Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DallasMike
Hey, he flat out said that his wife won't even make the cut because she isn't a Catholic!

Mel's pretty clearly a better moviemaker than he is a theologian.

I mean, this position of his (technically called "Feeneyism" by Catholics) puts him squarely against such dangerously heretical liberal Catholics as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII.

Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

46 posted on 09/12/2003 9:36:13 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Campion
Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.
We disagree on much but agree 100% on this.

Gibson sounds like he might be a little tough to live with.


50 posted on 09/12/2003 11:37:11 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Campion
Seems odd to boot.

Mel is obviously going far out of his way to court evangelicals on this film. The crass-minded would say that he's just building a customer base for his product; but this is clearly a labor of love for Mel. Is he just proselytizing?

How seriously does he believe that salvation is impossible outside the Church? It would be interesting to see someone explore this with him.

Since the manstream press won't, it might be worthwhile for Crisis or First Things or even New Oxford Review to interview him on the subject.

51 posted on 09/12/2003 12:01:37 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Campion; truecompassion; DallasMike; The Iguana
Campion wrote:

Mel's pretty clearly a better moviemaker than he is a theologian.

I mean, this position of his (technically called "Feeneyism" by Catholics) puts him squarely against such dangerously heretical liberal Catholics as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII.



To Campion

Your accusation, that Mel is a Feeneyite, is rash. Mel most certainly does not ascribe to Leonard Feeney’s heresy. Neither does his much maligned father, Hutton Gibson, who regularly takes the Feeneyites to task in his newsletter. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” is De fide. The teaching of the Popes that you mention is presented below. Mel’s comments show that he is faithful to Pius IX's declaration: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation." I am concerned about your posting because it indicates confusion about Feeney’s heresy and/or Magisterial teaching on this matter. If you believe the confusion is mine, a sincere reply would be appreciated.

As I have seen it presented by Feeney and its advocates, the Feeneyite heresy insists on sacramental baptism for membership in the Church, as opposed to St. Thomas’ “baptism of desire” and the teaching of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine that catechumens, who die before they attain sacramental baptism, can win salvation on the ground of their faith, their desire for Baptism, and their internal conversion. This was Feeney’s error. Not “outside the Church there is no salvation,” which all Catholics are required to believe.

The following is posted as it is presented in Dr. Ludwig Ott’s, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

“Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation (De fide.)

“In the Caput Firmiter, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved,” (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). D 430. [D = Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma] This was the teaching also of the Union Council of Florence (D 714), and of Popes Innocent III (D 423) and Boniface VIII in the Bull “Unam sanctam” (D 468), Clement VI (D 570 b), Benedict XIV (D 1473), Pius IX (D 1647, 1677), Leo XIII (D 1955), Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporus” (D 2286, 2288). As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord” (D 1647). The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation Cf. D 1677; 796 (votum baptismi).

“The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti), but also a necessity of means (nec. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invicible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same...

"It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well...

"As against the reproach of intolerance a distinction must be made between dogmatic and civil tolerance. The Church rejects the dogmatic tolerance which would concede the same power of justification and the same value to all religion, or to all Christian confessions (Indifferentism); for there is only one truth."
57 posted on 09/12/2003 5:12:56 PM PDT by Aestus Veritatis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Campion
Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

For us uninformed (or misinformed) Protestants, what might that traditional doctrine of the Church be? Cites are good, if possible.

72 posted on 12/22/2003 6:34:10 AM PST by jude24 ("Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything thats even REMOTELY true!" -- H. Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Campion; DallasMike
As someone brought up Protestant myslef, I defenitely think Mr. Gibson has a right to his belief, and when you consider what that is, it does have a logical, reasonable arguement. DallasMike -- I've seen alot of interviews of him for his movies and he would be a BLAST! to talk to or hang out with. As far as his realationship to his wife, that's between themselve's and God. The fact that he is still with her suggests that he is not so close-minded, able to marry outside his faith, unlike other dogmatic, intramerital, religious doctrines. His comment about her being a saint, " better than him " credits his sentiment to his beliefs and that her not believing his beliefs troubles him and is probably perpetually on his mind. Yet they work it out. How much more opened-mindedness could you ask for?
78 posted on 02/13/2004 10:47:48 AM PST by Oisín (just my 2 ˘)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Campion

Pius IX and Pius XII were not liberals. They were true Catholics along with SAINT Pius X. The popes we've had since Pius XII have been liberals. Check out these sites, please:
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/campos.shtml
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/campcont.shtml
http://ihsv.com/62reasons.html
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/evils.shtml

In Jesus Christ the King,
Jason


87 posted on 09/22/2004 10:14:23 AM PDT by sav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson