Posted on 03/01/2004 5:20:53 PM PST by AAABEST
Leonel M: Mel Gibson's upcoming movie "The Passion of the Christ" has had more than its share of headlines for the last year or more. But what is the relationship of Gibson's church near Malibu to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles? Is it part of a schismatic group?
Cardinal: I know nothing about the Church in Malibu. It is certainly not in communion with the Universal Catholic Church nor the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
I have never met Mr. Gibson, and he does not participate in any parish of this Archdiocese. He, apparently, has chosen to live apart from the communion of the Catholic Church. I pray for him.
The Holy Spirit is promised to the Church, as well as the presence of Jesus: "Behold, I am with you all days until the end of the world." Those words were spoken to the Church, not to an individual in any century.
Moderator: We have several related questions about Mel Gibson; I'll try to summarize them. Many people have the impression that Mel Gibson is -- for lack of a better word -- a "regular" Catholic. Could you briefly explain the Catholic traditionalist movement?
Cardinal: Actually, there is no such thing as the "Catholic traditionalist, modernist, movement." Either one is in full communion with the Catholic Church, in unity with the Successor of Peter, or not. One cannot pick and choose which Pope to follow, especially dead ones, or which teaching to follow -- and then set aside the rest. Such people may be very nice people, but that doesn't make them "Catholic" in the true sense.
Even the media is beginning "to get it" about these groups. We must give full assent to the Creed and all that the Church teaches.
Moderator: So if Mel Gibson does not accept the Church's teachings as outlined in Vatican II documents, he's "not Catholic in the true sense"?
Cardinal: The Sixteen Documents of the Second Vatican Council constitute the accurate, authentic teaching of the Church. Those teachings are now contained in the Catechism of the Church. If one chooses to set aside any of those, then they choose to separate themselves from the unity of the Church. Keep in mind that the first temptation of Adam and Eve was precisely this: Satan told them, "you will be like gods, choosing good and evil." Wrong.
Moderator: Users also ask if you plan to see "The Passion of the Christ."
Cardinal: Someone has offered to give me a VHS of the movie, and I will view it.
Runecaster95: Is it acceptable for Catholics to participate in acts of devotion such as Zen meditation and Hindu chanting, providing the emphasis remains on Christ?
Cardinal: Any form of prayer and meditation that helps us deepen our life in Jesus Christ is a positive. We might call the same type of prayer "centering prayer," or "Christian mantra."
Jane M.: Who do you think goes to heaven? Do you think people of other religions will be there? Do people who haven't accepted Christ as their savior go to heaven when they die?
Cardinal: As the Second Vatican Council teaches us, it is the Church's belief that everyone goes to heaven "through the salvific merits of Jesus Christ." Therefore, if they belong to another faith community, we believe that it is still the merits of Jesus' Paschal Mystery that enables them to reach the Kingdom of God.
Keep in mind that each of us "chooses" our final destiny, and God continually calls to us to return home.
There is nothing in Canon Law forbidding the ordination of celibate homosexuals.
Do you have any evidence that "celibate homosexuals" actually exist?
No one has the right to excommunicate a superior but we do have the right to make a prudential judgement - as we do in countless other areas utilizing our conscience - and we have a DUTY to flee from false teaching not only for the protection of our own souls but also so as to not to accept, concur in or even communicate in the spiritual adultery of the heresiarch such as Mahony.
Saint Thomas Aquinas:
"Some say that fraternal corrrection does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects."
(IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)
As Canticle_of_Deborah so aptly stated:
CD: A prelate loses jurisdiction when he teaches heresy. The most glaring example in Mahony's case is his letter on the Eucharist for which Mother Angelica took him to task.
St. Thomas Aquinas on loss of jurisdiction by heretics and schismatics:
Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 39, art. 3. (Utrum schismatici habeant aliquam potestatem)
"...Potestas autem iurisdictionis est quae ex simplici iniunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhaeret; unde in schismaticis et haereticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid huiusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum."
(Whether schismatics have any power.)
"...The power of jurisdiction, however [as opposed to the power of Orders, which he has just discussed], is that [power] which is conferred simply by the injunction of man; and this power does not adhere immovably; therefore it does not remain in schismatics and heretics. Hence they can neither absolve, nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgences, or anything of this sort. If they do this, the act is null."
And before any of the usual suspects "chirp in". those who refuse to adhere to the Faith, the rites and the tradtions of the Church are the true schismatics against her.
Juan Cardinal De Torquemada, O.P. (1388-1468), bestowed with the title, "Defender of the Faith", by Pope Eugenius IV: "Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....
"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons. "By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
Um. I liked your explanation better.
He sounds pretty heterodox to me.
I've been thinking about the mass and making it relevant to different cultures. In theory, it seems like it wouldn't be such a bad thing necessarily. Do you think we are being xenophobic (for want of a better word) about our western Christian heritage and how we expect things to be?
Over the centuries, elements have been introduced into the mass. Altar boys (and girls) are an example and there are no doubt many others. Before there were altar boys (permitted only about the 1700's), there were acolytes who were older. Before that, I don't know what they did.
It is hypocritical to me to have all these rules governing mass and then not follow them. Someone explained to me that it is based on Roman law. They have to have a rule for everything, but they don't expect people to follow them. I'm not buying it.
Anecdotal, but yes. The Review Board recognized that there are celibate homosexuals in the priesthood as well.
Yep. Seems the faithful are coming together quite often these days . . . and not under the auspices of the National Council of Churches and its cronies.
I've seen hugging in church overdone though. Sometimes it's like a chain reaction. Somebody loses control and hugs somebody (often their priest). Then everybody gets into the act. Upon careful observation and remaining a bystander, I got the impression that the priest wasn't too keen on it, but what is one to do?
And what culture to you think found the sanctuary below relevant? Maybe it's the Voodoo Headshrinker Catholic Community.
What's voodoo about it? It doesn't necessarily speak voodoo to me, but I don't find it inviting either. We have a modern church-in-the-round (or half round) that much was made of when it was built. I didn't like attending there as much as some of the smaller, cozier, more traditional churches, but I am a traditional-type person when it comes to architecture and design.
I mean if you want to talk churches, I think that picture NYer posted of Sts. Peter and Paul in her area where the indult mass is offered is one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen. I almost felt like I was in the presence of something special just looking at the beauty of it.
I like to participate in photography newsgroups. Someone took some pictures of a church in Kansas City where they had lights in the blue ceiling which looked like stars. I thought that was rather beautiful, too, but not having been there, I don't know if I might find it distracting. I've also seen some gorgeous pictures of the older churches. Those are the ones I'm drawn to, probably because they are a part of our culture.
There is nothing in Canon Law that prohibits the ordination of someone who boldly proclaims that an obvious sin is in fact not a sin?
Yes, there is. But that's not what the thousands of celibate homosexuals in the priesthood do.
I don't want to drag out my canon law, but there is something in there about clergy and public heresy (auto-excommunication I think). Proclaiming a sin as not being sinful would be public heresy and anti-christian.
Sin? What sin? The only sin these days is making a movie about Christ's suffering.
Those suffering from "irregularity" or "psychic disorders" have never been permitted to become priests. You're obviously thinking of some form of Catholicism which is quite different from the orthodox tradition. The waffling on this issue by the modernist AmChurch bishops in recent years is an expression of the moral relativism of modern American counter-culture and a goofy atmopshere of political correctness with which you seem to identify, Mr. Sinkspur.
While the literal letter of canon law may not specify that necrophiliacs or people who masturbate into the orifices of dogs or chickens are officially banned from holy orders, the principle is there. Anal sex has always been considered a grave disorder in the Catholic moral tradition. Do your homework in the future. A practicing sexual deviant cannot be a priest.
Homosexual acts are sinful; homosexual orientation is not.
Anyone who engages in homosexual activity should not be ordained, nor should one who openly preaches that homosexual activity is not sinful.
He should not be ordained, but obviously some were. And I agree that he should not be.
But there is nothing in Canon Law that deals with the celibate homosexual, and there are many celibate homosexuals in the priesthood today.
The rest of your post reveals more about you than it does about homosexuals.
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.