OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 06:50:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: NICAEA -- an inspiration epic movie in the making........  (Read 5875 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« on: August 11, 2013, 09:18:38 PM »

Looking forward to the release of this one.

Always longed for a movie on Constantine the Great. Wink

NICAEA -- an inspiration epic movie in the making

Following in the tradition of Mel Gibson's ground breaking masterpiece, The Passion of Christ, the film Nicaea promises to be the second in what I hope will be a growing trend in the cinematic presentations of the divine and human drama of the 2000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Executive Producer and brainchild behind Nicaea is Catholic layman Charles Parlato, a former hedge fund manager and currently, a private investor. One March morning in 1991, he awoke with the idea of capturing the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), one of the major turning points in the history of Christianity, on film. It's been a long and difficult road, but Parlato is on the threshold of success.

With preliminary production tasks completed, the scheduling for the filming of Nicaea is set for early 2014 at the famed European Cinecitta Studios in Rome, site of the filming of Ben-Hur (1959) and The Passion (2004). Nicaea's distinguished production staff includes Rob Draper, Director, Enzo Sisti, Executive Producer for The Passion and Nicaea, and Francesco Frigeri – Design Producer for The Passion and Nicaea.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/130808
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2013, 09:20:10 PM »

Teaser Trailer here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OagoV8wLNg
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2013, 09:26:25 PM »

I posted this here because Constantine was a pivotal and controversial figure for all the major divisions within Christianity itself.

Good commentary on this aspect of the film here;

"While most Christians are acquainted with the Nicene Creed, the profession of the Christian Faith held by the Roman Catholic Church and common also to all Eastern Churches and major Protestant Denominations, details surrounding the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea and its importance in the life of Christianity are not generally well known by the layman, especially the pivotal role played by Emperor Constantine and the almost unimaginable cast of characters ever assembled under one roof for an ecclesiastical event which would define and affirm the basic tenets of Christianity forever."

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/130808
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2013, 10:18:02 PM »

I would want to know if this was another "Passion of the Christ" or a "DaVinci Code" production.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,209



« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2013, 12:04:15 AM »

Me too ^.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,925



« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2013, 01:31:14 AM »

I really don't want to see any church history movies unless they are done by Orthodox.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,968


When in doubt, you lack the proper φρόνημα


« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2013, 01:39:07 AM »

This will probably never see theaters.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2013, 02:22:12 AM »

lol "The Passion of Christ" and "masterpiece" in the same sentence.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2013, 06:56:31 AM »

I would want to know if this was another "Passion of the Christ" or a "DaVinci Code" production.
I'm thinking it's going to be more in line with the "Passion" since some of the same producers are working on this project as well, I don't know about Gibson's input so much right now. Hopefully we'll find out more soon about it.

At least the "Passion" was somewhat biblically accurate while the "DC" was pure fantasy and really outright blasphemy which no Christian should have supported or seen.

I'm really curious about their portrayal of Constantine, he such a pivotal historic and Christian figure, this movie will bring forth much controversy about the man in the same vain as "Alexander" did a few years ago. Although there will be none of the implications of the Emperor being a closet "homosexual" as they purported in the Alexander movie and a few other historical figures in the past.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2013, 07:02:44 AM »

This will probably never see theaters.
Hopefully you're wrong, but they will attack it and even try and prevent it's production if it is at all historically accurate or portrays the Christian Constantine in a positive light. Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2013, 01:40:57 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2013, 01:59:48 PM »

I wonder if, in the case its succesful, we will see a sequel named "Constantinople" where they define a flioqueless Creed. Smiley

I have two "dream" cinematic projects I would finance if I had the millions.

One is a trilogy that would tell the story of the New Testament from the perspective of the feasts of the Church. The first movie would start with the Nativity of Theotokos up to the Nativity of Christ, the second would go up to the Crucification, and the third would be from Resurrection to the Dormition of the Theotokos. In terms of colors, we would nod to the symbology of colors for icons in people's dressing and predominance of colors in the scenario. Scenes from angels, transfiguration, everything eternal would be inspired directly from iconography.

The second is a Constantinopolitan Tetralogy: The first movie would be called Constantinople and would deal with the birth of the city, Constantine, Nicea and Constantinople I. The city is the main "character", and a fictional character from childhood to death would lead the story.  The second would be centered around Justinian and Theodora, the construction of Hagia Sophia and the City at its best. The third would be about the Latin occupation and the eventual recovery of Constantinople. The fourth about its Fall its influence on surrounding civilizations.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,549



« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2013, 03:12:48 PM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/news_from_elsewhere/

According to forum rules, you cannot just post a naked link.  Please explain the link, or quote a paragraph, as well as what this link has to do with the discussion.

Awaiting your reply to this thread.

Mina

August 13, 2013
« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 07:36:28 PM by minasoliman » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2013, 03:48:11 PM »

Probably another silly western Christian movie like The Passion of the Christ with an overemphasis on the Crucifixion and really nothing about the Resurrection.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2013, 04:05:46 PM »

Probably another silly western Christian movie like The Passion of the Christ with an overemphasis on the Crucifixion and really nothing about the Resurrection.
The Crucifixion of Christ can never be "overemphasized" in any medium if your a believer in the True Faith.


It is the pinnacle act  and the ulitmate sacrifice in human history.

It is not to be trivialized like the usual Hollywood sanitized version of just what the Messiah went through.

The Passion was anything but a "silly" movie.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2013, 04:13:11 PM »

Quote
It is the pinnacle act

Orthodoxy would disagree with that. The Resurrection is. The problem with movies about Christ is the extreme focus on the Crucifiction and putting the Resurrection as a side-note. The Passion is a great movie in making us remember that what Christ went through was terrible torture, but giving just a couple of seconds to the Resurrection puts the whole Christian message away.  The Good News is: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling dow death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life", not "Chris was crucified for us, taking our place as sacrifice to God". In this difference in focus, there is just so much different attitude.

Quote
and the ulitmate sacrifice in human history.

That it is, we agree.

Quote
It is not to be trivialized like the usual Hollywood sanitized version of just what the Messiah went through.

I agree with that as well, and I suppose Orthodoxy would support that.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 04:13:51 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2013, 04:30:43 PM »

there is no Ressurection without Crucifixion.

Crucifixion is the ulimate act of love of a God for his creation.

That is why the Cross/Crucifix is the ultimate symbol of Christianity.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2013, 04:33:53 PM »

There is also no crucifixion without the resurrection.

They should all be overemphasized and distorted beyond all sensible bounds (no sarcasm): incarnation, life (baptism, transfiguration, teachings, miracles, etc.), death, resurrection, ascension...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 04:34:28 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,356



« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2013, 04:41:57 PM »

There is also no crucifixion without the resurrection.

They should all be overemphasized and distorted beyond all sensible bounds (no sarcasm): incarnation, life (baptism, transfiguration, teachings, miracles, etc.), death, resurrection, ascension...
Right on.

It is not as if we can give a weighted value to any of these events.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2013, 04:54:08 PM »

I disagree with that.

Everything goes round the Resurrection.

In fact, some fathers say there would be the union of human nature and divine nature in Christ and therefore the deification of human nature that is the resurrection, even if we had not sinned.

The Crucifiction is a necessary remedial action to a problem that should not have happened: sin and death. But its preparatory. The relation of the Crucifiction to the Resurrection is the same to that of St. John, the Baptist, and Christ: one prepares the road for the other, one shouts contrition and humility *because* we have sinned (and wouldn't be there if we had not), the other is the Good News itself, that God so loves us that He even shares His own glory through us, making us co-sons with His Son. And like St. John before Christ, the Crucifiction must become a thing of the past for the Resurrection to come forward. The old things are left behind to give way to the new ones. There is a time when the Cross must decrease so the Eternal Light may shine.

The Evangelium, the Good News is this: Christ resurrected with all the implications about that, and not that Christ was crucified. The Crucification can *never* be the Good News, and much of the problem with vicarial soteriology is that it cultivates in us one of the pettiest, ugliest feelings ever: "Better him than me".

What the Resurrection achieves does not require the Crucifiction per se, but the Crucifction would not only be pointless without the Resurrection, it would be an outright defeat. We have to look at the sufferings of Christ with loving eyes, just like to any other suffering: with the desire they had not happened, with the faith that is not what God wished for humankind, that they were an innevitable evil that Jesus Himself wished not to be innevitable - for there is a difference between innevitable and necessary. The Cross was innevitable, not necessary.

 We must have in our hearts precisely that all the sufferings are nothing *in the light* of the resurrection, without which everything is meaningless, including the Cross. It's the Resurrection that fills everything with meaning, with light, it's the Resurrection that transfigures an instrument of death and torture into the Vivifying Holy Cross, the Tree of Life.

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."  1 Cor 15:14
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 05:03:55 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2013, 05:03:10 PM »

I am reminded of something St. Justin Popovich said:

Quote
Therefore Nativity,  the day of the birth of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the greatest and most important day in the history of all the worlds in which man moves and lives...

The God-man?--This is the most important Event in all the worlds of man: the Ultimate Event...

On account of all this, the Nativity of Christ is our only eternal joy: the Ultimate Joy. The Joy of all joys, the Joy above all joys. Therefore, again and again: Hristos se rodi! Christ is born! The God-man is born! Our deification is born! Our Divine-human transformation is born!

-- Man and God-Man

Now did St. Justin really mean these things to be taken in isolation? Is the nativity the greatest and most important day etc. etc.? Is it really our only eternal joy? St. Justin speaks in an exaggerated way--the way you do when you are in love and gush about your beloved. We would gush with exuberance and zeal beyond all propriety about everything Jesus did, if we knew what was good for us. Wouldn't we?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2013, 05:04:06 PM »

"We preach Christ [insert activity or word here]" - St. Paul
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2013, 05:08:35 PM »

What for was He born?
What for was He Crucified?
What for did He die?

The answer is always: for the Resurrection. It's the acomplishment of it all.

The preeminence of the Resurrection is marked in the Liturgical year as Easter is the Feast of Feast, above all the other Feasts, even above the 12 great Feasts, which include Christmas. Also, it's the only act of Christ that is celebrated every week, because it is the act of God par excellence.


I am reminded of something St. Justin Popovich said:

Quote
Therefore Nativity,  the day of the birth of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the greatest and most important day in the history of all the worlds in which man moves and lives...

The God-man?--This is the most important Event in all the worlds of man: the Ultimate Event...

On account of all this, the Nativity of Christ is our only eternal joy: the Ultimate Joy. The Joy of all joys, the Joy above all joys. Therefore, again and again: Hristos se rodi! Christ is born! The God-man is born! Our deification is born! Our Divine-human transformation is born!

-- Man and God-Man

Now did St. Justin really mean these things to be taken in isolation? Is the nativity the greatest and most important day etc. etc.? Is it really our only eternal joy? St. Justin speaks in an exaggerated way--the way you do when you are in love and gush about your beloved. We would gush with exuberance and zeal beyond all propriety about everything Jesus did, if we knew what was good for us. Wouldn't we?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2013, 05:10:51 PM »

"We preach Christ [insert activity or word here]" - St. Paul

And all preaching is useless if ________.... Smiley

That's what Paul is saying, that even that is useless if the Resurrection had not happened. It's the act that make all the others have any meaning whatsoever. The Crucifiction, without the Resurrection, is just another act of stupid cruelty against an inocent person.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,491


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2013, 05:11:26 PM »

Are we seriously arguing whether the Resurrection or the Crucifixion was more important?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,491


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2013, 05:12:38 PM »

You keep spelling crucifixion as crucifiction. Are you saying that the crucifixion was a cruci-fictionTongue
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2013, 05:15:51 PM »

Are we seriously arguing whether the Resurrection or the Crucifixion was more important?

Not at all, they are both more important. Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2013, 05:16:06 PM »

Are we seriously arguing whether the Resurrection or the Crucifixion was more important?

Yes, because it is hugely important. It's the difference between a morbid spirituality centered in the salvific power of suffering itself, or a spirituality that endures suffering because knows it's nothing compared to what lies ahead.

It's the difference between saying "it's good you're suffering" and in that become a cruel self-righteous person, or to really feel and even suffer along with those who suffer because you know there's nothing good in suffering itself.  No suffering, ever, is "good news". Not even Christ's.

Finally, it's also the difference between understanding that ascetic work is a means, not an end.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 05:20:52 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2013, 05:17:10 PM »

You keep spelling crucifixion as crucifiction. Are you saying that the crucifixion was a cruci-fictionTongue

Sorry, some Portuguenglish slipping in there. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2013, 05:17:51 PM »

I really like the explanations Fabio is posting here.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,741


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2013, 05:28:20 PM »

I really like the explanations Fabio is posting here.

I don't.  IMO, it's just the exchange of one unhealthy overemphasis for another.   

How can the Resurrection be isolated from the Crucifixion, and vice versa?  In the early Church, Pascha was the unitary celebration of both events.  As the calendar developed, the liturgical celebration was expanded over the days of Holy Week, and this is mimicked, among other ways, in the weekly commemoration of the Resurrection on Sundays and the Crucifixion on Fridays.  So we "separate" the two events in our minds, but they are at heart one mystery and one activity of the one Christ.         
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,741


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2013, 06:30:53 PM »

Hi Fabio,

I felt I ought to flesh out my earlier comments to Michal in response to this post.  I don't want it to seem like I'm being contrary for the sake of being contrary.  Smiley

I disagree with that.

Everything goes round the Resurrection.

In fact, some fathers say there would be the union of human nature and divine nature in Christ and therefore the deification of human nature that is the resurrection, even if we had not sinned.

As I said in my earlier post, and as others have noted, I don't think it is theologically sound to separate the Crucifixion and the Resurrection as if they are separate things.  I believe, even in these words, and throughout your post, that you are separating them so much as to distort their meaning.  

The Resurrection is not identical to the deification of human nature.  Through the Incarnation, the Son assumes human nature.  Human nature is deified through the Son's Incarnation, and the Incarnation is not simply the conception in the womb of the Theotokos, but is more dynamic.  Christ enters every stage of human life, including death and resurrection, and endows it with his divine grace.  You don't "need" a Resurrection to accomplish the deification of human nature if sin and death are not part of the picture, so even if the Fathers teach that Christ would've become man without sin, how does the Resurrection factor in?  The Fathers teach that Christ would've become man, but whence Resurrection without death?  

Quote
The Crucifiction is a necessary remedial action to a problem that should not have happened: sin and death. But its preparatory. The relation of the Crucifiction to the Resurrection is the same to that of St. John, the Baptist, and Christ: one prepares the road for the other, one shouts contrition and humility *because* we have sinned (and wouldn't be there if we had not), the other is the Good News itself, that God so loves us that He even shares His own glory through us, making us co-sons with His Son. And like St. John before Christ, the Crucifiction must become a thing of the past for the Resurrection to come forward. The old things are left behind to give way to the new ones. There is a time when the Cross must decrease so the Eternal Light may shine.

The comparison of the Crucifixion/Resurrection to John the Baptist/Christ is a distortion.  The Crucifixion is not simply a necessary remedial action whose time has come and gone (or, for that matter, some didactic example encouraging us to contrition and humility).  It is only that if you accept the "Western" distortion that it is simply the required paying of a debt.  The Scriptures speak of the idea of debt and ransom, so they are not absent from our teaching on the Crucifixion, but this is not exclusively its importance.  

St Paul "preaches Christ crucified" (I Cor. 1.23), glories "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6.14), has himself "been crucified with Christ" and lives by faith in the Son of God "who gave himself up" for him (cf. Gal. 2.20).  Christ is the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13.8 ), who offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually/continuously (cf. Heb. 10.12).  When he is raised from death, he retains the wounds of his Crucifixion, and it is through these that he is known to us (cf. Jn 20.27).  The NT is always talking about the Crucifixion, and in ways that exceed the importance you appear to assign to it.  If you accept as a given the distorted idea of the Crucifixion as the bloody victimisation of a substitute, then sure, an emphasis on the Resurrection may help correct for this.  But don't emasculate the Crucifixion.  Really, it can't be understood without the Resurrection, nor can the Resurrection be understood or accomplished without the Crucifixion.  

Frankly, the idea that "the Cross must decrease so that the Eternal Light may shine" is ludicrous:

Quote
Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only sinless One. We venerate your Cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify your holy Resurrection; for you are our God and we know no other than you and we call upon your Name. Come all you faithful, let us venerate Christ's holy Resurrection, for behold through the Cross joy has come into all the world. Let us ever bless the Lord, praising his Resurrection, for enduring the Cross for us, he has destroyed death by death.

It is precisely upon seeing Christ die on the Cross that the centurion confesses him to be the Son of God (cf. Mt. 27.54).  The titulus above the Cross in icons of the Crucifixion reads "The King of Glory" not simply in light of the Resurrection, but because Christ's divinity, his kingdom, his power, his glory are all revealed on the Cross.  That is why it is the sign of the Son of Man that will appear in the heavens at his Second Coming.  The Crucifixion is not just a prelude to the Resurrection: the Resurrection confirms the message of the Cross.  They can't be properly understood apart from each other.  

That's why they are always linked in the Church's liturgy.  The Sunday commemoration of the Resurrection is not separated from the Cross, either on the day itself or in the context of the week, because every Friday is the commemoration of the Cross.  The Cross and Resurrection are obviously linked closely together in Holy Week and the Paschal season, and were once celebrated together on Pascha itself, and not separately.  Even our celebration of the feast of the Transfiguration is such that its dating occurs not within the "life of Christ" cycle of feasts, but forty days before September's feast of the Cross, so that neither the Cross nor the glory of deified humanity is considered "on its own", but in relation to each other.      

Quote
The Evangelium, the Good News is this: Christ resurrected with all the implications about that, and not that Christ was crucified. The Crucification can *never* be the Good News, and much of the problem with vicarial soteriology is that it cultivates in us one of the pettiest, ugliest feelings ever: "Better him than me".

But again, one of those implications is his death.  If you insist on identifying the Crucifixion with "vicarial soteriology", then you may be right; but the Church, following Scripture, doesn't do it the way you're doing it.  

I chose not to respond to the rest of that post because I thought I'd be repeating myself too much, and I fear I may have already done so.  
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 06:33:08 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2013, 07:26:54 AM »

There is also no crucifixion without the resurrection.

They should all be overemphasized and distorted beyond all sensible bounds (no sarcasm): incarnation, life (baptism, transfiguration, teachings, miracles, etc.), death, resurrection, ascension...
That deosn't even make sense.

The Passion and death of our Lord had to come first.

I agree with the overemphasized thing.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2013, 07:59:40 AM »

Quote
Orthodoxy would disagree with that.
Why would they? Is there liturgy centered on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass like it is in the Latin Rite? Maybe I'm wrong about that.(your liturgy that is)

Quote
. The Resurrection is. The problem with movies about Christ is the extreme focus on the Crucifiction and putting the Resurrection as a side-note.
Because they're is supposed to be an "extreme focus" on the fact that the God of this universe would actually  lower himself and become a man and go through the Passion and Crucifixion so that there could be Salvation and Resurrection for us all.

The Resurrection is equally important, but Christ under goes the most difficult task first, to suffer,tortured, beaten, mocked and nailed to a Cross and Lifted Up so all the world can see his Sacrifice for his beloved creation. And the hardest part was to Become Sin itself, this was extremely difficult for a Being that cannot sin but actually take upon the sins of the world, an amazing concept that to me is unfathomable to this day. The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord was such a stressful thought and horror that he actually sweated drops of blood in the Agony in the Garden and asked the Father Himself if it was any way possible to avoid this Cup but agreed that his Will be done in the end.


The thought of the  Crucixion and the symbol of the Crucifix is so powerful, it is the main reason why I remain a Christian.


The concept of God Resurrecting himself is an easy one compared to subjecting himself to the Crucifixion.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 802



« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2013, 09:01:46 AM »

I'm not down with the negativity towards this.  This looks promising and I hope it can live up to the momentum of the trailer... actually it's more of a concept trailer. 

People who see this might be forced to learn about Byzantium and Orthodoxy.
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2013, 09:09:21 AM »

There is also no crucifixion without the resurrection.

They should all be overemphasized and distorted beyond all sensible bounds (no sarcasm): incarnation, life (baptism, transfiguration, teachings, miracles, etc.), death, resurrection, ascension...
That deosn't even make sense.

The Passion and death of our Lord had to come first.

I agree with the overemphasized thing.

Jesus Christ was the image of God, and man was the image of Christ, thus we are the image of the image. Jesus is the archetype, and Adam was based on Jesus, not vice versa, even though Jesus came later in terms of linear time. God foreknew what would happen. The crucifixion, resurrection, incarnation, etc.--all of that is a package deal. It isn't like God was sitting waiting to see what happened as Jesus lived his life. God already knew what would happen, from before time began. It was all part of the work of God. You are correct that if we were going by linear time that what I said doesn't make sense. However, I did not mean to be talking in that way, but rather I was speaking of that which had to be done to fulfill the will of God. Thus to say that there could have been a crucifixion without a resurrection, or vice versa, are both getting away from what I was trying to say. That's where I'm coming from, anyway.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 09:13:16 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2013, 09:57:28 AM »

Quote
Jesus Christ was the image of God,
Not sure I agree with this. Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity, not the "image" of anyone of the Godhead, while he did have a human nature and appearence while down on earth, he was still having the nature of God as well. that's why refer to him as True God and True Man.

Quote
man was the image of Christ
Yes. as a human being I suppose.

Quote
thus we are the image of the image.
I can also agree with that if it keeps in line on how we were created in "The image and likeness" of God.

But we are not anyway part of the Divine himself.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2013, 09:59:50 AM »

I was thinking of:

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." - Col. 1:15

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." - 2 Cor. 4:4
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,491


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2013, 10:02:57 AM »

Quote
Jesus Christ was the image of God,
Not sure I agree with this. Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity, not the "image" of anyone of the Godhead

Asteriktos is, I think, referring to Hebrews 1:3

"ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ" - "Who, being the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis etc."

Edit: oh well, he clarified it himself
« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 10:03:30 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2013, 10:05:50 AM »

I really don't want to see any church history movies unless they are done by Orthodox.

Probably the best book on Saint Constantine the Great is by a Protestant. Check out Defending Constantine by Peter Leithart and then we will talk, OK?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2013, 10:06:36 AM »

Quote
Jesus Christ was the image of God,
Not sure I agree with this. Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity, not the "image" of anyone of the Godhead

Asteriktos is, I think, referring to Hebrews 1:3

"ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ" - "Who, being the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis etc."

Edit: oh well, he clarified it himself

Gah, forgot about that one, thanks Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2013, 10:12:56 AM »

I'm not down with the negativity towards this.  This looks promising and I hope it can live up to the momentum of the trailer... actually it's more of a concept trailer.  

People who see this might be forced to learn about Byzantium and Orthodoxy.
That is a good point.

I remember when I was very young how when the Excorcist first came on the scene and how frightful it was for even many nonbelievers and lukewarm Christians and forced them a little to search into really what they believe, the reality of the demonic and what they have to do as a consequence of it. Even though the film "overemphasized" the power of the devil and used a lot of ridiculous Hollywood tricks in it's production, it still became a real thing to many people and forced them to start asking questions about their faith.

I think in a opposite kind of way, so did the Davinci Code which was actually an attempt by the atheists to subvert the basic tenants of Christianity and Christ's divinity, but for any real doubters out there who drank the kool-aid of that movie who did any real research on that "saga" of Dan Brown's book would see it for the fraud that it is. There are more than several Catholic sources that throughly debunk "the Code" as fantasy if not outright slam it as a fallacious blasphemy.

For may of these religious movies, even ones that attempt to rail against the Church seem to have an opposite  of the desired effect.


Then you have movies like The Passion
where they tried to bury it during production and dismiss and mock it as a joke and "antisemitic" because it is biblically accurate, then goes on to become a huge box office hit.

They cannot suppress the Truth no matter how hard they try.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 10:14:40 AM by Charles Martel » Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,549



« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2013, 10:44:03 AM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/news_from_elsewhere/

According to forum rules, you cannot just post a naked link.  Please explain the link, or quote a paragraph, as well as what this link has to do with the discussion.

Awaiting your reply to this thread.

Mina

August 13, 2013



Its an article about the Artist's depiction of a Monkey Christ - in Spain. Just a BBC news article

Thank you WPM! Much appreciated. Curious to know what does this have to do with the topic of the Nicea movie?

Mina

August 14, 2013
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 01:21:39 PM by minasoliman » Logged
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,549



« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2013, 10:46:23 AM »

Looking forward to the release of this one.

Always longed for a movie on Constantine the Great. Wink

NICAEA -- an inspiration epic movie in the making

Following in the tradition of Mel Gibson's ground breaking masterpiece, The Passion of Christ, the film Nicaea promises to be the second in what I hope will be a growing trend in the cinematic presentations of the divine and human drama of the 2000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Executive Producer and brainchild behind Nicaea is Catholic layman Charles Parlato, a former hedge fund manager and currently, a private investor. One March morning in 1991, he awoke with the idea of capturing the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), one of the major turning points in the history of Christianity, on film. It's been a long and difficult road, but Parlato is on the threshold of success.

With preliminary production tasks completed, the scheduling for the filming of Nicaea is set for early 2014 at the famed European Cinecitta Studios in Rome, site of the filming of Ben-Hur (1959) and The Passion (2004). Nicaea's distinguished production staff includes Rob Draper, Director, Enzo Sisti, Executive Producer for The Passion and Nicaea, and Francesco Frigeri – Design Producer for The Passion and Nicaea.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/130808



I'm a big fan of classic films like Moses and 10 commandments and other Bible stories filmed on the Panorama screen.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 10:48:11 AM by WPM » Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,206


« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2013, 11:10:49 AM »

Heston was awesome in his portrayl of Moses in the TC.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB6T_Pkg_Vs

And tell me, could there be a better Ramses than Yul Brynner?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu-u6PwFfLA
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2013, 03:09:46 PM »

The trailer is aweful but heres hoping it doesn't dissapoint.
Logged

Thank you.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,167



WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 15, 2013, 10:33:52 AM »

Hi Mor!
As I said in my earlier post, and as others have noted, I don't think it is theologically sound to separate the Crucifixion and the Resurrection as if they are separate things.

I highlighted this part because to me this is the center of the mistake of putting the Crucifixion at the same level as the Resurrection. Before anything, please do remember that the Church herself has put Easter above *all* other feasts, even the feasts of the Cross, even though the emphasys on the Cross is great enough so that it's commemorated more than once in the year.
I'm not talking about separating. I'm talking about two things: hierarchy and causality.  The Nativity is important *because* it will lead to the Resurrection. The Cross is important because it's a step toward resurrection. The Cross indeed *must* pass, that is what the Second Coming is all about. That is what we pray for the deceased:

Quote
give rest to the souls of Thy departed servants in a place of brightness, a place of refreshment, a place of repose, where all sickness, sighing, and sorrow have fled away.

When we talk about the Holy Cross, what do we say of it? That it is "life-giving", "tree of life". Suffering is not an end in itself. In fact, any suffering that is not life-giving, that is barren, is not the kind of suffering that Christ suffered. It's not the kind of suffering  we should endure.
What that shows is that the Cross is "The" Cross as long as it dependent of the Resurrection, which is *above* it.
Responding to Charles Matel question about the Liturgy, it goes through the sacrificial prologue, just like Holy Week does, but the high point is the Resurrection that is the transformation of bread and wine into the Flesh and Blood of Christ and the subsequent participation of the people in that becoming the Body of Christ ourselves.

I do understand how moving it is that God did not shun the Cross for us. But what is that "for us"? To make the resurrection possible. The Resurrection is the good news, not that God suffered. Did anyone see Mary or John rejoicing at the feet of the Cross?  All the disciples and followers were sad up to the witness of the resurrection. If we are to be disciples like the Apostles, that's how we should feel as well. A person Whom we love, God Himself, was brutally beaten and crucified. It's not natural, it's not Christian to feel anything good about that. When I sing or pray anything about the "life-giving Cross", I understand that is a sing of praise of the victory of the Resurrection over human cruelty, of the power of God to transform our most hateful tendencies into an opportunity for Virtue to shine.

St. Paul himself, in praising the Cross, probably had in mind his constant analogy of the spiritual life to the life of athletes. "No pain, no gain", you've got to suffer a little to gain a lot. That is what ascesis is about, not about a salvific force of just any suffering itself. There are sufferings that are barren. Christ accepted the Cross, but He never accepted the attempted stonings. He never accepted any of the previous traps that were set for Him. Likewise with the Apostles. When warned of certain dangers, they would flee, even in a basket down the wall. They were willing to risk and being stoned for preaching in a town, but if they survived, they didn't stay there just to "suffer and be obedient", because obedience demands that they accept suffering when *innevitable*.

Just like we are called to accept death but suicide is the worst sin, we are called to accept suffering, but causing it ourselves or not stopping it when we can, or worse, thinking it's beautiful or good somehow, is simply not Christian. Again, suffering is innevitable - and that is what we must accept - but it is not necessary and will eventually be defeated and left behind, and that is the Good News. All the talk about "voluntary suffering" is that we must not be whining babies about the innevitable suffering that is related to what must be done. We've got to have some muscle pain if we want to get "gym" fit. We've got to face shame, and attacks if we are to live a Christian life. But that is not at all cultivating any kind of morbid admiration for seeing someone suffering, most of all, our beloved God. Remember that Christ-God, the one Who is All-Powerful and All-Knowing, *cried* when He was told Lazarus had died. He knew He was going to resurrect Lazarus in a couple of hours. He knew that it was a necessary step for the glorification of the Father and for the salvation of people. And yet He does not rejoice, He does not feel comfortable. He cries. That is the only humane reaction to *any* suffering. That is what we should strive to emulate.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,741


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2013, 01:20:58 PM »

Hi Mor!
As I said in my earlier post, and as others have noted, I don't think it is theologically sound to separate the Crucifixion and the Resurrection as if they are separate things.

I highlighted this part because to me this is the center of the mistake of putting the Crucifixion at the same level as the Resurrection. Before anything, please do remember that the Church herself has put Easter above *all* other feasts, even the feasts of the Cross, even though the emphasys on the Cross is great enough so that it's commemorated more than once in the year.

I do remember that, but that's not all I'm remembering.  I have in mind not only this, but also the witness of Scripture, the history of the development of the liturgical calendar and services, the texts and rites of the liturgy, etc. 

I think we view the concept of "separating" from two different angles.  You seem to think that "separating" the Cross and the Resurrection necessarily implies putting them on an equal footing, and so you argue in favour of "hierarchy and causality".  I don't deny that, but I'm starting from a different place.  For me, "separating" the two means making them two distinct realities, and what I'm arguing is that they can't be looked at primarily from a linear perspective.  They are one and the same mystery, and isolating one from the other too rigidly leads to imbalances.

Quote
I'm not talking about separating. I'm talking about two things: hierarchy and causality.  The Nativity is important *because* it will lead to the Resurrection. The Cross is important because it's a step toward resurrection. The Cross indeed *must* pass, that is what the Second Coming is all about.

Without denying the centrality of the Resurrection, that's not how rigidly the liturgical texts deal with the matter.  The Nativity, for example, leads to the Resurrection, but it does so through the Cross to which it also leads.  But the Nativity also has an importance on its own: God becoming man, which we seem to agree would've happened even without human sin "requiring" the Cross.  And the liturgical texts speak about the Resurrection not simply as an end in itself to which everything is directed, but it also points toward something else: the Ascension of Christ, and his seating our humanity at the right hand of God, and the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world.  That doesn't mean that Pentecost or Ascension are more important than the Resurrection, but it does mean that we can't rigidly separate one moment out of all the rest as if that was it.  The liturgical texts don't treat the Resurrection or the other "moments" like this.  Each "moment" is considered in the context of the whole: the "whole" is not the Resurrection, the "whole" is Christ. 

Quote
When we talk about the Holy Cross, what do we say of it? That it is "life-giving", "tree of life". Suffering is not an end in itself. In fact, any suffering that is not life-giving, that is barren, is not the kind of suffering that Christ suffered. It's not the kind of suffering  we should endure.
What that shows is that the Cross is "The" Cross as long as it dependent of the Resurrection, which is *above* it.

I agree with what you say about suffering in general.  But I think you admit too much of a dichotomy between the Cross and the Resurrection.  Who is arguing that the Cross is not linked to the Resurrection?  Who is arguing that it has meaning apart from it?  I certainly am not.  But what I am saying is that it's wrong to treat them as if they could be separated--they happened in history separated by a three day interval, but we know and believe what we do about them when considered as a whole.  You affirm that the Cross is dependent on the Resurrection, but I don't think you'd argue that the Resurrection is dependent on the Cross because you seem to think that involves a "glorification" of suffering.  But it doesn't.  The Church repeatedly affirms that it was by dying that Christ destroyed death.  Christ himself says it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and enter into his glory, and he affirms that in his body by bearing the marks even after his rising.  "Resurrection", even as a term, is meaningless without something to rise from.  It is linked to the Cross, not simply as a historical detail, and not to idolise suffering and abuse, but because it's the same mystery. 

Quote
Responding to Charles Matel question about the Liturgy, it goes through the sacrificial prologue, just like Holy Week does, but the high point is the Resurrection that is the transformation of bread and wine into the Flesh and Blood of Christ and the subsequent participation of the people in that becoming the Body of Christ ourselves.

The transformation of the gifts is not "the Resurrection", it is the Paschal mystery, which encompasses both "moments".  The gifts are transformed into the living body and blood of Christ, but they are transformed separately (the bread first and then the wine) and later mixed together.  This is an icon of both the Death (separation of blood from flesh) and the Resurrection (both together indicating a living being).  To look at it as simply "the Resurrection" is to warp its meaning just as much as it is when RC's focus so much on "the Cross" that they forget about the Resurrection and think they are "at the foot of Calvary" when they are at Mass.  Well, yes, but not just at Calvary.  And, for that matter, not just the Cross and the Resurrection, but the entire "event" of Christ.     

Again, I choose not to respond to the rest of your post because I generally agree with what you wrote.  I just don't think it has to be taken to such "extremes", and I don't think the opposite "extreme" is all that Orthodox. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2013, 01:37:27 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 15, 2013, 01:46:10 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?

Ok... How Hollywood constantly assaults the Church?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #50 on: August 15, 2013, 01:51:53 PM »

Quote
Orthodoxy would disagree with that.
Why would they? Is there liturgy centered on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass like it is in the Latin Rite? Maybe I'm wrong about that.(your liturgy that is)

Quote
. The Resurrection is. The problem with movies about Christ is the extreme focus on the Crucifiction and putting the Resurrection as a side-note.
Because they're is supposed to be an "extreme focus" on the fact that the God of this universe would actually  lower himself and become a man and go through the Passion and Crucifixion so that there could be Salvation and Resurrection for us all.

The Resurrection is equally important, but Christ under goes the most difficult task first, to suffer,tortured, beaten, mocked and nailed to a Cross and Lifted Up so all the world can see his Sacrifice for his beloved creation. And the hardest part was to Become Sin itself, this was extremely difficult for a Being that cannot sin but actually take upon the sins of the world, an amazing concept that to me is unfathomable to this day. The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord was such a stressful thought and horror that he actually sweated drops of blood in the Agony in the Garden and asked the Father Himself if it was any way possible to avoid this Cup but agreed that his Will be done in the end.


The thought of the  Crucixion and the symbol of the Crucifix is so powerful, it is the main reason why I remain a Christian.


The concept of God Resurrecting himself is an easy one compared to subjecting himself to the Crucifixion.

Let us not forget the Creed: "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures..." "according to the Scriptures" is a reference to the various prophecies and signs that point to Jesus as the Savior. The Incarnation and the Resurrection are different than the Crucifixion in one sense; they point to the Christ, who as fully man and fully God becomes a concrete example for us to follow. As others have said (CS Lewis?), there is no Christianity without the Resurrection; the purpose of the crucifixion was the fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus could have died another way and by resurrecting himself, He would have shown Himself to be the Lord. However, without the Resurrection, He would not have been the Christ, just a holy man, a great prophet.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2013, 01:57:49 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?

Ok... How Hollywood constantly assaults the Church?

I believe the assault in question takes the form of constantly pumping hedonistic, anti-Christian, pagan filth "entertainment" into the movie theaters and idiot boxes where millions imbibe the poison they are distributing.

Aside from that there have been plenty of movies put out in the last couple of decades that take direct aim at the RCC, which is "The Church" in the minds of Americans.

If you disagree, please enlighten us. "LOL" just comes off as juvenile sarcasm.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 15, 2013, 02:03:54 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?

Ok... How Hollywood constantly assaults the Church?

I believe the assault in question takes the form of constantly pumping hedonistic, anti-Christian, pagan filth "entertainment" into the movie theaters and idiot boxes where millions imbibe the poison they are distributing.

Aside from that there have been plenty of movies put out in the last couple of decades that take direct aim at the RCC, which is "The Church" in the minds of Americans.

If you disagree, please enlighten us. "LOL" just comes off as juvenile sarcasm.

Well I come from an area, when "assaulting the Church" meant shooting priests, jailing bishops and burning alive believers. When someone calls not nice attitude "assaulting" IDK whether to laugh or cry or both on such stupidity or fragility.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 02:05:25 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2013, 02:33:55 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?

Ok... How Hollywood constantly assaults the Church?

I believe the assault in question takes the form of constantly pumping hedonistic, anti-Christian, pagan filth "entertainment" into the movie theaters and idiot boxes where millions imbibe the poison they are distributing.

Aside from that there have been plenty of movies put out in the last couple of decades that take direct aim at the RCC, which is "The Church" in the minds of Americans.

If you disagree, please enlighten us. "LOL" just comes off as juvenile sarcasm.

Well I come from an area, when "assaulting the Church" meant shooting priests, jailing bishops and burning alive believers. When someone calls not nice attitude "assaulting" IDK whether to laugh or cry or both on such stupidity or fragility.

Assaulting the Church can take the form of physical persecution or spiritual persecution. In either case the Church is being assaulted. Perhaps you don't find public blasphemy/sacrilege or perverting young and impressionable minds away from the Truth a big deal but most Christians do and should. This is neither a "stupid" or "fragile" response.

Your condescending snark is old.



Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2013, 02:39:53 PM »

Like faith, like persecutions.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,491


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2013, 02:41:35 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?

Ok... How Hollywood constantly assaults the Church?

I believe the assault in question takes the form of constantly pumping hedonistic, anti-Christian, pagan filth "entertainment" into the movie theaters and idiot boxes where millions imbibe the poison they are distributing.

Aside from that there have been plenty of movies put out in the last couple of decades that take direct aim at the RCC, which is "The Church" in the minds of Americans.

If you disagree, please enlighten us. "LOL" just comes off as juvenile sarcasm.

"Pagan filth"? How is Hollywood pagan?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #56 on: August 15, 2013, 02:43:01 PM »

Like faith, like persecutions.

"Let your yes be yes and your no be no"

Not sure what you are getting at but I'm through with you here.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 02:44:39 PM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #57 on: August 15, 2013, 02:43:51 PM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?

Ok... How Hollywood constantly assaults the Church?

I believe the assault in question takes the form of constantly pumping hedonistic, anti-Christian, pagan filth "entertainment" into the movie theaters and idiot boxes where millions imbibe the poison they are distributing.

Aside from that there have been plenty of movies put out in the last couple of decades that take direct aim at the RCC, which is "The Church" in the minds of Americans.

If you disagree, please enlighten us. "LOL" just comes off as juvenile sarcasm.

"Pagan filth"? How is Hollywood pagan?

Perhaps I should have said Neo-pagan.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 615


« Reply #58 on: August 15, 2013, 03:06:05 PM »

imagine the controversy if they include the fillioque!
Logged

Thank you.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,604



« Reply #59 on: August 18, 2013, 02:25:32 AM »

Idle thoughts:

Nicaea might be an ok movie when it comes out, but I think the aftermath of Nicaea might be more relevant to what is going on in our time. I am thinking more in terms of profit but I also think it is more compelling of a plot because it is largely unknown. I am referring to the reign on Constantius. The blood and gore battle (providing what any current audience expects in a movie) between the homoousians and the homoiousians is more interesting. I would also retitle the movie the distinctive "I", it is catchier and easier to spell. St. Athanasius is really a more interesting protagonist compared to St. Constantine. I am still pondering who could portray the extraordinarily beautiful 20 year old virgin who protected him (Madonna is too old). The
Cirumcellions, who will kill you unless you kill them are also a must for this movie (not for comic relief but more akin to suicide bombers). The movie should end during the reign of Julian the Apostate (who possibly rejected Christianity because of the letter "I" controversy that this movie will of course explain). This is necessary in order to have a decent sequel.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,452


WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 18, 2013, 07:43:13 PM »

Idle thoughts:

Nicaea might be an ok movie when it comes out, but I think the aftermath of Nicaea might be more relevant to what is going on in our time. I am thinking more in terms of profit but I also think it is more compelling of a plot because it is largely unknown. I am referring to the reign on Constantius. The blood and gore battle (providing what any current audience expects in a movie) between the homoousians and the homoiousians is more interesting. I would also retitle the movie the distinctive "I", it is catchier and easier to spell. St. Athanasius is really a more interesting protagonist compared to St. Constantine. I am still pondering who could portray the extraordinarily beautiful 20 year old virgin who protected him (Madonna is too old).

Jennifer Lawrence (Hunger Games, Silver Linings Playbook)?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 07:43:59 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 19, 2013, 06:11:03 AM »

Idle thoughts:

Nicaea might be an ok movie when it comes out, but I think the aftermath of Nicaea might be more relevant to what is going on in our time. I am thinking more in terms of profit but I also think it is more compelling of a plot because it is largely unknown. I am referring to the reign on Constantius. The blood and gore battle (providing what any current audience expects in a movie) between the homoousians and the homoiousians is more interesting. I would also retitle the movie the distinctive "I", it is catchier and easier to spell. St. Athanasius is really a more interesting protagonist compared to St. Constantine. I am still pondering who could portray the extraordinarily beautiful 20 year old virgin who protected him (Madonna is too old).

Jennifer Lawrence (Hunger Games, Silver Linings Playbook)?



https://www.facebook.com/pages/Russian-Orthodox-Jennifer-Lawrence/146284675544484
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 06:11:42 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #62 on: August 19, 2013, 06:18:23 AM »

Contemplating the life of Christ and stopping at the crucifixion is like watching a mystery movie and walking out just before the mystery is solved. Its all about the ressurection.

The ressurection is the real dividing point of history, not Christ's birth (which wasn't even used as the dividing point in calendars until the 6th century), because it led to a "new creation". (2 Cor. 5:17, Gal 6:15)

In the early church there were only two major feasts. One, a fixed feast on January 6th, celebrating Christ's humanity. The other, a movable feast, was Pascha, celebrating His resurrection. It was preceded by Holy Week, which commemorated His passion, and culminated in the crucifixion. Then Pascha itself began a new, joyous season which ended with Pentecost, the sending of the Holy Spirit and the birth of the Church. But Pascha was the cenral feast which anchored all other movable feasts. While more fixed holidays were added, Pascha remains the anchor of all movable holidays, and is often called "the feast of feasts".

Also, Orthodox crucifixes are always "sanitized" and never realistic with gobs of blood. Nor do we contemplate the tortures of the crucifixion as RCs do in the rosary. Orthodox spirituality is not about contemplating various mysteries so that we can have emotional experiences. Its about acquiring  the uncreated grace of god (given at Pentecost; which was made possible by the Ascension and Pascha), through prayer, the church's mysteries ("sacraments" to westerners), and ascesis.
Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,491


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #63 on: August 19, 2013, 06:23:17 AM »

Hollywood is virulently anti-Christian and is the Church is under continuous assault by it

LOL.

Typical snarky response. I'm assuming you disagree. Care to elaborate?

Ok... How Hollywood constantly assaults the Church?

I believe the assault in question takes the form of constantly pumping hedonistic, anti-Christian, pagan filth "entertainment" into the movie theaters and idiot boxes where millions imbibe the poison they are distributing.

Aside from that there have been plenty of movies put out in the last couple of decades that take direct aim at the RCC, which is "The Church" in the minds of Americans.

If you disagree, please enlighten us. "LOL" just comes off as juvenile sarcasm.

"Pagan filth"? How is Hollywood pagan?

Perhaps I should have said Neo-pagan.

I still don't get it.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #64 on: August 19, 2013, 06:57:52 AM »

If I were to make a movie about the life of St. Constantine the Great, it would be a trilogy.

Part I would start from his youth as a hostage of Diocletian. It would focus on the martyrs and the deified pagan emperors who persecuted them, and then show how pride led to the civil war. It would show him being proclaimed emperor in Britain, and culminate with the battle of Milvian Bridge, when he dominated the western half of the Empire.

Part II would begin with Constantine's endowment of churches in Rome. It would show his relations with Pope St. Sylvester - being careful to show the real and very limited authority of Roman popes at that time. It would also show the first Church Synod convened by Constantine - the Synod of Arles. It would then show his increasing tensions with the Eastern Emperor Licinius, and culminate with the battle of Byzantium, and Constantine's conquest of the eastern half of the Empire.

Part III would show the death of Constantine's first son, Crispus, and the increasing influence of his mother, St. Helena. It would focus on the First Ecumenical Synod, and show the discovery of the True Cross by St. Helena. It would also show the renovation of Byzantium and its slow transformation into the new Christian Imperial Capital. It would culminate with the official inauguration of New Rome in 331, his temptation to mobilize his troops against the Persian Empire, and end with the saint's baptism and blessed death.

It would be a kind of reverse of the recent "Star Wars" trilogy. Instead of the antihero Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, we would get the Christian hero Flavius Constantinus/St. Constantine the Great.

Hey, coming to think of it, I could write this as a set of graphic novels . . . hmmm.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 07:05:32 AM by Romanicus » Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2013, 08:36:19 AM »

there is no Ressurection without Crucifixion.

Crucifixion is the ulimate act of love of a God for his creation.

That is why the Cross/Crucifix is the ultimate symbol of Christianity.

I think Fabio was trying emphasize the little time devoted to the Resurrection in the "Passion" compared to all the rest of the movie.  I liked the movie and was impressed with it's accuracy but I was also disappointed with the ending.  I think the Resurrection should have been given more time especially since most people don't believe in it.  After all, any man can be put to death by crucifixion but Christ is Risen on the third day.  Some post Resurrection would have been nice as well eg Women at the tomb , Peter and John racing to the tomb, Road to Emmaus, etc.  This would have given us a more Christian outlook on this film IMHO.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2013, 08:38:40 AM »

imagine the controversy if they include the fillioque!

Lets face it folks, any Hollywood movie on Christ will always favor western thought.  Just prepare to be disappointed.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 08:40:07 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,065


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 19, 2013, 08:41:12 AM »

WPM,

I would still like to know the relevance of the article you posted to the topic at hand. If you cannot give the relevance by tomorrow, I'm afraid I'm going to had to give you a warning for not heeding to my requests and not explaining the relevance of "monkey Jesus" to "Nicea Movie". I've given more than ample time for a simple small explanation of relevance.

Mina


Update:

Since this is first offense, I decided to let it slide. Next time, you must give an brief explanation or quote from what you link and it must be relevant to the topic.

God bless

Mina

August 20, 2013
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 08:17:07 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #68 on: August 19, 2013, 08:41:35 AM »

Idle thoughts:

Nicaea might be an ok movie when it comes out, but I think the aftermath of Nicaea might be more relevant to what is going on in our time. I am thinking more in terms of profit but I also think it is more compelling of a plot because it is largely unknown. I am referring to the reign on Constantius. The blood and gore battle (providing what any current audience expects in a movie) between the homoousians and the homoiousians is more interesting. I would also retitle the movie the distinctive "I", it is catchier and easier to spell. St. Athanasius is really a more interesting protagonist compared to St. Constantine. I am still pondering who could portray the extraordinarily beautiful 20 year old virgin who protected him (Madonna is too old). The
Cirumcellions, who will kill you unless you kill them are also a must for this movie (not for comic relief but more akin to suicide bombers). The movie should end during the reign of Julian the Apostate (who possibly rejected Christianity because of the letter "I" controversy that this movie will of course explain). This is necessary in order to have a decent sequel.

How about a movie titled: "Constantinople, brother against brother".?
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2013, 08:47:12 AM »

The trailer is aweful but heres hoping it doesn't dissapoint.

Constantine did remove the persecution of the Christians and he did, according to Tradition convert on his deathbed, But he also allowed those people who believed in pagan gods to continue to do so.  He did not outlaw any religion while alive.  You could call him the Father of Religious Freedom.  
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 08:48:12 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #70 on: August 19, 2013, 08:57:03 AM »

I would want to know if this was another "Passion of the Christ" or a "DaVinci Code" production.

The trailer emphasized the "western civilization" as opposed to what happened in the East.  Well we certainly know what happened after Nicea in "western civilization" with Rome falling in the 5th century, but as we all know the Eastern Roman Empire continued to survive for another 1000 years until the invasion of Islam.  This is why we need a 'Total' history of the Church someday.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #71 on: August 19, 2013, 09:07:06 AM »

I would want to know if this was another "Passion of the Christ" or a "DaVinci Code" production.

The trailer emphasized the "western civilization" as opposed to what happened in the East.  Well we certainly know what happened after Nicea in "western civilization" with Rome falling in the 5th century, but as we all know the Eastern Roman Empire continued to survive for another 1000 years until the invasion of Islam.  This is why we need a 'Total' history of the Church someday.

History of the Church or the history of the Byzantium?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #72 on: August 19, 2013, 09:35:41 AM »

I would want to know if this was another "Passion of the Christ" or a "DaVinci Code" production.

The trailer emphasized the "western civilization" as opposed to what happened in the East.  Well we certainly know what happened after Nicea in "western civilization" with Rome falling in the 5th century, but as we all know the Eastern Roman Empire continued to survive for another 1000 years until the invasion of Islam.  This is why we need a 'Total' history of the Church someday.

History of the Church or the history of the Byzantium?



History of the Church. 
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 09:36:00 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #73 on: August 19, 2013, 03:11:10 PM »

Quote
Orthodoxy would disagree with that.
Why would they? Is there liturgy centered on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass like it is in the Latin Rite? Maybe I'm wrong about that.(your liturgy that is)

Quote
. The Resurrection is. The problem with movies about Christ is the extreme focus on the Crucifiction and putting the Resurrection as a side-note.
Because they're is supposed to be an "extreme focus" on the fact that the God of this universe would actually  lower himself and become a man and go through the Passion and Crucifixion so that there could be Salvation and Resurrection for us all.

The Resurrection is equally important, but Christ under goes the most difficult task first, to suffer,tortured, beaten, mocked and nailed to a Cross and Lifted Up so all the world can see his Sacrifice for his beloved creation. And the hardest part was to Become Sin itself, this was extremely difficult for a Being that cannot sin but actually take upon the sins of the world, an amazing concept that to me is unfathomable to this day. The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord was such a stressful thought and horror that he actually sweated drops of blood in the Agony in the Garden and asked the Father Himself if it was any way possible to avoid this Cup but agreed that his Will be done in the end.


The thought of the  Crucixion and the symbol of the Crucifix is so powerful, it is the main reason why I remain a Christian.


The concept of God Resurrecting himself is an easy one compared to subjecting himself to the Crucifixion.

Another small reason which separates our thinkings.......
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,272


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 19, 2013, 03:16:59 PM »

there is no Ressurection without Crucifixion.

Crucifixion is the ulimate act of love of a God for his creation.

That is why the Cross/Crucifix is the ultimate symbol of Christianity.

I think Fabio was trying emphasize the little time devoted to the Resurrection in the "Passion" compared to all the rest of the movie.  I liked the movie and was impressed with it's accuracy but I was also disappointed with the ending.  I think the Resurrection should have been given more time especially since most people don't believe in it.  After all, any man can be put to death by crucifixion but Christ is Risen on the third day.  Some post Resurrection would have been nice as well eg Women at the tomb , Peter and John racing to the tomb, Road to Emmaus, etc.  This would have given us a more Christian outlook on this film IMHO.

Without subtitles or cultural context, it's a snuff film.
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,741


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #75 on: August 19, 2013, 04:10:40 PM »

I think Fabio was trying emphasize the little time devoted to the Resurrection in the "Passion" compared to all the rest of the movie.  I liked the movie and was impressed with it's accuracy but I was also disappointed with the ending.  I think the Resurrection should have been given more time especially since most people don't believe in it.  After all, any man can be put to death by crucifixion but Christ is Risen on the third day.  Some post Resurrection would have been nice as well eg Women at the tomb , Peter and John racing to the tomb, Road to Emmaus, etc.  This would have given us a more Christian outlook on this film IMHO.

Actually, I "enjoyed" the Mel Gibson film for the same reason you were disappointed by it. 

The film's focus was on the passion of Christ.  The occasional flashbacks to Jesus' preaching, ministry, and family life pointed to the fact that there was more going on than simply a man's trial and execution, but this trial and execution was still the main focus of the film, a lens through which the other facets are understood and vice versa.  And throughout, whether at the various stages of his trial or during the various tortures, Jesus is not depicted as weak.  He's almost warrior-like, brutalised by his enemies but never really defeated, always in control to the last gasp.  Satan is constantly present behind the scenes, appearing to be in control, but upon Christ's death, he groans in hell as he is despoiled of his power and even of his own masks (his wig flies off). 

If you follow that much built-up tension with angels at the tomb, women bearing myrrh, Emmaus, etc., I think it's anti-climactic.  It's certainly true to Scripture, but to be "really" true, you'd be better off making a movie along the lines of Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth.  I was actually impressed with how Gibson dealt with the resurrection: Jesus is placed in the tomb, and the stone is rolled over the door, then it is unrolled letting in enough light to see the burial cloths "deflate" and then you see Christ seated on the slab, alive, almost taking it all in before he walks out, palm wound clearly visible.  That is a man of peace who never "lost control", was not defeated, was always victorious.  It fits with the rest of the film.  It's just enough to let you know that he triumphed and is alive, but not enough to satisfy the viewer.  It almost begs the question "Well, what happened next?!"  Were Gibson to depict the post-resurrection accounts in the Gospels, I think people would come up with their own answer to that question and view the whole story as a mythology.  By leaving it rather open-ended, it challenges. 

Before I saw the film for the first time in the theatre, I accepted as gospel all the assertions that there was no "resurrection" in the film.  So that final minute of the film was entirely unexpected and hit me like a ton of bricks.  Then as soon as it happened, it was over and the credits were rolling.  Very powerful.               
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.239 seconds with 104 queries.