This past Friday, in the middle of Lent, a motion picture debuted entitled The Young Messiah. The movie portrays the life of a seven-year-old Jesus Christ. Before wasting your money, I'm warning my readers to stay away. Contrary to what the Vatican II sect wants you to think, this is not a family movie about Christ. You know a religious movie is good when Frankie's mitered morons condemn it (think: The Passion of the Christ). The movie is insidious in both its origin and its depiction of Our Lord.
The film is based on a book by author Anne Rice called Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Rice is best known for her series of books dealing with vampires ("The Vampire Chronicles" series--also made into two major motion pictures; Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Damned). Anne Rice was born Howard Allen Frances O'Brien on October 4, 1941. She was indeed a girl named after her father. Rice became known as "Anne" and legally changed her name. She was raised as a devout Catholic, but renounced the Faith for atheism at age 18. Two years later, she married Stan Rice and had two children. Their daughter Michele died at age six from childhood leukemia, and their son Christopher (b. 1978) is himself an author and an avowed homosexual activist. Rice published works of erotica, and loved all things occult.
In 1998, Rice returned to "Catholicism" (read: "Vatican II sect") and wrote books about Christ. She was unable to shake her occult fascination, and the books were based on the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" which claim to be by same famous disciple and profess to reveal some part of Christ’s life, but are in fact rejected by the Church as inauthentic (for many and good reasons). The Gnostic heretics believed that salvation is not through Christ and His One True Church, but through secret knowledge. They also acknowledge there are two "gods"--one who made the physical world, and the other good "god" who wants us to escape the material world. To find the truth you do not look for external revelation, but within yourself for the "spark of the divine." Some of the most famous of these false "gospels" are the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene." The book and movie are therefore based off this occult teaching.
In 2010, Rice publicly renounced belief in Christianity (gnostic heresy version or otherwise) on her Facebook page. She wrote:
For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten …years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen. (7-28-10)
As of 2013, she identifies herself as a "secular humanist."
A Gnostic "Christ"
- One of the primary producers of the film is Michael Barnathan, a Jew who points out that the movie is the story "of a Jewish family", and nothing more (!)
- Taken from the Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas," the young Jesus is shown as accidentally killing a boy with His Divine power, and then resurrecting him. Christ, true God and true Man, could not "lose control" of His power. Moreover, the real Gospels tell us He performed His first miracle at the wedding in Cana, because of His Mother's intercession.
- The Divinity of Christ is denied as the young Jesus is depicted as not being sure of Who He is and why He's here in the world.
- The movie fails to grasp the truth about Christ’s knowledge of Himself. It suggests that this confused, questioning prodigy had to be taught that He is God. But were that the case, as it clearly is in the film, the boy would not be God, since it is heresy to teach that His divinity was ever unknown to Him; that His awareness was developmental. According to theologian Pohle, "From the first moment of its existence in a human body the soul of Our Lord Jesus Christ enjoyed the beatific vision of God" (See Christology, B.Herder Books, St. Louis , pg. 249). Theologian Ott teaches, "Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error." (Sent. certa.) Cf. D2184 et seq. (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN books, reprint of 1955, pg. 165).
- Pope Pius XII clearly taught Christ's freedom of ignorance in his encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943): "For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love."
Conclusion: Stay Away
This movie insults and denigrates Our Lord Jesus Christ and replaces Him with a Gnostic counterfeit that doesn't know who he is and behaves in ways that God could not, as He is all-perfect. The Vatican II sect believes otherwise. Here's what so-called conservative "Archbishop" Charles Chaput of Philadelphia had to say, "A portrait true to biblical faith but without sentimentality….an exceptional movie, engaging from start to finish; a film worth seeing and owning and seeing again." (Emphasis mine). "Cardinal" Sean O'Malley of Boston said, "Captivating, inspiring, and deeply moving." But perhaps the most revealing review was given by "Archbishop" Wenski of Miami, "Opens a door into your heart." Indeed. A door in which you might let in the heresy of the Gnostic "Christ" and the demonic occultism that spawned him. Stay away.
Strikes me as odd why so many 'heterosexual' types like Anne Rice are fiercely attached to Homosexuality.ReplyDelete
In my opinion, it's rebellion against God. They promote sodomy and murder (abortion).Delete
Anne Rice is no different than any of us.She says "I've tried,I've failed,I'm an outsider."ReplyDelete
Personally I grew up on punk rock and goth,later on went to raves and hung around with 'outsiders'.
However,when I found Catholicism,my personality took a back seat to Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic faith.
Yes,it's difficult being a weirdo around normal Catholics but,taking part in worshipping The Son of God and being blessed to know the true faith more than makes up for these petty little inconveniences.
She worships man and craves human respect.
Very true! Congratulations on your conversion! I'll be praying for you, my friend.Delete
It always amazes me that protestants, novus ordo types,gnostics, and all other assortment of heretics, like to come up with some mindless drivel that they try to pass off as "religious" entertainment. The sad part is that those who have the sincere desire to learn about Our Lord, look to these fools for guidance. May God grant them the Grace to see the evil which these evil ones spew out and run to the True Faith!!ReplyDelete
Yes, indeed! Time for a wake-up call to most on Earth!Delete
Off-Topic: Could you give me good reasons why the Easter Vigil does not fulfill the Sunday Obligation?ReplyDelete
From a Young Traditional Catholic Man.
Simply put, in the Vatican II sect, it does satisfy their "obligation" as they can go to services on Saturday for Sunday. Our Lord rose on Sunday, not Saturday morning (the Traditional Vigil is in the morning). He didn't rise on Saturday night. We can keep holy the Sabbath only on the Sabbath itself----Sunday.Delete
Actually,I was talking about the Traditional Easter Vigil. How is the Vigil different from the Easter Sunday Mass itself Theology-Wise?Delete
Holy Saturday, like Good Friday, was originally a day on which no Mass was offered. Instead, during the night from Holy Saturday to Easter Sunday, the Church kept a lengthy vigil. The faithful watched the whole night in the church, assisted at the solemn administration of baptism to the adult catechumens, and awaited the celebration of the first Mass of Easter, which concluded the vigil early Easter morning.Delete
As Christianity triumphed throughout the world, there were fewer adult converts to be baptized, so interest in assisting at the great Vigil waned. This, coupled with various relaxations in the law of fasting, led in the eleventh century to gradually anticipating the Vigil ceremony on Saturday itself, until finally it started to be observed on Holy Saturday morning.
There is the blessing of the Pascal Candal, and various other ceremonies available to read in any pre-1955 Missal (I recommend Fr. Lasance Missal of 1945) that is a glorious anticipation of what will take place on Easter morning. Needless to say, these ceremonies don't take place on Easter. The theology of Holy Saturday is therefore similar, but not identical to Easter. I hope this answers your question. God bless.
When Charles Chaput was the NO Archbishop of Denver, I went to hear him preach at the Rite of Election for catechumens (I was a Novus Ordite in those days). The reading for that particular Sunday concerned Abraham and his obedience to God's command to sacrifice his son Isaac, obviously an immensely important chapter in salvation history, redolent with symbolism, import, and meaning. But Charles Chaput averred that it was NOT the voice of God that told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but the voice of the culture he belonged to do. The moral of the story, according to Chaput, was "that we have to be very careful about what voices we listen to."ReplyDelete
On another occasion, I went to the Archbishop's memorial lecture and his guest of honor was none other than Stanley Hauerwas, the Methodist theologian from Duke University, whom Chaput described as "his favorite theologian." A Methodist!
I have told these stories to many people in various places over the years. Most of them do not believe me. They flatly deny, to my face, that I saw Chaput do these things, or they claim I must have misunderstood something. But I was there; I heard the sermon; I heard the lecture; I saw them with my own eyes.
Chaput, who has the reputation of being a staunchly orthodox conservative among Novus Ordites, has really been an out-and-out modernist usurper from the beginning. It is no surprise that he endorses this ridiculous movie.
Very true, Matt. I'm not surprised by what you report! It's like the SSPX, Salza, and "Wanderer" types: they will make excuses for the inexcusable to justify the "papacy" of Frankie. He didn't mean it, he didn't say it, that's not how it happened, etc.Delete
You are crazy, even when there is incontrovertible proof the events you mention took place. Others saw and heard what you did, but that doesn't matter. These are the ones who need to stop listening to "voices in their heads" and get in contact with objective reality.
Thank you for this important article. God bless you!ReplyDelete
Thank you! God bless you and your family.Delete
Just started to follow your site. Might I ask if you still attend Mass at the Ave Maria Chapel? I currently live out of State (Mass.) but I was there twice in the late 80's. The Church in Boston is in terrible shape. Would love to ask your advice on something, if possible. MikeReplyDelete
I do attend a few Sundays a year. Feel free to ask me any question you like. If it's something private, please post your email address, and I will contact you off site with an email by which we can communicate and which conceals my identity.Delete
what do you think about the film ¨Risen¨??? Some people are telling me it also has strange occult things. Have you seen it?ReplyDelete
I have not seen it, but a friend of mine did and thought it was reverent. I have not heard anything about it being heretical or occult. If any of my readers would like to share their views, please do so.Delete
That movie fails to show any representation of the event of the Resurrection in itself. By not showing it this movie rejects the Resurrection of the Lord and it follows their own anti-Christian agenda.Delete
I heard that this movie is made for Protestants. The main actor it is the same Martin Luther film.Delete
I just saw "Risen" yesterday: it is neither heretical nor into the occult.If we do not actually see the Resurrection, what is told about the event by the roman soldiers who witnessed it is absolutely "orthodox".ReplyDelete
However, the Crucifixion shows Our Lord nailed on the cross through the wrists & ankles. Some will argue that the Holy shroud gives such an impression, but in each Church approved apparitions, it is clearly stated that Our Lord bears the wound in His HANDS... Then, the feet being held on the cross on each SIDE of it, with a nail passing throughthe ankles which is contrary to the Holy Scriptures AND the Tradition of the Church.
On the plus side: the dark sky, storm, earthquake occuring at the exact moment Our Lord dies.
The casting is my main problem: The Romans are well played, especially J. Fiennes as a Roman Tribune in charge of finding Our Lord's corpse, who ends up converting. However Our Lord looks much like a short haired, chubby faced, smiling Pakistani! His body language lacks some dignity: smiling in a "tooth paste advertisement" way, with a few "nod nod, wink wink" going on.
The apostles are pretty much a dazed and confused bunch of hippies, crying, laughing & groping each other like some pot smoking youngsters.One of them even says that their "main weapon is love"...
St. Mary Magdelene is still stigmatized with the "woman of the street" label and, when looking for her to get more information about what happened to the body of Jesus (called Jeshuah suring the whole movie)they find her hiding...in a brothel!
The Ascension itself is not shown but rather"suggested' as Our Lord walks at a good distance of the apostles and vanishes into the sunlight before the sun suddenly goes up in a "sonic boom"...
All in all, "Risen" is a biblical "B-movie' which is neither totally bad, nor perfect. I've paid 3,75$ to see it (which is 33% of the normal orice you normally expect when going to a canadian movie theater) so that was not a waste of time or money, but if you want to mak eyourself an opinion about the film, wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it.
Pax et Bonum,
Thank you for your thoughtful review!Delete
Please excuse my pointing this out.. I love this article and shared it with a friend but am concerned over why the valid Vatican II is labelled as a "sect" and why the validly ordained Cardinal and Archbishop (who might have some less-than-desirable things to say which thankfully aren't infallible) are listed in quotes. That is all, God bless.ReplyDelete
The purpose of my blog is to show that sedevacantism (the belief that Pope Pius XII was the last valid pope) is true. Vatican 2 was an apostate robber "council" that was manifestly heretical. They have set up an invalid man-made sect. The True Church exists with the Traditionalists; unless/until that time comes when God drives the false Shepards out of the formerly Cstholic Churches. Chapet, O'Malley, and Wenski are neither validly ordained nor consecrated. The Vatican 2 sect sacraments are invalid (except for some baptisms and marriages). They use the invalid rite of Montini (Paul VI) since June of 1968. Therefore those three aforementioned prelates, having all been both ordained/consecrated in this rite are mere laymen. That's why their titles are in quotes. (The designation "Cardinal" came from a false pope---Wotyla).Delete
The so-called reversion of Ann Rice is more than likely bogus given her return to gnosticism and judeo-masonry. She reminds me of a triple agent, ala Leo Taxil.ReplyDelete
@Introibo & Cum ExDelete
Do you all think Malachi Martin was a triple agent?
I don't know what to think of him but what I've heard from him on audio and video seems Conservative & Catholic.