Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson says his wife could be going to hell
MSNBC ^ | 02/10/04 | Jeannette Walls

Posted on 02/10/2004 7:02:28 AM PST by 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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: adifferentgospel; catholiclist; gospelwhatgospel; romedrone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 461 next last
To: BlackElk; redlipstick
Anybody can perform baptisms in extraordinary circumstances, as you say. I admit to not being up to speed on the finer points of which Protestant baptisms are valid in the eyes of the Church and which are not, but nevertheless it is a general principle that ordinary baptisms should be performed by a priest.

The last time I took a look at Canon law, Catholics who marry Protestants in a non Roman Catholic ceremony without dispensation from the Church do not need to go through the process of annulment to remarry.
341 posted on 02/10/2004 11:57:44 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: NotQuiteCricket
As far as you state it, that is (A) correct and (B) exactly my point, about Gibson's being clueless on the Good News.

As to its bearing on the movie, maybe I'd be clearer if I compared it to a guy doing a movie on the life of Ronald Reagan, who said he believed that the best thing that could ever happen to a person is for the government to step in and take total control of his life.

You'd think, "Uh... I'm worried about what he's going to do with Reagan!"

See?

It's by no means a perfect analogy, but maybe that makes my concern clearer.

Dan
342 posted on 02/10/2004 12:02:36 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: All
Whoaa there Mel.

Now why did you have to say something that I will have to call you a heretic for? Gosh dang man!

Please take this back...
343 posted on 02/10/2004 12:07:33 PM PST by rwfromkansas ("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
The priests among the sedavacantists have apostolic succession. If the Orthodox Christians' communion is valid, and it is, then certainly the sedavacantists' communion is valid. Mr. Gibson, then, has received valid sacraments, and continues to do so. And he has not chosen to leave the church, but has sought to remain faithful to it. And while given priests have been excommunicated, I do not know of any excommunication of those who follow such priests, so even if excommunication equaled apostasy, and I don't believe it does, he would still not be apostatic.

And I affirm that I do not believe excommunication equals apostasy. I understand that the Jesuit order was excommunicated, yet among the excommunicated there were saints. Of course, this is because the Pope *was* wrong (in his temporal authority!). But of course, Mr. Gibson believes this Pope is wrong, too.
344 posted on 02/10/2004 12:08:54 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; ninenot; Salvation; saradippity; american colleen; CobaltBlue; Tantumergo; Aquinas; ...
I grew up in Connecticut when this particularly poisonous heresy was afoot in the person of door-to-door pests dressed without authority as priests and nuns. We were repeatedly warned by our quite orthodox pastor to send them packing when they arrived at the door. We did then. We do now.

Feeney was a quite useful priest so long as he kept to his mission given him by Richard Cardinal Cushing of establishing St. Benedict House at Harvard and to use Feeney's considerable intellect in a direct assault on communist ideology at Harvard. He then took off on his own tack and started the heretical view that unless you are a practicing and properly baptized Roman Catholic, you will go to hell. In one book shown to me by a Feeneyite client, he also degenerated into Donatism by suggesting that readers be baptized often because you never know whether your previous baptism(s) were marked by the correct intention.

The notion that he did not repent and repudiate his heresy is the understandable lie of those who insisted on continuing his prior heresy and simply denied that he had repudiated the heresy. That they say so does not make it so just like the claims of SSPX that they are not REALLY sedevacantist or not REALLY anti-papal or not REALLY schismatic or not REALLY operating on their own personal interpretation of Tradition (YOPIOT AND TOPIOT) does not prove that they are right as to any of those things or not REALLY what they are.

Your YOPIOT theory as to the meaning of extra ecclesia nulla salus is like some socially insecure boys who just cannot enjoy the tree house if girls are allowed in. There is a certain poverty of spirit in the notion of the Feeneyites that EENS means that they are an ever more exclusive club of the elect with ever more of those who take umbrage at the grabbing of their lapels by hysterics heading straight to hell. Ironically, the Feeneyites put themselves into an impossible intellectual contortion whereby they would effectively condemn themselves to hell but for the happy fact that their heresy, like all heresies, is wrong. See the regular schismatic whining about: Why can't the pope be as mean to the heterodox as he is to "St." Marcel, the Excommunicatus?

If Feeneyites or SSPX, for that matter, REALLY believe their deviations from Catholicism and Truth, via the route of invincible ignorance and despite superficial appearances of sophistication, any of them may yet be saved. In the case of Feeneyites, that would be in spite of themselves.

345 posted on 02/10/2004 12:22:07 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
***I deny that. Name 20 of the 224***


OK, I'll give you 21, but you won't like it! Several have their own Pope and most claim to have serious issues with Rome. I'll start with the obvious.

The Roman Catholic Church
Catholic Apostolic Church in North America (CACINA)
Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite
American Orthodox Catholic Church
Liberal Catholic Church
Liberal Catholic Church International
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church
The Catholic Church of the Apostles of the Latter Times
Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania
Traditional Catholic Counter-Revolution
Old Catholic Church of America
Old Catholic Church of the United States
Old Roman Catholic Church in North America
Old Roman Catholic Church of Great Britain
True Catholic
The Order Of The Magnificat Of The Mother Of God
Order of Carmelites of the Holy Face.
Order Missionary for the Salvation of the Spirits
A sectlet in Tiawan that I can't name, but they have a Pope and Bishops
Catholic Charismatic Church of Canada-USA
Holy Catholic Church - Western Rite

Now, you can say they aren't really Catholic. They say they are! Sounds like denominations to me. If you claim that they are wrong you will sound like a cult or something, so please give me a well thought out response.
346 posted on 02/10/2004 12:24:50 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sox
I went back. I read your post. To the extent that you disagree with the Church, I disagree with you. Section 847 of the Catholic Catechism says what needed saying. It is not and never was necessary to salvation that a person be a Roman Catholic or that a person practice the Roman Catholic Faith in order to be saved. There are broad exceptions and a marked distinction between the Roman Catholic Church (carrying the fullness of the Faith) and the wider Mystical Body of Christ.
347 posted on 02/10/2004 12:39:20 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
When I responded to you, I was operating under a false assumption as to where you were coming from. If I seemed hars, I probabl was and I apologize.

Baptism ought to be performed by a priest (or a deacon) in Church in rdinary circumstances so as to create a paper trail for First Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, et al., but strictly speaking need not be. Protestant baptisms and other baptisms outside the Church should not be for the mere purpose of creating membership in the Church but should also be for the forgiveness of any sin, and for the purpose of washing the baptized in the blood of the Lamb.

Not only must a marriage of a Catholic such as you describe be annulled before the Catholic may remarry in the Church to another but also, even a marriage of two non-Catholics, one of whom later wishes to marry another in a Catholic ceremony must also be annulled first.

348 posted on 02/10/2004 12:52:03 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
No, it's cool. You may well have been doing the Lord's work. I was baptised Catholic and went along just fine until I became a teenager, then rebelled against the Church due to the fact that they wouldn't allow girls to serve at the altar, which still irks me, but not enough to let it turn me against the church.

My husband, a Lutheran, and I got married according to the Book of Common Prayer in a Unitarian Church - the minister was a friend of the family, and it was a compromise.

Came back the Church a few years ago.

Since coming back to the Church, I went along just fine until being told by a priest, when I told him the facts of our marriage, that my marriage was invalid and that I was committing adultery and couldn't take communion without going to confession and repenting.

To make a long story short, I quit going to confession and taking communion because no way was I going to repent sleeping with my own husband. I can't pretend to repent, so what's the point? And no way was he going to remarry in a Catholic ceremony, because he insists that the priest was wrong.

Now, based on what you said this morning, and some research I've done since then it appears to me that the priest was wrong, the marriage was and is valid, and I don't have to confess to committing adultery with my own husband, nor repent, in order to take communion.

Whew! I just might be saved after all.
349 posted on 02/10/2004 1:14:53 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; WKB
Oh my, I am late to this party, and you pinged me in #2. Thank you. Give me many moments to read nearly 400 posts before I comment.
350 posted on 02/10/2004 1:15:02 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; maximillian
It is not and never was necessary to salvation that a person be a Roman Catholic or that a person practice the Roman Catholic Faith in order to be saved. There are broad exceptions and a marked distinction between the Roman Catholic Church (carrying the fullness of the Faith) and the wider Mystical Body of Christ.

Now this was the point I was trying (badly) to make with Maximillian. I was attempting to point out that the Catechism seems to be at odds with the ancient and extra-biblical dogma of whether or not salvation is limited to those in the Roman Catholic church.

Making a distinction between the small "c" catholic church (the church universal or Body of Christ) and the large "C" Roman Catholic Church is paramount to the discussion.

Exclusivity vs. inclusivity denotes a doctrine that has changed 180 degrees from ancient interepretation to modern, thereby making me question the "ordinary infallibility of the magesterium". If, in fact, I have misunderstood the exclusivity argument, so then, have many, many in the Catholic faith, including those gifted to teach.

351 posted on 02/10/2004 1:27:40 PM PST by Ol' Sox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; ninenot
The Roman Catholic Church IS the Catholic Church. It incorporates numerous rites which relate to apostolic succession from apostles other than Peter but each is under the authority ultimately of the Patriarch of Rome: Coptic Catholic Church (St. Thomas), a rite centered in Iraq, the Maronite Catholic Church (using Aramaic for liturgy), Syrian Catholic Church (relates to Patriarch of Damascus), Armenian Catholic Church, Greek Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.

Virtually none of the rest of what you name (i.e. other than the Roman Catholic Church) are Catholic Churches at all. If a moose calls himself a kumquat it does not make him one.

Down through the years, as you may have noticed when you go to church on Sunday for example, various groups have broken off of the Roman Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ upon Simon bar Joanh, whom He renamed Peter or the Rock, and guaranteed by Jesus Christ Himself as permanent. Early Church Fathers like the brilliant Tertullian tragically fell into the schism or heresy of Ultramontanism before death. There were Donatists, practitioners of the Arian heresy, Albigensians, Nestorians, Monophysites, and many other early heresies. Some may initially have had apostolic succession and disappeared after the succession was broken. Some never had apostolic succession as understood by Catholic Churches: Lutheranism, Methodism, Amish, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Baptists, Congregationalists and similar "reformed" churches. They have always been without the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the continued appearance of bread and wine and without the keys of authority to bind and loose. They have not had the Mass in the making present upon the altar of the one and only sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ upon the altar at each Mass. Without Apostolic Succession, there is no legitimate and valid priesthood, no validly consecrated bishops, no Mass, no Holy Orders, no valid Eucharist, and an absence of other essentials.

There are several remaining categories. Some which you mention, but not many, MAY have some rough form of Apostolic Succession. The ones that might deserve a look would be those named Old Catholic or Old Roman Catholic. Their names sound like potential schismatic or heretical Churches which took the trouble to find some reneagde bishop to consecrate some bishops (not unlike SSPX) while deviating fatally on doctrine. They might be related to Old Catholic Churches of Utrecht or the post Vatican I (mid 19th century) Council Churches which were formed by dissident Catholics rejecting papal infallibility and/or conciliar infallibility in communion with the pope or rejecting the Immaculate Conception. Rome probably does not address the alleged apostolic succession of such miniscule sects and time usually takes them deeper into division and heresy. They are certainly denominations just like Albigensians, Arians, Lutherans and the rest.

The Anglicans have long claimed apostolic succession. At the time of Henry VIII's apostasy, only St. John Fisher resisted him seriously among the contemporary Roman bishops and he was martyred for it. That left many validly consecrated bishops who apostasized and joined the "Church of England" headed by......Henry VIII. The matter was investigated at the order of Pope Leo XIII in the last quarter of the 19th century. He determined that there was a failure of succession for specified reasons which I do not recall. The sinfulness of Henry's bishops and their apostasy did not deprive them of the sacramental authority to consecrate bishops and ordain priests. Whatever the problem was, it must have occurred through irregularity of consecration procedures, probably in the 17th century. Things got sloppy after Archbishop Laud's noble attempts to return to orthodoxy in the early 17th century under the Stuarts.

That leaves the Eastern Orthodox Church which has been separated from Rome for nearly 1000 years but has scrupulously maintained validity of its Apostolic Succession, its Mass, its Holy Orders, its sacraments. The differences center certainly on the Filioque and the rejection of papal supremacy by the Orthodox and its assertion by Rome. There are different nuances in other respects.

To the precise degree that any of these churches deviate from the doctrine and discipline of Rome, actual Catholics regard them as wrong. If that makes us sound like a cult, so be it. Why should Catholics care, so long as the "cult" is Roman Catholicism. We do not accept false moral equivalency.

Most churches (except the Eastern Orthodox) which have "issues" with Rome are not at all Catholic whatevr it might please them to say. This is not a metter of all win and each will have prizes.

352 posted on 02/10/2004 1:40:38 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I like it when WE agree, and you state our Church's positions so eloquently.
353 posted on 02/10/2004 1:47:32 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
It usually takes place after Mass on Sunday. Actually, we called it catechism.
354 posted on 02/10/2004 1:47:50 PM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ladylib
That was my point. It is not called Sunday school.

355 posted on 02/10/2004 1:54:14 PM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
***If a moose calls himself a kumquat it does not make him one.***

LOL!

But we are talking about groups that make the same exact claims you are making, to include Apostolic succession. Just goes to show you there are schisms even in the Catholic Church....
356 posted on 02/10/2004 2:06:44 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: dangus
So many of the schismatic keep posting that Gibson is one too. None seem to post credible sources. There was an obviously ignorant hit piece in the LA Times which claimed that he is a schismatic because he has erected a Tridentine Chapel there. Reports are mixed and all unsourced as to whether he had permission from Mahoney. Likewise another hit piece in the New York Times. I am not denying that he is schismatic but I have seen no proof. He may be wrong as to some belief or other. Of course, any thread having to do with Gibson and the movie is cynically used as yet another opportunity for hijacking by the schismatics to further advertise and promote their schismatic obsessions and to chew their old slippers.

Whether a particular sedevacantist sect has apostolic succession is entirely dependent upon the validity of the ordination of its priests and consecrations of its bishops however illicit. For example, each and every SSPX bishop has been excommunicated but they were each VALIDLY consecrated. Thus, regrettably, they have stolen the legitimate goods of apostolic succession. Each of the excommunicated bishops so created has the power go consecrate bishops and to ordain priests. For this crime of grand theft ecclesiastical, those bishops were excommunicated. They were illegally or illicitly consecrated but the consecrations were valid nonetheless.

Finally, the endless arguments by analogy to St. Catherine of Siena or to St. Athanasius or to the Eastern Orthodox are not apt and are simply puffery by SSPX. The validity of the SSPX Mass and sacraments were NEVER at issue but not by analogy to anything. Their bishops (not their priests) have genuine apostolic succession, however purloined, and that is the only issue as to validity. No one has claimed they lacked that succession. In fact the illicit possession of that succession is precisely the point of their perfidy.

BTW, I am aware of no mere priest who has been excommunicated formally for being of the SSPX although each may have excommunicated himself by adherence to the schism and each lay person adhering to the schism may have excommunicated himself or herself as well. Remember that is "adhered to the schism" not merely attended SSPX Masses.

The Jesuits were not excommunicated but suppressed in the 18th century or thereabouts for about 75 years. They apparently deserved to be suppressed. Some took refuge under the Russian Tsar Peter the Great. The trained me in the Faith way back when they were still Catholic. Nonetheless, they ought to be suppressed again since they have again become a collective viper in the bosom of the Church. Prudential errors are prudential errors not doctrinal ones.

Your proof of Mr. Gibson's ongoing involvement with SSPX or any sedevacantist schism or heresy or that he believes this pope wrong, please. For example: Who said the Masses on the set of the Passion? Is his daughter preparing for admission to some SSPX order of nuns or a Catholic order? Is his Los Angeles area chapel an SSPX chapel? How do you know this other than speculation?

357 posted on 02/10/2004 2:08:51 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
In any case, the Catholic teaching is that there is no salvation except through the Church, but that Jesus most likely extends His salvation backward in time to the great patriarchs and prophets, and reading the hearts of men may extend salvation to whom he chooses

Thanks for a detailed response. I realize these matters are difficult. I was just after a simple answer as to whether Catholic doctrine teaches that one has to be in the Catholic church to be saved. If that is the case that is something I was just not aware of. My wife is Catholic and I'm Protestant and I've attended church with her for years.

Most Protestant Churches consider themselves to be separate from the Church of Rome, although some Anglicans would argue a little differently on that point.

FWIW my pastor at my local Presbyterian PCA church has remarked on the term catholic church contained in the Apostle's Creed " ... I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church, the communion of saints, ..." as meaning all gospel believing churches, catholic and protestant and does not treat Catholics as being some separate entity wrt salvation etc. In fact the web site I pasted this excerpt from had the following asterisk "*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ". The important thing is faith in Christ.

358 posted on 02/10/2004 2:08:56 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Happy to be of service. Sounds like a good outcome.
359 posted on 02/10/2004 2:13:59 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
If a moose calls himself a kumquat it does not make him one.


Just because a person "calls" himself a Christian
doesn't make him one either.
360 posted on 02/10/2004 2:16:47 PM PST by WKB (3!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 461 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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