But Is Mel Gibson Catholic?

Pangaeus ^

[Catholicguy]

LMAO

Any person with both feet on this Planet knows the Pope excommunicated Lefebvre, and his posse. In defense of schism you and your ilk are forced to adopt the most demented positions while at the same time trying to pose as defenders of Tradition.

[Catholicguy]

1 corinth. 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,

24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Tell us about the Eucharist in your community of like-minded believers.

[Catholicguy]

LOL. The Excommunication stands. Please post for us the words of the Pope in which he retracts Ecclesia Dei. Echoing the personal opinions of those who succor the schism is not persuasive - except to schismatics

"But JPII failed to take into consideration the exemptions that his own Canon Law provided. Canons 1321-23 made clear that disobedience in an emergency situation accrues no penalty if the state of necessity has been sincerely evoked."

ROTFLMAO. I can't believe you posted this.

Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.

§2 A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept. If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise. (the Pope warned him not to consecrate Bishops and told him what the consequences would be. He did it anyways)

§3 Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.

Can. 1322 Those who habitually lack the use of reason, even though they appeared sane when they violated a law or precept, are deemed incapable of committing an offence. (LOL I can't beleive a schismatic like you would post this in defense of the schismatic you adore. Now, personally, this is what I think may be the case. I pray it is as it would tend to render Lefebvre's perfidy not culpable. But, for you, who thinks he is a Saint and that he was the one to preserve Tradition? LOL Do you even think about what that means for your defense of schism? Good Lord. I think you prolly don't.LOL)

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

(Even you, I imagine, admit he was at least 17)

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance (LOL)

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;

6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325; (There's your out. Quite flattering to the one chosen by God to preserve Tradition. LOL).

7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Well, that's it. That's all you got. Remember when you left before and you said you had said all you had to say? You were right. These are all the same old lies and I can see you are back to repeat them again.

Well, so much for your promise to spend time on basics and the family, huh? :)

[ultima ratio]

Study again the following precept which exempts from punishment anyone who

"4° acted under the compulsion of GRAVE FEAR, even if only relative, or by REASON OF NECESSITY or GRAVE INCONVENIENCE, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;"

You list the many exemptions, making light of them. But because many are listed does not mean an individual must fall under all that are presented. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, I think even you would admit that the destruction of traditional Catholicism and the traditional Mass was reason enough to inspire "grave fear", as well as "grave inconvenience". It was certainly a sufficient cause for action "by reason of necessity."

There can be no doubt that the Archbishop truly believed the Pope's frontal assault on the Econe--denying traditional consecrations and thus the ordination of seminarians trained in the traditional faith--would do irreparable "harm to souls" and to the Church in the long run. He saw the situation as critical, designed to destroy the traditional Mass, and was the result of the modernist thinking that was in ascendancy following Vatican II. The ensuing years have proven the Archbishop was right, that the Church was indeed plunged in crisis. The Pope was wrong then and he is still wrong--though he continues to dismantle Catholic tradition by appointing as bishops those who despise that tradition.

Nor is disobedience an intrinsically evil act in the way that murder or abortion is intrinsically evil--which is to say, always and everywhere a bad thing, permitting of no exception. Disobedience is obviously sometimes good. It is certainly good to disobey a command to do what would be harmful to souls or to the Catholic faith. In fact, the precept to do good and to avoid evil trumps any man-made canons, even those of Canon Law. It is the very essence of God's own law--and renders anyone inculpable who follows it above all else. This is why Canon Law itself provides an exception for those who are inculpable.

Nor does the mere fact that it is a pope who commands something make a command good. Popes may command what is wrong like any other mortal--unless precluded from error by Divine Protection. But as the First Vatican Council decreed, such protection is only granted when a pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. This was certainly not the condition under which the Pope commanded the Archbishop not to consecrate. It is true the Pope followed this with the Ecclesia Dei letter setting up an indult seeming to respect traditional Catholicism. But at best this was a cover for the opposite intention to destroy that tradition. This is shown by the fact that it was created after-the-fact. Before the consecrations the Pope had offered no such palliative to those who wished to follow Tradition. Nor has he exerted pressure on bishops since then to allow the indult. On the contrary, in recent years he has dealt with traditionalists far more harshly than with the most extreme, even heretical, modernists.

Finally, it should be remembered that schism is not disobedience. Schism involves a denial of papal supremacy. The Archbishop disobeyed for good reason and to protect the faith. To impugn he was therefore denying papal authority is an assumption that is unwarranted by the facts.

[ultima ratio]

Your answer to everything is to evoke papal authority. But papal authority is itself constrained by Sacred Tradition. You need to remember the pope is not the faith, he is only the steward of the faith. It is true he interprets the faith authoritatively--but his interpretations are legitimate only when they conform to past interpretations by past popes and councils. It is not the pope's place to invent religious novelties, but to pass-on intact what he has received. He was wrong to pray with voodoo priests or to award the red hat to someone who doubts the Resurrection. And he was just as wrong to attempt to engineer the destruction of the Econe. These were the actions of a pope at odds with Sacred Tradition.

By the way, can't you respond to anything without hogging an inordinate amount of cyberspace?

[LadyDoc]

your comments on church v chapel make sense.

In Europe, many rich people had private chapels where mass was said for them and those who worked for them. Some lay catholics have "adoration chapels" outside of churches to pray now that crime has forced churches to lock their doors.

Last year, one FR article mentioned the name of the priest who said mass for Gibson in california. He was not SSPX, but an independent priest, so that would be irregular.

However, mass was said daily on the set of "the passion" in Italy, by a regular priest.

Having lived in a PC diocese in minnesota, I can see how Gibson would hate the PC atrocities of the modern mass as portrayed by liberal bishops.

The answer is NOT the Latin mass per se but saying the mass with reverence and with the aim to worship God rather than the pep rally "look how wonderful we are God" type masses that the PC have foisted on too many diocese.

[ultima ratio]

My comment about hogging cyberspace was in reference to the extremely long post which has since been removed from this thread.

[nmh]

I don't indulge in blood or flesh - imagined or real.

I do have communion through symbolic bread and symbolic juice/wine. To partake other than symbolically violates what God has instructed. I've written on this to YOU as well as another fellow before.

[Snuffington]

Having lived in a PC diocese in minnesota,

Can those of us still in Minnesota ask which? Or would you prefer to keep that confidential?

Incidentally I have yet to find a parish in Minnesota I feel comfortable entrusting with the religious education of my children. I can cite example after example of heterodoxy and heresy taught, and orthodoxy attacked. And I'm talking about children's religious instruction. To me, that finding is scandalous. But apparently it doesn't even register as a problem for those making religious ed. decisions here.

[saradippity]

Can you provide the document from Vatican I that says the Pope is only infallible on faith and morals when he speaks "ex cathedra". My understanding of that term is only when he pronounces as official doctrine/teaching something that has never been a formal,written part of the "deposit of faith", must he pronounce "ex cathedra".Examples are the Immaculate Conceoption and the Assumption.

Issues of faith and morals that are developed or expressed in a way that is more understandable to persons living in the prevailing culture are teachings wherein his infallibility is in effect.These will never contradict Scripture or Tradition,they merely clarify,illuminate,elaborate,refine or emphasize a heretofore lesser known facet of the Truth.

Good to see you back,with you and Catholic Guy gone for a while things were getting pretty dull.However,with both of you back,there are times when I yearn for dullness.(o_-)sara

[ultima ratio]

The First Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv, states: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (Catholic Encyclopedia)

This Divine assistance, however, "was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine." The gift was granted solely to guard the deposit of faith--that is to say, to guard what had always been believed and handed down from apostolic times. It is Tradition that rules the Pontiff, not, as many neo-Catholics would have it, the Pontiff who rules Tradition.

[saradippity]

Thanks. I think I summed it up in the language of the prevailing culture.

Only when he introduces a new "Truth" heretofore not proclaimed as official doctrine/teaching must it be specifically labeled "ex cathedra".

At all other times when he expands,clarifies,illuminates or develops those truths contained in the deposit of faith,"ex-cathedra" is assumed.

In any case,I am glad you are participating again and thanks for the input.

[Marysecretary]

Maybe he tried and was turned down.

[ultima ratio]

Your statement suggests two caveats:

First, the Council made it very clear that while doctrines legitimately develop over time, they can never evolve into their opposite: "Hence, also that understanding of sacred dogmas must be perpetually maintained...There must never be a recession from that meaning under the pretext of a deeper understanding." (Vat. Council I, canon 3.)

Second, "ex cathedra" can never be assumed as you suggest. "Ex cathedra" applies only to the most solemn of papal pronouncements and involves an intention to bind the universal Church. Hence it requires the kind of promulgation that leaves no room for doubt or equivocation on the part of theologians. It is extremely rare.

[Coleus]

Maybe he tried and was turned down.>>

You may be right and if he did the Bishop obviously said NO, and that's the final answer unfortunately. Lay people can not go around building their own churches and hire their own priests on their own and then call themselves Roman Catholic without the express permission of the local ordinary.

[Marysecretary]

Let's hope he went the right route. He seems like a devout believer.

[saradippity]

Yes. There is a document,I think a Moto Proprio,issued by Ratzinger in the late nineties that elaborates on this. It says what the document you quoted says,as well as what I said. It just reiterates what Catholics must hold to be true based on degrees of "definitiveness",written in a style that is more conducive to comprehension by the majority of average Catholics.

It is so clear that the liberal media,Catholic and secular,and the progressive/modernist Amchurchians buried it. A good divisive free-for-all is what they pray for,if they can divide Catholics than they can continue putting into place their plan for us,all of Christianity and Western Civilization.

[Aestus Veritatis]

You are correct, Canticle of Deborah.

Mel attends the Masses of retired priests, who use the Missal of Pope St. Pius V. Mel said that, while in Italy, he was attending the Mass of a priest who told him that when the Novus Ordo was promulgated, he went to Paul VI and told him that it was an abomination and he could not say it and asked why the traditional Mass was forbidden. Paul VI said that he did not abrogate the traditional Mass and that any Catholic priest was free to say it at any time. The priest got Paul VI to put it in writing and shows this letter to anyone who tries to give him grief about saying the Mass that he was ordained to offer.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The priest got Paul VI to put it in writing and shows this letter to anyone who tries to give him grief about saying the Mass that he was ordained to offer.

That is wonderful. I wish that letter could be used in dioceses around the world.