Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Get this into your thick skulls, liberal hacks: Mel Gibson is not a Roman Catholic
Telegraph ^ | July 19, 2010 | Damian Thompson

Posted on 07/20/2010 7:29:01 AM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last
To: Scotswife
I don’t have to rely on generalized stereotypes. I experienced it.

Obviously, only you know your experiences. But, how are they relevant? I am a Catholic, and attend every week Masses in diocesan Churches. I experience so much hypocrisy every week it is sickening. There are more Obama bumper stickers in our parish parking lot each week than there are otherwise. Does that mean that Catholics are supporters of abortion? If I said that it were so I would be generalising, regardless of my experiences, and I would also be wrong.

The SSPX is certainly erroneous on some issues, and there may be many people within it that are of a mindset I don't like. However, generalising that the SSPX are anti-semites is no different than what is said of the tea parties by the left, or is often said about the Church itself by many. The existence of people within the SSPX who have controversial views regarding Jews does not support your generalisation any more than allegations of epithets supports those allegedly describing the tea parties.

101 posted on 07/20/2010 8:40:16 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw

“We may agree with the protest; however, we existed before and after apostate Catholicism”

Baptists refusal to join the Church that Jesus Christ founded doesn’t relinquish responsibility for those actions. Following the heresy of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin etc. on sola scriptura and sola fidei is heretical.


102 posted on 07/20/2010 9:44:33 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (A loud band of PaulBots, Isolationists, Protectionists, 911Inside Jobnuts, 3rdParty Loud Irrelevants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

“If they are not Catholic then they would not be bound in any way to answer to the Holy See, as everyone demands they do, which is itself evidence that people know that they are still in fact Catholic.”

Faulty logic. They are ask to obey the Church if they would desire to be back in her.


103 posted on 07/20/2010 9:54:56 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (A loud band of PaulBots, Isolationists, Protectionists, 911Inside Jobnuts, 3rdParty Loud Irrelevants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
When I got saved by grace through faith, I also was set free of the whole “pope” question, once and for all. That is, I think the papists AND the “empty-seat” papists are both out to lunch. Jesus is the head of His church. Simple.

Amen!

Gibson has been a target since his generally anti-Semitic movie, "The Passion of the Christ," and his various conspiracy theories.

How does a conservative, Republican Roman Catholic hook up with a twice-married, mother of an out-of-wedlock son who is, most bizarrely of all, a Russian who may or may not be Jewish herself.

Men dig pits for other men, knowing that human beings think they will always be able to see in the dark.

104 posted on 07/20/2010 10:02:42 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

Catholics here say that Catholic DOCTRINE teach once a Catholic always a Catholic because the sacrament places an indelible mark on your soul .

So Mel and yes Glenn are still under the authority of Rome and still Catholics ,,no “free will” there


105 posted on 07/21/2010 3:59:54 AM PDT by RnMomof7 (sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

It doesn’t matter what “catholics here” say - what matters is what the church says.

He is considered outside of the church.

Yes - if he decided to return, he wouldn’t have to be baptized. He could simply approach the sacrament of reconciliation.

The Gibsons used their free will to leave and they’re using their free will right not to stay away.


106 posted on 07/21/2010 6:15:55 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

You’re in for a sad surprise and awakening one day my friend. I hope it’s prior to you crossing over into eternity.


107 posted on 07/21/2010 6:17:42 AM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

Many Bipolar sufferers go off their meds, then end up “self medicating” (not consciously) with alcohol.


108 posted on 07/21/2010 6:26:29 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

“But, how are they relevant?”

How are they relevant? I received extensive exposure to various “traditionalist” thought - SSPX, Feenyism, sedevanticist, grunerism, etc....

After you converse over a period of time - you notice patterns.
One quirky pattern is the tendency to open dialogue with a condescending accusatory question like, “oh! you really really love that novus ordo don’t you!”
or “I bet you just adore that new age pope of yours!”
You know - that kind of stuff.

” I experience so much hypocrisy every week it is sickening.”

I suppose that is true no matter where you go.

“There are more Obama bumper stickers in our parish parking lot each week than there are otherwise.”

I haven’t bothered to count in our lot - but I would guess it’s 50/50, which is sad, because it shouldn’t even be close.

“Does that mean that Catholics are supporters of abortion? “

Unfortunately - yes. Those catholics with the stickers I mean.

” However, generalising that the SSPX are anti-semites is no different than what is said of the tea parties by the left, or is often said about the Church itself by many”

Apples and oranges. First of all - you don’t really have tea party “leaders” to point to. And there isn’t an official tea party “dogma”
SSPX has material online. Their bishops have much material out there as well as members who regularly contribute to forums.
Anyone is free to review the material and see what is plainly there.


109 posted on 07/21/2010 6:33:27 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

“I’ll forgive the Gibsons their bizarre deviance.”

Not really the point I’m arguing.
The original point of this thread is whether or not they belong to the catholic church.
They do not.
Whether or not any of us “forgive” them for whatever they believe in is pretty much beside the point.


110 posted on 07/21/2010 6:37:44 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

“If they are not Catholic then they would not be bound in any way to answer to the Holy See, as everyone demands they do, which is itself evidence that people know that they are still in fact Catholic.”

Maybe we just aren’t speaking the same language.

If they hadn’t performed a schismatic act to begin with (invalid consecrations in direct disobedience of the Pope) - then there never would have been a split.

So - in that sense they became the “prodigal son”.

The prodigal son remained a member of the family - however - leaving the family and going “elsewhere”.

The Church would love for the son’s return.
However - the return is not without condition - and has not yet occured.

If a split didn’t exist - there would be no need for “reconciliation”.
If they were not on the “outside”, there would be no need to await their return.


111 posted on 07/21/2010 7:38:26 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw

backatcha


112 posted on 07/21/2010 9:49:48 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (A loud band of PaulBots, Isolationists, Protectionists, 911Inside Jobnuts, 3rdParty Loud Irrelevants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: cothrige; Dr. Sivana
If the minions of long dead and excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefevre's vicious little anti-papal schism want to be regarded as Catholics, they simply need to unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority. Personally, I would prefer to see the SSPX bishops (and any particularly mouthy other adherents) submit to lifetime silencing, painful preliminary physical public penance and lifetime cloistering.

The SSPX are "Catholic" only in the same sense that the Catholic baptized Fr. Martin Luther or Jean Cauvin were (i.e not at all as long as unrepentant). They should be denied the sacramental life of the Church unless and until they surrender. In better times, they should have and would have been executed. The purposeful rupture of the unity of the Church and the gross disobedience to the papal authority of John Paul II and their naked contempt for legitimate Church authority are at least as serious as the sins of userers burned at the stake after judgment by the Church's inquisitional authorities.

Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is not and, God willing, never will be pope and he has no personal authority to countermand the papal JUDGMENT, not mere opinion, of John Paul II (who had been his patron and whom he has betrayed).

For what it may be worth, I am no fonder of Novus Ordo Masses than you may be. Nonetheless, they are legitimate Masses whatever Marcel's minions may imagine. I attend only Tridentine Masses said by the Institute of Christ the King and its local pastor with the blessings of Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford who has long since given his permission as diocesan ordinary to ALL of his priests to say Tridentine Masses in appropriate venues. I may attend an occasional Novus Ordo on vacation or when out of town. My cultural preference for the Tridentine Rite in which I was raised does not constitute an enforceable demand on Peter's successors. Nor do the preferences of those in lesser positions of authority.

The silence of B-XVI (assuming he has been silent) is hardly what you need to justify the unsupportable assumption that he disagrees with his own decision to excommunicate Marcel and his adherents when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II much less that he has actually reversed the judgment of John Paul II.

I asked that any claim of that reversal be documented and, given previous SSPX wars here, am not surprised that there are apparently NO SUCH documents. B-XVI has the authority to reverse those judgments now for those still living such as Williamson, Fellay, de Mallerais and Castro de Meyer's successor in Brazil (who may alone have been restored to the good graces of the Church). It would be a nevel theory that even he can lift the excommunications of the likes of dead Marcel. The schismatics and their cronies are, however, not willing to wait for formal action and wish instead to speak for B-XVI because they despise JP II's memory and they JUST KNOW they are right since the other schismatics and excommunicati agree with them. We probably have cardinals who do not believe in God. Christ never guaranteed their wisdom or infallibility. B-XVI has assumed a higher and divinely guaranteed authority just as JP II and hundreds of others before him.

The schismatic and/or excommunicated minions of the SSPX schism actually have the brazen nerve to claim to be responsible for the revival of the Tridentine Mass which is like giving John Dillinger credit for improving bank security procedures and practices, or crediting Osama bin Laden with improving airport security. The SSPX are Catholic like Comrade OBambam is an American patriot.

It ought to be noted that arguing with the SSPX schizzies is like arguing with Darwinians or single taxers or anti-American leftists or abortion lovers, i.e. a futile exercise requiring much effort for little or no positive result.

BTW, that the SSPXers demand to "negotiate" their return to the Church seems an admission that they well know that they are excommunicated. Else, what is to negotiate??? It would have been fun to see the result of them trying to pull this crap with Pius XI, Pius XII, JP I, or, ummmm, Pope St. Pius X (taking his name in vain as it were) or Leo XIII or Pius IX, etc., etc.

113 posted on 07/21/2010 11:06:24 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
How are they relevant? I received extensive exposure to various “traditionalist” thought - SSPX, Feenyism, sedevanticist, grunerism, etc....

They are not relevant because you did in fact generalise. Your experiences are your own, and reflect only the scope of each experience itself. Regardless of my own personal experience when I expand that experience to cover everyone in a particular body I have generalised. The experience ceases to be relevant once I do that.

Apples and oranges. First of all - you don’t really have tea party “leaders” to point to. And there isn’t an official tea party “dogma” SSPX has material online. Their bishops have much material out there as well as members who regularly contribute to forums. Anyone is free to review the material and see what is plainly there.

No, I disagree. The dogma of the SSPX is that of the Catholic Church, at least up to a specific point in time. (BTW, I add this only to avoid a quibble as I think it is hard to argue that Catholic dogma has in fact changed at any point, but I am sure you would cede this.) Since the Catholic Church was never anti-semitic in its dogma, then it seems hard to suggest that the SSPX is. I have read some of the SSPX material I have seen online, and read and listened to interviews with Fellay et al, and nothing I have seen reflects anything overtly anti-semitic.

114 posted on 07/21/2010 12:45:48 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
If a split didn’t exist - there would be no need for “reconciliation”. If they were not on the “outside”, there would be no need to await their return.

I think you are taking a black and white view to something less clear. Yes, they committed a schismatic act, and even though the Holy See has repeatedly denied they are in formal schism it still remains a schismatic act. And many people point to excommunications to demonstrate this, though of course these have been lifted. However, many sins receive the punishment of excommunication and many public sins separate one from the life of the Church formally, however these people do not cease to be "Catholic." Many Catholics are good, and many more are bad, but they remain Catholic.

In the case of the SSPX it is clear that there was never any intent to set up a new Church. When the Lutherans etc. left they actively set up new institutional churches, which is nothing like the separation between Rome and the SSPX. That is of a different quality and nature. They are in error, and need to return, just as all those people in my Church with Obama stickers on their car. But, they all still remain Catholic.

115 posted on 07/21/2010 12:53:33 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
If the minions of long dead and excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefevre's vicious little anti-papal schism want to be regarded as Catholics, they simply need to unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority.

This is true of all who sin. When the priest in my Church insists that he is above the Church's law regarding the liturgy and can act on his own initiative to change the Mass, or add to it, or delete from it, he is also responsible to "unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority." However, he remains Catholic even when he sins. So do the SSPX.

The SSPX are "Catholic" only in the same sense that the Catholic baptized Fr. Martin Luther or Jean Cauvin were (i.e not at all as long as unrepentant).

There is absolutely no comparison. Martin Luther openly denied the Catholic faith and Church, and intentionally set up a new institutional Church. The SSPX have not done this. Sure, they are wrong, and their actions have been schismatic (though the competent authorities in the Holy See have repeatedly insisted they are not formally in schism) but they are not setting up a new institutional church as did the Protestants. There is a vast difference here.

Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is not and, God willing, never will be pope and he has no personal authority to countermand the papal JUDGMENT, not mere opinion, of John Paul II (who had been his patron and whom he has betrayed).

I am uncomfortable with this view which is actually very like that of the SSPX. The above Cardinal, and the commission he headed, were the competent authorities regarding the traditionalist adherents for the Holy See, and this included the SSPX. Unless Pope Benedict XVI were to openly deny what they said in reference to that which they are legitimately qualified to address then one is bound by faith to accept their word as his own. If your view were correct then one could freely ignore the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith regarding questions of faith or morals, or the views of the Congregation for Divine Worship regarding the proper forms for liturgical acts. And I guarantee you a Catholic is free to do no such thing.

For what it may be worth, I am no fonder of Novus Ordo Masses than you may be. Nonetheless, they are legitimate Masses whatever Marcel's minions may imagine. I attend only Tridentine Masses said by the Institute of Christ the King and its local pastor with the blessings of Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford who has long since given his permission as diocesan ordinary to ALL of his priests to say Tridentine Masses in appropriate venues.

For what it is also worth, I have never once in my entire life seen or participated in any Mass but that which you call the "Novus Ordo." I have no attachment to the old forms, though intellectually I have opinions regarding them and would certainly welcome an opportunity to attend and experience it. My position is entirely free from any personal ideas about the issues, but is entirely concerning the objective claims that members of the SSPX are not Catholic, and that they are anti-semites. The first is wrong on the facts, and the second cannot be substantiated, which causes it be dangerously close to calumnious gossip, IMHO.

116 posted on 07/21/2010 1:15:28 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

While not to the same scale, I liken this to the conundrum faced by Catholics when they had to face the reality of two Popes. That wound was eventually healed, so I imagine this one will be as well.

But you’re right, forgiving them their oddities is not the issue. I suppose my position is skewed by the fact that I am “not Catholic” to most members of the Roman Catholic Church. Doesn’t mean I believe the same as the Gibsons, but I certainly won’t condemn them for their beliefs. That’s someone else’s job.


117 posted on 07/21/2010 1:28:41 PM PDT by HushTX (quit whining)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

SSPX bishops committed schismatic act but it doesn’t lead to schism. Pope Benedict XVI claimed that he consider dialogue with SSPX as a dialogue “inside of the church”.

All these suggestions that SSPX is anti-Jewish origin from lack of understing. Catholics always praised for conversion of Jews and all other non-Catholics. (so is our current Pope). If you love your brothers you must help them in their salvation. If you don’t care that for example your Jewish brothers will burn in hell, how can you consider yourself to be a member of the Church of Christ? Christianity is about evangelization. How many Jews Jesus converted himself?


118 posted on 07/21/2010 1:32:56 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

“All these suggestions that SSPX is anti-Jewish origin from lack of understing”

So how do you undestand the meaning of LeFebvre writing to JPII and lumping the jews in with communists and freemasons as “common enemies”?

I see Williamson has been silenced - and that is excellent.
Although I must have missed the part where Fellay specifically repudiated the holocaust denial.
I caught it where he declared anti-semitism as a sin. He stated they deal with issues of faith and not history. But I was looking for something like “Hey! We acknowledge that millions of jews were murdered in the gas chambers!”
I suppose I ask too much?

I see “They Mystery of the Jews” has been removed from the SSPX website, and that is good.
I’m wondering...are Frs. Crowdy and Novak still considered priests in good standing with the society?
And if so - have they repudiated any of their writings?

Do you think Williamson was just an aberration?


119 posted on 07/21/2010 3:55:42 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

Just to give some background on where I’m coming from....

When I heard the tape from the DWI arrest years ago - I thought - yes, I’ve heard this before.

And I heard that stuff from specific sources - and so did he as a child and a young man.

And that the MSM has misidentified his affiliation is what I’m arguing against.


120 posted on 07/21/2010 3:58:39 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

“Since the Catholic Church was never anti-semitic in its dogma, then it seems hard to suggest that the SSPX is. “

Really?
They’re as pure as that are they?

“I have read some of the SSPX material I have seen online, and read and listened to interviews with Fellay et al, and nothing I have seen reflects anything overtly anti-semitic.”

Really? You are aware they did remove some materials last year right? And that is an excellent start.
Why do you limit yourself to Fellay?
Are you uncomfortable with discussing Williamson? or Lefebvre himself?

Have you read articles written for The Angelus by SSPX priest Frs. Crowdy and Novak?
Are they still priests in good standing?

I did catch Fellays response to the Williamson question, and that is an excellent start.
But I tend to want too much too quickly I guess...I would “like” to hear Fellay specifically correct Williamson on the issue of holocaust denial.
Instead he says - well - we’re not in the history business - we just concern ourselves with faith. Nice dodge.

And what about all the influence Williamson had in the Society for YEARS? And the priests & laypeople who received their formation from him.

Not much talk about that.


121 posted on 07/21/2010 4:06:50 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

Again - I just think we possibly are speaking a different language.

Maybe if I had used the phrase “fallen away catholic” or “catholic who is not in full communion with the Church” - then that may have cleared up some disagreement.


122 posted on 07/21/2010 4:09:51 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
Really?
They’re as pure as that are they?

I am not saying that anybody is pure, but only that dogma is not the same as personal motivation. You started by seemingly suggesting that members or adherents of the SSPX are motivated by hatred of Jews, and I think this is unreasonable. Even if a percentage of people associated with the fraternity have a particular idea about Judaism it does not prove anti-semitism in regard to them or the SSPX itself. It certainly doesn't make their ideas dogma, even SSPX dogma.

Really? You are aware they did remove some materials last year right? And that is an excellent start. Why do you limit yourself to Fellay? Are you uncomfortable with discussing Williamson? or Lefebvre himself?

Limit myself? Why do you say that? I said "Fellay et al" demonstrating I did not limit myself. And I am perfectly willing to discuss Williamson but I don't see it proving anything. People on this forum won't accept the authority of a Cardinal who is a competent authority in a field appointed directly by the Pope, and yet I am supposed to take Williamson as some sort of super SSPX example? He is a bishop, and he has opinions. So what? Mahoney is a Cardinal and has opinions too. Does that prove something about the Church? I don't think so.

And is there any real, and I mean real, evidence that Williamson is actually motivated by hatred of Jews? Is that the only reason people could have for doubting the holocaust numbers? That argument just sounds a little too much like the argument that not supporting Obama can only be because he is black.

Have you read articles written for The Angelus by SSPX priest Frs. Crowdy and Novak? Are they still priests in good standing?

I haven't read the articles, and do not know them. Send me links and I will read them. And what do you mean by "priest's in good standing"? Do you mean in good standing with the SSPX, or the Church? If they are SSPX priests then clearly they wouldn't be the latter, and as for the former I obviously wouldn't know.

I did catch Fellays response to the Williamson question, and that is an excellent start. But I tend to want too much too quickly I guess...I would “like” to hear Fellay specifically correct Williamson on the issue of holocaust denial. Instead he says - well - we’re not in the history business - we just concern ourselves with faith. Nice dodge.

You should know that the Church has no revealed deposit of faith regarding the number of victims in the holocaust. Williamson is historically wrong, but why he is wrong is hardly self evident. As for Fellay, he could have said more, but why should he? How is this a dodge? Is the Church in the history business? Have the Popes been forced to take an oath regarding how many died in the Holocaust, and how many Africans died during the slave trade in America? I am not personally offended by what I read of Fellay's reaction.

And what about all the influence Williamson had in the Society for YEARS? And the priests & laypeople who received their formation from him.

What about it? What about all the influence Weakland had for years? Mahoney? The list goes on and on. What of it? Williamson is a bishop who is dead wrong on a matter of history. How many bishops do you know who are dead wrong on matters of faith? Which would you prefer?

123 posted on 07/21/2010 5:05:27 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
Maybe if I had used the phrase “fallen away catholic” or “catholic who is not in full communion with the Church” - then that may have cleared up some disagreement.

Yes, I would be comfortable with those, and more. I have no doubt that they are in a wounded state, and their relationship to the Church, and their willingness to repent, are imperfect. But, they still remain Catholics.

124 posted on 07/21/2010 5:08:21 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

I never claimed it was SSPX “dogma”

As for the rest of your statements regarding Williamson and the holocaust denial?

Well - let’s just say that I’ll leave it right there.
I am now bowing out of this conversation.
Have a nice evening.


125 posted on 07/21/2010 5:18:23 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

For anyone who simply thinks Williamson got his numbers wrong - or that his count was a little inaccurate, let’s please review.
He said “not one”.
He said there were no gas chambers.

Shheeeshh!

What freakin’ waste of time this has been!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM


126 posted on 07/21/2010 5:29:18 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
I made no reference to antiSemitism as a quality of the SSPX schism. Williamson's eccentricities are doubtless not shared by many of his partners in anti-papal schism.

If you have never attended a Tridentine Mass you are far younger than I or a once indifferent Catholic or a convert. You may well be a Catholic today but I find most curious the notion that B-XVI's alleged "silence" in the face of Castrillon de Hoyos's brazen attempt WITHOUT AUTHORITY to ignore the PAPAL ecclesiastical judgment of John Paul II (the pope that the Lefebvrites most love to hate because he excommunicated and declared schismatic their anti-papal and anti-Catholic heroes in schism) especially since B-XVI himself, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, joined with John Paul II in excommunicating the virulently defiant SSPX bishops and their adherents in 1982 as they had stolen the power to consecrate bishops in DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to JP II.

That B-XVI has not seen fit to publicly comment on Rembert Weakland's homosexual abuse of seminarians while Archbishop of Milwaukee does not suggest papal approval of such behavior.

No one whomsoever in SSPX has any authority whatsoever to grant faculties to priests (ordaining them illicitly is one thing and granting faculties quite another/ask any suspended priest) and yet the SSPX miscreants hear non-emergency confessions, and witness to non-emergency marriages in dioceses with diocesan ordinaries without so much as a by your leave to actual authority. This makes them quite analogous to Luther and Cauvin and they are, in fact, setting up their own Church. Read their rationalizations as to how the Roman Catholic Church would die out for lack of actual priests if Marcel the malignant did not directly defy papal orders to consecrate bishops against JP II's direct orders. Read their newsletters and publications. Read particularly de Mallerais whose vile mouth makes Williamson look about as scary as Soupy Sales or Pee Wee Herman.

127 posted on 07/21/2010 6:33:39 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
his generally anti-Semitic movie, "The Passion of the Christ

It's an anti-Christian movie, actually. It's all about mocking, beating and killing this Christ dude...

128 posted on 07/21/2010 6:52:15 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Secular conservatism is liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Great to see you back and posting on FR!


129 posted on 07/21/2010 7:05:34 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Good night. I expect more respect tomorrow - Danny H (RIP))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
I never claimed it was SSPX “dogma”

My apologies if I misunderstood you. Earlier you countered to a point of mine that there was no tea party "dogma" which caused me to believe that you were stating that such was in fact dogma in the case of the SSPX. Again, sorry if I misunderstood.

As for the rest of your statements regarding Williamson and the holocaust denial?

Well - let’s just say that I’ll leave it right there.
I am now bowing out of this conversation.
Have a nice evening.

I will certainly respect your desire to bow out, but perhaps you will tolerate one more comment from me on this. I would like to point out that your comments here, and what they imply, seem very much like what I am speaking about. Not only are people absolutely certain that Williamson is informed entirely by hatred for Jews, the mere question about how certain we can be on this leads you to respond as if I were also of like mind. Why is this? Should nothing more than a desire not to assume things beyond my knowledge really cause someone to be offended?

I am concerned in this with accuracy, honesty and charity. I do not know Williamson. I cannot speak to his heart, though I can respond to his comments on history. I have not defended his view as accurate, but rather to the contrary have denied it outright. And yet my unwillingness to condemn not just his ideas, which I have, but also his motives, which I am entirely ignorant of, as are all besides the bishop himself and God, seemingly cause you to respond as if I were myself some sort of bigot.

And, to conclude, please consider that I am also not ascribing anything to you here, but speaking only about what is implied in the context and the way you are responding above. If you meant other than I have understood, then again, I apologise.

130 posted on 07/21/2010 7:06:35 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan; RnMomof7; HarleyD; wmfights; ...
It's an anti-Christian movie, actually. It's all about mocking, beating and killing this Christ dude...

Movies are powerful political tools. It's a fallacy to think movies mirror society. It's always been the other way around. Movies create public opinion. They're more potent than people imagine.

That, and the fact that films press not only words but images into our head which can linger for a long time.

"The Passion of the Christ" concentrated on Christ's suffering rather than on His willingness to fulfill His Father's mission. Christ was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Gibson, an actor who's bared his heaving chest in dozens of torture scenes, would have us believe a better description is "the Lamb beaten, bloodied, roasted, toasted and split apart by slobbering Jews."

But this isn't really the image of Christ Scripture gives us. God's word presents the facts, horrific and damning as they were, but it does not make us dwell incessantly on Christ's agony and pain. Scripture instead focuses on giving us the hope of the Resurrection.

And that hope is preached to Jews and Gentiles alike.

Gibson didn't even show the Resurrection. "The Passion" ended with Christ on the cross. Gibson missed the best part. He ignored the money scene.

Also, "Christ-killer" is a Romanist pejorative, as Gibson's movie over-illustrated.

All that being said, I do admit 80% of Hollywood despises Christianity. They loathe it because they do not understand it. So, from that perspective, it was a miracle Gibson's movie was made and has received such world-wide attendance.

I like Gibson. He said in an interview once that he believed "everything" in life was controlled by God -- people, cars, events. Everything. I admired that candor. I think he's correct on that point.

"Braveheart" was great, and "Conspiracy Theory" was worth seeing twice. But for someone who seemed to understand the evil that men do and the lengths to which men go to control other men, he sure is a knucklehead.

"Didn't you guys ever watch the show?!?" -- Guy Fleegman, Crewman #6, "Galaxy Quest."

And finally, what's up with this...?

PERTH MAN TAUGHT MEL GIBSON HYPNOSIS

Two-way mirrors within mirrors.

131 posted on 07/21/2010 7:43:53 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
we’re not in the history business

lol. Historical revisionism defines them.

132 posted on 07/21/2010 7:47:05 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I made no reference to antiSemitism as a quality of the SSPX schism. Williamson's eccentricities are doubtless not shared by many of his partners in anti-papal schism.

Sorry about that. I may have become confused about which person I was responding to, as I sometimes do. If so, I apologise.

If you have never attended a Tridentine Mass you are far younger than I or a once indifferent Catholic or a convert.

Kind of. I am a convert, of about fifteen years. However, mainly, I live in Florida where the old forms have consistently been met with episcopal hostility.

That B-XVI has not seen fit to publicly comment on Rembert Weakland's homosexual abuse of seminarians while Archbishop of Milwaukee does not suggest papal approval of such behavior.

I agree, though, insofar as he has addressed abuse in general, and responded canonically, he has effectively responded also to Weakland, though not directly of course. However, as to this and the silence regarding the Ecclesia Dei commission, I don't think they are at all analogous. That commission was the legitimate authority appointed by the Pope regarding the issues we are discussing. When the CDW says that churches are not allowed to empty the holy water founts during Lent that judgement is binding. Why? Because they have that authority. If the Holy Father chooses to step in and change things he can. But unless and until he does so, then their position stands as authoritative and all Catholics are bound to submit. In the matter of the SSPX Ecclesia Dei was the competent authority representing the Pope, and as such their statements stand until contradicted by a higher authority. So far they haven't been.

This makes them quite analogous to Luther and Cauvin and they are, in fact, setting up their own Church.

Up to this I was with you, but here I think you move beyond the actual facts. They are certainly disobedient, but so is the priest in my local church when he makes up prayers in the Mass. It doesn't make my local parish a separate institutional Church. It makes the priest disobedient. Luther and Calvin intentionally and formally sought to create a Church apart from the Catholic Church, and at the same time denounced the true Church itself as an institution. The SSPX have never done these things.

Read their rationalizations as to how the Roman Catholic Church would die out for lack of actual priests if Marcel the malignant did not directly defy papal orders to consecrate bishops against JP II's direct orders. Read their newsletters and publications. Read particularly de Mallerais whose vile mouth makes Williamson look about as scary as Soupy Sales or Pee Wee Herman.

Hey, what's with all the Soupy Sales on this thread? :-)

Seriously though, I can't disagree with you overall. I don't particularly sympathise with the SSPX, though I also don't have a big problem with them. They don't matter much to me overall, to be frank. I really just don't agree with assertions regarding motives, which are beyond peoples' ken, or suggestions that Catholics stop being Catholics by being disobedient or sinful. It would be a mighty small Church if that were so.

133 posted on 07/21/2010 7:49:04 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I have never viewed, nor do I have a desire to, the Passion of the Christ. Just reading about the horrible torture he endured was enough to convince me. I did NOT need to see it in bloody, graphic, minute-by-minute detail to appreciate what he went through for us all.

AND...the Jews did not kill Christ. We ALL did, but as Jesus said, "No man takes my life from me, I give it up of myself.". Praise his holy name!

134 posted on 07/21/2010 7:55:00 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Had Mel said what he said in lyrics to a rap song or in poetry he would be be sporting bling around his neck and a grammy on his wall. The fact that he’s Christian and white....he’s toast


135 posted on 07/21/2010 7:57:15 PM PDT by MadelineZapeezda (Promoted by God to be a mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...................Thanks, Susan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Gibson didn't even show the Resurrection. "The Passion" ended with Christ on the cross. Gibson missed the best part. He ignored the money scene.

Did you walk out early? The version I saw at the theatre ended, not with the cross, but with the resurrection.

136 posted on 07/21/2010 7:59:23 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

It’s been awhile, but my memory of the last scene is Christ on the cross as a tear or drop of sweat falls from His face to the ground.


137 posted on 07/21/2010 8:13:28 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; TradicalRC; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan; RnMomof7; ...
"The Passion of the Christ" concentrated on Christ's suffering rather than on His willingness to fulfill His Father's mission.

It may not be popular to say but I found that movie compelling and moving on a lot of different levels. I agree with the criticism where it deviated from Scripture, but it took courage to make. His career would have been over had it failed at the box office.

I feel bad for him and his family. I'm sorry to see him self destruct. Maybe the Holy Spirit is drawing him to the Lord in all this turmoil.

138 posted on 07/21/2010 8:17:18 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I have never viewed, nor do I have a desire to, the Passion of the Christ. Just reading about the horrible torture he endured was enough to convince me. I did NOT need to see it in bloody, graphic, minute-by-minute detail to appreciate what he went through for us all.

Amen. That is because you have been given spiritual discernment to understand His sacrifice without having to witness it firsthand.

God gives to all His children that ability.

as Jesus said, "No man takes my life from me, I give it up of myself." Praise his holy name!

Amen!

139 posted on 07/21/2010 8:18:32 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

>> Mel Gibson is not a Roman Catholic

More importantly he is Christian.


140 posted on 07/21/2010 8:19:25 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I remember that scene. A little artsy for my taste, if you know what I mean. But, there is still a bit to go from there. Such as the removal of the body from the cross, with the Pieta-like posing, and at the very end the resurrection with the Lord walking from the tomb into the light, which you can see through the wounds in his hands.


141 posted on 07/21/2010 8:25:33 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: evangmlw
God bless you for your witness and Praise the Lord for the miracles He works in our lives.
142 posted on 07/21/2010 9:01:04 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

It’s a real puzzle, isn’t it? A man with worldly success and beautiful children and a faithful wife, a man who actually achieved something memorable and lasting, with more money than some small countries...

And he STILL messed it up.

All men are fallen (although I actually thought he knew that.)


143 posted on 07/21/2010 9:01:52 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: NYer
“He’s not a Catholic.” who sez? Who gets to set the definitions and what are those definitions?
144 posted on 07/21/2010 9:05:27 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
And he STILL messed it up.

He did.

He is in turmoil. The booze brings it out. The anger brings it out. His lifestyle reveals it. I'm hoping the Holy Spirit is drawing him to the Lord. I've always admired his willingness to do movies that Hollywood wouldn't touch.

The RC's should send him a memo that he's not one of them. We would be happy to have him. We would get him in the Word and he would probably be okay.

145 posted on 07/21/2010 9:15:18 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
The RC's should send him a memo that he's not one of them. We would be happy to have him. We would get him in the Word and he would probably be okay.

AMEN! The more, the merrier! 8~)

146 posted on 07/21/2010 9:54:38 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

Agreed. Just look at Paul. He was RAGING against Christians. Arresting, beating, torturing and having them killed.
Then BLAM.
God said “ I can use you now Paul. You’re going to be a great testament of my power, that I’ll use you, one who persecutes me, to spread word of me and begin to build my church!”
Mel, Prayers up buddy. Get your affairs in order. Gods probably got a big use for you coming up.


147 posted on 07/21/2010 9:56:33 PM PDT by humantech ("No one wants to live to see such evil times. Its what you do with the time you are given")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

INTERESTING.

I suspect, unless he happened to be wallowing in guilt for some reason,

He’d be quite surprised to find out he’s NOT Roman Catholic.

Besides . . . where’s all this hubris about ONCE RC, ALWAYS RC????

Oh, right, except when not.


148 posted on 07/21/2010 11:01:07 PM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Dr. Eckleburg

I had a similar feeling for months.

Finally relented and saw it . . . to honor Him who Lived it . . .

I thought it depicted well . . . though still not as vividly as He must have felt it . . . the price He paid . . . as well as a movie could depict it.

Yet, I often go longer declining to play my audio Bible of major portions of the Gospels because it grieves me so to hear yet again how He was treated . . . for me.


149 posted on 07/21/2010 11:03:42 PM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

So, what’s the scoop on “Inception”?

Trailer looks good.


150 posted on 07/21/2010 11:34:30 PM PDT by the_conscience (We ought to obey God, rather than men. (Acts 5:29b))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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