Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary

Scotsman.com ^ | February 29, 2004 | Gerald Warner

[ultima ratio]

You know, the hostility you express toward traditionalists says a lot about how threatened you feel by what we say. You need to lighten up and figure out what's got you foaming at the mouth with so little provocation. Was it the "Second Vatican Catastrophe" phrase in the article? If so, why take offense? Why not appreciate its aptness instead?

[Siobhan]

I can say nothing good about Fiorenza, so I just won't type anything tonight. I'm trying very hard to retain my Baptismal grace.

I will praise the Most Holy Trinity that Bishop diNardo is being sent to Houston and that after being made co-adjutor he will in due course become the Bishop.

P.S. May Fiorenza's new cathedral never be built.

[AnAmericanMother]

Oh, yes. Mrs. Irma was the best. My dad has the first edition, I have the second. Her daughter Irma Becker was not bad, but the son has completely rewritten the book to make it all trendy and nouvelle and lo-cal. Completely lost both the charming, chatty tone and the good reliable recipes.

[Land of the Irish]

That is a lie and you know it.

It is not a lie. You bear false witness as Caiphus did.

[RobbyS]

I suggest you go into your attack and dig out some of the philosophy textbooks they used in Catholic colleges in the 1950s. It is impossible to use these book to approach and challenge the worldview of modern philosophers. To be sure, the fault was also in the modern philosopher who refused to acknowledge how much commom ground was provided by Aristotle.But few textbooks acknwledge how hard it is for the modern student sufficiently to ground himself in Aristotle's logic and metaphysics and to understand that St. Thomas had a very different way of looking at things. It wasn't until read read Gilson that I understood something of the intellectual war in which St. Thomas was engaged and
how limited a use we can make of the weapons he forged.

[RobbyS]

Go into your attic Of course.

[Siobhan]

I believe that the Pope's principle of personalism is meant as a vocabulary for addressing a secular world that has been stripped of any classical philosophical categories or understanding. It is a vocabulary that seeks to draw the secular mind and the non-Catholic Christian into the truth of Holy Mother Church where they can be schooled first having been fed milk as one would nurse a child and then solid food, which is the solid foundation of St. Thomas Aquinas and all Thomistic thought.

The Holy Father reigns at a time of such widespread dissent and infiltration by the communists, secularists and Freemasons that the 25 years of his pontificate are in fact an amazing testimony to him. Marian devotion has revived and returned in a way I would not have thought possible after the nadir of the 1970s. Without his guidance and leadership this would not have happened given the bishops in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia.

As the most Venerable Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich saw a Pope in her visions whose head drooped, suffered greatly, and was surrounded by men of mischief, so I believe that Pope is our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, and I praise God for him.

[Siobhan]

Bump to my post 67

[ultima ratio]

Oh really? When was the last time these high churchmen spoke about Christ Crucified? Or the sins that put Christ on the Cross? They don't. They make nice. They dialogue. They demolish all sense of the sacred.

[Unam Sanctam]

The Pope never talks about Christ crucified? I guess you have been living on planet Mars for the past twenty years then. That is simply a ridiculous accusation. The crucifixion is the central mystery of the faith. Every mass talks about it. Give me a freaking break. You create a complete strawman fantasy caricature of the Catholic Church just so you can continue to take relentless potshots and tear her down.

[ultima ratio]

"You have bodily separated yourself from the visible Church of Christ on earth, and therefore..."

This is slander. Actually, calumny, a serious sin. Once again, since you seem very dense--I have every right to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel. Rome itself concedes this much, particularly in light of the mess it has already made of the Mass in most places. So tell me, who are you to question my credentials as a Catholic or where I choose to attend Mass?

[Unam Sanctam]

You are the one bearing false witness. A curial official denied the false reports of an "interfaith" shrine at Fatima, and yet you keep repeating the same slander over and over. Was it Goebels that said that if you keep repeating one lie over and over, pretty soon it will become truth?

[Jeff Chandler]

Didn't Mel Gibson's depiction of Herod's court bear an uncanny resemblance to the Clinton Whitehouse?

[Unam Sanctam]

Where is it permitted for you to attend a schismatic conventicle. Please cite chapter and verse.

[Unam Sanctam]

You have joined what Archbishop Bruskewitz rightly labels a non-Catholic and dangerous organization, the SSPX. Yes, I do question your membership in the visible Church, since you yourself do not communicate at a church that is in communion with the successor of Peter. You refuse even to attend an indult mass. Your disobedience is completely unjustified. There is no necessity beyond your subjective individual desires.

[Cold Heat]

Yes it is, and fills in some blanks that I had about the Catholic Church.

I have heard this said before.

Don't get me wrong, it is happening in all the big ones.

[ultima ratio]

The Novus Ordo Mass in fact HIDES the Crucifixion. It HIDES the dogma of Propitiation for our sins as well. It is interested primarily in the Paschal Meal, an altogether different--and Protestant--theology. Its "sacrifice" is a "sacrifice of praise", not the sacrifice of the Cross as in the old Mass. It has not even an Offertory--having substituted a Jewish blessing-before-a-meal prayer instead! No wonder the altar has become a table and the priest a mere presider. In short, it is as far from Calvary as it can get and still be a Mass--which it is, granted, but just barely!

[Unam Sanctam]

It does not hide the crucifixion at all. That is simply a bogus lie. Neither does it hide propitiation for sins. That is simply a lie. The mass is the mass, and it is the same sacrifice of Calvary that it has always been.

[ultima ratio]

Gladly. In a letter of 27 September 2002, Msgr. Perle of Ecclesia Dei, Rome, stated the following:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

[Unam Sanctam]

I will say good night to you three schismatic gentlemen. Of course the Church has problem, but she requires loyalty and fidelity to her and to the deposit of faith, and people who will fight for orthodoxy within the Church, not take potshots at her from outside. I am sick to death of the bashing of the Catholic Church and of a fully orthodox Pope that you three consistently fill this forum with, and am doubly sick that you use the occasion of this great movie, the Passion of the Christ, to once again dump on the Catholic Church. And yes, when you dump on the Catholic Church and the Pope, you do incite my hostility.