ADULLAM FILMS

Like many other movements, the Mel Gibson film, “The Passion” was one of many instruments used to unite Catholics and Protestants in a common cause.  Despite the overtly “Catholic” and unbiblical nature of the film, countless Evangelicals stood up and declared that this film was “inspired by God” and “the work of the Holy Spirit.”  Upon release, it was the number one topic on the nightly news and was given more attention by the media than any film this writer has seen in twenty years.  Over and over, Protestant Evangelicals (who should know their Bible) got on the news and said how “biblically accurate” the film was. There were militant-style movements among evangelicals to support the film, buying out block tickets at the theatres to supposedly use this as an opportunity to “preach the gospel.”  But what was the cost?  Should a man commit adultery with a prostitute so he can preach the gospel to her clients?  Will not his hypocrisy diminish his authority to preach at all?  I can certainly understand confronting the prostitute with the gospel, so that she and her clients might be saved; but that was a far cry from what happened.

Few people seemed to care that “The Passion,” which had little to do with the gospel accounts, was actually based on the writings of a Catholic nun named Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich.  Her book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ was Mel Gibson’s real inspiration for the movie and is marketed in Catholic bookstores as “The Book That Inspired Mel Gibson to Film The Passion of the Christ.” (Source, Another Jesus, by Roger Oakland, p. 204-205) Thankfully, some faithful brothers such as Roger Oakland took note of this, exposing it in his book, “Another Jesus: The Eucharistic Christ and the New Evangelization.”  Referring to Emmerich’s work, Oakland shows from the books’ own publishers, that Catherine Emmerich was inspired by the spirit realm to write her book:

“The book states, ‘she was accustomed to have

divine knowledge imparted to her in visions of

all kinds, and was often favored by visits from the

Mother of God and Queen of Heaven.’”

(Oakland, p. 204)

As we document in “Megiddo II: The New Age,” that title, the Queen of Heaven belonged for centuries to the pagan mother goddesses of the ancient world.  When Constantine the Great legalized Christianity in the fourth century, and began to fuse Pagan and Christian traditions, the title was transferred to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  This same “queen of heaven” has nothing to do with the Biblical Mary, but much to do with a demonic spirit condemned by God in scripture, and called exactly by that name (Jeremiah 44:17,18,25).  For an expanded expose on how this same spirit is seducing souls around the world with false signs and lying wonders, we recommend the documentary, “Messages from Heaven.” 

The Marian “apparitions” which are often reported in the news, are clearly part of Satan’s assault to prepare mankind for the coming of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:9).  As such, the fact that Gibson’s film was based upon the influence of this same spirit becomes quite significant.

If there is doubt in the mind of skeptical readers as to Emmerich’s involvement with the occult, her own words tell the tale.  She was obsessed with “communion” which she coveted according to traditional Catholic doctrine.  She believed she was literally, physically (not figuratively or symbolically) receiving the flesh and blood of Christ.  In her book, she describes how this would lead her into contact with her “spirits.”

“… I … hastened to the holy table, there to receive
my Lord and my God. When I was sacristan, I used
all on a sudden to feel myself ravished in spirit,
and ascend to the highest parts of the church,
on to cornices, projecting parts of the building,
and mouldings, where it seemed impossible for any being
to get by human means. Then I cleaned and arranged
everything, and it appeared to me that I was surrounded
by blessed spirits, who transported me about and held me
up in their hands. Their presence did not cause me the
least uneasiness, for I had been accustomed to it
from my childhood …” (The Dolorous Passion of Our
Lord Jesus Christ, by Anne Catherine Emmerich, p. 25)

While Emmerich is credited with the book, the account of this woman’s life is recorded by someone who knew her.  At one point, he describes Anne Catherine’s bewilderment at learning that her visions did not match up with the Bible:

“She had never read the Old or the New Testaments,
and when she was tired of relating her visions,
she would sometimes say: ‘Read that in the Bible,’
and then be astonished to learn that it was not there;
‘for,’ she would add, ‘people are constantly saying in
these days that you need read nothing but the Bible,
which contains everything …” (Emmerich, p. 44)

Had Emmerich known the Bible, she would have been able to defend herself against the deceptions of the enemy.  The psalmist tells us that God’s Word is the lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path (Psalm 119:105), but without it, how can one walk but in darkness?  Supposedly, she was given the stigmata of bearing Christ’s wounds.  She speaks of being made to suffer, but without knowing exactly why:

On the 15th of January she said: ‘The Child Jesus

brought me great sufferings at Christmas.

I was once more by his manger at Bethlehem.

He was burning with fever, and showed me his sufferings

and those of his mother. They were so poor that they

had no food but a wretched piece of bread. He bestowed

still greater sufferings upon me, and said to me:

“Thou art mine; thou art my spouse; suffer as I suffered,

without asking the reason why.” I do not know what my

sufferings are to be, nor how long they will last. I submit

blindly to my martyrdom, whether for life or for death:

I only desire that the hidden designs of God may be

accomplished in me. On the other hand, I am calm,

and I have consolations in my sufferings. Even this morning

I was very happy. Blessed be the holy Name of God!’

(Emmerich, p. 56-57)

Reading her account, she suffers nothing for the sake of the gospel, or for winning souls to salvation.  She is not as Paul, stoned to death for healing a lame man and then rejecting the idolatrous worship of the onlookers.  She is just a woman who lies in bed and has a series of messengers (sometimes an angel, sometimes Mary, or sometimes Jesus) that show up to inflict wounds on her for the sins of others. In this, she is supposedly sharing in the sufferings of Christ and with Him atoning for the sins of the world!  Much of her story can only be entered into the long list of Catholic fairy tales which adorn much of Rome’s history.  The author of her account writes of Emmerich as though she herself were Christ. He says that after she died, they looked upon her body “six or seven weeks later” to discover that it had not decayed. Then they put a stone upon her grave.

Furthermore, she gives a re-telling of events leading up to the crucifixion.  She provides specific details of things that happened between Jesus and the apostles, things nowhere found in the Bible.  It is from such details that Mel Gibson took much of the story for his film.

For those who saw the Gibson film, remember that rather bizarre scene where the wife of Pontius Pilate hands Mary a white cloth?  This is right after the Christ figure had been scourged.  Then with the white cloth, Mary (the mother of Jesus) and Mary Magdalene begin to wipe up the blood from the stone floor, remember?  This is one of a number of unbiblical scenes in the film that comes right out of Emmerich’s visions:

“I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach

                         the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; …

they knelt down on the ground near the pillar,

and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen

Claudia Procles [Pontius Pilate’s wife] had sent.”

(Oakland, p. 205)

Roger Oakland documents how one of the purposes of Catherine Emmerich’s book was to reveal the role of the Virgin Mary in the redemption of mankind.  In other words, it was not Christ alone that won for us salvation; but Christ plus Mary.  The back cover of the book gives this description:

“The Dolorous Passion recounts with incredible

precision the horrendous sufferings undergone

by our Savior in His superhumanly heroic act of

Redemption.  Also illuminating is its description

of Mary’s participation in the sufferings of her

Son, so that this book gives the reader a

poignant understanding of why Our Lady is

often called our ‘Co-Redemptrix’ and ‘Queen

of Martyrs.’” (Oakland, p. 204)

The term “Co-Redemptrix” means Co-redeemer.  Co-Savior.  Co-God.  This is idolatry.  The fact that this information was so widely known and published is an embarrassment for the evangelical community that seemed to abandon all discernment because a famous movie star made a film about Jesus.  Even Mel Gibson was amazed at the response of the Protestant community.  In an interview with Christianity Today, he said:

“I’ve been actually amazed at the way I would

say the evangelical audience has – hands down –

responded to this film more than any other

Christian group.”  What makes it so amazing, he

says, is that “the film is so Marian.”

(Oakland, p. 202)

In this same interview, Gibson went on to call Mary “a tremendous co-redemptrix and mediatrix.” (Ibid, Oakland quoting Christianitytoday.com, March 6, 2004)  Even though the Bible clearly tells us that “there is … one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Tim. 2:5) the term “mediatrix” defines Mary as another mediator, in denial of the biblical record. 

Further from that, Mel Gibson openly told the world that the central purpose of his film was to demonstrate the “sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar – which is the same thing.”  In other words, Gibson admitted that he was promoting the Catholic belief that Jesus dies every day, over and over again, in the Catholic Mass.  This is why, in the filme, he inter-cut the crucifixion with the last supper.  The movie provided a great evangelistic opportunity for Catholics, like Matthew Pinto (no relation) to write “A Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions About ‘The Passion of the Christ.’  The author states the purpose of his book:

“We simply explain the connection between the

sacrifice of Calvary and the sacrifice of the Mass.

 The director uses a crosscutting technique in the

movie that draws a parallel between the Last

Supper and the crucifixion, and we explore this

connection in the book.” (Oakland, pgs. 196-197)

The idea that Jesus dies again and again is a heresy that stands in complete contradiction to the Scriptures.  In the book of Hebrews, we read:

“… we are sanctified through the offering of the

body of Jesus Christ once for all …. this man, after

he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat

down on the right hand of God … For by one

offering he hath perfected forever them that are

sanctified …. Now where remission of these is,

there is no more offering for sin.”

(Hebrews 10:10,12,14,18)

It has been reported that the Harry Potter books were mediocre sellers at best, until they were endorsed in America by the evangelical community.  The same could probably be said for Mel Gibson’s “Passion.”  Chances are the film would never have been the colossal success that it was if not for the widespread acceptance of Bible believing Christians across the country.  Yet few used this opportunity to win Catholics to the true gospel or to warn them of the errors of Rome.  Instead, devout Catholics were likely strengthened in their convictions, witnessing the awe and conviction of evangelicals. 

-- CJP