Posted on 07/17/2010 9:49:21 AM PDT by jackspyder
By now you have heard about Mel Gibson's recent foul-mouthed tirade. Apparently he said some pretty harsh things to Oksana Grigorieva the Russian woman he has been involved with lately. He used words that are considered offensive and racist and maybe he wasn't just angry, he might of also been drunk or having an emotional breakdown or perhaps he's bi-polar. People are speculating while some are wondering if it was even Mel Gibson's voice they heard on several recordings ...
On a personal note, I for one have not heard the recordings, and I don't want to hear them. I heard part of one, which was edited, and I have read a few things, also edited, and I have seen both a before and after picture of this woman. The before picture looked like the octo-mom, the "after" pic looked like a "before" picture from a dentist's office. Apparently Mel knocked the veneers right off her teeth.
Some people are sticking up for Mel, like Michael Savage and Whoopi Goldberg, and surprisingly enough, Mel's ex-wife of 28 yrs whom he left to be with his new Russian spy.
I don't want to stick up for Mel Gibson, I think what he has said and done are horrendous; however, I would like to point out that he is a lot like you and me and every individual who has ever lost his temper, said something stupid, evil, disgusting, or degrading, because we were angry or upset or hysterical.
He's a pervert? So are most people. He's a racist? It's hard to find anyone who has never had a racist thought. (like: what's that white boy doing with that black girl? or Democrats who claim they hear a racist tone whenever someone criticizes Obama.)
The fact is Mel Gibson is a sinner
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
They were excommunicated for ordaining people without the permission of the pope.
Unlike the protestants, their ordinations were licit (ie, performed under the correct form), however they are not valid. They haven’t been valid since Pope John Paul didn’t recognise them. That’s the problem. Everyone who was ordained by SSPX is not yet a priest of the Catholic church, not until they are brought back into full communion, and they accept the authority of the Pope.
The biggest effect of lifting the excommunioation is to bring their flocks back into the fold.
You wrote:
“They were excommunicated for ordaining people without the permission of the pope.”
True.
“Unlike the protestants, their ordinations were licit (ie, performed under the correct form), however they are not valid.”
Sorry, you have that backwords. Licit means it would be “permitted” or “allowed”. Valid would mean it was “properly done” or “effective”. Please note that the Vatican does not doubt for a second that the 4 SSPX bishops are in fact bishops. The Vatican does not doubt for a single second that the men they ordained are really priests. What is not in doubt by the Vatican is that all of that was illicit - i.e. done withour permission.
I have seen this first hand. As I said, I know of more than one priest who was ordained as an SSPX priest who is now an FSSP priest. No conditional ordination was ever deemed necessary.
“They haven’t been valid since Pope John Paul didn’t recognise them. That’s the problem.”
Incorrect. Please note that all properly consecrated bishops are properly consecrated whether or not they are some how recognized by a pope. The pope does not need to recognize the bishop of Smolensk for him to be a REAL bishop. He’s Eastern Orthodox, and he’s a real bishop. Period.
“Everyone who was ordained by SSPX is not yet a priest of the Catholic church, not until they are brought back into full communion, and they accept the authority of the Pope.”
They are full priests. They just aren’t in full communion. Those are two separate issues. Again, look at the Eastern Orthodox. Are they validly ordained even though they are not members of the Catholic Church? Yes.
By the way, when the Society of St. John Vianney came back into full communion all they had to do was sign a piece of paper. No ordinations were necessary. http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ssjv.htm They were all validly ordained from the start.
“The biggest effect of lifting the excommunioation is to bring their flocks back into the fold.”
I hope so. That’s what we all want. What will not happen is a single conditional ordination of consecration, however. All of the SSPX priests will be accounted as priests and all of their bishops will be understood to be bishops. They were all validly but illicitly made so.
As Fr. Z notes:
Q: Is it okay for the SSPX bishops to ordain now?
No. The bishops of the SSPX are validly consecrated bishops, but the fact remains that they were illicitly consecrated. That hasn’t changed. They are still not reconciled with the Bishop of Rome. They are still suspended a divinis. They still have no permission to exercise ministry in the Church. They may not licitly ordain. They have no authority to establish parishes, etc.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/
As the Ecclesia Dei committee has freely admitted:
b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm
“Please note that the Vatican does not doubt for a second that the 4 SSPX bishops are in fact bishops.”
Priests cannot make themselves bishops.
“The pope does not need to recognize the bishop of Smolensk for him to be a REAL bishop. He’s Eastern Orthodox, and he’s a real bishop. Period.”
Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. They’ve always had bishops and their priests are raised by the patriarch or their archbishops to the bishopric.
If the priest were to consecrate himself bishop, this is invalid. This is also problematic for all the ordinations performed by the bishops who elevated themselves.
Personally, bring them in, but don’t elevate the priests into bishops. Put them under the oversight of someone who has been validly and licitly conferred.
You wrote:
“Priests cannot make themselves bishops.”
True. These four SSPX men were consecrated by two bishops. It was illicit, but valid.
“Eastern Orthodoxy is a bit different. They’ve always had bishops and their priests are raised by the patriarch or their archbishops to the bishopric.”
Yes, but the SSPX has always had a bishop too. First one, and then two bishops who were both consecrated DECADES before SSPX ever existed. Those two then made the other four bishops. All perfectly valid. All perfectly illicit.
“If the priest were to consecrate himself bishop, this is invalid. This is also problematic for all the ordinations performed by the bishops who elevated themselves.”
Right, but all of the bishops in question were consecrated by other bishops. No one “made himself a bishop” in the SSPX.
“Personally, bring them in, but don’t elevate the priests into bishops. Put them under the oversight of someone who has been validly and licitly conferred.”
I think that would be best. I believe, however, that Pope Benedict will generously allow three of the four bishops to continue on as bishops for the SSPX.
Ok I was mistaken. That’s a different problem entirely then. If they were elevated by a licitly consecrated bishop then they’ll stay bishops.
Ironically, SSPX is a much more serious breach than any of the Protestants, we never lost a bishop there.
Oh, I’m sorry to say we lost at least a few bishops to the Protestants. Mostly in Germany, Scandinavia and England. When you think about it we’re actually gaining bishops with SSPX! And soon that will happen (sort of) with the Anglicans too. Interesting times!
Who did we lose back then? We lost priests, yes, but I don’t believe any bishops.
Well, there were several German bishops if I recall correctly (The Peace of Augsburg mentioned them but not by name). Here are mentioned two but not by name: http://books.google.com/books?id=fIhb4-iBk6EC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=bishop+german+converted+to+Lutheranism&source=bl&ots=3_IoLqE66s&sig=x68V2ffXo3F9AGz4DE9H0PqKfLA&hl=en&ei=hpBDTIGIC4T0tgOjmIzSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=bishop%20german%20converted%20to%20Lutheranism&f=false
Although this says not a single German bishop did convert: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2543066
Huh! This one converted in the 19th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=gFZE8zTto20C&pg=PA333&dq=bishop+german+converted+to+Lutheranism&hl=en&ei=9JFDTPODPJTCsAOCq5DxDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
I did the same thing, glad to know I’m not the only one who caught that.
I’m happy to give the general public leeway, but if someone’s being published I expect more. “Would of, should of, could of, might of” just doesn’t cut it. There are too many sites providing insight to typical grammatical errors.
And if one wants to make a name for themselves with writing, then they need to pay attention.
Some think the Russian secret police or Russian Mafia is behind it. If they are, then expect (in response to his ex-wife's statement that he has not ever been violent) one or more alleged mistresses to pop up who will claim to support Oksana that he indeed has been violent.
Did he really leave his wife for for crazy Oksana? I read that he and his wife had already separated in 2006.
Jesus is Mel’s only hope.
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.