside me that all may honor her as they honor me.” However Jesus did not. Instead, we read:

“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Anyone who understands the Catholic religion knows the Roman Mary not only is “INSEPARABLY JOINED WITH CHRIST IN ACCOMPLISHING THE WORK OF MAN’S REDEMPTION”, but shares in his resurrection in a unique way.

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things…The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection….” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #966)

There is one scene which “Peter” denies “Jesus” three times (scriptural) and then runs out where “Mary” is standing there with her arms open (unscriptural). “Peter” falls down in front of her and says, “No. I am not worthy. I have denied him, mother” (not scriptural, but very Catholic!). It seems everyone calls “Mary” “mother” in this movie! The term “mother” has special meaning in Catholicism. Mary is called:

“Mother of mercy and Mother of grace” (Pope Paul VI, Marialis Cultus, Feb.2, 1974, para 13-14)
“Mother of mankind” (Encyclical Fidentem Piumque, Pope Leo XIII, Sept. 20, 1896)
“Mother of the universe.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis, 1943, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 35, 1943,p.247)
“Mother of the Living.” Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, n. 56)
“Mother of the Church” (Pope Paul VI, 1965)

Mel wants to present the world with his "mother", and that he did! He was depicting the Catholic “Mary” and not the Biblical Mary. He depicts a Catholic “Jesus” and not the Biblical Jesus! All those who condone this movie have condoned this movie have condoned a lie. We know this, “...no lie is of the truth.” (1 John 2:21) Jesus tells us who is the father of lies!

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

There was one scene that I found most peculiar. During the scourging, “Jesus” looks up and sees Satan, who is depicted as a female holding a demonic looking child with awful eyes, ferocious teeth and a hideous smile. I had an eerie feeling when I noticed the stance of the female holding the baby. It was all too familiar of the Roman Catholic statues of “Mary and baby Jesus” I saw growing up. I can’t help feeling that Satan was mocking the Lord here. It’s almost as though he were saying, “Look what I did...I set up the mother/baby image and made them think it was of you and your mother. Look...they don’t know it‘s really me while I sport it in their faces!”

“What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.” (1 Cor.10:19-20)

Immediately after the outrageous scourging scene of "Jesus" where the Romans flay every inch of his body (this is not Biblical), they take him to a room where they crown him with thorns (this is Biblical). The Roman soldiers call him the “worm-king” and “King of the worms” (This is not Biblical and seems rather anti-Semetic since Jesus was King of the Jews).

One unusual scene takes place after the scourging. The wife of Pontius Pilate, "Claudia", approaches "Mary" and "Mary Magdalene" with some towels to clean up the blood of "Jesus" which was spilled during the flagellation. Since we know this is also not scriptural, we need not look far to find out where Mel got his information. In the book, Dolorous of the Passion, we read:

"When Jesus fell down at the foot of the pillar, after the flagellation, I saw Claudia Procles, the wife of Pilate, send some large pieces of linen to the Mother of God. I know not whether she thought that Jesus would be set free, and that his Mother would then require linen to dress his wounds, or whether this compassionate lady was aware of the use which would be made of her present. At the termination of the scourging, Mary came to herself for a time, and saw her Divine Son all torn and mangled, being led away by the archers after the scourging: he wiped his eyes, which were filled with blood, that he might look at his Mother, and she stretched out her hands towards him, and continued to look at the bloody traces of his footsteps. I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; the mob were at a distance, and they were partly concealed by the other holy women, and by a few kind-hearted persons who had joined them; they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen which Claudia Procles had sent."

In the movie, when they lead “Jesus” out to crucify him, he embraces the cross with great passion. Again, this is not in the Bible. Mel also got this idea from Emmerich’s book. “It was the custom among pagans for the priest to embrace a new altar, and Jesus in like manner embraced his cross….” (233)

Mel’s interpretation of Judas’ betrayal was also inaccurate. In the movie, when they came to arrest “Jesus”, he asked, “Who do you seek?” They replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. “Jesus” said, “I am he”. Then the soldiers grabbed Judas, pushed him towards “Jesus”, and he kissed him. Judas didn’t need to betray “Jesus” because he already told the soldiers who he was. In the Biblical account Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss and then Jesus asks, “Whom seek ye”. If Mel was interested in showing the true Jesus of the Bible, this would have been the perfect opportunity, because the book of John says,

“Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.” (John 18:4-6)

The power of those words, “I am he” sent His enemies backward to the ground! Of course Mel did not depict this in his movie.

When the Biblical Jesus died on the cross, he said, "It is finished." (John 19:30) In Mel's movie, "Jesus" says, "It is accomplished." So why would Mel alter the words of Christ? Is it because Rome teaches that it was the Eucharist which was accomplished at the cross?

"The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation...." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1359)

Although there are still many things that could be said about this movie, The Passion of Christ, suffice to say, it is a slap in the face to Christ. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20) “That they may shoot in secret at the perfect: suddenly do they shoot at him, and fear not.” (Psalms 64:4)

By Rebecca A. Sexton