Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson: $5 Mil to Fringe Church (FOX attacks "antiquated Catholic ideology")
FOX ^ | Friday, February 20, 2004 | By Roger Friedman

Posted on 02/20/2004 5:46:17 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

Mel Gibson's put his money where his mouth is. By now everyone in the world knows he's spent $25 million to make "The Passion of the Christ" and promised nearly $25M more to market it.

But what you may not know is that Gibson has also put up $5.1 million so far to run his own personal church near Malibu.

Last year Christopher Noxon wrote in The New York Times that Gibson had donated $2.3 million to make Holy Family Catholic Church in Agoura Hills, California a reality. Holy Family rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Conference and chooses to stick with antiquated Catholic ideology.

Bu it turns out that Gibson has donated a little more than twice that amount to Holy Family since 1999, according to federal tax filings. And that's not counting 2003, since the most recent report has not yet been filed.

Gibson and his wife Robyn are listed in federal tax records as directors of the Holy Family Catholic Church. The church is run out of Gibson's Icon Production company offices, with an Icon employee responsible for keeping the church's books.

The Gibsons' tax-free donations to Holy Family are made possible by a charity they established called the AP Reilly Foundation, which is named for Mel's late mother. The foundation was created on October 29, 1999 for the sole purpose of creating the church.

The church, by the way, has an unlisted phone number, keeps its address a secret and has asked those who have the information not to release it.

Gibson is no stranger to controversy when it comes to voicing his opinion about his religious beliefs. In a 1992 interview with the Spanish magazine El Pais, his comments about homosexuals — which cannot be printed here — caused an international stir.

In the same interview Gibson talked about the fact that his brand of Traditionalist Catholics did not subscribe to the Second Vatican Council's 1965 rulings on various subjects including who was responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholicbashing; catholiclist; christianlist; clashofcivilizatio; medianews; presstitutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-333 next last
To: keats5
I think the Church is there for them whenever they want it. If they let guitar music and plain clothing on nuns turn them away from the Church, that is sad.
201 posted on 02/20/2004 11:48:22 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Mel Gibson bump.
202 posted on 02/20/2004 11:58:54 AM PST by tuesday afternoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogator
"The dwindling number of parishioners was much more severe pre-V2 than the church is facing now "

I would like to see your evidence for this statement. It contradicts everything I have seen.

Are you Catholic? Were you? If you are or were, I cannot fathom how you would think that the RCC was/is growing slower 'after' Vat2 than before ..

Current problems aside, the acceptance of the church with the priest facing the 'masses', in their native language, etc. was focused on being more 'appealing' and 'understandable' and 'personal.' Any light reading on Vat2, and it's purposes and intent would prove this.

10 Reasons for Vat2

203 posted on 02/20/2004 12:05:31 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Thanks for posting that. I hadn't seen it, and I've always appreciated the way Rabbi Lapin cuts through the smokescreen with his calm and reason. He also wrote an excellent (and supportive) piece about The Passion following his viewing at one of the early screenings.

From the last sentence, "A voice for all Americans who defend the Judeo-Christian values vital for our nation’s survival." Therein lies a major source of the anger and smear tactics coming at Gibson and his film. It's perceived as a major threat to the socialist agenda that has worked so hard to obliterate all traces of this nation's traditional values.

204 posted on 02/20/2004 12:12:10 PM PST by lonevoice (Some things have to be believed to be seen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Of course Gibson is free to believe whatever it is that he chooses, despite the teachings of the Pope.

Who is more honest -- someone who rejects the direction and leadership of the Vatican and sets off on his own course, or a person who figures s/he is Catholic by birth but rarely attends mass and ignores what the Pope says at his/her leisure?

Never mind that his father only days ago referred to this Pope as an a$$.........

I am not a Catholic, but wouldn't call JPII such a name. There have been monsters who served in the Vatican in centuries past; the current one is not one of them.

205 posted on 02/20/2004 12:12:54 PM PST by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
They ARE universally accepted within the Catholic Church.

It really depends on who you view as being the true Catholic church.Those who have assumed power in the last century(Vatican II) or those who go by 1900 years of strict,unaltered Catholic teachings.

Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome.

No Traditionalist Catholic church in the world is really in union with Rome,they havent been since Vatican II assumed power and made sweeping liberal changes.

It is by no means a fringe group either,Traditionalists number in the millions.There would be more,but most papist Catholics view learning Latin and fasting as a drag.The imitation of Christ hasnt been fashionable for a good 50 years now.

206 posted on 02/20/2004 12:26:58 PM PST by smpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines; Northern Yankee; barbcsr; Uncle Jaque; DallasMike; karenbarinka; dakine; ...
Helping to cover the Passion Ping list while kstewskis is away

Order your advanced tickets for "The Passion of The Christ"! 1-800-353-6102 1-888-227-1152 Send Mel a message of support! Needing promotional materials for "The Passion of The Christ" to share with family, friends, or your church?

Share THE PASSION during the holy season of Lenten renewal

This is a ping list for those who wish to share in viewing Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, while observing the traditions of Lent together.

If you want on or off this list, please FReepmail Northern Yankee

If you want to see what areas and countries are supporting the film, and how you can support and promote The Passion of Christ (the official title) to show at a theater near you, please visit this link: Support The Passion of Christ The Passion of Christ main page (another awesome link thanks to Paul Atreides!)

207 posted on 02/20/2004 12:33:51 PM PST by lonevoice (Some things have to be believed to be seen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I think the Church is there for them whenever they want it. If they let guitar music and plain clothing on nuns turn them away from the Church, that is sad.

And Latin Mass,deep undistracted prayer and gregorian chants are there for liberal Catholics whenever they want it.Rome hasnt cast every Traditionalist church as schismatic,so its availabe to all who want to experience strict Catholicism.How can it be a bad thing to pray the way 1900 years of Catholics have,ie,directly to Christ and Mary without a middle man?Each to their own.

208 posted on 02/20/2004 12:49:06 PM PST by smpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: smpc
Learning Latin is imitating Christ?
209 posted on 02/20/2004 12:53:14 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: GraceCoolidge
I just don't get the point of so many people being upset over whether Mel Gibson's
chapel is acceptable to Rome...


I don't know if it was posted here, but The Los Angeles Times ran what I
(as a non-Catholic) would call a "fair-and-balanced" report on the traditional
Catholic presence here in Southern California.

As a fairly conservative Protestant kinda' guy, I thought it was an intersting
article.
210 posted on 02/20/2004 12:58:17 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
My own take is it's a passion play amplified 100x due to cinematic ability to better convey blood and gore. A bloody shootout (Jews vs Jesus) done with the special effects of modern film making.

BTW:I think the film is about more that just "Jews versus Jesus" "Pharisees versus Jesus" "Romans versus Jesus"

"Mel does a Tarantino job on Christ" is the second article.

>>>>>>>>>>







http://wquercus.com/passion.htm


My own viewing of the film (not written by dennsiw)

Summary
I saw a nearly completed version in Denver in January at the conference of the Fellowship of Catholic University Students. Based on that, I can affirm that all the statements made about the movie I've quoted above are true, both the comments from those who loved it and from those who are concerned. It is a beautiful and well-crafted work of art. It is a clearly Catholic work, accenting the self-giving of Jesus, his relationship with Mary, and the Eucharist. It is gory, with excessive and gratuitous violence (including a crow plucking out the eyes of the "bad thief" after his taunting of Jesus).

And it does exaggerate the role of the Jews. There are many examples that could be cited. Jesus is beaten to a bloody pulp by the temple guards (and thrown off a bridge) before he ever gets to Caiaphas. Jews are present in the Praetorium for the scourging of Jesus--and only Romans express concerns about the excesses inflicted by both their own guards and the Jews. There are no sympathetic figures on the via dolorosa, except for figures from Scripture and tradition, such as Simon and Veronica, who have generally been seen as people who came to believe in Jesus--Gibson inexplicably left out Jesus greeting the women of Jerusalem. Caiaphas leads the procession to Calvary on a donkey, and presides over the execution as if he were in charge. The earthquake at the end, an act of divine vindictiveness, is barely noticed by Pilate, but creates a chasm in the temple (the Biblical tearing of the veil is left out, though).

It is a movie, with good and bad. For most Catholics, it will be a moving meditation on the sufferings of Christ. For others, it will be perhaps puzzling, perhaps just a work of art, perhaps revolting. For some, it will confirm their deepest prejudices.

Unfortunately, in the months since we first heard details emerge, advocates of the movie have refused to discuss it in objective terms. They have slandered those who have asked questions, glossed over the movie's inaccuracies and distortions, and have made excuses for its horrific violence.

And yet discussing such a movie is essential. We should be able to ask the same questions of it as we would ask of any film--What's good? What's not as effective? Where does it follow Scripture? Where does it depart? Why? Unfortunately, we've seen that those who have asked such questions to date have far too frequently received blank looks or hostility in return.

This movie needs to be evaluated in terms of the objective criteria provided by the US Catholic Bishops, and in the context of the history of passion plays. This is what a group of scholars did when they obtained the script. But the defenders of Mel focused on the question of how they got the script, and not on the issues they raised.

For my own part, I don't think Mel was being intentionally antisemitic. He wanted to make a movie focusing on the meaning of the Passion for us. He used the writings of an 18th century German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, as the basis, and this resulted in the inclusion of some problematic elements. Her Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the product of a pious but overworked imagination, and reflects both misunderstanding and ignorance of Scripture and unquestioning acceptance of antisemitic assumptions that prevailed among Catholics of the era. Some of her most bizarre scenes that were in the initial script, as indicated by the Scholars Report, are not in the movie (e.g., Caiaphas having the cross made in the temple courtyard, Jesus having the Passover lamb killed in the upper room rather than the temple). But her "visions" are so much a part of this movie that it would be fair to say it is a movie of her book, not of the Gospels.

In months gone by, some few spoke of boycotting or protesting the movie. That, I think, would be extreme, and inappropriate. But the reaction to this film (and questioning of it) does underscore the question of how well Catholic theologians and leaders are communicating contemporary Catholic teaching on the Passion and on relations with the Jews, and so provides an opportunity for discussion and education.

Would I recommend it to people who want to know about Jesus and the gospel? No. I'd tell them to see "The Gospel of John," "Jesus" (based on Luke's gospel alone), or even "Jesus of Nazareth." But I would use "Passion" as an example of a great work of art that unfortunately presents wrongful stereotypes and pre-Vatican 2 theology.

The positives
The movie, as I said, is a very Catholic vision. It is easy to see why so many Catholics have got so caught up in it that the offensive parts have slipped by them. It is harder for me to understand why Evangelicals have shared their enthusiasm.

The film opens with a scripture that accents the theological point Gibson wants us to focus on: Isaiah 53 ("He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities--with his stripes we are healed"). We are then in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus confronts Satan. The scene is a creative parallel to the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, and raises the question: Can Jesus really bear the sins of the world? Can he go through with it? Does God even want him to? (This is really the same question posed by Kazantzakis, though in a different way).

I like the way he deals with Malchus, whose ear is severed by a frightened Peter, and restored by Jesus.

I think it oddly effective the way Mary wakes up at night and asks the question from the Seder, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" (a contribution from the actress herself).

There are some very effective scenes highlighting the relationship between Jesus and Mary, including a humorous exchange in the carpenter's shop which shows some playfulness between them (a scene that really surprised me, because no one had mentioned it to me).

Though it is not scriptural, I appreciate Gibson's use of the Stations of the Cross and the Pieta. These make the film a piece of devotional art, rather than an historical portrayal. If this had been accented from the beginning, instead of the claim that it was "the most accurate movie ever," things may have been a little different.

Though it is not scriptural, I think the scene of the child-demons taunting the despairing Judas is an amazing interpretation, and quite chilling.

The various flashbacks are very well done, and serve both to break up the violence and to accent theological points.

The Eucharistic themes are very powerful; flashbacks throughout the crucifixion take us back to the Last Supper, and the unwrapping of the bread, and the blessing of the bread and cup.

In a scene at the end, the camera follows a raindrop from the sky (a tear from heaven?) until it splashes at the foot of the cross; the sound reverberates and leads into the earthquake. A striking piece of film--though theologically suspect, as I'll highlight below.

It is easy to understand why Catholics get so emotionally caught up in it that they have often failed to notice the problems--and these are many.

The negatives
Gibson is not merely telling the Gospel account, but adds to it in ways that consistently accent the culpability of Jews and mitigate that of the Romans. He adds violent beatings of Jesus--by Jews--that are not in Scripture. He changes the entire feel of the story as the Gospels tell it. In the Scriptural account, Jesus is snatched quietly, at night, to avoid the crowds. Jesus is willing to go quietly, and keeps the disciples from fighting back. He is held while the high priest gathers his council. During it, there is some physical abuse by the guards and some taunting and one slapping of his face, but the Evangelists don't elaborate on this or draw it out. Then he is delivered to Pilate. Gibson changes the tenor of all these scenes, making them more dramatic, more violent, more frightening. He also adds scenes that contradict explicit statements in Scripture. According to John, the Jews refuse to enter the Praetorium. No Jew--not even a disciple--is depicted as present in the Praetorium. But Gibson has them there.

In Mel's version, the beating of Jesus begins immediately upon his arrest, contrary to the Gospels. He is wrapped in chains, and at one point thrown off a bridge. These added beatings, by Jews, and the behavior of the Jews in subsequent scenes, make them a bloodthirsty, barbarous people--the only exceptions being those who believe in Jesus or are sympathetic to his cause. Jews are depicted in customary stereotypes, as greedy and money-grubbing, who can be easily bought off in the middle of the night. The Jewish leaders are seen as the equals of or more powerful than the Romans, which is contrary to history. The Jewish high priest at the time was a Roman appointee, answerable to Pilate--not in Mel's version, though.

The Jewish violence which began in the garden is unleashed without mercy in the court of the high priest. Jesus arrives, a bruised and bloody mess--perhaps a hundred people are crammed into the room, anxious for the spectacle to begin. Immediately after the "trial," the priests take turns hitting and spitting on Jesus, and then the guards and observers join in, beating him with sadistic glee. In this melee Peter, who is in the room itself, is grabbed and manhandled, and accused of being a follower of Jesus.

Gibson's Pilate is a weak and indecisive administrator who grouses about the rabble and about being stuck in this stinking outpost. When the excessively large crowd gathers in the courtyard of the Praetorium, Pilate goes out and, seeing Jesus for the first time, is disgusted by what the Jews have done. He asks the priests, “Do you always punish them before you judge them?” In the scenes which follow, Pilate appears as a lone and weak representative of Rome, with inadequate troops at his disposal, not the brutal governor know from history. He muses, “If I don’t condemn him, Caiaphas will rebel. If I do, his followers will. Either way there will be bloodshed.” Soldiers inform him that there is already an uprising. The priests, temple guards, and people are growing ugly. But instead of putting them in their place, as the historical Pilate would have done, they are appeased.

Pilate decides to have Jesus beaten, thinking this will satisfy the bloodlust of the Jews. Jesus is taken within. The leading priests go in, watching through a gate--but clearly on Roman soil, contrary to the Gospels. Jesus is beaten first with rods until he collapses. There’s a pause. Jesus stands. The Romans are perturbed. They get the flagella. One hits the table—the metal embedded in the strands of the whip sticks fast in the surface of the table. They begin to apply it to Jesus’ back. It sticks, and rips skin away. The violence goes on longer than any human could withstand. The camera lingers, fascinated, voyeuristic. The only breaks are to follow Mary as she leaves the scene, unable to watch any more (yes, she is there--and she will wipe up the blood afterwards, using towels given to her by Pilate's wife).

A Roman comes and orders them to stop: “You were ordered to punish him, not to scourge him to death.” This is but the first instance where Romans are depicted as having a conscience, or at least a limit to what they will inflict on a person. The Jews have none. The Romans are egged on by Satan, wandering through the crowd--the Jews need no such encouragement.

In the version I saw, after Pilate gives in to their demands the crowd shouts, gleefully, “His blood be upon us and our children.” Pilate gives up, and says to his men, “Do as they wish.” Rumors say Mel has taken this line out. That's good, as it was traditionally understood by Christians to extend the guilt for Deicide through history to contemporary Jews; but it doesn't minimize the exaggerated depiction of the Jews that we've endured to this point. And more is to come.

The procession to Calvary appears to be a religious event, led by priests riding donkeys; flashbacks recall Palm Sunday. The crowds lining the road this time are hostile and merciless, berating and pummeling Jesus as he passes. The Romans beat them back. Arriving at Calvary, Jesus is nailed to the cross--again, the violence is exaggerated and excessive, with the camera lingering over the scene as the cross is flipped over, with Jesus face down; blood dripping; the protruding ends of the nails are bent over, and then the cross is flipped over the other way.

A thief taunts Jesus to save himself and them. The crowd joins in the taunting, as does the High Priest, who says, “If he is the Messiah, let him come down that we may believe.” Caiaphas walks around as if he is the senior official presiding over the execution. He does not protest at the sign nailed to the cross by the Romans. There is no division of roles here--they are doing his bidding.

When Jesus prays, "Father, forgive them," the good thief says (as in Scripture), “Listen, he prays for you. We deserve this, but he doesn’t. Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom” Jesus promises that he will be in paradise. The bad thief, Gesmas, laughs. A crow drops from heaven and pecks out his eyes. Hardly an answer to that prayer for forgiveness, is it?

The sky darkens, and the priests leave. The Romans let Mary approach. Throughout, they've shown her sympathy, assisting her in the crowd, casting nervous glances at her, talking amongst themselves.

Jesus dies. The camera looks down on Calvary. A drop of rain condenses, and the camera follows it down to the ground. It hits with explosive force, and an earthquake rocks the hill. Pilate is rattled. The temple is hit hardest; a chasm opens in the floor, and rocks fall on the priests. The sense is clearly one of divine judgment (like the crow eating the eyes of the thief). The drop of rain is like a divine tear; we see a picture of God as grieving in human fashion, his grief quickly turning to anger, and lashing out, not at the Romans, but at the Jews, and particularly at the Jewish religious authorities.

It is an awful depiction, and recalls the worst of medieval passion plays. Yet most of the Christians in the usually select audiences that have seen it so far are oblivious to these things. Even a handful of politically conservative Jewish commentators claim to have seen nothing problematic. But those Jews who have seen it who are not predisposed to be generous to Mel have been shocked by the portrayal. A special screening in Houston included local Jewish community members and representatives of the national offices of the ADL and American Jewish Committee. All had similar reactions. They sat like strangers in the auditorium, unable to understand the emotional reactions of the Christians around them, and unable to understand, when they spoke with those Christians later, how they could have missed the parts of the film that so troubled the Jews.

211 posted on 02/20/2004 1:36:08 PM PST by dennisw ("Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass it's the American way" - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
________________________________________


Here are some comments from viewers of the film here in Australia, including Jews. This was published in the Daily Telegraph:


Mel does a Tarantino job on Christ
February 20, 2004

FEDERAL MPs were 'visibly shaken' by Mel Gibson's film on Christ, reports TORY MAGUIRE.

Jewish MP Michael Danby hadn't seen such violence "since I went to a Quentin Tarantino film", he said after an advance screening of Mel Gibson's new film about Jesus Christ.

Multicultural Affairs Minister Gary Hardgrave had to turn away from the screen many times and left the theatre with pulse racing.

And Sydney MP Bruce Baird called it "brutal" and "gory".

Three hundred MPs and staffers got to view The Passion of Christ at Parliament House on Wednesday.

Filmed in Aramaic, the movie has raised allegations it is anti-Semitic and too violent.

Verdicts on the film's merits differed but the consistent theme was that it was "confronting", "gory" and "brutal." Some viewers left the theatre in tears at the end of the screening and many, including Treasurer Peter Costello and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, were visibly shaken.

Sydney MP Bruce Baird said he thought the movie was a faithful depiction of Christ's final 12 hours but "I wished they didn't spend quite as long on the floggings".
Parliamentary Christian Fellowship chairman Mr Baird helped organise the screening. He said parents should not take children under 16 to see the film.

Mr Hardgrave said he would advise those who were disturbed by the film to see their priest or rabbi or other religious elder. "The amount of violence was just breathtaking," Mr Hardgrave said.

"We all knew that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and rose again, but to see the suffering portrayed was very confronting."

Mr Danby was "taken aback by the violence and, frankly, I found that two hours of Aramaic and subtitles is hard going".

"I was probably the only person in the whole audience who understood large parts of the film because Aramaic is like Hewbrew and I speak Hewbrew," he said.

Just yesterday, Gibson's father Hutton Gibson caused a stir in the US when he said on radio he thought claims of the Holocaust were "exaggerated". "It's all – maybe not all fiction – but most of it is," Mr Gibson Sr said.
Mr Danby, however, said The Passion of Christ would not stir great anti-Semitism.

"I don't think there will be any major implications of this film," Mr Danby said.

"But it is my feeling from the film that Mel Gibson is his father's son.

"I think the Catholic Church and the Pope have over the past 30 years affected a reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity that is really wonderful and as far as I am concerned the Pope speaks for Catholics, not Mel Gibson."

212 posted on 02/20/2004 1:37:55 PM PST by dennisw ("Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass it's the American way" - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Please note: Paul is saying if there is something they wish to learn, ask their husbands. Indicates to me that they are not to be asking questions during the service. (But then again, men shouldn't be either - that's rather disruptive.)

Since we know the gifts of the spirit are not gender specific, and we know that prophesying/tongues speaking/interpretation of tongues was done in church, why would you presume that women did not do these things?

213 posted on 02/20/2004 1:53:57 PM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
his comments about homosexuals — which cannot be printed here — caused an international stir.

WTF??? Self censorship???

214 posted on 02/20/2004 1:55:57 PM PST by lawgirl (God to womankind: "Here's Cary Grant. Now don't say I never gave you anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Now you're telling me something I haven't heard before - that the film appears to depict God destroying the Second Temple as a punishment for Christ's death? That's certainly not in the Gospels.
215 posted on 02/20/2004 2:38:59 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Needs some verification. This is hard to believe.
216 posted on 02/20/2004 2:51:32 PM PST by dennisw ("Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass it's the American way" - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
"The dwindling number of parishioners was much more severe pre-V2 than the church is facing now "

I would like to see your evidence for this statement. It contradicts everything I have seen.

"Are you Catholic? Were you? If you are or were, I cannot fathom how you would think that the RCC was/is growing slower 'after' Vat2 than before .."


I think we must live in two different universes.

Count the numbers of priests, nuns, converts, fallen-away folks, closed churchs and schools, new churchs and schools percentage who attend weekly Mass etc. etc. etc.





217 posted on 02/20/2004 2:58:19 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: rogator
I cannot fathom how you would think that the RCC was/is growing slower 'after' Vat2 than before .."

I think we must live in two different universes.

Count the numbers of priests, nuns, converts, fallen-away folks, closed churchs and schools, new churchs and schools percentage who attend weekly Mass etc. etc. etc.

True ... and also count the number of deacons, eucaristic ministers, etc. that are making it so the church gets by on fewer priests, etc.

The point is not the 'troubles' that they church is currently now having, the point is that Vatican2 didn't cause them!! Do you really think that there would be as many Catholics as you have today if the church would have stayed in Latin with the priest not facing the parishioners, etc.? Guess we will never know, but my money is on the belief that the RCC would be competing in numbers with the Greek Orthodox in this country and not any where near it's present size.

Going back to pre-Vatican2 is NOT going to reverse the troubles you are listing ... moving Vatican 2 forward might!

218 posted on 02/20/2004 3:27:28 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I just reviewed all four Gospels - they all say that the earth shook and the Veil of the Temple was split and Matthew says that rocks were split and tombs were opened, and some the dead came out of their graves and walked in Jerusalem.
219 posted on 02/20/2004 3:41:58 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: valkyrieanne
I'm confused - is Mel Gibson Catholic or not?

Yes, he is Catholic but apparently too Catholic for some people here.

220 posted on 02/20/2004 4:14:53 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah ("We already have a beacon of moral clarity; the Living Magisterium."--Catholicguy 2/19/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: rogator
Further source info of noted growth ... and I am sure the growth would be much more if the priests scandals would not have occured, and much less if Vatican II did not occur:

"The worldwide Catholic population reached 1.06 billion at the end of 2001, an increase of nearly 1 percent from the previous year.

The number of baptized Catholics in the world had grown from 757 million in 1978 to 1.06 billion at the end of 2001. The greatest growth has been in Africa, where the number of Catholics increased 148 percent since 1978. Significant increases also have occurred in Asia, the Americas and Oceania, while the number of European Catholics has remained about the same over that period."

source

221 posted on 02/20/2004 4:19:26 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Gibson's chapel is not in union with the Catholic Church and Rome.

Please print the decree of excommunication on Free Republic for all to see.

Until you do that, I'll consider Gibson to be a Catholic in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.

222 posted on 02/20/2004 4:19:33 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
But what you may not know is that Gibson has also put up $5.1 million so far to run his own personal church near Malibu.

So what? Friedman makes it sound like Mel's running a whorehouse or an opium den. It's a CHURCH! Apparently, the church is not "abrogated" by the Big Man in Rome (and I say that in all affection), which I guess means Mel's church is still recognized and in communion with the rest of the RCC.

223 posted on 02/20/2004 4:22:01 PM PST by wimpycat ("Black holes are where God divided by zero.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
Gibson's chapel has 70 members and attendance is by invitation only. That's an "exclusive" church. I imagine that if he didn't do this, he would have to contend with groupies showing up there just to get a glimpse of him and possibly disrupting the service.

Also, private chapels have historically been very common for wealthy Catholics to own. There isn't a crime or sin here; the guy wants to worship at the ancient rite of Mass in peace. More power to him.

224 posted on 02/20/2004 4:23:39 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Gibson is not in union with Rome, though he will not come out and say so

Thank the Lord that you're not the person who decides who is in communion with Rome, and who isn't.

225 posted on 02/20/2004 4:25:27 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
ping
226 posted on 02/20/2004 4:26:07 PM PST by wtc911 (How can a blind man be a lookout?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
Thank the Lord that you're not the person who decides who is in communion with Rome, and who isn't.

I'm not the issue here, pal. Gibson is not in union with Rome.

227 posted on 02/20/2004 4:27:16 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
Until you do that, I'll consider Gibson to be a Catholic in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Fine. Go ahead. You're holding a position Gibson himself doesn't hold.

228 posted on 02/20/2004 4:28:25 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I asked you before but you didn't answer...what religion are you?
229 posted on 02/20/2004 4:28:39 PM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
. Is Mel going to hell for not being in union with Rome?

Well, to the modernist mind, the only people who go to hell are traditionalist Catholics. Everyone else is headed for the Pearly Gates.

230 posted on 02/20/2004 4:29:09 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Before long they'll be calling it a 'compound' and the FBI will burn the place to the ground.

LOL, but bitterly.

231 posted on 02/20/2004 4:33:59 PM PST by stands2reason (Liberal lurkers: stick around, you may just grow a brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
I asked you before but you didn't answer...what religion are you?

No you didn't. You made a snide remark and I ignored you.

Now that you've asked nicely, my religion is Roman Catholic. In fact, I'm a Roman Catholic deacon.

232 posted on 02/20/2004 4:35:42 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I believe that I read that the members of Gibson's church don't recognize the authority of the Pope. That is the major difference between Gibson's Catholic church and the Papal Roman Catholic Church. All protestants attest to the belief in the holy catholic church, catholic meaning Christian.
233 posted on 02/20/2004 4:40:24 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'm not the issue here, pal. Gibson is not in union with Rome.

Yes, but you are acting as his judge. Like I said before, publish the decree of Mel Gibson's excommunication on Free Republic. Until you do, I consider him a Catholic in full communion with the Church.

234 posted on 02/20/2004 4:40:39 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
The more I learn about Gibson, the more I like him

A man's character is attested to by his enemies as well as his friends.

235 posted on 02/20/2004 4:42:13 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You're holding a position Gibson himself doesn't hold

Did he tell you that when you met him at Kelsey's bar for darts last weekend?

236 posted on 02/20/2004 4:42:34 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
Are you Roman Catholic yourself? Traditionalist? Just curious as to what makes you qualified to judge whether someone who's rejected Vatican II is "in full communication with the Church."
237 posted on 02/20/2004 4:46:00 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You said Jesus wasn't NAILED to a Cross....Does your Priest know how you feel? Why don't you know what the TRUTH is??
238 posted on 02/20/2004 4:47:57 PM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
"The number of baptized Catholics in the world had grown from 757 million in 1978 to 1.06 billion at the end of 2001"

How many of these are attending Mass? - Not very many.

How many are attending fundamentalist or Morman churches? - Plenty.

239 posted on 02/20/2004 4:48:58 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You said Jesus wasn't NAILED to a Cross....Does your Priest know how you feel? Why don't you know what the TRUTH is??

Do you TEACH others that Jesus wasn't NAILED?? What about Doubing Thomas...do you not believe what Thomas said??

A Deacon, huh.

240 posted on 02/20/2004 4:49:26 PM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
You say, "You prefer the mass in Latin, I like it just fine in English. You like altar rails, I don't miss them. I like being able to watch the priest's face rather than his back, but the other way was OK, too."

1. But what you prefer is immaterial. The Mass isn't about you or any of us. It's about worshiping God appropriately. It's not supposed to be entertaining.

2. Kneeling for Communion expresses adoration for the Real Presence. Standing doesn't, but subtly subverts this belief.

3. Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the importance of facing east in his work, The Spirit of the Liturgy: "A common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord." (p. 81.)
241 posted on 02/20/2004 4:51:20 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: rogator
How many are attending fundamentalist or Morman churches? - Plenty.

True ... I are one ...

242 posted on 02/20/2004 4:52:38 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Folks opposed to Gibson's movie are doing their dead level best to exemplify their own stereotypes.

It's amazing....2000 years later and quite a few of the same cast members.

I can't recall LaLa Land ever this motivated against a movie since "Cruising" maybe...20 years ago.

243 posted on 02/20/2004 4:53:16 PM PST by wardaddy ("either the arabs are at your throat, or at your feet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Your quarrel is not with me, but with the Church.
244 posted on 02/20/2004 4:57:30 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Concise...I agree largely.
245 posted on 02/20/2004 5:00:35 PM PST by wardaddy ("either the arabs are at your throat, or at your feet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Jim Cane
...And Rome is not in union with The Word. What'ryegonnadoo?

so true ..

246 posted on 02/20/2004 5:00:45 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
Gibson follows an excommunicated sect.

He, therefore is excommunicated. The Decree excommunicating Marcel Lefebvre was issue by John Paul II in 1988.

247 posted on 02/20/2004 5:03:42 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Are you Roman Catholic yourself? Traditionalist? Just curious as to what makes you qualified to judge whether someone who's rejected Vatican II is "in full communication with the Church

Yes, I'm Catholic. And any baptized person who holds to the Catholic faith is a Roman Catholic, according to my catechism. I certainly don't have any authority to say that anyone is a Catholic. But neither does anyone-except for the Pope- have the authority to excommunicate Gibson.

248 posted on 02/20/2004 5:06:02 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Are you Roman Catholic yourself? Traditionalist? Just curious as to what makes you qualified to judge whether someone who's rejected Vatican II is "in full communication with the Church

Yes, I'm Catholic. And any baptized person who holds to the Catholic faith is a Roman Catholic, according to my catechism. I certainly don't have any authority to say that anyone is a Catholic. But neither does anyone-except for the Pope- have the authority to excommunicate Gibson.

249 posted on 02/20/2004 5:06:53 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Relax. I admitted I was mistaken. Read the entire thread.

Oh, and relax.

250 posted on 02/20/2004 5:08:29 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-333 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson