I really think "Stigmata" is a poor choice of recommendation. I actually haven't seen that movie but I've heard a lot about it. Most people who see "Therese" will be the type of people who hate "Stigmata." They should recommend "The Third Miracle" or better yet "The Song of Bernadette."
share
YES When I saw your thread title I knew exactly what your point was. I had just finished checking out information on a new movie on Jesus Christ titled 'The Gospel of John'. It sounds like it will be an excellent depiction of the life of Christ according to (of course) the gospel of John. And the added recommendation associated with this movie by this site was....Stigmata! Why? The choices you sited were excellent.
I need to rent "Stigmata" so I can tell everybody what's wrong with it. I don't know why so many people have seen it. The critics panned it. One and a half stars Roger Ebert gave it while he gave "The Third Miracle" three stars which is a similar film but probably a lot better.
sharePerhaps because some people pay no attention to the ramblings of Ebert. I for one never listen to what he has to say because his tastes don't come anywhere near to mine.
Looks like a spanner, acts like a spanner ... it's spanner boy
Stigmata was quite a heretical movie. The stigmata is a "gift" from God which is not bestowed upon sinners and adulterers. When one looks at St. Francis of Assisi, Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, or St. Padre Pio, the holiness about their life indulges their character. Seeing the movie, I can say that it is quite misguided and too modern to even understand what the real stigmata is. The woman portrayed in this movie shows her "possesion" by demons. I belief, this is not something to do with stigmata, but to do with an exorcist!
shareI agree with your statement that Stigmata is a heretical movie; it only took a few minutes for me to realize that and change channel. However, while the stigmata is generally a "gift" from God given to His most holy servants it's not true to say that it is never given to sinners or adulterers. For whatever reasons, persons possessing far from spotless souls have received the Marks of Christ, some even have received them from Satan. During the middle ages there were several instances in which persons received the signs via demonic means. By placing the appearance of the stigmata on certains souls, Satan could rekindle the faith of those who believed only after experiencing the miraculous, and then after restoring their faith he would remove the stigmata from his victim in order to destroy the faith of those miracle seekers. That is the reason the Catholic Church is often hesistant in declaring whether a person's wounds are truly divinely given wounds of Christ. We as Christians are not to base our faith on miracles alone; God gives them to us to strengthen and inspire us but not He does not mean us to make our Faith dependent on it.
We know Satan is clever and wily and will use whatever means possible to pull the faithful away from God. What better way than that. We know Satan is unable to create, he is only able to imitate, to slightly pervert God's creation.
I find it very disturbing when people make light of Satan and his power, or even go so far as to deny his very existence. It is not because of some medieval superstitious fear that he are wary of him, our Christian faith instructs us that there is an Evil One who is actively battling for our souls. This is an frequently used cliche (is that redundant?), but cliches usually come from a truth, "the greatest trick the devil every pulled was making the world believe he didn't exist". I know I've gotten into discussion with friends concerning demonic things such as weedjee( i know that's incorrect spelling but forget correct one) boards, and bothered at how many think it's just a joke. The Church teaches never to deal with the demonic regardless of how innocent or mainstream it may appear.
I apologise for this long rambling just thought I'd share some thoughts. To end this I thought I'd leave with the St. Michael's prayer."
"St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and may you or Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all other spirits who roam about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen"
To call "Stigmata" a "heretical" film is too good for it. To qualify as heretical, something has to reflect some understanding of Christian doctrine, however imperfect (if the understanding were perfect then it would not be heresy).
Stigmata occur only a people with a strong religious orientation (and even non-psychologists define them that way). True stigmata could never appear on the sort of character the heroine in the film is.
The movie also propagates falsehood when it portrays the Catholic Church as trying to suppress the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas has been available since the 1950's when a complete text of it emerged with the Nag Hammadi cache (fragments had already been in circulation for decades beforehand)- the Church has made no move to suppress it.
"...Seid umschlungen, Millionen,
Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt..."
(fs, lvb 125/4)
Smitheeallen here again. Luther is a better choice than Stigmata but still The Song of Bernadette would have been better. I saw Stigmata today actually for a class I am taking called Cinema and the Sacred. It's a pretty lousy movie, the only good thing about it is the acting. Though there are some unintentionally (?) funny moments. They did get a lot of stuff wrong concering Catholicism in that movie and they also got a lot of stuff wrong concerning the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas.
share[deleted]
...I don't even know what that means!
Most people who see "Therese" will be the type of people who hate "Stigmata."
** John Kotynek
Well I like stigmata.
shareStigmata was a good movie, different but a good movie. The fact she (Arquette) got the disease was purley by accident, you should watch th movie it was ggod. But extremely differemt than Therese
IMDB has really gone downhill with this reccomendation system! It's completely misleading and contradictory! "Therese" is one of the most reverent movies of all time, and now they have "Priest" as one of their reccomendations, which is the most anti-Catholic, heretical, diabolical film I've seen....I'm not exagerrating...it makes something like "The Thorn Birds" look like "Bells of St. Mary's."
It doesn't stop with "Therese." IMDB has reccomended "The Last Temptation of Christ" for those who liked "The Passion," it has suggested "Agnes of God" (which the US Council of Catholic Bishops, for whatever that's worth, rated as "Morally Offensive") for those who liked "In Thise House of Brede" and "Song of Bernadette." As you can see, it's completely backwards.
Bring back the old IMDB, please.
lets put it this way, if you're a catholic who is pious, you will hate stigmata. you simply have to watch it up to the opening credits to figure it out why so many catholics hate it. same with the divinci code, priest, keeping the faith, and may other films that the modern-day voltaire (hollywood) has created.
if you're not a pious catholic, or protestant, you will not know the difference, because there's no way you can be faithful and confused on this topic. the misuse of the contents in stigmata, and movie like it, the catholic church forbids it in every respect.
i'm not trying to convince, or persuade people from watching these movies. people will watch what they wanna watch. but movies like stigmata promote derision of the catholic church by desecrating some of the most precious gems within that faith. it's not rocket science, it's blatantly obvious.