Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary

Scotsman.com ^ | February 29, 2004 | Gerald Warner

[Unam Sanctam]

You and other "traditionalists" on this forum consistently misrepresent the Holy Father's teaching and intent on ecumenism. You slanderously and in bad faith deliberately and falsely accuse him of teaching and doing what he has in no way intended to teach and do. You deliberately ignore his statements of teaching and intention and interpret his words and actions in a completely opposite way. Catholic doctrine may be determined by objective sources, such as dogmatic statemnts and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Whatever von Balthasar, Kaspar or any theologian is not necessarily the fullness of Catholic teaching. Throughout history, plenty of bad and heretical bishops have been chosen. That does not affect the purity of Catholic doctrine.

[Maximilian]

so you can take your Catholic Church bashing and shove it.

My, my. The same tolerance that JPII showed with the voodoo witch doctors, the animists and the zoroastrians at Assissi ought to be your guiding principle in dealing with poor misguided souls like ultima ratio, who unlike them, are apparently separated from the Church. Everyone else in the world in some mystical manner "subsists in" the Catholic Church, but traditional Catholics alone are on the outside. This is a sad situation, but perhaps the example of your unfailing charity will help to bring them around.

[ultima ratio]

I said the Vatican washed its hands, not the Pope. In fact, we can't know at this point exactly how aware the Pope is of what's going on. But the Vatican bureaucrats closest to the Pontiff certainly placed political considerations above justice--just as Pilate did. Their backtracking left Gibson twisting in the wind, buffeted by still more bad publicity, after the Vatican press office had already given him the go-ahead to use the papal quote. That was despicable.

I do concede some good bishops have backed the film, but certainly not most--just as most apostles ran away rather than face the mob, but not all. John held his ground, perhaps a few others. The parallels are interesting. Nor is all of this finished in the way it will finally play out. I believe this film will shake many an orthodox cardinal from his lethargic sleep--perhaps in time for the next conclave to elect a pope. It will be interesting if such men will be sufficient in number to defeat the modernists.

[AgThorn]

Then I guess you don't recall "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious liberty and "Unitatis Redintegratio" on Ecumenism and "Nostra Aetate" on relationships with non-Christians and even "Gaudium et Spes" on the Church in the modern world which said that now we would embrace the world.

I'm game, and willing to stand corrected ... let's see.

Dignitatis Humanae [link] seems to say that the church will not enforce it's faith on others, that it agrees with the concept of 'separate of church and state', that the church will be made known in man by God and should not be 'forced' upon anyone is kinda of what I read. Correct me if I missed something. I don't see anything wrong with this 'advancement' in the RCC and I definitely don't see the 'super Euchanism' that is warned about by this author in his anti Vat2 zeal .. but let's move on ..

Unitatis Redintegratio[link] "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus "

Hmmm - can't see anything wrong with that statement ... perhaps the 'method' of euchanism is what you are most upset with and not the words of Vatican II itself. I may be wrong, and this may deserve more dialogue.

Nostra Aetate [link] "The Church examines more closely he relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship."

Noble statement, and one that a church that should and would want to claim the title of the 'leader' of Christianity should make. Again, you must be upset about something other than this noble statement, but rather the 'practice' that follows. Again, much more dialogue could follow.

Gaudium et Spes[link] "Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church, now addresses itself without hesitation, not only to the sons of the Church and to all who invoke the name of Christ, but to the whole of humanity. For the council yearns to explain to everyone how it conceives of the presence and activity of the Church in the world of today."

Again, this is what a church should do ... lead, take a stand, inform the world of it's beliefs, etc. Once more I do not find fault with the intent or wording of the Vatican II council, but perhaps may agree with you with what the church has done to supposedly follow it's (perhap's wrongly) understood meaning.

So, maybe this deserves another thread entirely but the topic is of great interest. By the by, I am NOT a Catholic but was raised as one and do remember the church before and after VatII.

In His Name,
AgThorn

[AnAmericanMother]

Martin Chuzzlewit, Chapter 39. The butcher who sold a steak to Tom Pinch: "When he saw Tom putting the cabbage-leaf into his pocket awkwardly, he begged to he allowed to do it for him; 'for meat,' he said with some emotion, 'must be humored, not drove'"

Only reason I know is that Irma Rombauer quoted it in an older edition of her classic cookbook The Joy of Cooking.

[Maximilian]

If anything destroyed the "Thomistic foundation" of Catholic philosophy, it was the dablers in the stertile neo-Thomism of the 1950s, which was so absorbed with jargon that it could not bother to make itself clear.

Isn't this a perfect description of the pope's writings, and wasn't he precisely a member of the generation you describe? Jargon is his watchword and incomprehensibility is his motif. He wrote "Love and Responsibility" back in the time frame you are describing, and it perfectly matches your criteria for what really killed Thomism.

[Unam Sanctam]

Schismatics, voodoo witch doctors, animists and zoroastrians are all outside the visible Church militant. Perhaps many of the latter are showing more charity and good will toward the head of the Catholic Church and successor to Peter than you demonstrate, who should know better, being closer to the fullness of truth.

[Land of the Irish]

ECCE homo

Ecce Agnus Dei: ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.

[Maximilian]

I'm not denying that you can pick out some acceptable statements from these documents. But the question was, "Did this whole ecumania come from Vatican II, or was it a later creation of the current pontificate?" Clearly it was given direct sanction at Vatican II.

[Unam Sanctam]

What about the Renaissance popes? There have a lot more crooked and corrupt and sinful papal curias in history. Does that mean the Church stopped being the Church and the Pope stopped being the Pope? Whether the Vatican and others are cautious about the movie or not is a prudential question that people can have different views on, not a doctrinal matter tha justifies rebellion and creation of a parallel schismatic structure. The Church authorities were cautious about Lourdes and Fatima, and rightly so. The Church should not move fast in my view.

[Maximilian]

Irma Rombauer quoted it in an older edition of her classic cookbook The Joy of Cooking.

I've never read Martin Chuzzlewit, but I have heard that the older editions of "The Joy of Cooking" are worth searching for and are much more entertaining than the later editions.

[Aggie Mama]

I just received the Catholic Herald and Fiorenza and some kind of fluff statement in there saying basically, don't blame the Jews. I was disappointed in that. I sounded soooo PC to me. =(

[ultima ratio]

How have I bashed the Catholic Church? I slammed the Vatican for betraying Gibson shamefully--and its bureaucrats deserved being slammed--but they are not the Catholic Church. I mentioned the cowardice of bishops--and they deserved the mention--but neither are they the Catholic Church. Your comments are intemperate.

[Unam Sanctam]

True ecumenism is not religious syncretism or relativsm, as the actual documents of Vatican II and the current Pope make clear. There is nothing unorthodox about true ecumenism that does not compromise the teachings of the deposit of faith.

[Unam Sanctam]

You have bodily separated yourself from the visible Church of Christ on earth, and therefore every criticism you make of the hierarchy is a criticism of the Catholic Church. And you have explicitly bashed the Catholic Church in the past by using the terms "Novus Ordo Church", Vatican II Church, "post-Conciliar authorities". You have accusd the Pope of being unorthodox. You have accused him of promoting religious relativism. You have consistently used intemperate language.

[Maximilian]

True ecumenism is not religious syncretism or relativsm

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and defecates like a duck, then I say that it is a duck.

does not compromise the teachings of the deposit of faith

True or false -- Jews do not need to convert to the Catholic faith because their own covenant is salvific for them? This is what is being taught today. I say that it DOES compromise the teachings of the deposit of faith.

[Land of the Irish]

The Church authorities were cautious about Lourdes and Fatima, and rightly so.

The church authorities are no longer worried about either Marian shrine; they've offered both of them up to the secular world to worship their own false religions in their own ways.

[AgThorn]

I'm not denying that you can pick out some acceptable statements from these documents. But the question was, "Did this whole ecumania come from Vatican II, or was it a later creation of the current pontificate?" Clearly it was given direct sanction at Vatican II.

Well, I didn't necessarily pick out acceptable statements, I just read and posted .. if there are any 'unacceptable statements' please do likewise and educate me.

However, I do feel that the we may find agreement with the latter half of your supposition - i.e. it is my belief that what you are most offended by, 'this whole ecumania' comes not from Vatican II but is the creation of the current pontificate.

The Pope is only a man, but I do feel that in all I have read on Vatican II and how it came to be and what is in it, that this was truly God's working within the RCC, to save it, to use it, to make a better instrument of it. The RCC has yet to figure out it's own true potential - going backwards prior to Vat II would be a terrible move in my view. Having the Church to reevaluate and get on the right track, as IMHO was the intent of Vat2, that is what the RCC should wake up to.

Good dialogue!! God Bless!

[Unam Sanctam]

If it is salvific, it is salvific through Christ, but I don't think the matter is settled yet, and I am no expert on the matter. There was uncertainty about the immaculate conception for many centuries, remember.

[Unam Sanctam]

The church authorities are no longer worried about either Marian shrine; they've offered both of them up to the secular world to worship their own false religions in their own ways.

They have done no such thing. That is a lie and you know it.