MORE ABOUT MEL GIBSON’S MOVIE – March 2, 2004 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061). [Adapted and/or excerpted by BDM.] 

I am receiving much mail about Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ, both pro and con, but mostly pro; and a lot of the mail that is written to defend the movie is coming from fundamental Baptist church members. I have decided that more needs to be said for the sake of those who are willing to listen to some warnings and have not completely closed their minds. 

CHALLENGE FROM A READER 

Brother Cloud, 

First of all, I am a 47 year old woman who is saved and faithfully serving my Lord daily the best that I can.  I am a soulwinner, an avid studier of God’s Word and I cherish my Lord and Saviour and serve and worship Him in a strong, fundamental, conservative, Bible believing Baptist Church. 

I ask that you reconsider what you have been saying about the movie The Passion of the Christ.  Please consider the following: 

1. Nothing takes the place of God’s Word. I am ‘not ashamed of the Gospel,’ and it is ‘the Sword of the Spirit.’ It always will be. But God also gives us other tools to use in witnessing, the list of which is too long for the purposes of this email. I believe the Passion is one such tool. I and my husband have seen this movie, and I can tell you that the visualization of what Christ endured has only strengthened our desire to be better Christians and better witnesses for Him. The reaction of all my Christian friends has been the same. To say that it is idolatry is to condemn any movie that has ever been made on the subject of Christ. The 10 Commandments, The Greatest Story Ever Told, etc., etc., are God-honoring movies, and I personally wish Hollywood would produce more of such. 

2. I did not see anything in the movie that contradicted Scripture. Yes, there were things in the movie that are not in Scripture, but they did not contradict it. The Bible says, ‘And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen’ (John 21:25).  It is not ‘wrong’ to ponder about the events that took place during that time, especially in an artistic endeavor. It would be wrong only if these things were in contradiction to God’s Holy Word. 

3. Mary was not portrayed as anything more than a mother who loved her Son and anguished over what He went through. She was not portrayed as a co-redemptress, nor was she portrayed as ‘holy.’ Frankly, she did not do anything or act any way that I would not have done myself had I watched my son go through what Jesus did. 

4. There was nothing anti-Semitic about the movie. It was clear from the beginning that Christ freely sacrificed Himself because of each of our sins. 

5. Saved people see this film, and are moved to be better Christians and convicted to work even harder to reach the lost. 

6. Lost people are seeing this movie, and asking questions. We who are born again need to be ready to answer their questions and ‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh ... a reason of the hope’ that is in us. 

7. This movie is a powerful tool. I believe every Christian should see it. I hope every lost person does as well, and that a Christian friend will be there at their side, ready to lead them to the Lord who suffered, died, and rose again to pay the penalty for our sins. 

8. Catholics may read more into this movie than what is there, because they want to. It does not, however, come across as a ‘Catholic’ movie. And since I was raised in Catholicism, I am very familiar with all the false doctrine and confusion within that religion. I personally believe that even though Mel Gibson is wrong in a lot of his doctrine, and should come out of the false Roman church, I think he is saved. Only God knows for sure. But God can use a lost man to accomplish His purpose if necessary. I believe this movie could cause revival in our country. Christians needed a wake up call. This movie could be it. 

Brother David, please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The movie is powerful, and has made an impact on my life that I pray will never subside. I love my Lord and Saviour and am humbled by His great love that He showed for me on that cross. And yes, I thank God for using a sinner like Mel Gibson to touch the hearts of many through such a powerful depiction of Jesus’ suffering for us. 

I pray you will reconsider. Go see the movie. It doesn’t claim to be a documentary. It is a tool to bring the Gospel to many who would not necessarily otherwise be reached. 

REPLY FROM BROTHER CLOUD 

I have decided to address some of the things you said because your statements represent the thinking of many today, and also because you are a member of a fundamental Baptist church. It is so very sad to me to see what is happening in these churches. 

What is Idolatry? 

I am a missionary in one of the most grossly idolatrous countries of the world, and I have learned many things. For one, idolaters do not worship images themselves; they worship the god that the image represents. By pretending to be Jesus Christ, the actor in Gibson’s movie (or any other such movie) is playing the part of an idol and those who support and defend it are idolaters. Beware. This is not a light matter. 1 John 5:21 exhorts believers to avoid idolatry, and the Bible would not say that if we were not capable of idolatry. 

Billy Graham said that after seeing this movie he would see the actor from The Passion every time he read the Gospels. That is idolatry. The Bible plainly forbids us to have any sort of image of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ is God. 

The Jesus of this movie is simply nothing like the Jesus Christ of the Bible. At the very best the “Jesus” of Mel Gibson’s movie is a false christ. For example, when Jesus Christ was smitten, He blessed his smitters. When actor Jim Caviezel was smitten, he cursed. During scenes in which Caviezel was being beaten by actors playing the part of Roman soldiers, he was chained to a post with a board set up behind him to absorb the blows. When one of the lashes missed the board and cut a 14 inch gash in his back, Caviezel turned to the actor wielding the whip and cursed him. Speaking about this event later, Caviezel said: “I turned around and looked at the guy, and I tell you, I MAY BE PLAYING JESUS, BUT I FELT LIKE SATAN AT THAT MOMENT. I TURNED TO HIM, A COUPLE OF EXPLETIVES CAME OUT OF MY MOUTH” (David Germain, “Playing Jesus an Act of Faith, Associated Press, 2/20/04). I am not saying that many of us would have done much differently or that Caviezel is some sort of special sinner. All I am pointing out is the blasphemy of a sinful man playing the part of the holy Son of God. 

In his warning about this movie Andrew Webb gives two reasons why all depictions of Christ are lies. “The first reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is because the only wise God went to great lengths not to leave us with any description of the physical appearance of His Son lest we fall into the sin of image making. Therefore all of our representations of Jesus are inevitably speculations usually based upon our own desires. We create an image of Jesus that says more about the Jesus we want than the Jesus whom God sent. ... The second reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is that they can never hope to represent the glory of Christ in His true nature.” 

By the way, I apply these same principles to any movie, whether it be The Ten Commandments, The Greatest Story Ever Told, Ben Hur, etc. The Bible believing Christian has no need whatsoever for any of these truth-intermingled-with-error-and-extra-scriptural-tradition things. The Bible believer has the infallible Truth in ALL of its pure loveliness and glory in the Scriptures. Why should he be satisfied in any sense whatsoever with some incredibly shallow, vague, distorted Hollywood shadow of the truth? 

What About the Role of Mary in this Movie? 

As for the role of Mary in The Passion, it is clearly a Roman Catholic presentation. The Bible says absolutely nothing about Mary in the context of the trial and crucifixion of Christ, except when Jesus gave her away to John. That is not an important fact. There is a reason for this, and it is because Christ had no help whatsoever at that point (he was “by himself” Heb. 1:3). By putting Mary so prominently at every point in Christ’s suffering, Rome has committed blasphemy. Just the fact that Mary is depicted in The Passion at the foot of the cross holding Jesus and looking intently into the camera is evidence of the Roman Catholicism of this movie. That type of thing will stay in the minds of those who watch this movie. 

Upon what Biblical authority does Mel Gibson add all sorts of things about Mary to the account of Christ’s suffering? Of course we know from his own testimony that he based his account of Christ’s sufferings, not only on the Bible, but also on the dreams of Catholic mystics. 

You say that the movie does not contradict the Bible, that it is not wrong to “ponder about the events that took place, especially in an artistic endeavor.” I am amazed at such a statement. Where does God give us permission to add our human imaginations to the Gospel story? The Bible warns, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). It is not our business to try to delve beyond the pages of Scripture with our uninspired, easily-deceived imaginations. We have no divine authority whatsoever to do such a thing. 

Yes, the Bible does not tell us everything that happened that day, BUT IT TELLS US EVERYTHING GOD WANTS US TO KNOW THAT HAPPENED THAT DAY! You are unwittingly taking the Roman Catholic approach to the Bible and Christianity by allowing uninspired, man-made additions to be added. 

You say that you are a mother and that you can thus understand the depictions of Mary in this film. That is precisely the error! That is exactly what Rome says about Mary; she is our mother; we understand her motherly empathy! They say that to understand Mary’s role in all of this we must understand how a mother would look upon Jesus’ suffering. Away with this error! The Scripture does not tell us to delve into such things. There is no doubt that Mary was hurt deeply by what she witnessed. But what Mary felt has nothing to do with Christ’s suffering. That is a naturalistic approach to the gospel story, which is precisely what we see in Rome’s doctrine of Mary. You have no biblical authority to insert your motherly feelings into the gospel story. Long before the hour of suffering arrived, Jesus had made His relationship with Mary clear, as follows:

“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. 12:47-50).

Jesus did everything He could to DE-emphasize His natural relationship with Mary, yet Rome does just the opposite, and it is Rome’s approach that is depicted in The Passion of the Christ. 

 “The Visualization of Christ Has Helped Me Be A Better Christian” 

Referring to the depiction of Jesus’ suffering in Mel Gibson’s movie you say that “the visualization of what Christ endured has only strengthened our desire to be better Christians and better witnesses for Him.” 

I have no doubt that you have been deeply stirred by this Hollywood drama, but you are being emotionally moved by a false depiction. You are being stirred by a lie. The man you saw was nothing like Jesus Christ and the things you saw depicted were not what happened that day. At best it is a vague and distorted image of what happened. Too many liberties have been taken. 

There is no biblical evidence in the Bible that Mary followed Christ all along the way during his suffering. There is no biblical evidence that Jesus was beaten after the fashion of this movie. There is no biblical evidence that Satan is a woman. All of this is a mere figment of a Hollywood director’s imagination and the dreams of Catholic mystics. 

It is easy to be deceived. The heart of man is inherently deceitful (Jer. 17:9) and that does not cease to be true after salvation. Without great and continual caution, we will be deceived. That is why the  Bible warns that “the simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going” (Prov. 14:15). We have a very wily spiritual enemy who is a master of spiritual deception. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). The devil is a sly old fox who transforms himself into an angel of light and transforms his ministers into the ministers of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:14-15). 

The Galatian churches were deceived (Galatians 1). The Corinthian believers were in danger of being deceived (2 Cor. 11). Are most evangelical or fundamentalist churches today stronger, less carnal than that at Corinth? I think not. 

You say, “I know all of this.” Perhaps you do, but in my estimation you are not applying it to this situation. It is one thing to know a truth; it is quite another to apply truth consistently to our daily lives, ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR EMOTIONS ARE INVOLVED IN AN ISSUE AND WE GET INTO A DEFENSIVE POSTURE. 

Your pastor should be saying the things I am saying, but I have the impression that he is keeping his mouth shut in the fashion of the (all too typically) uninformed, spineless fundamental Baptist pastor today. Thus in a practical sense you are in a leaderless, shepherdless situation in an evil hour, and where there is no vision the people perish. 

I can be moved by all sorts of things in life, including a powerful rock song and a vivid movie, but unless I am being moved by the Word of God as it is used by the Spirit of God, it is of the flesh and of the world and it will not produce true spiritual fruit. 

Ponder this question: Why does the Bible say that faith comes NOT BY SIGHT and that HOPE THAT IS SEEN IS NOT HOPE (2 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 8:24)? 

And this question: Why does the Bible not describe Jesus’ suffering in graphic terms? 

And this question: Why does the Bible not describe Jesus’ appearance? 

Is the Movie an Evangelistic Opportunity? 

Everyone is making much of this movie as an evangelistic opportunity. Yes, it can be with a serious qualification. It can be an evangelistic opportunity for those that seek to assist the unsaved who have seen the movie AS LONG AS THE MOVIE ITSELF IS NOT USED AS THE MEDIUM FOR EVANGELISM. 

I have heard from several brethren who are doing this. They themselves know that the movie is not godly or scriptural and they are not using the movie itself for evangelism, because they know that it is not a proper medium and that it has as much potential to confuse the gospel as to present it; but they have prepared gospel materials to distribute to those who have seen the movie or who are thinking about the subject of the movie in order to lead them to the truth. 

I must be quick to say, though, that I doubt that many people who see and love this movie will subsequently be open to full-orbed biblical truth that includes an exposure of idolatry, an emphasis on the pre-eminence of faith, and a bold defense of the faith against every heresy. Think about that. 

Will Great Good Come From This Movie? 

Amazing statements are being made about the potential this movie has for good. I do not believe that is the case. Just the opposite. I believe great evil will come because of this movie. 

FIRST, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN A POWERFUL MEDIUM FOR ECUMENISM. Few things have more effectively united evangelicals and fundamentalists with Roman Catholics than this movie. No, they are not uniting organizationally, but they are uniting in spirit. The professing church is rapidly succumbing to the spirit of New Evangelicalism and worldliness. To shut ones ears to biblical warnings, to attack the messenger rather than heed the message, to want to focus on any perceived good in something rather than the error that is there (contrast Psalm 119:128), that, my friends, is the very essence of the New Evangelical ecumenical spirit, and it will not stop here. 

Why, behold, they are all on the same page, praising the same movie, and exalting the same staunchly Roman Catholic director and actors, refusing with one accord to hear any clear warning about spiritual dangers, uniting in one accord not to be “judgmental” and to take the positive approach. 

For example, on the evangelical side Morris Chapman, president of the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “I don’t know of anything since the Billy Graham crusades that has had the potential of touching so many lives.” Not to be outdone, popular SBC preacher Adrian Rogers, an icon of the conservative side of the Southern Baptist convention, even believes this Hollywood movie “is going to bring the Church away from me-ology back to theology” (“Gibson’s Words Fuel Controversy,” AgapePress, 2/20/04). What church? The “church” composed of all professing Christians in America? The Southern Baptist Convention “church”? The Roman Catholic Church? What an amazing statement to make about a Hollywood movie, of all things! And yet compare those evangelical sentiments with the following statement made by the Roman Catholic governor of Connecticut, John Rowland, after watching Gibson’s movie together with an evangelical pastor: “It is amazing. It shakes you to the very core of your being. I think there is an explosion of faith taking place in our country.” Mel Gibson’s movie is an ecumenical tool extraordinaire. 

SECOND, THE MOVIE WILL INCREASE THE STATURE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND WILL PROMOTE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APPROACH TO THE GOSPEL. The Roman Catholic Church has always been image-oriented rather than faith oriented. It is not founded strictly upon the blessed Word of God, but upon man-made tradition. It has no fear whatsoever of adding its traditions to the Word of God (all the while protesting, falsely, that its traditions do not contradict the Scriptures). It is oriented toward religious sight and smell and emotion rather than the apostolic faith-only orientation. The New Testament plainly states that the true Christian life is one of faith based on God’s Word and NOT SIGHT (2 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 8:24). Roman Catholicism is not content with that. It is not enough. It needs images to assist faith. Now we see evangelicals and fundamentalists boldly supporting this idolatrous approach to Christianity. 

Tell me the names of the well known evangelicals and neo-fundamentalists (in the leadership of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, for example) who have lifted their voices plainly to warn about this danger in regard to The Passion. Who are they? Where are they? The Bible warns that “where there is no vision, the people perish...” (Prov. 29:18). The churches in America are perishing because they have no bold Scriptural leadership. The leaders (speaking generally) have abdicated their responsibility to warn, to reprove and rebuke plainly, to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. They are content to speak a mostly positive message to a weak people who love to have it so, but in doing so they condemn the people to grow weaker in the faith with each passing decade. They are content to reduce even the very Word of God to the pathetically childish level of dynamic equivalency “Bibles” and thus perpetuate and exacerbate the shallowness of Christianity in our day. Instead of giving meat, they keep the people on pabulum. Woe unto these compromising church leaders! 

The Movie’s Depiction of the Jewish Role in Christ’s Death 

You say, “There was nothing anti-Semitic about the movie.” That is yet another of its problems. The Gospels plainly identify the Jewish leaders and the nation Israel as chief culprits in the death of Jesus Christ. That is one of the themes of the Gospels. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (John 1:11). When the prophet Isaiah says, “we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Isaiah 53:3), he was referring specifically to his people, the Jewish nation. Jesus came and presented Himself, after all, as ISRAEL’S Messiah. That is why He began His preaching with these words: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Jesus was here referring to the covenants and promises of God TO ISRAEL. Only later did He turn to the Gentiles. Before He was condemned by a Roman tribunal He was condemned by a Jewish council. It was the Jews and the Jews alone who delivered Jesus to Pilate and who demanded His crucifixion. This is a fact of history. 

Mel Gibson responded to the attack by the modern-day Jewish Pharisees by cutting the English sub-titles to the scene in which the Jews cried out, “His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matt. 27:25). And those fearful words were not spoken merely by the Jewish leaders but by “all the people.” 

It is nonsense to say that the Bible is anti-Semitic even though it depicts the Jewish people often in a negative light. To the contrary, the Bible is truth, and it depicts the Jewish people (and all other people) in the light of perfect truth. The Jewish nation did not choose God; God chose them and raised them up from the stock of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but the fact is that from the days of their journey out of Egypt to this very day they have been a spiritually stubborn people as a whole. That is not anti-Semitism; it is the truth according to the Bible, God’s Word. They were scattered to the ends of the earth and have endured horrible troubles for the last 2,000 years for the very reason that they have rebelled against their God and rejected their Messiah. 

The fact that Mel Gibson in some ways downplays the role of the Jewish nation in the crucifixion of Christ both in his movie and in his interviews is another example of how unscriptural the thing is. To the contrary, the Gospels pull no punches in this regard, let the chips fall where they may. 

It is true to say that the Jews crucified Christ. It is also true to say that the Roman government crucified Christ. It is also true to say that man’s sins crucified Christ. Why should we downplay any one of these historical facts? Yet today, because the truth is so soft-peddled on every hand by professing Christians, if you speak the truth in these matters, regardless of how loving and factually, you are labeled as some sort of dangerous near-lunatic. 

God has not called us to downplay and soft-peddle the truth for some Greater Good, whatever that alleged good is—yea, even for evangelism—but that is precisely the foundational characteristic of the New Evangelical philosophy that controls most churches today.

Is Mel Gibson Saved?; Is He a True Christian? 

You say that you think Mel Gibson is saved. In light of your background as an unsaved Roman Catholic prior to your conversion, I find your statement simply amazing. On what scriptural basis do you say he is saved? Where has Mel Gibson given a scriptural testimony of having been born again through faith in the finished work of Christ? He talks about having been reformed; he talks about being religious; but that is not scriptural salvation. Some say, “Well, he “loves Jesus.” What Jesus does he love? Some say, “Well, he preaches the gospel in his movie?” What gospel does he preach? Some say, “Well, he talks about the Spirit.” What Spirit does he follow? The Bible tells us that there are false christs, false gospels, and false spirits, and this danger will be enlarged greatly as we near the end of this age and the return of Christ.

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

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. ... But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:1, 13).

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

I have no doubt that Mel Gibson is entirely sincere in what he believes and that he made this movie as an expression of his faith. But what does he believe and what is his faith? He has not left us to wonder about this. 

Gibson belongs to a Traditionalist Catholic group that performs the mass in Latin, abstains from meat on Fridays, eschews ecumenism and other such things that were changed at the Vatican II Council in the 1960s. Gibson is committed to the Roman Catholicism that was promulgated by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. It is the Catholic gospel of sacramentalism.

When asked by a Protestant interviewer if someone can be saved apart from the Roman Catholic Church, Gibson replied, “There is no salvation for those outside the Church” (Peter Boyer, “The Jesus War,” The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). He said further: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly, she’s like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus. She believes that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it [to heaven], she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.” When Gibson refers to “the chair,” he is referring to the papal throne. The dogma of Rome says that when the pope speaks “ex cathedra” or “from the chair” he speaks infallibility.

The Council of Trent hurled 125 solemn papal curses against those who teach that salvation is by the grace of Christ alone. This council was held from 1545 to 1563 in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. It denied every Reformation doctrine, including Scripture alone and grace alone. Consider some of the curses issued by this Catholic Council:

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA [ACCURSED OF GOD].”

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ or either sex are not bound thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during Lent, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 5).

TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: “If anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the gospel; or that those who do not preach are not priests at all, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY: “Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached.”

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS OF SAINTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES: “The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the cura animarum, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, that it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, or that it is foolish to pray vocally or mentally to those who reign in heaven.”

This is the official teaching of Rome’s Council of Trent -- which, by the way, has never been rescinded -- and this is exactly what Mel Gibson believes, according to his own testimony.

It is impossible to be saved if you believe these things. Galatians 1 says anyone who teaches a gospel different from the gospel of the grace of Christ is CURSED OF GOD. Rome has no authority to issue curses in God’s name, but the apostles of our Lord did have such authority as they wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The curses of Rome are a delusion, but the curses of the Bible are truth. Anyone who follows Rome’s gospel is cursed of God.

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

If you disagree with me in this matter, I have a challenge for you. Ask Mel Gibson if he rejects the Council of Trent.