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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 321-333 next last
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]

To: leprechaun9
There was also a very good reason behind the use of Latin, it united the Church across national borders, it was basically a way to circumvent the "Tower of Babel" issue.
251 posted on 02/20/2004 5:23:40 PM PST by olde north church (American's aren't more violent, we're just better shots!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

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

Gibson isn't affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, so Cardinal Gantin's declaration of ipso facto excommunication doesn't concern Gibson.

Also, the ipso facto declaration of Lefevbre and the bishops associated with him do not apply to anyone other than the bishops, let alone the faithful who attend Society chapels. In fact, recently Bishop Perle of the Eclessia Dei Commission said that it was permissable to attend Masses at Society chapels and even could even make a donation to the collection.

Finally, when the local Bishop of Hawaii declared five Catholics who attended the Society chapel in Honolulu excommunicated in 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger himself declared that the Bishop overstepped his authority and that the people who attended the chapel were Catholics in good standing.

You need more evidence to declare Gibson a schismatic than the fact that he attends a unauthorized Latin Mass.

252 posted on 02/20/2004 5:27:57 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
You need more evidence to declare Gibson a schismatic than the fact that he attends a unauthorized Latin Mass.

I no longer care.

253 posted on 02/20/2004 5:30:08 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Eva
There is a lot of nonsense printed about traditional Catholics in the newspapers by reporters who don't know what they're talking about. Gibson's father may be a sedevacantist--someone who is Catholic but believes the present pope is illegitimate--but there has never been any indication that Gibson shares his view.
254 posted on 02/20/2004 6:18:58 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I hate it when irreligious people try to express opinions about any type of Christianity. They think that we are all nuts, and speaking of nuts, I think that Mel's dad may be a little senile.
255 posted on 02/20/2004 6:31:57 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
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.

Here, we get to the real reason why so many in the media want Mel to fail. God forbid that anyone have an opinion that differs from the Official Follywood Dogma!

256 posted on 02/20/2004 6:33:43 PM PST by Paul Atreides (Is it really so difficult to post the entire article?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I suggest that Jews stay home and not see the movie. Period. This is a Christian movie by a man of faith designed to be understood by Christians. I suggest that Jews take the advice given to Christians when an anti-Christian movie is made--don't buy a ticket.
257 posted on 02/20/2004 6:34:31 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
The notion that a good Catholic can't reject Vatican II is ridiculous. It was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council--hence nothing it decreed is binding. In fact, it was a disastrous event which led to a widespread collapse of the faith.
258 posted on 02/20/2004 6:39:48 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
The Church's quarrel is with its own history and tradition.
259 posted on 02/20/2004 6:42:14 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You're still talking about "decrees of excommunication" issued by the Pope against the SSPX. This is patent nonsense. There was no decree. It was latae sententiae--automatic, an assumption based on the violation of a canon law. But the same law provided exceptions--one of which Archbishop Lefebvre evoked in good conscience. Hence, no excommunication.
260 posted on 02/20/2004 6:46:31 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 321-333 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