Mel Gibson says his wife could be going to hell

MSNBC ^ | 02/10/04 | Jeannette Walls

[evets]

Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.” He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”

[DallasMike]

I am a lifelong Catholic and spent 9 years in Catholic school, and I was never taught that you must be Catholic to be saved. Never.

That used to be the official teaching of the Catholic Church but the teaching has changed. The Unam Sanctum (a papal bull issued by Pope Boniface in 1302), says this:

"With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly bellieve and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…

"Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Several popes and 3 councils confirmed this papal bull and it was an official Catholic dogma for almost 700 years..

Then along came Vatican Council II (1962-1965) and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. All of a sudden, the definition of "Christian" included others than just Catholics. In fact, not only did the Catholic Church drop the requirement to be a Catholic, but now Moslems are specifically identified as believers, too:

"15. The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. For there are many who hold sacred scripture in honor as a rule of faith and of life, who have a sincere religious zeal, who lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour, who are sealed by baptism which unites them to Christ, and who indeed recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities…

"16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways. There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. … "

Here is a big example of the Roman Catholic Church effecting a change in matters of faith and morals. What happened in Vatican II wasn't just a clarification of existing dogma -- it was a complete 180° turn.

[Maximilian]

Is this an ex cathedra position or is the attempt to harmonize the "incompatible" doctrines? I seek to know, not argue.

There are only certain very limited circumstances in which something is declared "ex cathedra" which guarantees extraordinay infallibility. But all defined dogmas share in the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium which applies to all the doctrines that have always been taught and believed by Catholics. For example, the trinity has never been defined ex cathedra. It's too much a part of normal Catholic dogma to need to be defined in this way. But it is certainly an infallible teaching.

[dangus]

>>There's always gott a be a few arsonists in every crowd, pruposely twisting and misconstruing stuff so as to prevent people from reaching an understanding.<<

>Speaking of which, haven't seen you on the Calvinist side of the house lately.<

There does come a point when I realize I'm not making myself understood, and am merely ruffling feathers. But really, the biggest thing is I haven't seen so much Catholic baiting.

[jtminton]

If by 'Servant of Satan', you mean non-Catholic, then guilty as charged.

As far as taking things out of context, I assume you mean that I need to read the entire Vatican Council II and will be enlightened as to how the Pope saying that redemtion covers Muslims doesn't actually mean that redemtion covers Muslims. But them I find myself thinking of how you said that what the Pope said is Scriptual, and I'm confused. I never read in the Bible once where salvation came from any other place than Jesus, except in the Old Testament, which of course is part of the old convenant, with Jesus being the new covenant. Now while Islam says that Jesus was a Prophet, they don't acknowledge that he is the son of God, but I digress.


I guess what I'm getting at is that your reply left me even more confused than when I started.

P.S. Try decaf.

[DallasMike]

I believe Gibson is wrong in this. But I wont fault him and the ritualistic traditions of his denomination. To each their own. Faith in Christ is all that matters.

Great post! Gibson has been very good about reaching out to all Christians in the screenings of this film. I plan to see the movie the first day of its release.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

...think of how many people you would bring to Chirs!!

Look, all I was saying is that the Catholic church is not a fit institution for providing spiritual guidance, that's all. Yes, it does a decent job with social outreach programs, but it should leave spiritual instruction to the Holy Spirit and quit trying to invent doctrine from thin air.

As for the hucksters and halfwits within the ranks of the Protestant denominations, you will get no argument from me that they should be neutered.

If you want us to walk together as brothers and sisters under the same banner, let that banner be of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I serve no other and I recognize no other church, save the one established by His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. If you and I can agree that it is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from all unrighteousness and that alone, then we are of the same family. No works are required, only faith in Jesus' infinite grace can save us from eternal separation from God.

[biblewonk]

is it safe to assume that you don't go to one of those churches where the preacher walks around with the Bible in his hand, quotes a few scriptures, then incoherently babbles his interpretations about what it really means and how giving him more money is surely one of the requirements?

I definitely don't go to a church like that. I go to a Plymouth Brethren church where we don't have any professional Christians on the staff, only elders who actually work for a living. We don't have much need for money and it is almost never mentioned from the pulpit. I wonder why you wonder that.

[DallasMike]

Well yes, it is very old, it goes back to 33AD

I respectfully disagree. The early church knew nothing of the Papacy, the veneration of Mary and the saints, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conceptions, Mary's Perpetual Virginity, and the Bodily Assumption of Mary.

All of these things are "add-ons" and would not have been tolerated as sound doctrine in the early church.

[jtminton]

Lumen Gentium and the Catechism

I'm sorry, I guess my Bible doesn't have those in it either.

[HarleyD]

From some of my discussions on this board it seems the Catholics are all over the “board” with this one. The hard core Catholics would agree with Mel. Others are more tolerant and I’m just a “heretic”.

To be fair there are several Protestant denominations which would say the same thing both about the Catholics and perhaps other Protestants. I won’t get into all the various cults who feel they’re the “true church”.

I've been involved with many different churches over the years. I couldn’t list the numbers of people in various denominations who have told me I was heading to Hell because I didn’t see the scriptures as they saw them or wasn’t part of “their” body. Well, if I heading to be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity it’s no less than I deserve. I can only ask for God’s grace and mercy through our Lord Jesus, pray, and be as true to the scriptures as possible.

Everybody wants to say who God has saved. I can judge the actions of people in the church and I’ll argue doctrine but I certainly would not presume to make a call on another person’s personal relationship to God. That is a line I would NEVER cross.

The cross of Christ is SIMPLE. If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you shall be saved. We just make it difficult.

[Gamecock]

You make some very good points.

IMHO the churches who claim that they are the only way are showing cultish behaviour.

[Gamecock]

But really, the biggest thing is I haven't seen so much Catholic baiting.

Miss us? ;-)

[biblewonk]

I don't remember any such teaching either.

Interview a hundred different catholics from different churches and you will be amazed at the things you hear. I know I know, it's all one big happy church and there is only one cathism(sp). In practice it's a very different story.

[WKB]

The cross of Christ is SIMPLE. If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you shall be saved. We just make it difficult.



AMEN!!

[DallasMike]

To be fair there are several Protestant denominations which would say the same thing both about the Catholics and perhaps other Protestants. I won’t get into all the various cults who feel they’re the “true church”.

Exactly. There's a lot of bad doctrine out there and we all need to guard against heresies entering our churches.

[CWW]

Listen, the Church can be accused of a lot of things, but it does not create doctrine out of thin air. You obviously have no understanding about how difficult and long the process is that the Catholic Church undertakes before pronouncing that a teaching is a doctrine of the Church. Sometimes it takes literally centuries of open debate, scholarship and most importantly, prayer. A perfect example is the fact that the Nicean Creed (or Apostle's Creed)was not finalized until the 4th century.

Furthermore, as cogently illustrated by the statements in this thread, alleged doctrines are often attribted to the the Catholic Church which are not, in fact, Church doctrine.

In fact, there are a surprisingly limited number of actual teachings that are considered essential doctrine of the Church, and most of those are set forth in the Apostle's' Creed.

I consider your statement that the Catholic Church is a good social organization, but not a proper standard bearer for the Christian Faith, Ito be offensive at worst and ignorant at best.

The Church is an institution created by God but occupied by falliable men. Like any institution that has human influence, it will make mistakes and it often has. But, as Christ stated when he annointed Peter as the first Pope, the "Gates of Hell will not Prevail Against It."

You may be able to point to current problems in the Church, such as the sex abuse problem in the U.S., but these errors are fleeting, and cannot be used to indict the entire Church and its role as the principal teacher of the Christian Faith in the World for 21 centuries -- 900+ million Catholics cannot all be wrong.

May you find peace. In Christ, CWW

[jtminton]

Were you ever taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, never had sexual intercourse after she gave birth to Jesus? Before OR after. Yes

I bet James would have something to say about that.
(see Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3)

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

First let me say that I believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is, as the Bible says "Blessed among women".

However, no where in the Holy Bible does it say that Mary never had sexual intercourse after the birth of Jesus. On the contrary, it talks of Jesus' brothers, James and Joseph. These are not his cousins or the children of another 'Mary', but the half-brothers of Jesus Christ.

Were Mary's parents without sin? If not, how could they give birth to a sinless child?

Regarding communion, and I am not meaning to sound flippant, but if the wafer becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes His blood, then why doesn't it taste like flesh and blood? And if it is all just meant as metaphor, then aren't we both in agreement? I agree that Christ said it was his blood and body that the disciples were consuming, but don't you think they would have posed alot more questions about this practice if they truly believed the contents to be actual flesh and blood?

As for the question about Mary's position as co-redemptrix, I have heard that position encouraged by other Catholics, but admittedly not by all. My question would be, why pray to another, lesser being when Jesus Christ paved the way for us to pray through Him and have instant access to the Father? What can Mary or Michael the Archangel or my deceased father who is now in heaven, do for me that I cannot already have done for me by the King of kings and my kinsman Redeemer, Jesus Christ?

[biblewonk]

I'll take the pope's version any day over the fine evangelical bible interpreters such as Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Jimmy Sweigart, the buffoon in the glass palace, Jim Baker, the harsh looking & sounding lady form Texas, and the other assorted TV personalities who equate one's blessings with how shiny your Rolex is.

Is he capable of giving an opinion still?

[4Godsoloved..Hegave]

I don't mean to be contrary, but "men" wrote the Bible. Jesus' teaching were in the oral tradition and written up long after.

---

Although God used men to pen the words, it is and has always been His Words. No different than the Lord using the Old Testament Prophets to speak His Words to His people.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.