Funny, but not accurate unless I'm missing something (always a possibility). A lot of evangelicals will do a "stations of the cross" presentation. My mutha always took part in her church's play every year when they lived in Dallas.

I got to see part of it when I went out to Dallas to see them. It was actually a pretty impressive production.

Really, SJ. Millions, perhaps, but not all were "duped" (such a strong word).

love this: "Mutha"

The Stations that the guy was referring to are a Catholic practice that is observed every Friday during Lent. I can't say how many other denominations follow the tradition but the events that you describe sound very different.

The stations themselves are fourteen (I think) plaques (paintings, sculptures, whatever) that are placed evenly along the walls around the church itself (they are there all year round even though we only do the Stations service during Lent, walk into any catholic church and you will see them). During the service the congregation moves around the church, stopping at each station in order. Very specific prayers are said at each station. The process is formalized (it is a service, not individual prayer). If the congregation is big then the Priest may walk around while everyone else stays in the pews. If the parish is very old-fashioned then the participants will actually crawl around the church on their knees as they move between stations.

In case you hadn't guessed, the stations tell the story of the Passion. Vatican II made major changes to the stations. Pre-Vatican II the stations included extra-scriptural events. Veronica wiping Christ's face being one of them. After Vatican II the stations were changed to be closer to scripture. The change was very traumatic for many people who had been doing the same stations every year for their entire lives. Mel, being of the religion (not Catholic, despite what he may say) that he is, follows the old stations. Despite his assertions that he was following the gospel of John, what Mel did was produce a movie version of the pre-Vatican II Stations of the Cross.

During the point in which this statement was made we were discussing Mel's practice and noting the adherence to the old stations that we saw in the movie. Several people had mentioned how their non-Catholic friends were confused by some of the things in the movie that we recognized from the old stations. This is when the guy made his comment. It was funny in context because Mel, basically, got millions of people to see a movie that showed a very old-school Catholic (textbook old-school Catholic, to be precise) version of the events depicted without many of them knowing just how close to Catholic doctrine that vision was. Many of the people who saw the movie are, very likely, very anti-Catholic. At the time the comment seemed very funny to everyone in attendance.

Damned papists.

(That line still cracks me up.)

You're right, it's a different thing, although it's related.

The churches that I've been to that do something of that nature all have a play that goes on over a few nights--from Jesus arrival to the resurrection. Each night is something that exists somewhere between a play and a sermon.

Done well, it's actually very touching.

There were definitely a few extra-scriptural moments that I'd love to have understood more completely.

I really want to see the movie without the subtitles. There were a few times where I felt the subtitles were distracting me from the real interaction and the more subtle visual messages that the movie carried.

That's absolutely hilarious.

And dead on.

ITA, Z. I was getting a bit annoyed at times because I think so much is communicated without words.

Didn't Mel orginally want to present it without subtitles? I think I read somewhere that he was persuaded to add them?

I saw it the first time with a friend as R was out of town. When he returned from his trip, we went to a Sunday afternoon matinee. Having previously viewed it, I was better able to shut out the sub-titles. I was especially struck buy the angst exhibited by Pilate. I had always seen his struggle historically (as he refers to in his dialogue). It was interesting to see how his relationship with Claudia played into his decision and then, of course, his own quest for truth.

SJ, tell me about Veronica. I am unsure of the history behind it (I could say that being the inerrantist that I am, I can't find it in scripture, but then my Bible is different than the Catholic one, yes? Also, I refer to many great theologians in my own reading and quest to better understand scripture, so perhaps am not soooo sola scriptura). I thought it was one of the most moving moments in the film.

Does anyone have any understanding of the scene where the Satanic figure is carrying the odd and grotesque "baby?"

Am going to take my oldest daughter to see it tomorrow afternoon, so perhaps seeing it for a third time will point out even more nuances.

Rae: I can't remember all of the details about Veronica other than the fact that she is not part of the new Stations (I was born in 1970 so I grew up post-Vatican II). I will try to find out more and then either post or e-mail you about it.

Thank you. 1970- a good year!

When I make similar comments to some of my companions in southern baptist churches and at school, I get blank stares.

I also find it ironic that Gibson gets so many people to see his movie, and his branch of the catholic tradition basically believes all protestants are going to hell.

Bryan: In my opinion (and I am considered a very liberal Catholic) the best thing that ever happened to the Catholic church is Vatican II. I think that it is sad that Gibson' sect (which, for those who are reading this and are not familiar with his faith, is NOT Catholic, nor is it affiliated with the Catholic church at all) is so backwards about it.

SJ, doesn't Vatican II affirm that Catholicism isn't the only method of salvation? I can't recall specifics and anything I google is waaaaaay to long for me to peruse or even skim right now. If so, then yes, as a Protestant, if I have standing to say so, I agree.

A Passion Play is not the Stations of the Cross. Passion Plays are a long standing Christian traditions. Stations are a very specific act of apiety that haas its origina in the the 1200's.

You could probably just as easily say that Gibson duped millions of Catholics into getting back to heir own traditional acts of piety rather than trying to ape the the dramas of the evangelical churches. Catholics can't do "Protestant" and when we try we look like idiots. :-)

Rae, The Church teaches that there is only salvation through Jesus Christ and each person is individually responsible for responding to what he knows to be the truth. A non-Christian who has never heard the Gospel will only be held accountable for that which he knows. However, regardless of whether or not a person knows it, their salvation is entirely dependent on Christ his death on the Cross. The fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. This does not mean that non-Catholic Christian groups lack truth, the Church teaches that they lack the fullness of the truth. Does this mean they go to hell? Nope. But the grace by which all people are saved is mediated through the Church that Christ founded.

The name Veronica is Latin in origin and means "True Image." Vero (true) ica (think icon/image). Pious tradition has it that she was the women with the long term hemorrage who touched the hem of Christ's garment and was healed.

Whether or not "Veronica" existed is not essential to the meaning of her presenc ein the Stations of the Cross. The tender actions toward the Suffering Christ that he story conveys are what is signifcant., Not only did Christ leave his "true image" on her veil, Veronica herself was a "true image" of the Christ in that she exemplified His mercy and compassion.

Patrick: Thank you for all of the info. I had thought that what Z was referring to was called a Passion Play but I wasn't sure. I'm glad that you were able to clear that up for the both of us.

Rae: I couldn't say it any better than Patrick did so I won't even try. The basic ideas behind Vatican II were to de-emphasise the clergy in favor of that layity, re-emphasize Scripture as central to Catholic life, and to open the church to a greater level of ecumenism (reaching out to other faiths). As a liberal Catholic I am very pro-Vatican II teachings. I was raised as a conservative Catholic until I stopped going to church when I was 12. I didn't become aware of the vatican II teachings until may late twenties. Had it not been for the greater acceptance of the Vatican II teachings that occured over the intervening fifteen years I would not have come back to the Catholic church.

O.K. I must have either had one too many glasses of Zin or was reading when I was too tired to do so because as I was scrolling through the comments, I realized that I had read about Vatican II recently, but couldn't recall where or when. Then, after a few hours, my brain found the file it was looking for (right in the middle of listening to my girls playing in their piano competition, I might add).

I read in the February Atlantic a very clear synopsis of Vatican II, and SJ, your comment only substaniates what I read. The article was quite interesting in light of Mel's particular brand of "Catholicism" coming to the top with The Passion.

I thought, SJ, that this might interest you, considering your testimony of returning to the Church because of Vatican II. Andrew Greely says, "These are newly ordained men who seem in many ways intent on restoring the pre-Vatican II Church, and who, reversing the classic generational roles, define themselves in direct opposition to the liberal priests who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s."

Maybe, SJ, the cloth would be a good contribution of your mental and spiritual energies and convictions of the freedoms that Vatican II has afforded your faith? Maybe what drew you back to the faith of your youth is what will also draw those who may be repelled by the mind set of these new, "Young Fogeys."

(Thought [out loud, mind you]in all seriousness; no cheek intended).

Rae. Greely is correct in some respects. However, in my brief expereicne in the seminary and in my very exyensive experience among Catholic charismatics, conservatives and traditionalists, they don't really want to "go back to the past." What they really want is more clarity of teaching and a return to sanctity and reverence in the liturgy. There was much good in that supposedly baaaad "Pre Vatican II Church." I am of the opinion that if the liturgy were truly reformed and the real intentions of the Council fathers implemented, we could diffuse much of the schismatic traditionalism that people like Mel Gibson adhere to. This would mean a serious rexamining of the radical changes that took place in the Mass. (The actual "reformed" liturgy was after Vatican II, by the way.) If you readthe Council documents on the liturgy you might be very surprised to know what the Fathers had in mind. For instance, Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony should be given pride of place, and an overwhelming disapproval of modifying the way we receive communion by the bishops, to name but a few. I'm not worried abou the Church. Historically speakkng it has taken at least 40 years for each of the councils to be fully and correctly implemented. Change is difficult, but the Church is old and knows that slow change is best.

I'm with SJ. I'm very grateful for Vatican II even if my faith right now is weak and my fidelty to the Church as been lacking.

Hey, SJ, what do you think about Rae's suggestion that you consider a priestly vocation? I know many good, young priests in Ohio that you could talk to...

Ok, I don't want to dominate the comments, but this stuff is fascinating to me. This is the link to an online "copy" of the Council documents. http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/liturgy.asc

Here's one of those "surprising" parts of the document regarding the sacred liturgy.

"(1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants."

"54. A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings
and "the common prayer," and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

I will have to read both the documents that you both linked to. I am very interested in the subject of Vatican II but, oddly, I have read very little pertaining to the council itself. As to the clergy, that is a call that I definately do not feel. Over the past few years I have getting more and more involved in the lay ministries and I have been enjoying that very much. I expect that I will continue that trend but I doubt that I will ever go into the clergy.

Good for you and the church, SJ. I think there is importance in the layity- they are the hands and feet of the gospel and ministry of Christ. I get a little bothered when (in Protestant faiths, it seems) people complain about the minister and his wife ('cause she's part of the package, ya know) aren't visiting enough people or teaching all the classes, etc. I have a hard time understanding why he or his wife are the sole people able to visit the sick, the elderly, the orphaned, take a meal to a family, clean up someone's yard, hold a widow's hand, etc.

Perhaps that is a different post some other time, though.