If the Catholic Church is and was unchanging for 2000 years, why is it a biggie that Mel just follows an older version. Doesn't the 16th Century church teach the same unchanging doctrines and can lead to salvation just as well as the new-fangled one? Or does Mel's church teach something beyond what the 16th Century RCC held to?
What does not being recognized by an Archdiocese indicate?
Asked out of ignorance...
It teaches the same doctrine, just in a different way. That's my opinion, not an official position.
There are many of us who find the new Mass to be less inspiring than what was done pre-Vatican II.
Mel is a Catholic who has a few splinters in his eye. On the other hand, so many of our clergy and laity have beams and other things not only in their eyes but other parts of their body. And not only that, they insist it is OK. Making Mel the subject of rhyming humilation on FR is very uncharitable if coming from another Christian.
It indicates a lack of obidience and a great deal of pride.
It indicates a lack of obedience and a great deal of pride.
I think it's a biggie to this writer because he assumes that someone who calls himself a Catholic, but rejects Vatican II, is necessarily an anti-Semite. Some people are under the impression that it was official Catholic doctrine, prior to VC2, that Jews without distinction were "Christ-killers," and that VC2 changed that. That's untrue, but that's what they believe.
What does not being recognized by an Archdiocese indicate?
Mel's private "church" is irregular and in a state of schism. In terms of ecclesiastical governance, it has the same relationship to Rome as your Reformed Baptist church does: essentially none.
Unfortunately, were he to be in communion with Rome, he would be subject to Cardinal Mahony, which has its own set of problems. :-(
Technically, it simply means that it's a private chapel.