Only in the addled, diseased minds of anti-Catholic bigots is this a controversial statement.
Ugh. The Church has never taught that the Jews were collectively responsible for Christ's death.
This story is written by Roger Friedman, FoxNews. I don't understand what the bid deal is though. Why the bias from Friedman, right down to griping about how little tax revenue it would generate? It's a church, should it be paying more than other churches do in taxes?? Sure, it's newsworthy that Mel is building it, but why wouldn't a chapel being built for a private community, be PRIVATE?!
Who cares if he's built his own private Catholic-Vatican I style church!!!!! The author makes it sound like they're doing human sacrifices in there. Sheeeeesssh!!!! Leave the poor guy alone. And to the author, stop making Mel responsible for his dads denials about the holocaust.
Plainly put, if the chair of Peter is vacant, then Jesus is a liar and the Church has indeed fallen before the gates of hell.
The problem is, Mel doesn't have the guts to call himself the Protestant that he is. I hope he comes to his senses, but history is littered with heretics; this one just gets good box office compared to the gnostics.
Huh? That doesn't sound like a Catholic affiliation to me, not even a schismatic SSPX kind of group. Sounds more new age.
I don't think so.
For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end. (1 Thessalonians 2.14-16)
How could Vatican II possibly deny that? And it doesn't.
... the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ ... (Nostra Aetate, 4)
But there are plenty of so-called Catholics who do, including leading heirarchs who acted much more like heresiarchs, such as Cardinal Bernardin, who advocated expurgating the New Testament of anti-Jewish references.
For those of you unwilling to trust the judgment of LA's bishop, the group Gibson is planning to build a church for here in PA is considered illicit by the Diocese of Greensburg, where it resides.
Greensburg is far from LA. We kneel for the Consecration and after Communion and generally follow the rubrics, apart from the armies of Extraordinary Ministers of Communion.
This article wanders all over the place, such that I'm not really sure what the point is/was...
About APOCALYPTO, Gibson's film approaching release, he's said that the film isn't religious in nature but is "a love story" set amidst an ancient time past.
Yet this article suggests otherwise.
And, the mention of taxes and investments and such...this article seems not so much religious as it is petty.
Ah, now that I see that the article is written by Roger Friedman, I understand it's pettiness. Friedman is a sad person and I'll never understand why FOX has sold itself and readers so far short by continuing to print Friedman's malintended pieces. Unfortunately, Friedman's animosity for Gibson (and Gibson's dad) is the only characteristic that's making any point here.
I think that comment by Gibson to Noonan is understandable, certainly accurate...and that you have to be really, really wanting to find something boogery about Gibson to force a misunderstanding about that comment. Friedman might just as well have titled this piece, "Jew hater." Friedman's not Orthodox so perhaps that includes Friedman, too.
I do like Mel Gibson but dangit why does he have to be typical Hollywood and support a wacky religious sect? Does nutty schismatic Catholicism play better in L.A. than regular Catholicism?
I knew he was a tradiditionalist, I never read anything that said he rejected Vatican II. Is there a source for that?