Posted on 07/20/2010 7:29:01 AM PDT by NYer
The final meltdown of Mel Gibson has come at a convenient time for Catholic-baiters in the media. The guy threatens violence against women, he’s a racist and he’s a CATHOLIC! Here’s Lucy Mangan in The Guardian, stooping almost as low as Gibson:
Received wisdom is that Gibson cannot recover from this. But one course is still open to him. If ever priesthood beckoned a man, it is surely now. At least he apparently saves his violence for adult females.
And if you don’t understand that last dig, let me point you to Times columnist Caitlin Moran, who explained on Thursday that the Catholic Church “f**** kids”.
The slurs against Catholics being put about liberal journalists aren’t far removed from Protocols territory, if you ask me. But dragging Gibson into this rancid rhetoric doesn’t work, for a simple reason.
He’s not a Catholic.
In fact, Mel Gibson is in some respects the opposite of a Catholic, since one of the themes of his fake Catholicism is that the Pope isn’t the Pope. Admittedly, Mel’s own theology tends to morph like a shape-shifting lizard, depending on how hung over he is, but in so far as he’s anything he’s a sedevacantist like his father, Hutton Gibson.
Sedevacantists regard the Second Vatican Council as so obviously evil that it must have been the work of Satan, and therefore the Pope who called it and his successors aren’t really Popes. Gibson Senior once reportedly described John Paul II as “Garrulous Karolus the Koran kisser” and has put about the notion that the last real Pope was secretly elected at the 1958 conclave but forced to resign in favour of anti-pope John XIII. But then old man Gibson never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like; hence his well-documented Holocaust and 9/11 revisionism.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
I don’t have to rely on generalized stereotypes. I experienced it.
Obviously, only you know your experiences. But, how are they relevant? I am a Catholic, and attend every week Masses in diocesan Churches. I experience so much hypocrisy every week it is sickening. There are more Obama bumper stickers in our parish parking lot each week than there are otherwise. Does that mean that Catholics are supporters of abortion? If I said that it were so I would be generalising, regardless of my experiences, and I would also be wrong.
The SSPX is certainly erroneous on some issues, and there may be many people within it that are of a mindset I don't like. However, generalising that the SSPX are anti-semites is no different than what is said of the tea parties by the left, or is often said about the Church itself by many. The existence of people within the SSPX who have controversial views regarding Jews does not support your generalisation any more than allegations of epithets supports those allegedly describing the tea parties.
“We may agree with the protest; however, we existed before and after apostate Catholicism”
Baptists refusal to join the Church that Jesus Christ founded doesn’t relinquish responsibility for those actions. Following the heresy of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin etc. on sola scriptura and sola fidei is heretical.
“If they are not Catholic then they would not be bound in any way to answer to the Holy See, as everyone demands they do, which is itself evidence that people know that they are still in fact Catholic.”
Faulty logic. They are ask to obey the Church if they would desire to be back in her.
Amen!
Gibson has been a target since his generally anti-Semitic movie, "The Passion of the Christ," and his various conspiracy theories.
How does a conservative, Republican Roman Catholic hook up with a twice-married, mother of an out-of-wedlock son who is, most bizarrely of all, a Russian who may or may not be Jewish herself.
Men dig pits for other men, knowing that human beings think they will always be able to see in the dark.
Catholics here say that Catholic DOCTRINE teach once a Catholic always a Catholic because the sacrament places an indelible mark on your soul .
So Mel and yes Glenn are still under the authority of Rome and still Catholics ,,no “free will” there
It doesn’t matter what “catholics here” say - what matters is what the church says.
He is considered outside of the church.
Yes - if he decided to return, he wouldn’t have to be baptized. He could simply approach the sacrament of reconciliation.
The Gibsons used their free will to leave and they’re using their free will right not to stay away.
You’re in for a sad surprise and awakening one day my friend. I hope it’s prior to you crossing over into eternity.
Many Bipolar sufferers go off their meds, then end up “self medicating” (not consciously) with alcohol.
“But, how are they relevant?”
How are they relevant? I received extensive exposure to various “traditionalist” thought - SSPX, Feenyism, sedevanticist, grunerism, etc....
After you converse over a period of time - you notice patterns.
One quirky pattern is the tendency to open dialogue with a condescending accusatory question like, “oh! you really really love that novus ordo don’t you!”
or “I bet you just adore that new age pope of yours!”
You know - that kind of stuff.
” I experience so much hypocrisy every week it is sickening.”
I suppose that is true no matter where you go.
“There are more Obama bumper stickers in our parish parking lot each week than there are otherwise.”
I haven’t bothered to count in our lot - but I would guess it’s 50/50, which is sad, because it shouldn’t even be close.
“Does that mean that Catholics are supporters of abortion? “
Unfortunately - yes. Those catholics with the stickers I mean.
” However, generalising that the SSPX are anti-semites is no different than what is said of the tea parties by the left, or is often said about the Church itself by many”
Apples and oranges. First of all - you don’t really have tea party “leaders” to point to. And there isn’t an official tea party “dogma”
SSPX has material online. Their bishops have much material out there as well as members who regularly contribute to forums.
Anyone is free to review the material and see what is plainly there.
“I’ll forgive the Gibsons their bizarre deviance.”
Not really the point I’m arguing.
The original point of this thread is whether or not they belong to the catholic church.
They do not.
Whether or not any of us “forgive” them for whatever they believe in is pretty much beside the point.
“If they are not Catholic then they would not be bound in any way to answer to the Holy See, as everyone demands they do, which is itself evidence that people know that they are still in fact Catholic.”
Maybe we just aren’t speaking the same language.
If they hadn’t performed a schismatic act to begin with (invalid consecrations in direct disobedience of the Pope) - then there never would have been a split.
So - in that sense they became the “prodigal son”.
The prodigal son remained a member of the family - however - leaving the family and going “elsewhere”.
The Church would love for the son’s return.
However - the return is not without condition - and has not yet occured.
If a split didn’t exist - there would be no need for “reconciliation”.
If they were not on the “outside”, there would be no need to await their return.
backatcha
The SSPX are "Catholic" only in the same sense that the Catholic baptized Fr. Martin Luther or Jean Cauvin were (i.e not at all as long as unrepentant). They should be denied the sacramental life of the Church unless and until they surrender. In better times, they should have and would have been executed. The purposeful rupture of the unity of the Church and the gross disobedience to the papal authority of John Paul II and their naked contempt for legitimate Church authority are at least as serious as the sins of userers burned at the stake after judgment by the Church's inquisitional authorities.
Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is not and, God willing, never will be pope and he has no personal authority to countermand the papal JUDGMENT, not mere opinion, of John Paul II (who had been his patron and whom he has betrayed).
For what it may be worth, I am no fonder of Novus Ordo Masses than you may be. Nonetheless, they are legitimate Masses whatever Marcel's minions may imagine. I attend only Tridentine Masses said by the Institute of Christ the King and its local pastor with the blessings of Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford who has long since given his permission as diocesan ordinary to ALL of his priests to say Tridentine Masses in appropriate venues. I may attend an occasional Novus Ordo on vacation or when out of town. My cultural preference for the Tridentine Rite in which I was raised does not constitute an enforceable demand on Peter's successors. Nor do the preferences of those in lesser positions of authority.
The silence of B-XVI (assuming he has been silent) is hardly what you need to justify the unsupportable assumption that he disagrees with his own decision to excommunicate Marcel and his adherents when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II much less that he has actually reversed the judgment of John Paul II.
I asked that any claim of that reversal be documented and, given previous SSPX wars here, am not surprised that there are apparently NO SUCH documents. B-XVI has the authority to reverse those judgments now for those still living such as Williamson, Fellay, de Mallerais and Castro de Meyer's successor in Brazil (who may alone have been restored to the good graces of the Church). It would be a nevel theory that even he can lift the excommunications of the likes of dead Marcel. The schismatics and their cronies are, however, not willing to wait for formal action and wish instead to speak for B-XVI because they despise JP II's memory and they JUST KNOW they are right since the other schismatics and excommunicati agree with them. We probably have cardinals who do not believe in God. Christ never guaranteed their wisdom or infallibility. B-XVI has assumed a higher and divinely guaranteed authority just as JP II and hundreds of others before him.
The schismatic and/or excommunicated minions of the SSPX schism actually have the brazen nerve to claim to be responsible for the revival of the Tridentine Mass which is like giving John Dillinger credit for improving bank security procedures and practices, or crediting Osama bin Laden with improving airport security. The SSPX are Catholic like Comrade OBambam is an American patriot.
It ought to be noted that arguing with the SSPX schizzies is like arguing with Darwinians or single taxers or anti-American leftists or abortion lovers, i.e. a futile exercise requiring much effort for little or no positive result.
BTW, that the SSPXers demand to "negotiate" their return to the Church seems an admission that they well know that they are excommunicated. Else, what is to negotiate??? It would have been fun to see the result of them trying to pull this crap with Pius XI, Pius XII, JP I, or, ummmm, Pope St. Pius X (taking his name in vain as it were) or Leo XIII or Pius IX, etc., etc.
How are they relevant? I received extensive exposure to various “traditionalist” thought - SSPX, Feenyism, sedevanticist, grunerism, etc....
They are not relevant because you did in fact generalise. Your experiences are your own, and reflect only the scope of each experience itself. Regardless of my own personal experience when I expand that experience to cover everyone in a particular body I have generalised. The experience ceases to be relevant once I do that.
Apples and oranges. First of all - you don’t really have tea party “leaders” to point to. And there isn’t an official tea party “dogma” SSPX has material online. Their bishops have much material out there as well as members who regularly contribute to forums. Anyone is free to review the material and see what is plainly there.
No, I disagree. The dogma of the SSPX is that of the Catholic Church, at least up to a specific point in time. (BTW, I add this only to avoid a quibble as I think it is hard to argue that Catholic dogma has in fact changed at any point, but I am sure you would cede this.) Since the Catholic Church was never anti-semitic in its dogma, then it seems hard to suggest that the SSPX is. I have read some of the SSPX material I have seen online, and read and listened to interviews with Fellay et al, and nothing I have seen reflects anything overtly anti-semitic.
If a split didn’t exist - there would be no need for “reconciliation”. If they were not on the “outside”, there would be no need to await their return.
I think you are taking a black and white view to something less clear. Yes, they committed a schismatic act, and even though the Holy See has repeatedly denied they are in formal schism it still remains a schismatic act. And many people point to excommunications to demonstrate this, though of course these have been lifted. However, many sins receive the punishment of excommunication and many public sins separate one from the life of the Church formally, however these people do not cease to be "Catholic." Many Catholics are good, and many more are bad, but they remain Catholic.
In the case of the SSPX it is clear that there was never any intent to set up a new Church. When the Lutherans etc. left they actively set up new institutional churches, which is nothing like the separation between Rome and the SSPX. That is of a different quality and nature. They are in error, and need to return, just as all those people in my Church with Obama stickers on their car. But, they all still remain Catholic.
If the minions of long dead and excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefevre's vicious little anti-papal schism want to be regarded as Catholics, they simply need to unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority.
This is true of all who sin. When the priest in my Church insists that he is above the Church's law regarding the liturgy and can act on his own initiative to change the Mass, or add to it, or delete from it, he is also responsible to "unconditionally surrender and submit to papal authority." However, he remains Catholic even when he sins. So do the SSPX.
The SSPX are "Catholic" only in the same sense that the Catholic baptized Fr. Martin Luther or Jean Cauvin were (i.e not at all as long as unrepentant).
There is absolutely no comparison. Martin Luther openly denied the Catholic faith and Church, and intentionally set up a new institutional Church. The SSPX have not done this. Sure, they are wrong, and their actions have been schismatic (though the competent authorities in the Holy See have repeatedly insisted they are not formally in schism) but they are not setting up a new institutional church as did the Protestants. There is a vast difference here.
Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is not and, God willing, never will be pope and he has no personal authority to countermand the papal JUDGMENT, not mere opinion, of John Paul II (who had been his patron and whom he has betrayed).
I am uncomfortable with this view which is actually very like that of the SSPX. The above Cardinal, and the commission he headed, were the competent authorities regarding the traditionalist adherents for the Holy See, and this included the SSPX. Unless Pope Benedict XVI were to openly deny what they said in reference to that which they are legitimately qualified to address then one is bound by faith to accept their word as his own. If your view were correct then one could freely ignore the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith regarding questions of faith or morals, or the views of the Congregation for Divine Worship regarding the proper forms for liturgical acts. And I guarantee you a Catholic is free to do no such thing.
For what it may be worth, I am no fonder of Novus Ordo Masses than you may be. Nonetheless, they are legitimate Masses whatever Marcel's minions may imagine. I attend only Tridentine Masses said by the Institute of Christ the King and its local pastor with the blessings of Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford who has long since given his permission as diocesan ordinary to ALL of his priests to say Tridentine Masses in appropriate venues.
For what it is also worth, I have never once in my entire life seen or participated in any Mass but that which you call the "Novus Ordo." I have no attachment to the old forms, though intellectually I have opinions regarding them and would certainly welcome an opportunity to attend and experience it. My position is entirely free from any personal ideas about the issues, but is entirely concerning the objective claims that members of the SSPX are not Catholic, and that they are anti-semites. The first is wrong on the facts, and the second cannot be substantiated, which causes it be dangerously close to calumnious gossip, IMHO.
While not to the same scale, I liken this to the conundrum faced by Catholics when they had to face the reality of two Popes. That wound was eventually healed, so I imagine this one will be as well.
But you’re right, forgiving them their oddities is not the issue. I suppose my position is skewed by the fact that I am “not Catholic” to most members of the Roman Catholic Church. Doesn’t mean I believe the same as the Gibsons, but I certainly won’t condemn them for their beliefs. That’s someone else’s job.
SSPX bishops committed schismatic act but it doesn’t lead to schism. Pope Benedict XVI claimed that he consider dialogue with SSPX as a dialogue “inside of the church”.
All these suggestions that SSPX is anti-Jewish origin from lack of understing. Catholics always praised for conversion of Jews and all other non-Catholics. (so is our current Pope). If you love your brothers you must help them in their salvation. If you don’t care that for example your Jewish brothers will burn in hell, how can you consider yourself to be a member of the Church of Christ? Christianity is about evangelization. How many Jews Jesus converted himself?
“All these suggestions that SSPX is anti-Jewish origin from lack of understing”
So how do you undestand the meaning of LeFebvre writing to JPII and lumping the jews in with communists and freemasons as “common enemies”?
I see Williamson has been silenced - and that is excellent.
Although I must have missed the part where Fellay specifically repudiated the holocaust denial.
I caught it where he declared anti-semitism as a sin. He stated they deal with issues of faith and not history. But I was looking for something like “Hey! We acknowledge that millions of jews were murdered in the gas chambers!”
I suppose I ask too much?
I see “They Mystery of the Jews” has been removed from the SSPX website, and that is good.
I’m wondering...are Frs. Crowdy and Novak still considered priests in good standing with the society?
And if so - have they repudiated any of their writings?
Do you think Williamson was just an aberration?
Just to give some background on where I’m coming from....
When I heard the tape from the DWI arrest years ago - I thought - yes, I’ve heard this before.
And I heard that stuff from specific sources - and so did he as a child and a young man.
And that the MSM has misidentified his affiliation is what I’m arguing against.
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.