Jim Caviezel: How The Passion Changed Him

"Please do not make absurd accusation without basis."

Plenty of basis. The present clash between Catholic Traditionalists and those who presently occupy the Vatican exactly parallels what happened in the time of Christ. Jesus also railed against religious leaders who substituted their own law for Sacred Tradition--which is precisely what Rome has been doing for forty years. The new Mass, in fact, is something recently cooked-up to replace the ancient Mass, the essential parts of which go back to the time of the Apostles.

And BTW--I'm a Catholic.

Thanks for the ping, Maeve!

"The present clash between Catholic Traditionalists and those who presently occupy the Vatican exactly parallels what happened in the time of Christ"

Confrontation within the church is nothing new based on the Church’s history. I have faith in the church just as in the past, that it will be guided to all truths.

"The new Mass, in fact, is something recently cooked-up to replace the ancient Mass, the essential parts of which go back to the time of the Apostles."

I may be wrong with my understanding on the Mass. As long as the Mass consists of the Liturgy and the Eucharistic parts, it is valid and complete. The other practices can be modified. I was told that during the Apostle time, the bread was split with their own hands and they were either seated or standing. It was only later the practice was changed to show more reverence.

You miss my point. Of course there have always been clashes and factions. That is not what has happened in the Church the past forty years. We have had a revolution. It is true the new Mass is valid--but that is not saying much. It is still a radical break with Sacred Tradition that subverts essential dogmas of the faith. In fact it is more expressive of a Protestant, paschal, congregation-centered theology than it is expressive of anything Catholic. In any case, the struggle is between those in authority who took over after Vatican II, and Sacred Tradition. And the question being fought-over is whether even a pope may oppose Sacred Tradition, substituting his own authority and inventions for what had been handed down for two thousand years. This is an enormous issue.

By the way, your point that the Mass may be modified is correct. But that is not what happened. The ancient Mass which had been modified here and there in minor ways over two millenia was abruptly scrapped and in its place a fabrication was substituted which was created out of whole cloth to resemble a Protestant worship service. In fact, there is very little difference between a Lutheran Lord's Supper service and the Novus Ordo. What was specifically Catholic theologically has been suppressed--just as Luther had done five hundred years ago. This is why bishops preferred communion in the hand, communicants standing while receiving, placing the presider's chair in the place of honor against the center wall of the sanctuary rather than the tabernacle--all designed to detract from the Real Presence. The idea is to emphasize the virtual Presence of Christ in the assembly and in Scripture--in the Protestant way. This is unCatholic and subverts the faith. Is it any wonder a Gallup poll finds that two-thirds of all Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence?

The schismatics might get a lot of slack rather than flack from most Catholics here (including some of us who prefer Tridentine Masses in communion with Rome over NO Masses or schismatic ghettos and look forward to authorized Tridentine Masses becoming normative again) if they would stop peddling the schism, keep a civil tongue in their heads as to Pope John Paul II and assume a Catholic posture of deference towards and respect for Christ's Vicar on Earth or, if they would stop posturing as though they were practicing Catholics while impudently looking down their collective schismatic nose at the pope. Unless and until, they are in a poor position to complain about being treated more charitably than they treat the pope.

This persistent peddling of ecclesiastical anarchy which butts into every thread remotely Catholic is quite tiresome even to people who are actually Traditional (including submission to the pope). Ten or twelve or fifteen posters who who are not satisfied to be ignored on anything they might care to post from the Remnant or the Angelus or any other rebellious rags but are totally obsessed with trying in vain to increase the schism.

SSPX is a fraud insofar as it claims to be Catholic. It is a caricature, founded and run by the excommunicated for the preening and self-worship of those titillated by their proximity to or actual acceptance of schism.

Another thread that ought to be about the substance of what promises to be the most important Christian (and, yes, Catholic) film produced in the history of the cinematic industry is hijacked for a lot of self-serving schismatic yak-yak about the claim (which Gibson has not seen fit to concede, admit much less propagandize that he MIGHT sin by schism. If Gibson is schismatic or attached to schism (which I doubt), that is no moe significant than the fact that Ingrid Bergman (who magnificentl portrayed Joan of Arc) was the mother of a child out of wedlock. Her portrayal of Joan of Arc stands on its own and is no advertisemnt fo fornocation. Gibson's film stands on its own and, whether he is Catholic or schismatic, the film proves nothing about the validity of either.

One final point. Many people who would not be caught dead attending ANY kind of Mass out of religious commitment (Billy Graham comes to mind) have expressed themselves as enthusiastic for this film. That is not because Gibson is Catholic or because Gibson may be a schismatic. It is because they loved the Book and look forward to the movie and/or have seen the movie and are Christian and anxious that the world should see graphically, in the highest art, the reality and meaning of the fact that God so loved the world that He sdent His only begotten Son

The schismatics might get a lot of slack rather than flack from most Catholics here (including some of us who prefer Tridentine Masses in communion with Rome over NO Masses or schismatic ghettos and look forward to authorized Tridentine Masses becoming normative again) if they would stop peddling the schism, keep a civil tongue in their heads as to Pope John Paul II and assume a Catholic posture of deference towards and respect for Christ's Vicar on Earth or, if they would stop posturing as though they were practicing Catholics while impudently looking down their collective schismatic nose at the pope. Unless and until, they are in a poor position to complain about being treated more charitably than they treat the pope.

This persistent peddling of ecclesiastical anarchy which butts into every thread remotely Catholic is quite tiresome even to people who are actually Traditional (including submission to the pope). Ten or twelve or fifteen posters who who are not satisfied to be ignored on anything they might care to post from the Remnant or the Angelus or any other rebellious rags but are totally obsessed with trying in vain to increase the schism.

SSPX is a fraud insofar as it claims to be Catholic. It is a caricature, founded and run by the excommunicated for the preening and self-worship of those titillated by their proximity to or actual acceptance of schism.

Another thread that ought to be about the substance of what promises to be the most important Christian (and, yes, Catholic) film produced in the history of the cinematic industry is hijacked for a lot of self-serving schismatic yak-yak about the claim (which Gibson has not seen fit to concede, admit much less propagandize that he MIGHT sin by schism. If Gibson is schismatic or attached to schism (which I doubt), that is no moe significant than the fact that Ingrid Bergman (who magnificentl portrayed Joan of Arc) was the mother of a child out of wedlock. Her portrayal of Joan of Arc stands on its own and is no advertisemnt fo fornocation. Gibson's film stands on its own and, whether he is Catholic or schismatic, the film proves nothing about the validity of either.

One final point. Many people who would not be caught dead attending ANY kind of Mass out of religious commitment (Billy Graham comes to mind) have expressed themselves as enthusiastic for this film. That is not because Gibson is Catholic or because Gibson may be a schismatic. It is because they loved the Book and look forward to the movie and/or have seen the movie and are Christian and anxious that the world should see graphically, in the highest art, the reality and meaning of the fact that God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son.

I appreciate the fact that you are sincerely seeking peace but peace will not and cannot occur so long as the schism continually attacks the pope and the Church and seeks to recruit people away from the Church whatever it may please the schismatics to say and say and say and say and.....

No, there is a revolution and its ringleaders have been excommunicated and its adherents declared in schism. Those to whom the Holy Spirit has entrusted genuine authority are those who govern the Church on earth and have the keys. Those who repair to their own personal interpretations of tradition over the authoritative kind worship themselves no less than did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and, misery loving company, miss no opportunity to scandalize the faithful by attempts to seducing those in communion with Rome to be in communion instead with the excommunicated. p> They are in a snit over the fact that authority excommunicated their heroes and declared their rebellion a schism. Their feelings are hurt. Their emotions are bruised. Their tastes are offended and their ids are in high gear. Storm and rage though they may, they do so, not on behalf of tradition, but on behalf of their impudent attempt to be the tail that wags the dog. They "feel good" inventing their own church. What else is new and so what?

They want their rebellion respected. In that regard they are strategically similar to the various fruits, nuts and vegetables in our secular politics who want respect for things and behaviors that can NEVER be respected.

The schismatics want to lob verbal mortars from a safe distance and pose as morally above the mere mortals who remain in the Church. That way, the schismatics can concentrate on petting their own ids rather than engaging in the hard work of cleaning out those malefactors (NOT the pope) who have polluted the Church within. They can shirk their responsibilities as Caholics by setting up their own little isolated hothouse where they can congratulate themselves full-time.

The SSPX schismatics are "conscientious" objectors (and shirkers) in the spiritual warfare of our time.

"....I will send the Spirit, and [He] will convict the world of its sins.."

I've said before that I have great respect for your learning, but still, those are some awfully harsh words.

"The schismatics"

If they have no intention of separating themselves from the institution of the See of Rome, and if they accept every tenet of the Catholic faith that a Catholic is required to accept, why are they schismatic?

"and look forward to authorized Tridentine Masses becoming normative again)"

I really think the Tridentine Mass would be a dead letter if not for the people you call schismatics. I think it would have been slain and buried by the modernist heretics.

"keep a civil tongue in their heads as to Pope John Paul II and assume a Catholic posture of deference towards and respect for Christ's Vicar on Earth"

I think I have.

"while impudently looking down their collective schismatic nose at the pope."

I want nothing more than to support the Holy Father wholeheartedly. However, he has done and not done things that make me ask questions. I have adopted the hypothesis that he's acted as he has because he doesn't want to precipitate a crisis such as the Anglicans are now suffering, but can you deny that there are questions to ask?

"This persistent peddling of ecclesiastical anarchy"

I don't see it that way. The two major currents that I see are those who think the Church started with Vat II, and those who think the previous 2,000 years should govern where Vat II contradicts them. It seems to me that the Traditionalists are far less anarchic than the Vat II enthusiasts.

"but are totally obsessed with trying in vain to increase the schism."

I have formed the impression that they are obsessed, if obsessed they are, with persuading people to return to Tradition as it was before modernism ravaged it.

"SSPX is a fraud insofar as it claims to be Catholic."

I've been to an SSPX Mass, and it looked very Catholic to me--prayer for the Holy Father and all.

"founded and run by the excommunicated"

They weren't excommunicated at the time SSPX was founded. As I understand it, the matter of excommunication arose after the Holy Father took the extraordinary step of insisting on selecting their bishops for them--which, in all likelihood, would have destroyed both SSPX and the last chance to preserve the Tridentine Mass.

"for the preening and self-worship of those titillated by their proximity to or actual acceptance of schism."

That's really harsh. I don't find proximity to schism to be titillating at all--which may be why I haven't been back to the SSPX Mass, I can't really say. It makes me sad that there's no indult Tridentine anywhere within an ocean of me, but there isn't. I have a choice of Japanese NO Masses, which feature various abuses, English NO Masses, which are worse, or the SSPX.

"...about the claim (which Gibson has not seen fit to concede, admit much less propagandize that he MIGHT sin by schism."

Now you're waxing tendentious. No one has alleged that Mr. Gibson is in schism. It is known that he only attends the Tridentine Mass.

"that is no more significant than the fact that Ingrid Bergman"

I think Mr. Gibson's film will turn out to be much more significant than Joan of Arc, and will have far-reaching effects. I wonder--and perhaps it's just wishful thinking--if people accustomed to NO Masses might not begin to see them as insufficiently reverent in view of Our Lord's sacrifice.

"whether he is Catholic or schismatic, the film proves nothing about the validity of either."

This hard-line condemnation of people who attend SSPX Masses is saddening. I really don't think it's accurate to say that they are all schismatic and not Catholic.

"One final point. Many people who would not be caught dead attending ANY kind of Mass...have expressed themselves as enthusiastic for this film...because they...are Christian and anxious that the world should see...the reality and meaning of the fact that God so loved the world that He sdent His only begotten Son."

It's worth saying at that point that the Tridentine Mass is the highest form of worship of God's only begotten son that man has ever seen, and if not for the SSPX, it would probably be lost to us forever.

Wow, such anger.

"No,"

No, what?

"there is a revolution and its ringleaders have been excommunicated and its adherents declared in schism."

It looks to me like a counter-revolution against modernism, and it is worth noting that the five people who incurred latae sententiae excommunication did so not for celebrating the Tridentine Mass, but for disobeying the Holy Father regarding the selection of bishops for their order.

Has the Holy Father insisted on selecting bishops for any other order?

Also, I have seen statements by Vatican officials that attending SSPX Masses is not forbidden, and does satisfy the requirement for Sunday attendance. Otherwise, I wouldn't have gone.

If he had wanted to, the Holy Father could have declared the whole kit and caboodle anathema, and made attendance an excommunicable offense, couldn't he? Instead, the Vatican vacated excommunications by a bishop for attending.

"Those to whom the Holy Spirit has entrusted genuine authority are those who govern the Church on earth and have the keys."

I'd like to explore that more. It seems to me that if heretics wormed their way into the Vatican, the Holy Spirit might transfer the locus of authenticity.

"Those who repair to their own personal interpretations of tradition"

That's what the modernists are doing. The SSPX are insisting on hewing to the 2,000 years of authoritative Tradition that the modernists have been trying to destroy.

"miss no opportunity to scandalize the faithful by attempts to seducing those in communion with Rome to be in communion instead with the excommunicated."

I can't remember any SSPX member here ever trying to persuade me to separate from Rome and accept SSPX as the highest authority.

"Their feelings are hurt."

Not for nothing, I think. They have caught a lot more flak from the Vatican than people like Mahoney have.

"Storm and rage though they may"

Ummm...pot...kettle...

"they do so, not on behalf of tradition, but on behalf of their impudent attempt to be the tail that wags the dog."

You can read their hearts?

"They "feel good" inventing their own church."

Reversing the modernist abuses and restoring the Church as it was ante bellum is "inventing your own church?"

"In that regard they are strategically similar to the various fruits, nuts and vegetables in our secular politics who want respect for things and behaviors that can NEVER be respected."

I can respect principled opposition to modernism. I read St. Pius X on modernism before I had ever heard of SSPX, and I have to tell you, it resonated. It read as though he were a writer today, looking around at what has happened, then composing a Papal communication predicting what the writer was actually looking at.

"pose as morally above the mere mortals who remain in the Church."

I remain in the Church, and I haven't gotten that impression.

"...rather than engaging in the hard work of cleaning out those malefactors (NOT the pope) who have polluted the Church within."

You have a point there. However, one must ask if they could have kept the Tridentine alive working within the Church.

"The SSPX schismatics are "conscientious" objectors (and shirkers) in the spiritual warfare of our time."

The Irish monks preserved Western Civilization by hiding in their monasteries, keeping the knowledge alive, and saving documents from destruction, not by doing battle with pagan armies.

"....I will send the Spirit, and [He] will convict the world of its sins.."

Okay, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that in the context of this thread.

There is a revolution all right, and it is being led by those who are invested in deception--and not surprisingly the Holy Spirit will have none of it. Check the landscape. It is strewn with wreckage. Had this "Second Pentecost," this "Springtime of renewal", these world youth rallies and Assisi prayer festivals been of God, they would have borne some fruit by now--instead of increasing evidence of failure. On the contrary, the only sign of promise is coming from a movie that was the brainchild of a traditionalist--and even here the Vatican has not had sense enough to fulsomely embrace it. Perhaps because it preaches Christ crucified--which embarrasses the higher echelon in its fruitless pursuit of "dialogue".

The notion that it is a "personal interpretation" to say this is hogwash. The only personal interpretation of the faith that is going on is coming out of Rome, not from traditionalists who follow the time-worn practices and doctrines of two millenia, and who introduce absolutely nothing new but revere as they ought what has been handed-down from the apostles. You confuse criticism of this celebrity-pontiff--which has been long overdue and exceedingly justified in view of his scandalous behavior--with some kind of act of rebellion or disobedience. It is a charge that is ridiculous given the provocations. Good Catholics who discern the damage this pontiff has inflicted on a suffering Church in defiance of past pontiffs who warned against his very policies have every right to speak out. There is nothing to be gained by pretending what is, somehow isn't. The problem is with the CEO, not with middle management.

You claim traditionalists are in some sort of "snit" about our "heroes" being supposedly "excommunicated" by a Canon Law which has provided its own proper exceptions. Not at all. We're comfortable we know who are the real defenders of the faith and who are the members of the wrecking-crew, just as we are certain there is no brand new array of gorgeous garments on an emperor who is stark naked. As for hurt feelings, our supposed shirking of the "spiritual warfare" and the rest of it, these are the usual accusations from people like yourself who are running on empty. You confuse criticism of the pope with failure to engage in the battle; in fact, we do just the opposite.

You wanted to know about "conviction" of sin in Confession.

The verse comes from the Gospel of St. John, Ch. 16, read as the Gospel on the 4th Sunday after Easter in the Old Rite.

Since the Church came into being on Pentecost, the 'conviction' of Penance/Confession could not exist until then.

That's why I quoted the passage...

*yawn*

If the FR Living Magisterium could debate the arguments made by traditionalists instead of long hysterical screeds it would go a long away in promoting its own obvious infallibility.

Don't you all have some kind of official seal for these decrees of excommunication? It would look more official.

Blah, blah, blah, and yet more blah.

If you are going to claim to respond to what I post, take note of what I post. I did NOT claim that "traditionalists" are in a snit over the justice meted out to your excommunicated heroes. Traditionalists respect and obey popes.

Your problem is that you battle the wrong enemy but are pacifists in the real war, sniffling up your sleeves about how mean the bad old pope was to your hereoes and ignoring the role that schismatic behavior, yours and that of others, has played and does play in the decline of our civilization. Sorry that your feelings are hurt and your rarified tastes are offended. Things get like that in the self-defined outer darkness of rebellion.

I don't run on empty at all. I run on the deposit of the Faith, the Teaching Magisterium (the Vatican not yours or that of the French upstart), 1975 years of Catholicism and looking forward to the future of the Church which is guaranteed. The future of the schism is guaranteed too but guaranteed to fail.

I gave the only SSPX attorney I know the opportunity for service in the pro-life movement but she declined since it did not pay well or at all and besides she and her son who teaxhes at one of your institutions were too busy glorifying themselves as having the "real" truth to do anything about the American Holocaust. Strange. In representing 1100 pro-lifers arrested at mills, I represented many born-agains, many Catholics in communion with Rome (the only kind there is), and even some agnostics and atheists but I never met a single SSPX schismatic at a Rescue much less represented one (because they had copped out of a real war in which would cost them more than a few hours blathering on the internet and I was practicing in what was then excommunicant Bishop Williamson's state. We never heard a peep of support of of him or his, either. Nor from the non-SSPX schismatics of Regina Laudis at Bethlehem, Connecticut.

Be sure to check in when you return to the Faith, if and when you ever do.

Traditionalists do not sopend their lives obsessing over their tastes and preferences and spend their lives in a pet over the nerve of some popes not to obey their every whim. If you want to leave the Church, God gave you free will and the ability to use it. If you sympathize with their rebellion and join it, you cannot be much of an ally in any event. We will get this done with you or without you.

You have previously posted how awful it is to live where you live. You won't move. This is not all about you or all about me. My permanent advice to you is that Christ had no fun on the cross. It wasn't easy. It wasn't fun. It comes down to obey or not the legitimately constituted authorities of His Church, not Lefebvre's sect. Be a Catholic or be SSPX. This is the Roman Catholic Church not Haight-Ashbury or Woodstock and you do not get to create it in your own image and likeness.

I have no more intention of engaging the "substance" of SSPX arguments than I have of engaging the "substance" of Unitarian-Universalists. There is NOTHING in either case worth engaging. If you want high-minded debate, I am not your elk. You will have to find someone of saintly patience and a more merciful attitude that mine. If any of you want a street fight, you're on. I am not going to play make believe and succor your ids into imagining that you have a leg to stand on or an argument worth listening to. You don't.

If you doubt the ordinary and extraordinary infallibility of the pope, add that notion to your proto-schismatic shopping basket.

You have previously posted how awful it is to live where you live. You won't move.

Yes, and you previously failed to tell me logistically how every single Catholic in the US can move to one of the handful of decent dioceses in the US and explain how those dioceses will accommodate the massive influx. Do tell.

If you want high-minded debate,

I do.

Apart from your own decree, I was not aware that traditionalists who attended Masses at SSPX chapels are thereby excommunicated and declared schismatic. We are also, according to you, without faith. Excuse me, but I don't think so. It's probably closer to the truth to say you are just being a pompous ass--or else are having a tantrum. I myself prefer to think this, rather than to believe you're as hate-filled as your screed--though I admit I may be wrong on this.

You even talk about a woman who is an "SSPX attorney" as if there were any such person. There isn't. The people who attend SSPX Masses do so as ordinary traditionalist Catholics--not as "SSPX" agents, whether or not they wish to join you in your favorite prolife causes. Even Rome with its proclivity for saying two different things at the same time has acknowledged this much. Only you deny it. You demand more docility in the face of the present conciliar circus than even the doctors of the Church would demand. Fine. Render it yourself. The rest of us will serve the Lord in our own fashion.

Your problem is that you battle the wrong enemy but are pacifists in the real war, sniffling up your sleeves about how mean the bad old pope was to your hereoes and ignoring the role that schismatic behavior...

OK I've heard about enough of this.

I've had so much fun bringing people to my church that I'm going to recruit you, my friend (and I do consider you a friend) into helping me build it.

Every post where I see (or am notified from the others I've pinged) of you using the infamous "s" word, I will do one thing toward increasing the amount of people - Catholics and non - who attend either my church or an SSPX chappel near them.

I was going to attempt this at every incident (as opposed to the post) where you you use the word but it seems I wouldn't have time to sleep the way you over-use it. So if you use it in a particular post you may as well "schism" away. As only the post itself counts.

BTW, you know in all honesty that schism hasn't been established so I fail to understand why you continue to throw this word around in seemingly every post on the subject.

I also think that if you're so strong in your beliefs, you should stay home when "The Passion" comes out, as much of the funds will be used to help the cause you seem to have such disdain for. If being a good Catholic is disdain for SSPX et al and helping such is so wrong, I don't think you should go to the movie and help to fund us.

But that's just me. Feel free to go as Mel will use your money wisely.

If you're my friend you will stop calling me this or as a friendly gesture you will aid us. If the latter your effort will be appreciated very much during collection time.

I will be letting you know what I will be doing for every post where you use this word. I'll either give you a link or let you know what it is I have done. I will provide proof should you so desire, I do not "kid" about stuff like this either.

Thank you for inspiring me and may God's blessings be upon you and yours.