[sinkspur]

How could the teachings of Vatican 2 be 'universally accepted' if in the same sentence he says that this church in particular rejects some of those teachings? It can't be 'universally accepted' if one group doesn't accept them.

They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church.

Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome.

[HitmanLV]

I am aware of that, but it's still unfair to say the teachings are 'universally accepted.' This guy is trying to hot dog it and a good editor would have changed the wording, at least if I was his editor! :-)

[leprechaun9]

Is ABORTION "universally rejected" by members of the Catholic Church?

[hobbes1]

They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church.
Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome.

Actually that is not quite correct.

Extract from a reply written on May 3,1994 by Cardinal Edward Casssidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,to an inquiry about the status of the Society of St.Pius X "... Regarding your inquiry (March 25, 1994) I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated.... I hope this answers your letter satisfactorily."

Hence, Widely accepted would be more correct, than Universally.

And as to choosing between VII and SSPX....

Better to be a schismatic, than a heretic.

[Lonely NY Conservative]

Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome.

Do you have evidence of this? I have seen Mel's theology/church referred to as "rejecting the reforms of VII and denying the authority of the Pope", but this seems to always be third-party hearsay. One can attend Latin indult masses and be skeptical of the manner in which VII is implemented, while still recognizing VII's authority and Papal authority in general as I do and remain in perfect union with Rome. I consider myself an Orthodox Traditionalist Catholic - I don't know if this is where Mel stands or if he has thrown his hat in with the Lefebvre gang.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this is an important distinction and I have never seen it directly addressed by Mel.

[jtminton]

Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome

I think the most important thing is that Gibson's chapel needs to be in union with God and the Bible. If it is, then there is no problem.

[Maximilian]

They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church.

No, counting the people who were attending Mass at the time of Vatican II, 80% have voted with their feet to reject Vatican II and all it stands for, most especially the atrocious "New Mass." And those who still go are generally very dissatisfied with the state of the Church. One would be a lot closer to the truth to say "Vatican II has been universally rejected except by a small coterie of liberals, especially in the hierarchy, who are quickly dying out, thank God."

[ultima ratio]

The acceptance or rejection of Vatican II is immaterial to the status of any individual Catholic. The Council taught nothing binding by dogmatic decree. The declaration on the Jews, moreover, was nothing new. The council merely repeated what had been said countless times by popes and councils throughout the Church's history. The Council of Trent, for instance, also made it clear that the Jews were not collectively responsible for Jesus' death. But critics of the Gibson film like to think this means Jewish leadership 2000 years ago had nothing to do with Jesus' death--which is altogether false historically. Friedman is confused on this and needs to be set straight.

[rogator]

"How could the teachings of Vatican 2 be 'universally accepted' if in the same sentence he says that this church in particular rejects some of those teachings? It can't be 'universally accepted' if one group doesn't accept them.
They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church."

The teachings of Vatican II regarding Gregorian Chant are in fact rejected by almost every parish in the "mainstream" church.
Your statement "They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church." is thus inaccurate in this and in other ways.

[smpc]

They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church.

It really depends on who you view as being the true Catholic church.Those who have assumed power in the last century(Vatican II) or those who go by 1900 years of strict,unaltered Catholic teachings.

Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome.

No Traditionalist Catholic church in the world is really in union with Rome,they havent been since Vatican II assumed power and made sweeping liberal changes.

It is by no means a fringe group either,Traditionalists number in the millions.There would be more,but most papist Catholics view learning Latin and fasting as a drag.The imitation of Christ hasnt been fashionable for a good 50 years now.

[Clintons a commie]

Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome.

Please print the decree of excommunication on Free Republic for all to see.

Until you do that, I'll consider Gibson to be a Catholic in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.

[Ann Archy]

I asked you before but you didn't answer...what religion are you?

[Huber]

How could the teachings of Vatican 2 be 'universally accepted' if in the same sentence he says that this church in particular rejects some of those teachings? It can't be 'universally accepted' if one group doesn't accept them.

They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church.

Since Catholic means universal, they are universally accepted in the universal church, which is like "universal squared" accepted or "really, really" accepted.

PS: No need to thank me for this profound theological insight. It's my pleasure...