Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary
Scotsman.com ^ | February 29, 2004 | Gerald Warner

Posted on 02/28/2004 6:34:54 PM PST by ultima ratio

Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary

Gerald Warner

"ECCE homo." The words of Pontius Pilate - "Behold the man" - with which he exhibited Jesus, scourged and crowned with thorns, to the hostile crowd have inspired many devout works of art down the centuries. Yet only now has the cinema, the popular art form of our time, the challenge of portraying what Christians acknowledge to be the defining moment of human history, with the release of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ.

Since it is not due for release in this country until March 26, it would not be possible to offer a conventional critique of this production - the actors’ performances, quality of direction, photography and all the other elements by which a film is normally assessed. The need to suspend judgment on such technicalities, however, should not inhibit believers from taking a stand on the issues with which the enemies of the faith are assailing Gibson and - by extension - the entire Christian canon.

The first point of controversy that must be addressed is the distraction - for that is what it is - of the claim that the film is anti-Semitic. There could be no better way of dismissing this canard than by invoking responsible Jewish opinion, as voiced by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, an American organisation that exists to build bridges between Jewish and Christian communities. Rabbi Lapin has excoriated the activists persecuting Gibson with a robustness that few Gentiles would have dared to exhibit.

Two weeks ago, Lapin predicted that the film "will become famous as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made" and that "the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them". Pity no Catholic bishop has gone on record in equally enthusiastic vein. Lapin went on to denounce "Jewish organisations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism". With heroic objectivity, he also condemned the offence given to Christians because "Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian scripture ‘really means’".

The rabbi’s remarks follow upon an even more devastating broadside he delivered five months ago, on the same theme, when he insisted that protests against Gibson’s film "lack moral legitimacy". He cited the exhibition of blasphemous art shown in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum, when Arnold Lehman was director, including a Madonna smeared with elephant dung. He also pointed out, with a directness that no Christian could contemplate, that Martin Scorsese’s blasphemous film The Last Temptation of Christ was distributed by Universal Pictures, run by Lew Wasserman, and posed the question "why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?"

Rabbi Lapin’s moral integrity and plain speaking have done more for Christian-Jewish relations than a thousand futile ecumenical symposia and weasel-worded scriptural trade-offs brokered by pressure groups and Vatican appeaseniks. It seems reasonable to hope that he speaks for a majority of his co-religionists, rather than the strident protesters. That said, the most vitriolic enemies of the film and its message are not Jews: they are drawn from the forces of militant secularism and the Fifth Column within the Catholic Church.

For, make no mistake, this is an intensely Catholic film. Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic who rejects the humbug and chaos of the Second Vatican Catastrophe - as do an increasing number of the disillusioned survivors stumbling around in the ruins of the once-mighty Roman Catholic Church. The faithful translation on to film of the scriptural narrative of Christ’s passion and resurrection would, 50 years ago, have presented Catholics with an image that was totally familiar. Bishop Joseph Devine, bishop of Motherwell, is one of the few in Britain to have seen the film and has described it as "stunningly successful... a profoundly religious film."

Yet, today, the Easter People, the dancers in sanctuaries, those who claim They Are Church and all the assorted Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men who have converted Catholicism into a crankfest regard the Passion with as much alienation as any atheist.

Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.

You will find little dissent from those propositions among the smirking, blue-rinse nuns of the post-Conciliar Church, or their ecumaniac male counterparts. To them, the crack of the centurion’s whip and the thud of the hammer on nails are distant, alien sounds - a disturbing echo of Holy Week long ago, of Gregorian plainsong, of ferias in Seville. In a word - ecumenically unhelpful; best washed away by a few more cups of tea at Scottish Churches House.

The militantly secular world is also keenly alert to the challenge of the Passion. In responding to Gibson’s initiative, no double-standard is too blatant, no inversion of truth too shameless. Critics are queuing up to denounce "pornographic violence" (the now favourite weasel phrase) in the literal portrayal of the crucifixion.

These are the self-same people who acclaimed every sadistic and pornographic obscenity with which Hollywood has poisoned the world over the past three decades, who vigorously denounced "censorship" and promoted the "pushing of boundaries". Now, suddenly, they are alarmed about pornographic violence.

Yet, amid all the sound and fury, the most contemptible phenomenon is the trahison des clercs. The Catholic Church will not embrace this film, despite the Pope’s verdict on it ("It is as it was!"), because it expresses a faith it now finds embarrassing. The Passion was made with as much religious dedication as the crafting of an Orthodox icon. The Tridentine Mass was celebrated on the set every morning and there was at least one conversion to Catholicism during the making of the film. Small wonder that modernist Roman theologians are galled by the fact that Tradition has produced the most triumphant artistic articulation of faith and that evangelical Protestants are flocking to experience it.

The Mass, as the bloodless continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, was the perfect complement to this artistic tribute to God. At the elevation of the host, the Catholic believer knows - although he can scarcely comprehend the fact - that he is as close to Christ as were Our Lady and St John at the foot of the cross. That is the cosmic drama of redemption that is re-enacted on the altar: "Behold the man".


TOPICS: Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: americanbishops; passion; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
Brilliant piece.
1 posted on 02/28/2004 6:34:54 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; maximillian
In this public forum I confuss that I was wrong about you, ultima forum, that I uttered false and evil accusations against you in time past, and I beg and entreat you for your forgiveness for the love of our Divine Saviour Jesus Christ.

Of necessity I will continue to oppose your ideas when you must argue against the Holy Father John Paul II, but never again will I ever doubt that you are a Christian soul of good intention. It is a great grief to me that I have impugned and maligned you before, and I do beg your forgvieness.

2 posted on 02/28/2004 6:52:32 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
confuss=confess. Tears make it hard to type.
3 posted on 02/28/2004 6:53:02 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
utlima ratio, not ultima forum. You would think that in a confession I would be more careful. But I am revealed in brokenness and incapable of even typing and that is as it should be. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion.
4 posted on 02/28/2004 6:54:41 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Absolutely-- thank you for posting it.

I saw the movie this morning, and I'm still in a daze. It is a powerful testament, a true masterpiece.
5 posted on 02/28/2004 6:54:57 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Andrew65; AniGrrl; Antoninus; apologia_pro_vita_sua; ...
Excellent article.

Thank-you for posting it.
6 posted on 02/28/2004 7:00:45 PM PST by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Excellent article. Painfully true in places. And worth pondering.
7 posted on 02/28/2004 7:19:43 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
A few bishops and cardinals were relatively excited about the release of this film. Castrillion Hoyos, Congergation of the Clergy, said he wanted all priests to see this film. I think Bishop Chaput in Denver and Bishop Dolan in Milwaukee were also pretty excited about the movie. Though I do agree with you, not enough bishops and priests were properly motivated for this film, the teaching moment it allows.
8 posted on 02/28/2004 7:31:54 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC; B-Chan; sockmonkey; NYer
I understand Bishop Vasquez, the auxiliary in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston was very supportive, and he and all the seminarians went to see The Passion of the Christ at a showing hosted by Our Lady of Walsingham Roman Catholic (Anglican Use) Church. God bless Bishop Vasquez and those seminarians. And God bless all those fine folks and Fr. Moore at Our Lady of Walsingham Parish.
9 posted on 02/28/2004 7:38:43 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
Put Archbishop Donoghue of Atlanta on the list:

Archbishop Urges Catholics to See The Passion

I believe that all people should see this film. And as your bishop, I would urge all Catholics of the Archdiocese of Atlanta to see this film. But do not expect to view it objectively or without being changed. It will not leave you the same person you were before - you will never again not be able to picture the scope of our Lord's suffering, and the terrible price He paid in order to save us. And consequently, you will never again be able to think of yourself as being innocent, or only relatively involved in the events of His Passion. That is a result of the true artistry that Mel Gibson has brought to the production, along with the work of an amazing cast, and cinematography that elevates this film to a place among the greatest ever made. But most importantly, it is a result of Mel Gibson's faithful adherence to the words and the spirit of the Gospel.

10 posted on 02/28/2004 7:40:40 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Great article by a writer for a daily secular newspaper who really gets it. Unlike the clueless idiots running the church such as our local diocesan rag that ran 3 articles this week warning people away from the movie. They also repeated the lie of the bishop of San Jose that the Gospels are not historical records.

This writer makes such a number of good points and has such a way with words, but here are a few highlights:

Rabbi Lapin’s moral integrity and plain speaking have done more for Christian-Jewish relations than a thousand futile ecumenical symposia and weasel-worded scriptural trade-offs brokered by pressure groups and Vatican appeaseniks.
Yes! one Rabbi Lapin makes up for a number of Eisners and Katzenbergs and Harvey Weinsteins, and for a number of Cardinal Kaspers and Keelers as well.
For, make no mistake, this is an intensely Catholic film. Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic who rejects the humbug and chaos of the Second Vatican Catastrophe - as do an increasing number of the disillusioned survivors stumbling around in the ruins of the once-mighty Roman Catholic Church.
What a great phrase, one that will have to enter my lexicon -- Second Vatican Catastrophe. Let's not pussyfoot around with obfuscation about the "spirit" of the "implementation." Vatican II was a catastrophe starting with the opening speech of Pope John XXIII which won him Time magazine Man of the Year.
"the Easter People, the dancers in sanctuaries, those who claim They Are Church and all the assorted Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men who have converted Catholicism into a crankfest" and "Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace."
Anyone still participating in the "one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion," take a look in the mirror.
11 posted on 02/28/2004 7:41:01 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diago; narses; Loyalist; BlackElk; american colleen; saradippity; Polycarp; Dajjal; ...
Ping for a really outstanding article. This guy has a way with words, and he has some insightful points to make with those words.
12 posted on 02/28/2004 7:42:41 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diago; narses; Loyalist; BlackElk; american colleen; saradippity; Polycarp; Dajjal; ...
Ping for a really outstanding article. This guy has a way with words, and he has some insightful points to make with those words.
13 posted on 02/28/2004 7:42:57 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
"Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men" . . . LOL! . . . oh, boy! Somebody's been reading their 17th century English History.
14 posted on 02/28/2004 7:43:43 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
I'm sure I only hit "Post" once. Not sure why it posted twice.
15 posted on 02/28/2004 7:43:48 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
I am very fond of your Archbishop and pray for him in my monthly cycle of prayers for bishops. He is not very well known beyond Atlanta it seems. But nonetheless I pray for him.

I also keep you and your family's entrance into the Catholic Church in my prayers.

16 posted on 02/28/2004 7:44:26 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Because sometimes the angels know that a Ping needs to be underlined, so to speak.
17 posted on 02/28/2004 7:45:40 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
Thank you. We truly appreciate your prayers, this is a big change for us after 23 years . . .

But things are going along swimmingly. We've been attending the same parish for about a month now. I'm singing in the choir - much to my amazement (1) same hymns I sang in my old church - only one "wings of eagles" type hymn snuck in and I can live with that now and then (2) TWO anthems I have sung before just in one month (both English) and more to come. We meet with Monsignor next week for a more formal introduction and to go over what he requires for fledglings . . . :-D

Am glad you like our Archbishop. He seems like a good, faithful, no-nonsense cleric to me.

18 posted on 02/28/2004 7:49:34 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
the actors’ performances, quality of direction, photography and all the other elements by which a film is normally assessed. The need to suspend judgment on such technicalities,

Actually, you don't even have to suspend judgment on these matters. This is probably the greatest piece of religious art produced in the last couple of hundred years.

The thing that truly amazed me when I saw the movie last night was not only the impact of the religious message, but the fact that I was actually seeing genuine art. It's like seeing Velazquez, El Greco, Murillo, etc. all rolled up into one, with touches of Breughel and Goya in the crowd scenes, and all of it brought to life.

The music was also stunning, and, in fact, I have already bought the CD (although I'm not exactly sure what would make a suitable situation for listening to it).

19 posted on 02/28/2004 7:54:25 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
I will continue to oppose your ideas when you must argue against the Holy Father John Paul II

Your heartfelt comments to ultima were very touching and demonstrate great courage and humility that the rest of us could imitate. At the same time, I think all of us need to wake up and see that someone has been running the Church for the past 25 years. None of this happened in a vacuum.

If you say that it wasn't JPII, that he was just an innocent dupe of evil Vatican apparatchiks, then I ask you, "Who is the only person in the entire world who is closely associated with the new doctrine of personalism which has entirely replaced traditional Catholic teaching on marriage and family with a new and impenetrable philosophy of interpersonal relationships that has destroyed the Thomistic foundations of Catholic philosophy?"

There has been one person who best fits that description and it is not Cardinal Kasper or Cassaroli or Jean Jadot or Suenens or Bea or Karl Rahner or even Cardinal Ratzinger. It is Karol Wojtyla himself.

20 posted on 02/28/2004 7:55:16 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
Look at the interesting way this controversy mirrors what happened in 33 A.D. Judas betrays Christ and delivers him over to his enemies; somebody betrays Gibson and steals his manuscript, handing it over to his enemies; Jewish leaders condemn Jesus, Jewish leaders condemn Gibson; Pilate washed his hands after first siding with Jesus, the Vatican washes its hands after having praised Gibson's film; the disciples of Jesus deny him out of fear of an angry mob, the bishops deny Gibson's film out of fear of bad p.r.
21 posted on 02/28/2004 7:56:47 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Am glad you like our Archbishop. He seems like a good, faithful, no-nonsense cleric to me.

Atlanta -- home to a wonderful FSSP parish that allows you to participate fully in the traditional Catholic sacramental life of the Church. I believe it's called "St. Francis de Sales." You should look it up.

22 posted on 02/28/2004 7:57:38 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
which won him Time magazine Man of the Year.

You're right, this is rarely a good sign.

23 posted on 02/28/2004 7:57:39 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
You have a beautiful soul--it shines in how you express yourself. No need to apologize. I've got a lot of apologizing to do myself--much more than you.
24 posted on 02/28/2004 7:59:05 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
bttt
25 posted on 02/28/2004 7:59:09 PM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Excellent piece .... I do take a position on this paragraph though:

Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.

He wrote this after talking negatively about the RCC after Vatican II. I would say that all of the above negatives are NOT part of Vatican II, but rather the current Pope and his reaching out to every faith in the world and pretending we are "all going to heaven" ... I don't recall that ever being the message of Vatican II.

26 posted on 02/28/2004 8:05:26 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Oh, I'm familiar with St. Francis de Sales, over in Mableton. The parishioners have worked with all their might to transform a little plain vanilla red-brick former Baptist church into a beautiful sanctuary. There is a serious disconnect between the exterior and interior of the church . . . when you open the door it's like you've entered another world.

It's just that I have a former Methodist husband, and we are going to have to break him in easy. (His mother is a Catholic, but he was raised Methodist because his dad's dad was a Methodist minister. I was privileged to know him, and he was honestly a saint.) It took me almost ten years after we were married to get him to join the Episcopal Church . . . so I can be patient!

27 posted on 02/28/2004 8:06:26 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Fabulous. Thanks for posting it.
28 posted on 02/28/2004 8:11:25 PM PST by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Now you are accusing the Pope of being Pontius Pilate. Give me a break!
29 posted on 02/28/2004 8:11:29 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
I don't recall that ever being the message of Vatican II.

Then I guess you don't recall "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious liberty and "Unitatis Redintegratio" on Ecumenism and "Nostra Aetate" on relationships with non-Christians and even "Gaudium et Spes" on the Church in the modern world which said that now we would embrace the world.

30 posted on 02/28/2004 8:13:55 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Pity no Catholic bishop has gone on record in equally enthusiastic vein. <>/i>

Several bishops have spoken in favor of the movie, as mentioned above (and I would add Cardinal Pell of Sydney to the list). Once again, I see you are trying to use this move to trash the legitimate authorities of the Church and to tar everyone in the hierarchy with the same brush.

31 posted on 02/28/2004 8:14:19 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.

This statement is neither an accurate reflection of Catholic teaching or the teaching of the current Pope. It is slanderous of you to claim that it is.

32 posted on 02/28/2004 8:17:10 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
It's just that I have a former Methodist husband, and we are going to have to break him in easy . . . so I can be patient!

Patience is always a good thing, and you seem to be on the right track. But if you really want to convert your husband, only sanctifying grace can do it. This is both Catholic and protestant theology. So go to the source where sanctifying grace is actually available, go to the fountain of graces, the traditional Catholic sacraments.

In contrast, there have been several threads recently about how real men head for the exits screaming whenever they are dragged inside a modern "liturgical service."

33 posted on 02/28/2004 8:18:50 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I just saw this film this evening and confess I couldn't watch certain parts, although I heard them.

If one truly believes, there is nothing to be afraid of in this film. Finally, someone in the medium took a serious stab (no pun intended) at this subject and make it work to the point where you sit in that theater and wonder how any parent could watch their child endure that. It was literally like being a spectator.

BTW, my bishop was very much looking forward to seeing this film. He is a very sincere and good man. Very orthodox, too.
34 posted on 02/28/2004 8:19:54 PM PST by Desdemona (Music Librarian and provider of cucumber sandwiches, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary. Hats required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: Maximilian
They will be trampled by yours truly on the way out the door.

We have to get my husband to the sanctifying grace or the grace to my husband. Like Dickens's beefsteak, he "must be humored, not drove." After 27 years of marriage, I know just about how far and fast he can be led. Eventually I will get him into range, and the Good Lord will do the rest.

36 posted on 02/28/2004 8:25:54 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
This statement is neither an accurate reflection of Catholic teaching or the teaching of the current Pope.

Let's see now, let me rack my brain, which pope was it who tried to place an honorary red cardinal's hat on Hans Urs von Balthasar, the teacher of "universal salvation"? Was it Pope Leo XII? No, I remember, it was just a couple years ago, and it was Pope John Paul II. We can thank divine providence that von Balthasar dropped dead just 2 days before the ceremony, so his heretical teachings were never crowned with this papal sanction.

And let me think, who was the pope who appointed Cardinal Kasper to the most visible position in the entire Vatican hierarchy where he can travel around the world telling people of all religions that there is no need for them to become Catholics? It was pope John Paul II. He's the one who picked Cardinal Kasper and placed him in that job.

And who was the pope who convened the 2 scandalous Assissi meetings? It was the same pope as the 2 questions above, and the same pope who is still proclaiming that "ecumenism" must be the guiding principle for every action of the Church.

37 posted on 02/28/2004 8:26:54 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
By the way, I heard two separate what you would call "Novus Ordo priests" of the new "Post-Vatican II Church", which of course is a new religion, recommended seeing the Passion, so you can take your Catholic Church bashing and shove it.
38 posted on 02/28/2004 8:27:16 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
We have to get my husband to the sanctifying grace or the grace to my husband. Like Dickens's beefsteak, he "must be humored, not drove." After 27 years of marriage, I know just about how far and fast he can be led. Eventually I will get him into range, and the Good Lord will do the rest.

LOL. But what is "Dicken's beefsteak"? This reference doesn't ring a bell.

39 posted on 02/28/2004 8:30:02 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Men like Gilson and Maritain cannot be held up as typical and they were bitterly disappointed by what passed as Thomism by 1960. If anything destroyed the "Thomistic foundation" of Catholic philosophy, it was the dablers in the stertile neo-Thomism of the 1950s, which was so absorbed with jargon that it could not bother to
make itself clear.
40 posted on 02/28/2004 8:30:46 PM PST by RobbyS (Latin nothing of atonment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
You and other "traditionalists" on this forum consistently misrepresent the Holy Father's teaching and intent on ecumenism. You slanderously and in bad faith deliberately and falsely accuse him of teaching and doing what he has in no way intended to teach and do. You deliberately ignore his statements of teaching and intention and interpret his words and actions in a completely opposite way. Catholic doctrine may be determined by objective sources, such as dogmatic statemnts and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Whatever von Balthasar, Kaspar or any theologian is not necessarily the fullness of Catholic teaching. Throughout history, plenty of bad and heretical bishops have been chosen. That does not affect the purity of Catholic doctrine.
41 posted on 02/28/2004 8:31:59 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
so you can take your Catholic Church bashing and shove it.

My, my. The same tolerance that JPII showed with the voodoo witch doctors, the animists and the zoroastrians at Assissi ought to be your guiding principle in dealing with poor misguided souls like ultima ratio, who unlike them, are apparently separated from the Church. Everyone else in the world in some mystical manner "subsists in" the Catholic Church, but traditional Catholics alone are on the outside. This is a sad situation, but perhaps the example of your unfailing charity will help to bring them around.

42 posted on 02/28/2004 8:34:00 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
I said the Vatican washed its hands, not the Pope. In fact, we can't know at this point exactly how aware the Pope is of what's going on. But the Vatican bureaucrats closest to the Pontiff certainly placed political considerations above justice--just as Pilate did. Their backtracking left Gibson twisting in the wind, buffeted by still more bad publicity, after the Vatican press office had already given him the go-ahead to use the papal quote. That was despicable.

I do concede some good bishops have backed the film, but certainly not most--just as most apostles ran away rather than face the mob, but not all. John held his ground, perhaps a few others. The parallels are interesting. Nor is all of this finished in the way it will finally play out. I believe this film will shake many an orthodox cardinal from his lethargic sleep--perhaps in time for the next conclave to elect a pope. It will be interesting if such men will be sufficient in number to defeat the modernists.
43 posted on 02/28/2004 8:35:03 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Then I guess you don't recall "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious liberty and "Unitatis Redintegratio" on Ecumenism and "Nostra Aetate" on relationships with non-Christians and even "Gaudium et Spes" on the Church in the modern world which said that now we would embrace the world.

I'm game, and willing to stand corrected ... let's see.

Dignitatis Humanae [link] seems to say that the church will not enforce it's faith on others, that it agrees with the concept of 'separate of church and state', that the church will be made known in man by God and should not be 'forced' upon anyone is kinda of what I read. Correct me if I missed something. I don't see anything wrong with this 'advancement' in the RCC and I definitely don't see the 'super Euchanism' that is warned about by this author in his anti Vat2 zeal .. but let's move on ..

Unitatis Redintegratio[link] "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus "

Hmmm - can't see anything wrong with that statement ... perhaps the 'method' of euchanism is what you are most upset with and not the words of Vatican II itself. I may be wrong, and this may deserve more dialogue.

Nostra Aetate [link] "The Church examines more closely he relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship."

Noble statement, and one that a church that should and would want to claim the title of the 'leader' of Christianity should make. Again, you must be upset about something other than this noble statement, but rather the 'practice' that follows. Again, much more dialogue could follow.

Gaudium et Spes[link] "Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church, now addresses itself without hesitation, not only to the sons of the Church and to all who invoke the name of Christ, but to the whole of humanity. For the council yearns to explain to everyone how it conceives of the presence and activity of the Church in the world of today."

Again, this is what a church should do ... lead, take a stand, inform the world of it's beliefs, etc. Once more I do not find fault with the intent or wording of the Vatican II council, but perhaps may agree with you with what the church has done to supposedly follow it's (perhap's wrongly) understood meaning.

So, maybe this deserves another thread entirely but the topic is of great interest. By the by, I am NOT a Catholic but was raised as one and do remember the church before and after VatII.

In His Name,
AgThorn

44 posted on 02/28/2004 8:35:26 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Martin Chuzzlewit, Chapter 39. The butcher who sold a steak to Tom Pinch: "When he saw Tom putting the cabbage-leaf into his pocket awkwardly, he begged to he allowed to do it for him; 'for meat,' he said with some emotion, 'must be humored, not drove'"

Only reason I know is that Irma Rombauer quoted it in an older edition of her classic cookbook The Joy of Cooking.

45 posted on 02/28/2004 8:36:50 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
If anything destroyed the "Thomistic foundation" of Catholic philosophy, it was the dablers in the stertile neo-Thomism of the 1950s, which was so absorbed with jargon that it could not bother to make itself clear.

Isn't this a perfect description of the pope's writings, and wasn't he precisely a member of the generation you describe? Jargon is his watchword and incomprehensibility is his motif. He wrote "Love and Responsibility" back in the time frame you are describing, and it perfectly matches your criteria for what really killed Thomism.

46 posted on 02/28/2004 8:37:00 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Schismatics, voodoo witch doctors, animists and zoroastrians are all outside the visible Church militant. Perhaps many of the latter are showing more charity and good will toward the head of the Catholic Church and successor to Peter than you demonstrate, who should know better, being closer to the fullness of truth.
47 posted on 02/28/2004 8:38:22 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
ECCE homo

Ecce Agnus Dei: ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.

48 posted on 02/28/2004 8:39:34 PM PST by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
I'm not denying that you can pick out some acceptable statements from these documents. But the question was, "Did this whole ecumania come from Vatican II, or was it a later creation of the current pontificate?" Clearly it was given direct sanction at Vatican II.
49 posted on 02/28/2004 8:40:49 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
What about the Renaissance popes? There have a lot more crooked and corrupt and sinful papal curias in history. Does that mean the Church stopped being the Church and the Pope stopped being the Pope? Whether the Vatican and others are cautious about the movie or not is a prudential question that people can have different views on, not a doctrinal matter tha justifies rebellion and creation of a parallel schismatic structure. The Church authorities were cautious about Lourdes and Fatima, and rightly so. The Church should not move fast in my view.
50 posted on 02/28/2004 8:42:16 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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