Is the Pope Catholic...Enough?

The New York Times Magazine ^ | 03/09/03 | CHRISTOPHER NOXON

[Pokey78]

The first sign that something unusual was going on up the hill was the appearance of a fleet of brand-new Volkswagen bugs, lined up on a muddy bluff like a row of oversize Easter eggs. It was a local handyman who spotted them while he was out on a walk through this little valley in the mountains northwest of Los Angeles, near Malibu. Neighbors had already been talking about the 16-acre property on the valley's south slope, and soon word spread that a church group called Holy Family had purchased the site with plans to break ground for a 9,300-square-foot Mission-style church complex.

Among the neighbors who wondered about the new arrival was my father, a recently retired documentary filmmaker who joined the local homeowners association when he moved to the area two years ago. This latest project, however, wasn't the usual commercial complex or instant enclave of luxury homes that tended to attract the association's attention. It was a church, that much was clear, but it didn't sound at all like your garden-variety community parish. A representative for the property owner explained that the church was Catholic, but it wasn't affiliated with the Roman Catholic archdiocese. While the church building was relatively large, the congregation was quite small, with about 70 members. And though religious practices and rituals would be familiar to Catholics, there was one big difference: Sunday Mass, it was reported, would be conducted entirely in Latin.

Lest anyone get the impression that this band of spiritual seekers might disperse if the collection baskets were to run dry, a church representative assured the neighbors that the church was supported by an unnamed individual congregant with ''tremendous financial viability.''

Would that explain the VW bugs? The handyman recalls posing the question at an early community meeting. He was told that the congregant financing the church ''had given them as gifts to his nieces and nephews,'' he says. ''I remember thinking, 'That's some generous uncle.'''

The person behind the unusually well-endowed chapel turned out to be the actor Mel Gibson, star of ''Mad Max,'' ''Lethal Weapon'' and ''Braveheart.'' The church is operated by a nonprofit corporation; according to public financial records, Gibson is its director, chief executive officer and sole benefactor, making more than $2.8 million in contributions over the past three years.

The fact that Gibson is building a church in the hills near Los Angeles should come as no huge surprise. Gibson's Catholicism has never been a secret, and in fact gives him a sort of reverse-exoticism in a town where other stars dabble in Buddhism, kabala and Scientology. An avowed family man still on his first marriage, with seven children to show for it, Gibson smokes, raises cattle, publicly shuns plastic surgery and seems wholly unmoved by most of the liberal-left causes favored by industry peers. Recently, however, something beyond the impulse to entertain has been showing up in Gibson's work. Last year he played a former minister who rediscovers religion amid an alien invasion in ''Signs'' and a reverent Catholic lieutenant colonel in the war drama ''We Were Soldiers.'' In these films, but especially in a new movie, a monumentally risky project called ''The Passion,'' which he co-wrote and is currently directing in and around Rome, Gibson appears increasingly driven to express a theology only hinted at in his previous work. That theology is a strain of Catholicism rooted in the dictates of a 16th-century papal council and nurtured by a splinter group of conspiracy-minded Catholics, mystics, monarchists and disaffected conservatives -- including a seminary dropout and rabble-rousing theologist who also happens to be Mel Gibson's father.

Gibson is the star practitioner of this movement, which is known as Catholic traditionalism. Seeking to maintain the faith as it was understood before the landmark Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965, traditionalists view modern reforms as the work of either foolish liberals or hellbent heretics. They generally operate outside the authority or oversight of the official church, often maintaining their own chapels, schools, seminaries and clerical orders. Central to the movement is the Tridentine Mass, the Latin rite that was codified by the Council of Trent in the 16th century and remained in place until the Second Vatican Council deemed that Mass should be held in the popular language of each country. Latin, however, is just the beginning -- traditionalists refrain from eating meat on Fridays, and traditionalist women wear headdresses in church. The movement seeks to revive an orthodoxy uncorrupted by the theological and social changes of the last 300 years or so.

Michael W. Cuneo, a sociology professor at Fordham University who reported on right-wing Catholic dissent in his 1997 book, ''The Smoke of Satan,'' wrote that traditionalists ''would like nothing more than to be transported back to Louis XIV's France or Franco's Spain, where Catholicism enjoyed an unrivaled presidency over cultural life and other religions existed entirely at its beneficence.''

While traditionalists agree on the broad outlines of correct religious practice, the movement is hardly united. Its brief history is the story of a movement branching off into ever-smaller submovements. Today there are approximately 600 traditionalist chapels, representing a number of theological streams, including the more Vatican-friendly Society of Saint Pius X, the more strident Society of Saint Pius V, the militantly traditional Mount St. Michael's community and the Apostles of Infinite Love, a monastic community in Quebec led by a onetime Catholic brother who claims to be the incarnation of the one true pope. All told, there are an estimated 100,000 traditionalists in the United States.

Gibson's church may be the most comfortably endowed traditionalist house of worship in the country, but in other respects it is quite typical. Most of the congregation met while attending services held by a traditionalist priest, whose church in the San Gabriel Valley was eventually taken over by the Society of Saint Pius X. A group of congregants, including the Gibson family, left in protest. They gained approval from Los Angeles County to build their own church early last year after agreeing to a set of operating guidelines -- covering such issues as parking, lighting, signage and hours of services -- with the regional planning commission and neighbors (including my father).

When I called the church elder who was Holy Family's representative at the county meetings, he agreed to an interview and accepted my request to attend a service, on the conditions that I not identify him or any member of the congregation beyond Mel Gibson, and that I withhold details that might invite the interest of fans or paparazzi. He also asked that I refrain from speaking to the priest, the congregants or anyone else during my visit. He told me that anyone seen speaking to me ''will not be welcome back at our church again.''

After all the warnings, I was a little surprised to find Sunday Mass at Holy Family an almost entirely ordinary experience. The service itself was remarkably similar to what I remember from parochial school -- that is, until a homily delivered near the end of the two-hour Mass. The priest read a parable from St. Matthew about a farmer whose fields are raided in the night by an enemy who spreads a noxious weed in his wheat. The evil in the story, the priest said, is ''the modern church,'' whose wickedness will be dealt with on Judgment Day.

''The wiping out of our opposition must wait until harvest time,'' he concluded. It suddenly became clear why Gibson isn't worshiping with his fellow Catholic Martin Sheen down at Our Lady of Malibu.

Gibson is widely known in traditionalist circles, and he has made no secret of his religious affiliation. ''I go to an all-pre-Vatican II Latin Mass,'' he told USA Today in an interview two years ago. ''There was a lot of talk, particularly in the 60's, of 'Wow, we've got to change with the times.' But the Creator instituted something very specific, and we can't just go change it.'' More recently, the Italian newspaper Il Giornale reported that Gibson made a ''scathing attack against the Vatican,'' calling it a ''wolf in sheep's clothing.''

While many traditionalists can't abide some of Gibson's career choices -- the onscreen baring of his bottom is a particular source of concern -- most are content to overlook his occasional wild streak. ''Gibson should get the tsk-tsk award for lowering his impressive acting talent on occasion,'' wrote a priest known as Father Moderator on the Internet posting board Traditio. Nonetheless, the priest continued, Gibson ''never ceases to project his traditional Catholic faith to the public. Who else in such a prominent position ever does?''

Mel Gibson is also known in traditionalist circles as the most famous son of Hutton Gibson, a well-known author and activist who has railed against the Vatican for more than 30 years. His books on the topic include ''Is the Pope Catholic?'' and ''The Enemy Is Here.'' (Precisely where is indicated by a map on the dust jacket -- it's a cartoon of Italy, drawn by one of his 49 grandchildren). Gibson père also publishes a quarterly newsletter called ''The War Is Now!,'' which includes all manner of verbal volleys against a pope he calls ''Garrulous Karolus, the Koran Kisser.''

Now living in suburban Houston, Hutton Gibson invited me for a weekend visit after an initial phone conversation. When I arrived, he was wrapping up an interview with a syndicated radio program. Hutton Gibson is 84 but seemed a good deal younger (which he credited to his abstinence from drinking, daily doses of vitamins and ''never going near a doctor''). He is energized by an abiding love of corny jokes and lively debate, and he peppered a commentary on the scandals facing the Catholic Church with jokes about Texans, the Irish and, inevitably, the pope.

He said he speaks to his son frequently and knows all about Mel's chapel in the hills. ''Mel wasn't raised in the new church, and he wouldn't go for it anymore than I would,'' he said. ''I've got to say that my whole family is with me -- all 10 of them.''

While his rhetoric showed no signs of mellowing, the elder Gibson had plenty of reasons to be satisfied. For one, he is a newlywed. His doting bride, Joye, is a statuesque Oregonian who playfully addressed him as ''Mr. G.'' Surrounded by ceramic knickknacks and photos of his grandchildren, he seemed entirely at ease with himself and the world.

Which made it all the odder when he launched into one of his complex conspiracy theories. On our first night together, he nursed a mug of sassafras tea while leading a four-hour tutorial on so-called sedevacantism, which holds that all the popes going back to John XXIII in the 1950's have been illegitimate -- ''anti-popes,'' he called them. As Hutton explained it, the conservative cardinal Giuseppe Siri was probably passed over for pope in 1958 in favor of a more reform-minded candidate. Hutton said Cardinal Siri was duly elected, but was forced to step aside by conspirators inside and outside the church. These shadowy enemies might have threatened ''to atom-bomb the Vatican City,'' he said. In another conversation, he told me that the Second Vatican Council was ''a Masonic plot backed by the Jews.''

The intrigue got only murkier and more menacing from there. The next day after church, over a plate of roast beef at a buffet joint off the highway, conversation turned to the events of Sept. 11. Hutton flatly rejected that Al Qaeda hijackers had anything to do with the attacks. ''Anybody can put out a passenger list,'' he said.

So what happened? ''They were crashed by remote control,'' he replied.

He moved on to the Holocaust, dismissing historical accounts that six million Jews were exterminated. ''Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body,'' he said. ''It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million?''

Across the table, Joye suddenly looked up from her plate. She was dressed in a stylish outfit for church, wearing a leather patchwork blazer and a felt beret in place of the traditional headdress. She had kept quiet most of the day, so it was a surprise when she cheerfully piped in. ''There weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe,'' she said.

''Anyway, there were more after the war than before,'' Hutton added.

The entire catastrophe was manufactured, said Hutton, as part of an arrangement between Hitler and ''financiers'' to move Jews out of Germany. Hitler ''had this deal where he was supposed to make it rough on them so they would all get out and migrate to Israel because they needed people there to fight the Arabs,'' he said.

Whether any of this has rubbed off on Hutton's son Mel is an open question. A church elder at Holy Family says that while the two share the same foundation of faith, Mel Gibson parts company with his father on many points. ''He doesn't go along with a lot of what his dad says,'' he says. And beyond claiming to have seen the plans for Holy Family and attended services with the congregation, Hutton Gibson has no apparent connection to his son's church in California.

Still, Mel Gibson has shown some of his father's flair for conspiracy scenarios. In a 1995 Playboy interview, he related a sketchy theory that various presidential assassinations and assassination attempts have been acts of retribution for economic reforms that challenged the powers-that-be. ''There's something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried,'' he said. ''I can't remember what it was. My dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I'll end up dead if I keep talking.''

Perhaps nothing Gibson has done will serve as a more public announcement of his faith and worldview than the project he's now completing in Rome. ''The Passion'' is a graphic depiction of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, based on biblical accounts and the writings of two mystic nuns. Gibson is returning to the director's chair for the first time since ''Braveheart'' in 1995, but he will not appear on-screen. There will not, in fact, be any big stars. Nor will there be subtitles, which might prove a challenge for many moviegoers, since the actors will speak only Aramaic and Latin. Gibson has said that he hopes to depict Christ's ordeal using ''filmic storytelling'' techniques that will make the understanding of dialogue unnecessary.

The idea came to him a decade ago, he announced at a news conference last September, and he is soldiering on now without the backing of a studio or a U.S. distributor. ''Obviously, nobody wants to touch something filmed in two dead languages,'' he said. ''They think I'm crazy, and maybe I am. But maybe I'm a genius.''

In Hollywood, the astonishment many felt upon hearing about the project has been heightened by reports that his production company is paying the film's estimated $25 million cost itself. Making a movie that has anything at all to do with religion is risky enough -- remember ''The Last Temptation of Christ''? But spending your own money to help pay for it?

''It's a very gutsy thing to do -- I certainly wouldn't do it,'' says the veteran producer Alan Ladd Jr., who chose Gibson to star in and direct ''Braveheart.'' ''But he wouldn't do it if he couldn't it pull off, at least in his own mind. He's obviously satisfying some deep personal need in himself.''

Only Gibson knows the precise nature of that personal need, and he declined numerous requests for an interview, limiting his public comments to a January appearance on the Fox news program ''The O'Reilly Factor,'' in which he complained about inquiries regarding his faith and suggested that any reporter asking such questions might be part of a plot to undermine his message of salvation. ''I think he's been sent,'' he told Bill O'Reilly. ''When you touch this subject, it does have a lot of enemies.''

Many traditionalists, meanwhile, hope the graphic approach Gibson is taking -- production stills show the star, James Caviezel, beaten to a pulp and drenched in blood, fresh from a flagellation -- will serve as a big-budget dramatization of key points of traditionalist theology. After waging a quiet war against what they see as the Vatican's overly accommodating theology, traditionalists suddenly find themselves equipped with a most unfamiliar weapon: star power. ''I'm delighted he's getting more involved,'' says Bishop Daniel Dolan, founder of more than 30 Latin Mass churches and one of the most influential traditionalists in the country. ''To put the weight of his Hollywood celebrity behind the truth that the whole modern church structure is rotten to the core is excellent. I welcome it.''

A friend of the Gibson family has his own ideas about how traditionalist thought is informing ''The Passion.'' Gary Giuffre, a founder of the traditionalist St. Jude Chapel in Texas, says Gibson told him about his plans for ''The Passion'' on a recent visit. ''It will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, perhaps as no film has done before.'' Most important, he says, the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- which some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial and delivered him to the Romans to be crucified.

In his conversation with Bill O'Reilly (who prefaced the interview by disclosing that Gibson's production company has optioned the rights to O'Reilly's mystery novel), Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. ''It may,'' he said. ''It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons why Christ came, why he was crucified -- he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.''

Christopher Noxon is a writer living in Los Angeles.

[valkyrieanne]

So what bishop *is* the parish under? Is this a schismatic group or something?

[shezza]

The more I read about this guy, the more I like him. One of my all-time favorites.

[8mmMauser]

They are simply ordinary Catholics who would be indistinguishable before Vatican II modern changes. They attend the (only) canonized Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of St. Pius V. In fact they may be even using old missals from before the changes to the novus ordo. We have some dating from the 19th century and they do just fine. The Mass does not change.

I have no idea which bishop may be involved, but am confident his priest is a valid priest. Many valid traditional priests abound. Traditional Catholic churches abound throughout the world and the services are the same as they always have been.

Schism? The Church of nearly 2,000 years is a schism? It didn't change.

Most traditional Catholics I know apply the caution of St. Paul in his epistle to the Galatians and follow the Word of God over the word of any man.

[Cicero]

Some Latin Mass traditionalists are in schism, some are loyal Catholics, and some are in a gray area.

The Society of Pius X, for instance, is schismatic. But the Pope has encouraged the bishops to allow the so-called Tridentine Latin Mass (which actually has roots going back long before the Council of Trent) to be said in their dioceses. Decent conservative bishops generally permit this practice when they are asked. Some liberal or dissenting bishops refuse their permission.

If the bishop refuses permission, then going ahead anyway becomes questionable. The bishops refusal is, to all appearances, unjust and arbitrary, and it goes against the spirit of the Pope's permission and encouragement. On the other hand, the presumption is that the ordinary is boss in his own diocese unless he really goes off the rails, and it's conceivable he may have some reason, or thinks he has some reason, to refuse permission. So refusing permission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass can't quite be characterized as unlawful or heterodox on the bishop's part.

So, who knows where Mel Gibson falls in all this? Hopefully he hasn't gone beyond the point where he will fall into schism. I suspect that the NY Times is itching to stir up trouble among Catholics with this story.

[1stFreedom]

From what I hear he belongs to a schismatic church. It's not Catholic, no more than Episcopalian's are -- yet they are both delusional and think they are Catholic.

[LadyDoc]

http://www.traditionalmass.org/dolan.html

Information on Bishop Dolan.

[TheAngryClam]

"theologist?"

Did anyone else notice the author using that word? Theologian!

[Jhoffa_]

I frankly just never did understand this Latin mass thing..

I mean, why speak in a language no in the congregation can understand? How is this beneficial to anyone?

[Jhoffa_]

I suspect that the NY Times is itching to stir up trouble among Catholics with this story.

I think they are trying to hurt Gibson.

He believes in Christ and isn't shy about saying so, he's Conservative and he's wildly popular.

That's three strikes right there.

[Gophack]

OK, this author has done some research, but is so obviously biased. Gibson left one church because it was taken over by the schismatic SSPX group, but he favors the Tridentine Mass, which is wholly allowed in the Church. There's nothing wrong with prefering the Tridentine Mass, and in fact the Pope made it clear that people should be allow to worship in the old Mass if they wanted, and many Bishops allow priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

I, personally, think Vatican II has been blown out of proportion on both sides ... I don't think it did all the evil things many "traditionalists" claim it did, but I do think that the "progressives" use Vatican II as a shield for their newfangled, anti-Catholic programs. I'm a traditionalist who prefers the Novus Ordo. I try my hardest adhere to the teachings of the Church in all matters of faith and morals, but I like the new order (provided the priest isn't a liberal).

No where in this article did it say Gibson doesn't adhere to the Magisterium of the Church, or that he's not in communion with Rome, or anything of the sort ... they just imply it. Most traditionalists I know believe firmly that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and that they must, as good Catholics, be in communion with Rome. Even during the darkest times of the church with the most wicked of bishops and Popes, the wicked Pope never changed the moral Truth of the Church. The Holy Spirit has protected Her, just as Jesus promised.

And the Holy Spirit is protecting His church now.

[kms61]

His father sounds like a kook, though. And Gibson's apparently got a few wacky ideas himself, re: whatever conspiracy he alluded to.

Hey, I like most of his acting. But it sounds like there's a little Hollyweirdness going on here, too, albeit on the opposite end of the spectrum from most of the other Hollyweirdos.

[Salvation]

A bump for balance! Good writing there, Gophack!

[Jael]

Why isn't Mel a Catholic?

[Caipirabob]

Meanwhile, in the woods...

"Oh, where to go?"

[yianni]

I mean, why speak in a language no in the congregation can understand? How is this beneficial to anyone?

The properly educated do understand Latin. ...and Attic Greek.

[Jhoffa_]

The properly educated do understand Latin. ...and Attic Greek.

I don't believe for a minute that this is doing the majority of the congregation a bit of good.

Sorry.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

The properly educated do understand Latin. ...and Attic Greek. - Liberals hate Latin - I worked with a self proclaimed socialist and when the subject of teaching Latin in schools came up he nearly lost it - no way was he letting his kids learn Latin - it was like a crucifix to a vampire - his usual nonchalant self was truly shaken.

IMHO this seems to hint that when evil infested the Catholic Church perhaps it needed to change the language? Without bringing black helicopters and tinfoil hats into it perhaps a study of the main instigators of the Vatican Council II would be quite enlightening. In keeping with "the greatest thing evil can do is pretend it does not exist" - I'll wager they did it for good, for the children, for the love of God.

[Dajjal]

God bless Hutton and Mel!

[Possenti]

Interesting...

(My first ping list)

[Valin]

Flag

[8mmMauser]

I have no idea what you heard, but can speak with some authority on what he believes for one simple reason. When he was in the area doing a movie, he and his family came to worship with our group. We are a bunch of plain old Catholics.

The modern novus ordo in the Church today left us. We did not desert our faith.

When the majority of the Church went modern with Vatican II, some stuck to the solid foundation constant for nearly 2,000 years. Many priests and lay stuck with the foundation and have followed Catholic Dogma that modernists may or may not. A beloved priest we know was ordained the same year as the Pope, and had swallowed as much modernism as he could. Retiring, he returned to the one canonized Mass he loved, the Latin Mass. Does that make him not Catholic?

Some Bishops, Archbishops could not swallow the changes proposed by the pastoral (non-dogmatic) Vatican II Council and chose the Word of God over the word of man. They ordained priests and even consecrated bishops in the old rite to ensure the eternal Church would continue. Theologians can hardly question the results as anything but valid, although modernists may argue that they are not licit, in not following the changes made by man. Did that make these non-Catholic?

"Schismatic" is a word used like racist or bigot. Painting people with such labels is a technique commonly used by the Marxists and liberals. It inspires flaming emotions to replace reason. Consider this, the Church as a tree almost 2,000 years old. The trunk is strong, solid. Yet a branch sprung fromt the trunk several decades years ago and called itself the Church and called the rest of the tree Schism. Does that make it so?

If we are schismatics, that means the Catholic parents of so many freepers here must be schismatics, too, because they all belonged to the same body.

As I mentioned earlier, we still use the same missals of old. We have some two hundred years old, and in other languages, but it matters not because the Latin is the same.

Nothing new about this, St. Athanasius faced similar opposition way back in the third and fourth century and all the bishops were against him. The Church survived anyway and survives intact today.

Reaction to my words should be telling. Is it a flash of angry emotion, a desire to defeat my views with polemics, a need to pick at mistakes I may have made?

Or is it a reasoned desire to find out the truth? Vast volumes on the subject exist building from true theologians, not from just tyros like me. Search for the truth and you will find it.

[8mmMauser]

Well I can understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin wherever it is said regardless of the language spoken in the area. Latin doesn't change.

The vernacular can change and usually does. I can follow the unchanging Latin in the translations and rest assured it is authentic as locked into perpetuity by the Canon.

[8mmMauser]

I am with you on this.

[Gophack]

There is nothing wrong with appreciating and wanting to celebrate the Latin Mass, which is fully allowed under Rome. The problem comes when some of those who call themselves Traditional decide that they don't have to listen Rome on the matter of faith and morals, that they can ordain their own bishops and priests, and basically are no longer under the authority of Rome.

I have many friends who attend legitimate Tridentine Masses in the Sacramento Diocese. They are fully Catholic. But there is also a schismatic church under the SSPX. While Catholics MAY attend in an emergency because the sacraments are valid, they court schism because the church is NOT in full communion with Rome.

To be Catholic means to accept that Jesus Christ left the Holy Spirit to guide his church and prevent error for the past 2,000 years. To believe that Vatican II is evil means that you believe Jesus lied to his apostles (and us) and in fact allowed the Holy Spirit to abandon His church. That is what Martin Luther believed in the 15th century because Pope Alexander XI was a wicked man. This pope did nothing to change the doctrine of faith during his tenure because the Holy Spirit didn't allow it.

God bless.

[ultima ratio]

First, this is clearly a hit piece. The notion that traditionalists are somehow illegitimate and "conspiracy-minded" is ridiculous. Likewise the notion that someone as super-normal as Mel Gibson is some kind of religious nutcase, is on the surface of it, absurd. He is simply a devout Catholic who sees the postconciliar Church for what it is. Like millions of others, he is not buying into the New Catholicism--which clearly is so much more to the liking of the New York Times.

The writer is wrong on the facts as well. Vatican II never mandated the vernacular. Quite the opposite. It specifically mandated that primacy of place be given to Latin and to Gregorian chant. Both Latin and Gregorian chant were replaced by postconciliar liturgists. And there are far more than 100,000 traditionalist Catholics in America. In just the SSPX alone there are more than 100,000 traditionalist Catholics--and growing in direct proportion to the diminishment of Novus Ordo adherents. (It is estimated there are more than 1 million SSPX Catholics worldwide.) This low number would not include Indult Catholics or SSPV Catholics or Sedevacantists. If the American bishops were to allow the old Mass to be celebrated freely, it is estimated that the number of traditionalists would increase to as much as 15 million. That the bishops only permit it grudgingly in their own dioceses speaks volumes.

It is not as bizarre to suppose that this Pope may be unCatholic as one might think. He has assaulted Catholic Tradition in ways that many believe crosses the line into heresy and self-excommunication. JnPII's dealings with pagan religions, for instance, have startled and shocked many knowledgeable Catholics. He has prayed with animists and witchdoctors and voodoo priests--many think in violation of the First Commandment which proscribes idolatry. He has poured out libations in the Togo forest and placed worshipers of the Great Thumb on a par with his own papal dignity. This has disturbed many people who question his commitment to traditional Catholicism--the protection of which is the reason for the Office of the Papacy itself, according to the First Vatican Council. The question likewise as to whether Paul VI had been self-excommunicated is considered by some a legitimate one. Paul VI took a solemn oath under pain of self-excommunication to change nothing of Tradition--yet he unwisely imposed a new Mass upon the faithful which many respected theologians--some of them preeminent--consider sacrilegious.

[AnalogReigns]

As an evangelical Protestant, I find it an amazing irony that--an essential to Roman Catholicism is submission to the authority of Rome, and yet these traditionalists find Rome too modern, therefore in the name of tradition, they don't submit.

To put it another way, it's a great contradiction to say the Pope isn't Catholic enough for these Catholics... since that essential for being Roman Catholic, is submission to the rule of Rome.

Anyway, another reason I'm thankful for Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers. The Vatican is not, never will be, my dictator, as by God's grace, I'm in Christ's Church, not Rome's.

[8mmMauser]

Please take this in the right vein. Of the three pillars Faith, Hope, and Charity, the operating word is Charity. (Love has a different meaning.)

I am not talking about simply a mass in Latin, but the one canonized Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of St. Pius V. We do not attend indult masses. (Indult? an indulgence to celebrate the one true Mass? Think about it.) However many indultarians and former indultarians worship with us regularly. No conflict. We are there for the Mass, not for who sides with whom.

One important point: I did not say Vatican II was evil, and I have no interest in following any words of man when it pits me with the eternal Church. Blind faith to man can be a sin, you must know. Sadly, blind faith in man has been foisted upon us for a long time, until we swallowed it as dogma.

We didn't abandon the Church. Modernist man has abandoned us and we are obliged by the Word to follow the Word first.

You are right that some call themselves traditional, ordain their own priests and consecrate their own bishops. Most I know are true traditional Catholics and the priests come from proper ordination in the old rite and the bishops are consecrated from an unbroken line, hence valid.

So far as faith and morals go, the Catholics we know must follow the teachings of the body of the Church. We do not follow that which deviates from the Word. This is crucial to understand. (Have a short fuse with pediphile priests and bps.)

If a church authority teaches that the path to salvation is broad and all are saved regardless of religion, that is in conflict with the Word. Hence we follow the Word first as Saints and Doctors have for eons.

Please note my aforementioned comments on schism. SSPX is valid and turns out many fine priests. The organization continues to impress us in successful efforts to preserve the Faith. Politics and polemics are not our concern anyway. The Mass and the sacrements are. We have fine experiences with SSPX both here and in europe.

You write: "To believe that Vatican II is evil means that you believe Jesus lied to his apostles (and us) and in fact allowed the Holy Spirit to abandon His church." Once again, in different words, the Holy Spirit cannot abandon His Church. Man, including many in the Magisterium abandoned Him. Did Jesus side with the bishops who were all against St. Athanasius? I think not.

Others may be bothered by which and who are licit or not. We are concerned that the priest is valid, hence the Mass is valid.

[Gophack]

I do take your words with charity, thank you.

However, to say Rome has abandoned the Word means that Jesus has abandoned His Church, something which has not happened because He promised it would not.

Martin Luther left the church because Pope Alexander VI (I believe) was a wicked man who had many children with different women, among many things.

I understand that many Catholics who regularly attend SSPX masses, which are valid though not licit, are not committing a sin. It's a matter of intent. At the same time, as a Catholic, you MUST submit to the authority of Rome as handed down since St. Peter. You can't rely SOLELY on the Word of God, otherwise you become a Protestant and give in to private judgement, which is condemned by the Word Itself.

As Catholics, we agree in the three-legged stool, the Word, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. All are important. Tradition and the Magisterium do not contradict the Word or add to the Word, but help us understand the Word. Nothing has really changed since Vatican II except that in the Western world, liberal Catholics have used out-of-context documents to expand their progressive, and decidedly un-Catholic, agenda.

HOWEVER, there must be a reason we do not know that the Holy Spirit hasn't corrected this to date. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY, nor do we have to know, we must have faith in the Lord that He will not break His promise.

I see many good things happening in the Church, even now after the Scandals. I see good, holy, masculine men being ordained. We have a new, young priest ordained last year who is orthodox to the teachings of the Church and provides us with excellent homilies and a deep understanding of the faith. The bad seminaries are closing, the liberal priests retiring, and good, solid priests coming in to fill their shoes.

God has a reason we have lived through these scandals. Is our faith in Him and His Word strong enough to survive? I pray daily for my faith. And I will not abandon my church simply because I don't like this or that ... because Jesus promised to be with me until the end of time.

God bless.

[ultima ratio]

The whole question of whether the SSPX is in excommunication rests on a very slender theological foundation. There are, as you probably know, two ways to be excommunicated. One is automatically--latae sententiae. The other is by appearing before a Vatican tribunal and judged, after a trial, to be in excommunication.

A latae sententiae excommunication works like this. It is an excommunicatable offense for a member of the opposite sex to enter a cloistered convent or monastery, for instance. But suppose you are a father or brother visiting your daughter or sister in an uncloistered visitor's parlor. And suppose you were looking for the men's room down the hall and made a wrong turn into the convent proper. You would be excommunicated automatically.

Now clearly this punishment would be ridiculous if you had no intention of doing any harm, but were merely confused about directions. This is understood by Canon Law which provides for the fact that the penalty is incurred only if the intention of the individual were evil. The act of making a wrong turn, in itself, is not intrinsically evil.

Civil law provides for something similar. Breaking and entering a private home without permission is a criminal offense. But if the house is on fire and you break down the door to save children trapped inside, you would not incur any penalty. This is because breaking and entering is not inherently evil but depends on the circumstances.

Now take the case of SSPX which had been a legitimate Society of traditionalist priests and seminarians, founded with papal approval in the 1970s after the alarming changes that came about after Vatican II. At that time a group of seminarians, troubled that they were not being formed according to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, appealed for help to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a former missionary in Africa, then retired. He reluctantly agreed to leave retirement and establish, with papal approval, a traditional Catholic seminary. He did so in the Swiss town of Econe. The seminary at once began to flourish as a center of piety and learning.

But almost from its inception, the movement was opposed by powerful modernist factions within the Church. Though his seminarians were devout and were studying Aquinas and the Church Fathers and had never created so much as a breath of scandal ever--and even were given an enthusiastic thumbs-up by the Vatican's own visiting emissary--the Archbishop himself was still personally persecuted by highly-placed cardinals and bishops.

It is well to remember that this was going on at a time when apostate and corrupt bishops were being routinely elevated by the Vatican. Amazingly, Archbishop Lefebvre and his seminarians were the only ones being openly opposed and threatened with punishment. Even today this is still shocking. The gay subculture throughout that time, remember, was gaining a strong hold in the seminaries and dioceses of America and Canada and Europe--with the apparent acquiescance of Rome.Only the Econe traditionalists were being threatened with extinction--for reasons which were specious and primarily political.

In his old age--Lefebvre was in his 80s--the Archbishop decided something had to be done to preserve Catholic tradition--which at that time was preserved only at the Econe. Elsewhere traditionalism had been deliberately destroyed and corruption had become systemic throughout the Church. He also was well aware it was the desire of powerfully-placed modernists to stamp out traditionalism once and for all after his death. The only solution was to consecrate new bishops in the old faith so that they might ordain seminarians in the traditional priesthood after he was gone.

Pope JnPII refused his permission. The Archbishop consecrated four bishops anyway and was AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated, latae sententiae, and a letter was sent by the Vatican to the Archbishop and the SSPX bishops stating this. It also declared them to be schismatic. A letter from the Pope followed which repeated the statement. In other words, both letters simply stated that an automatic excommunication had occurred. The letters did not themselves impose the penalty.

Now this is interesting for three reasons. First, it shows the Vatican did not dare risk a trial for excommunication before a tribunal where the Archbishop might be allowed to argue his case for innocence. Second, it showed the Pope had thrown in his lot with the French bishops who had long been after him to shut down the Econe and stamp out the traditional priesthood. Third, the Pope simultaneously granted the Indult in an effort, tradtionalists believe, to split the SSPX and weaken the movement.

But here is where INTENTION of Lefebvre kicks in. He had said over and over he acted in accordance with his conscience and disobeyed the Pope for the sake of not harming the Catholic Church and in order to preserve Catholic Tradition. In fact, he appealed to the pope's own Canon Law which provided for just such a contingency--the canon on the State of Necessity which argues that in a state of emergency, clerical disobedience would be permissible. There is no doubt the Archbishop believed such a state existed, that the Church was in the profound throes of crisis, and that if he did not disobey a papal command he considered improper, the Church's own tradition would disappear from the face of the earth. Like the person who violates the laws against breaking and entering in order to save children trapped in a burning house, the Archbishop looked around at a Church in chaos and decided to act accordingly. Since he sincerely believed he was acting in good faith by doing so, no penalty was ever incurred and the latae sententiae decree was considered by him null and void by reason of his obviously good intentions. This is still the SSPX position.

Nor was there any intended schism in the act of disobedience in the first place. This is a key point. No parallel religion was set up by SSPX, no new teachings or new heresies, no jurisdictions were stolen or preempted. Nor is the act of disobedience in itself schismatic. SSPX gives allegience to the pope and recognizes papal authority. As it would argue--just because a child says no to his mother, this doesn't mean he doesn't recognize that she is his mother. An act of disobedience to the pope is not in itself a denial of papal primacy. To claim this is absurd.

What complicates this further is that Rome now has half-heartedly admitted that Catholics who attend SSPX Masses do indeed fulfill their Sunday obligation and are NOT thereby excommunicated. This was recently affirmed by the Vatican's own Office of Ecclesia Dei. Cardinal Ratzinger has also affirmed this in the past.

[Gophack]

You have a misunderstanding of the role of Rome in the Catholic faith. Rome is not our dictator. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and He gave us His church on earth and the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Martin Luther was a Catholic monk who, like many of the self-claimed "Traditional" Catholics, was dismayed by Scandal ... a corrupt Pope and wicked bishops. He decided to form his own church, which, frankly, didn't have anything much different than the Catholic Church except it denied the authority of Rome. Over time, other changes happened, but in Luther's lifetime he proclaimed the perpetual virginity of Mary, the communion of saints (intercession) and many other so-called "Catholic" practices that have since been condemned by most Protestant religions.

You say you are in Christ's Church, but Christ gave the authority to Peter and His apostles over His Church on earth, and promised the Holy Spirit would be with the Church until the end of time. That's why we call the Pope the Vicar of Christ ... Christ's representative on Earth.

If you have ever read even parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you would understand that our faith rests firmly on the foundation of Scripture, as understood by the early church fathers and taught by the Magisterium of the Church. We do not have faith in Man, we have faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who died for our sins and our salvation and left us His church until He comes again.

God bless.

[ultima ratio]

You think as you do because you believe the papacy defines the Catholic faith. It doesn't. The papacy, in fact, exists precisely to protect the faith. Those Catholics who confuse the papacy with the Catholic faith itself are guilty of papolatry.

[Maximilian]

An excellent summary of the situation.

[Land of the Irish]

I'm a traditionalist who prefers the Novus Ordo.

Thanks for the best oxymoron I've ever heard. I don't think anybody can beat this one.

[ultima ratio]

Nope, the SSPX did not found a separate Church. The analogy is wrong. Read the above post. What SSPX did and does is hold onto the faith in the face of the modernist heresy. Your confusion is that you equate Rome with the faith itself. Rome exists to support the faith, not the other way around.

[Conservative til I die]

While his rhetoric showed no signs of mellowing, the elder Gibson had plenty of reasons to be satisfied. For one, he is a newlywed

Anyone else disturbed by the fact that Gibson's father rails against the evil post-Vatican II Church, yet is himself an adulterer?

[Land of the Irish]

There is nothing wrong with appreciating and wanting to celebrate the Latin Mass, which is fully allowed under Rome.

Oh, yeah? Then why in the next breath you say:

While Catholics MAY attend (an SSPX Mass) in an emergency... Why should there be any emergency? Has Rome granted every Catholic priest the right to offer the Tridentine Mass? If not, I would venture to say the Latin Mass is not "fully allowed".

[Conservative til I die]

I still want to know if Mel is a schismatic or not. I've read plenty of articles both before and now after his making of the Passion, and I still don't know either way.

I don't have a very high opinion of his father though, after reading this.

[Conservative til I die]

Most traditional Catholics I know apply the caution of St. Paul in his epistle to the Galatians and follow the Word of God over the word of any man.

Catholics are duty-bound to follow the Pope. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and stands as the head of the Church Christ endowed with the power to loose and bind, and to teach and forgive sins in His name. And the gates of Hell will never prevail against it.

Traditionalists who say that Vatican II is illegitimate or that all Popes since then are illegitimate, or that they don't feel they have to follow this doctrine or that doctrine, are in essence saying that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the CHurch.

[Conservative til I die]

I mean, why speak in a language no in the congregation can understand? How is this beneficial to anyone

Well, the reason, at least historically speaking, is that Latin was (and still is) the official language of the Church, and through much of the last 2000 years, the official language of much of Western civilization. Plus, because it is a dead language, the meaning of the words don't change, like they do today (ask someone 200 years ago what "gay" means, for example).

[Conservative til I die]

I don't believe for a minute that this is doing the majority of the congregation a bit of good.

To be fair, and this is coming from an evil Novus Ordo modernist, the Missals always had the Latin next to an English translation so that the congregants could follow along. Also, the whole Mass was not in Latin. There were parts in the vernacular.

[Conservative til I die]

The trunk is strong, solid. Yet a branch sprung fromt the trunk several decades years ago and called itself the Church and called the rest of the tree Schism. Does that make it so?

So what you're saying is that the Catholic Church, the one led by Pope John Paul II is not the real Catholic Church and that JP2 is an anti-pope? If so, then you are most certainly a schismatic, and more like a cultist.

[Conservative til I die]

Anyway, another reason I'm thankful for Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers. The Vatican is not, never will be, my dictator, as by God's grace, I'm in Christ's Church, not Rome's.

Gimme a break.

[Conservative til I die]

Martin Luther was a Catholic monk who, like many of the self-claimed "Traditional" Catholics, was dismayed by Scandal ... a corrupt Pope and wicked bishops. He decided to form his own church, which, frankly, didn't have anything much different than the Catholic Church except it denied the authority of Rome. Over time, other changes happened, but in Luther's lifetime he proclaimed the perpetual virginity of Mary, the communion of saints (intercession) and many other so-called "Catholic" practices that have since been condemned by most Protestant religions.

He also raped the Bible by shredding seven books from it, and then starting the Big Lie that these books are "Apocrypha" on par with the Gospel of Thomas.

[Gophack]

What I meant was that I'm a conservative Catholic who tries to live by the teachings of the Church which come from God.

[Gophack]

What you are saying is that Rome is in heresy. What I say is that it can not happen because Jesus left the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from error.

[1stFreedom]

The validity of the mass is not really the issue.

One can attend an Eastern Orthodox liturgy and fulfill one's obligation to attend mass (if no Catholic mass is available). One could probably attend a German Catholic Church (another scismatic sect) and fulfill the obligation. That isn't the issue.

The issue really has to do with obedience. This obediance is not only to the Canon law, but to what the Pope "binds on earth." That my friend, is authority given by GOD and documented in the Holy Scripture ("whatever you so shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven") This was not a situation in where a State of Emergency existed, so there was no cause for disobedience.

Obedience to the Pope is is one of the biggest differences between Catholic and PROTESTANT sects.

As far as intentions go, I believe it was St. Augustine who said that sons of Heretics are not the same as the heritics themselves.

Preserving tradition is nice. That's why there is the order of St. Peter (preserves the latin mass). Doing so out of disobedience is flat out wrong.

Canon law my friend is the rules and standards of the Church. It is not Dogma nor Theology. One cannot use Canon law as a basis for legalistic arguments to trump Theology with canon law. The theology of the Authority of the Papacy trumps Canon law.

You can blame modernists, the gay mafia, etc. But that's putting responsibility on others, not Lefebvre himself. If you are a Bishop and the Pope tells you to jump , you ask "How High" and not "Why?." You may not agree with his reasoning or order, then you humbly submit regardless and pray for understanding. Preserving the Latin Mass was not and is not an emergency -- Lefebvre had no grounds to disobey.

As far as giving Lefebre a "trial" to argue his case, that isn't done much anymore. Why? It just props these people up and makes them Hero's to those who dissent. This is why pro-abortion politicians are not given excommunication trials. It would just rally their supporters and make them national heros.

>>He had said over and over he acted in accordance with his conscience and disobeyed the Pope for the sake of not harming the Catholic Church .

Disobeying the Pope in the first place caused more harm than preserving the tradition. His intention to disobey in this matter which was not an "emergency" was bad. It's not like the Pope asked him to declare that Jesus wasn't God. What the pope asked was perfectly fine.

What he should have done is obeyed but continue to press his case in private with the Pope. But, like other PROTESTANTS, he just followed his own will.

SSPX is in excommuncation. Like it or not.

[Gophack]

I'm totally with you on Luther, I'm in no way excusing what he did. But the SSPX bunch who have dismissed the authority of Rome are similar to the early Luther in that he dismissed the authority of Rome, using scandal as his reason (SSPX claims Rome left them, a Scriptural impossibility).

I'm continually amazed that many Protestants who quote Luther and denounce the Catholic Church criticize Catholic devotion to Mary, the Real Presence, etc ... yet Luther had no problem with these early in his separate church. For example, I have one Protestant friend who despises the "Catholic" symbol of the crucifix ... yet most Lutherans use the crucifix in their services as a symbol of Christ's ultimate sacrifice for us.

God bless.

[1stFreedom]

>>
Anyway, another reason I'm thankful for Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers. The Vatican is not, never will be, my dictator, as by God's grace, I'm in Christ's Church, not Rome's.

You are not in Christ's Church. As an evangelical, you are in a Church created by man without the guidance of God. Who founded your particular sect? Was it an offshoot of Los Angeles based Foursquare Gospel? Check out the history of your church and the theology. Odds are it's about 100 years old or so.

As a former evangelical, I've been there. I do not doubt your heart or belief in God. I do doubt your Church.

[Straight Vermonter]

Agreed. Six years of Latin study here (Arma virumque cano..). Most Catholics pre-Vatican II went to Catholic schools so speaking and undestanding Latin was not particularly difficult.