OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 26, 2014, 04:43:05 AM *
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 5909 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 3,193



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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,843


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: 6,886



« 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: 9,535


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: 1,614



« 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: 11,478


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: 9,535


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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,170


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: 6,416


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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,843


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 0.136 seconds with 59 queries.