Mel Gibson's NEw "Catholic" Church?

[Goldy]

paramedicgirl:

So where is he getting his priests? Are they disgruntled Catholic priests? What about their Sacraments? I wonder if their Communions are validly consecrated. For sure Confession would not be a valid sacrament.

I’m very disappointed in Mel. Someone posted a pic of him a while ago that showed him wearing a brown scapular. They posted, “I love this guy!” Mel, you have let us down.

I’m sorry but, who are we to judge? It’s not like Vatican II was exactly a home run for the Church. Since Vatican II: decrease in priests and religious, MAJOR decline in Mass attendance, especially in Europe, abortion (50% of U.S. Catholics consider themselves Pro-Choice). I could go on and on. Please don’t be so quick to judge. I’ve fallen into this trap before myself, and it’s not pretty!!

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I agree, Goldy. People are slamming people like Mel Gibson, when, since the topic (sedevacantism) is banned on these forums, these people cannot come here and give a solid defense of their position.

They do have some valid arguments, I think.
Anyone interested can email me at
Gedanken54@aol.com
and I will provide them with a link to a site which explains their views in a rational manner.

(I may take a few hours to answer your email, cuz that email address is on my home computer).

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

 

[oat_soda]

Kinda Like Bach left us with some of the greatest Christian music of all time but ended up Lutheran.

that’s too bad. i thought he was born lutheran. but since he converted, i have lost respect for him.

as for mel, i think we shouldn’t be so hard on him. first off, the post conciliar church has been a disaster; the renewal of the liturgy was not done well and catechisis went down the sewer pipe. i can totally sypathize with the sspx even though they contradict themselves. also, we don’t know exactly what he believes. he did have a priest in good standing from rome celebrate mass for him during the filming of the passion. plus, he might -though i doubt it- have permission from the bishop.

 

[Giannawannabe]

Goldy:

I’m sorry but, who are we to judge? It’s not like Vatican II was exactly a home run for the Church. Since Vatican II: decrease in priests and religious, MAJOR decline in Mass attendance, especially in Europe, abortion (50% of U.S. Catholics consider themselves Pro-Choice). I could go on and on. Please don’t be so quick to judge. I’ve fallen into this trap before myself, and it’s not pretty!!

I don’t think it’s “judging” Mel. It seems he is not being entirely truthful about his “catholic” faith. That is worrisome to me. Sedavacanists believe that the Chair of Peter is empty. That leaves no one in authority. They can believe whatever they want to believe. Many here are claiming that it is almost “all right” for Mel to run off and start his own “catholic” church because of the “abuses” and “bad priests/bishops” out there. It simply is not all right, and I feel like Mel has been dishonest in his dealings with the public. On the Diane Sawyer interview he claimed to be a Catholic. Anything he says and does will be a reflection on the True Church, even though he is not a member of it.
I loved the Passion and we watch it on Good Fridays. However, that does not excuse Mel from his deception.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

oat soda:

that’s too bad. i thought he was born lutheran. but since he converted, i have lost respect for him.

as for mel, i think we shouldn’t be so hard on him. first off, the post conciliar church has been a disaster; the renewal of the liturgy was not done well and catechisis went down the sewer pipe. i can totally sypathize with the sspx even though they contradict themselves. also, we don’t know exactly what he believes. he did have a priest in good standing from rome celebrate mass for him during the filming of the passion. plus, he might -though i doubt it- have permission from the bishop.

Bach was never Catholic. He was born a Lutheran.

 

[Franze]

Sedevacantism isn´t a solution. Thy have to come back.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

sedevacantist.com/sedebrief.html

This link is a to a brief explanation of what the SV’s believe and why they believe it.
We should at least give our opponents the courtesy of explaining themselves on their own terms.
We allow the Eastern Orthodox to do so, so why not these people?

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

 

[Wisdom]

JKirkLVNV:

Bach was never Catholic. He was born a Lutheran.

I double checked your rightm his music is still popular in catholic circles so I assumed he once was but I guess his music was so good that it was used and played in both Catholics and Lutheran circles.

 

[Wisdom]

Giannawannabe:

I don’t think it’s “judging” Mel. It seems he is not being entirely truthful about his “catholic” faith. That is worrisome to me. Sedavacanists believe that the Chair of Peter is empty. That leaves no one in authority. They can believe whatever they want to believe. Many here are claiming that it is almost “all right” for Mel to run off and start his own “catholic” church because of the “abuses” and “bad priests/bishops” out there. It simply is not all right, and I feel like Mel has been dishonest in his dealings with the public. On the Diane Sawyer interview he claimed to be a Catholic. Anything he says and does will be a reflection on the True Church, even though he is not a member of it.
I loved the Passion and we watch it on Good Fridays. However, that does not excuse Mel from his deception.

Well Orthodox claim they are catholic as it the case with Anglo-catholics (High church anglicans) and many Lutherans so it would make sense that many sedevanctist beleive they are catholic in fact they do claim that they are the real catholics and those who practice the modern mass are real catholics so in his mind Mel is telling us the truth. Not saying this is the truth but this what Mel beleives is the truth so he is not lying by his own conscience anyway. ITs funny who we treat with a soft brush our differences with the Orthodox and conservative Anglo-catholics but treat with vile our Sedevantist brothers and sisters.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wisdom:

ITs funny who we treat with a soft brush our differences with the Orthodox and conservative Anglo-catholics but treat with vile our Sedevantist brothers and sisters.

To this poster and Jaypeeto3: The difference between the Orthodox and our Protestant brothers and sisters and the SSPX and sedevacanteist groups (the SSPX aren’t sedevacanteists) is that the former are material heretics and thus less culpable for their error and the latter are formal schismatics and so directly culpable for theirs. I also don’t think we soft-peddle our differences with the Orthodox or with the Anglicans (we haven’t, for instance, suddenly given into the ordination of women or the openly gay AND, for that matter, we still deny the validity of Anglican orders).

 

[Jaypeeto3]

To JKirk,
Hi,
I appreciate your comments, but I think we overgeneralize when we blanketly say that our Protestant friends and our Eastern Orthodox friends are merely “material” heretics or “material” schismatics.

For example, our Orthodox friends have the same scriptures and the same Patristic writings which we have, which affirm the primacy of Peter and of the Bishop of Rome. Rather than accepting these things (as we Catholics do), they dismiss them or explain them away. Go to the Eastern Christianity forum and read Father Ambrose’s posts, for example. That is not material heresy, that is deliberate. Each generation is renewing the schism and heresy of 1054 A.D.

Our Protestant friends, many of whom are converted former Catholics, let’s not forget!!, also cannot be generalized as “material” heretics. They too have easy access to the same scriptures and patristic evidence that we Catholics have, and which bear sound witness to the Truth of the Catholic position.
These also ignore, dismiss, or explain away this testimony, thus renewing in our generation the act of schism and heresy that was committed in the 16th century.

And the Protestants have continued to ADD more heresies to the original heresies and sins of the 16th century. They allow artificial birth control (since 1930) and now many of them, in direct disobedience to their own scriptures, approve of Homosexual behavior and abortion. This is not mere material heresy. It is true that some protestants do not support the gay agenda or abortion, but they ALL allow for easy divorce and remarriage, again condemned explicitly by their OWN scriptures.

It is not right or accurate to simply and blanketly say that the Orthodox and the Protestants are merely “Material” heretics and schismatics. For the adults at least, this is not true.

As for the SVs, a person who believes in the papacy but who, in good faith sincerely believes that a particular claimant to the throne is heretical in his teaching, and has evidence to back that up, is not actually guilty of formal schism. Schism is recognizing the pope and rejecting his authority, like the SSPX does, or , like the Orthodox, rejects the office of the Papacy altogether in spite of Scriptural and Patristic evidence in support of it (not to mention the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truth of these things).

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jaypeeto3:

To JKirk,
Hi,
I appreciate your comments, but I think we overgeneralize when we blanketly say that our Protestant friends and our Eastern Orthodox friends are merely “material” heretics or “material” schismatics.

For example, our Orthodox friends have the same scriptures and the same Patristic writings which we have, which affirm the primacy of Peter and of the Bishop of Rome. Rather than accepting these things (as we Catholics do), they dismiss them or explain them away. Go to the Eastern Christianity forum and read Father Ambrose’s posts, for example. That is not material heresy, that is deliberate. Each generation is renewing the schism and heresy of 1054 A.D.

Our Protestant friends, many of whom are converted former Catholics, let’s not forget!!, also cannot be generalized as “material” heretics. They too have easy access to the same scriptures and patristic evidence that we Catholics have, and which bear sound witness to the Truth of the Catholic position.
These also ignore, dismiss, or explain away this testimony, thus renewing in our generation the act of schism and heresy that was committed in the 16th century.

And the Protestants have continued to ADD more heresies to the original heresies and sins of the 16th century. They allow artificial birth control (since 1930) and now many of them, in direct disobedience to their own scriptures, approve of Homosexual behavior and abortion. This is not mere material heresy. It is true that some protestants do not support the gay agenda or abortion, but they ALL allow for easy divorce and remarriage, again condemned explicitly by their OWN scriptures.

It is not right or accurate to simply and blanketly say that the Orthodox and the Protestants are merely “Material” heretics and schismatics. For the adults at least, this is not true.

As for the SVs, a person who believes in the papacy but who, in good faith sincerely believes that a particular claimant to the throne is heretical in his teaching, and has evidence to back that up, is not actually guilty of formal schism. Schism is recognizing the pope and rejecting his authority, like the SSPX does, or , like the Orthodox, rejects the office of the Papacy altogether in spite of Scriptural and Patristic evidence in support of it (not to mention the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truth of these things).

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

You are mistaken, in terms of what the Church teaches in the Catechism, AND the adults are clearly included among those to whom “the sin of seperation” cannot be attributed. You cannot say the same for the SSPX or sedevacanteists. The “sin of seperation” can clearly be laid at their doorstep, as they are the ones that seperated themselves from the Church and they knew what they were doing (it’s important to remember that the excommunication the SSPX incurred was an automatic one, not one handed down juridicially by the Pontiff. It was merely confirmed by him in Ecclesia Dei).

You are, of course, quite correct about those who of their own volition leave the Catholic Church. Their condemnation seems clear. However, you cannot construe the Catechism to say other than that the descendents of the Reformers are NOT responsible for the sin of serperation. They may well have other sins for which to answer and should they become convinced of the Truth of the Catholic Church and fail to enter Her, then yes, it is beyond our reckoning as to how they may be saved (God may, however, act outside His Church in His Sovereignity and so we do not despair for anyone). You have, however, essentially explained away an important item in Church teaching, in saying that they are “renewing” schism and heresy (there would have been no need to distinguish between material and formal schism and heresy on the part of the Church. You may feel that she had no need to do so, there are those who do, but she evidently felt the need to do so). It’s the same schism, the same heresy. Certainly, the fruits of schism and heresy can be seen in their continued “devolution” (ie, further compromise with the world, further deception by Satan).

Look at it this way. Let’s take a member of a snake-handling Holiness church in the Appalacian Mountains (who rarely finish high school) and set them next to Bishop Fellay. Who bears the greater culpability for their seperation from Holy Mother Church? Who knew better than to seperate themselves from union with Peter? Who is in a position of leadership (a usurped one, ordained without papal sanction)? Who’s sin is greater, objectively?

 

[Dorothy]

rlg94086:

I get a real kick out of the concern people show for the brand of Mel Gibson’s catholicism. Do they think his 70-member parish is going to overthrow the Vatican?

Regardless of his Church’s affiliation, he makes good movies. If you need him to be a perfect Catholic in order to enjoy them, okay…don’t go.

I don’t agree with what Mel Gibson is doing by taking it upon himself to build Catholic Churches, but I don’t deny that he is a very talented person that was instrumental in presenting an excellent movie depicting the sufferings of Our Lord. I recognize that he has God-given talent.

I certainly don’t believe his “70-member parish” is going to overthrow the Vatican, but I am concerned about his lack of unity with the Catholic Church.

We need people with strong convictions IN the Church, not on the fringe.

May the Holy Spirit lead him into all truth.

 

[Wisdom]

JKirkLVNV:

To this poster and Jaypeeto3: The difference between the Orthodox and our Protestant brothers and sisters and the SSPX and sedevacanteist groups (the SSPX aren’t sedevacanteists) is that the former are material heretics and thus less culpable for their error and the latter are formal schismatics and so directly culpable for theirs. I also don’t think we soft-peddle our differences with the Orthodox or with the Anglicans (we haven’t, for instance, suddenly given into the ordination of women or the openly gay AND, for that matter, we still deny the validity of Anglican orders).

The language you use to describe our Orthodox and conservative Anglo-catholic brethren are never used in church documents nor church councils since perhaps Trent a lot has happened in 500 years perhaps you need to update your description of these church bodies it is now common practice to describe the Orthodox as our other lung of the church we don’t call them materail heretics. Please we are not the days of Trent and the Inquisition. A fan of Fr Feeney I see. Also I noted the ecunemical discussion we have with conservative anglo-catholics not the liberal Anglican churchs, we are in fact close to having the TAC anglican communion back in the fold, no doubt your language woudl have drove them away ages ago. All I am saying the same we treated them with respect is the same way we should treat the more recent schismatics with respect. They may be in error but they do have several valid points the church has lost its way in some ways during the days of Vatican 2 and we need to look to adress these problems.

 

[MikeinSD]

Didn’t Hutton Gibson, Mel’s father, deny the Holocaust? Not that Mel Gibson believes the same.
theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072756433.html

"Hutton Gibson, argued that many European Jews counted as death camp victims of the Nazi regime had in fact fled to countries like Australia and the United States.

“It’s all – maybe not all fiction – but most of it is,” he said, adding that the gas chambers and crematoria at camps like Auschwitz would not have been capable of exterminating so many people. "

But I can understand why many of fellow Jewish citizens are uneasy about Mel’s movie.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree. I think the right way to draw these people back to the Church is to embrace their commenality and correct their errors with a civil tone. Demonizing them won’t bring them back. They are not evil…just misguided.

I hope Pope Benedict continues to reach out.

God Bless,

Robert

Dorothy:

I don’t agree with what Mel Gibson is doing by taking it upon himself to build Catholic Churches, but I don’t deny that he is a very talented person that was instrumental in presenting an excellent movie depicting the sufferings of Our Lord. I recognize that he has God-given talent.

I certainly don’t believe his “70-member parish” is going to overthrow the Vatican, but I am concerned about his lack of unity with the Catholic Church.

We need people with strong convictions IN the Church, not on the fringe.

May the Holy Spirit lead him into all truth.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wisdom:

The language you use to describe our Orthodox and conservative Anglo-catholic brethren are never used in church documents nor church councils since perhaps Trent a lot has happened in 500 years perhaps you need to update your description of these church bodies it is now common practice to describe the Orthodox as our other lung of the church we don’t call them materail heretics. Please we are not the days of Trent and the Inquisition. A fan of Fr Feeney I see. Also I noted the ecunemical discussion we have with conservative anglo-catholics not the liberal Anglican churchs, we are in fact close to having the TAC anglican communion back in the fold, no doubt your language woudl have drove them away ages ago. All I am saying the same we treated them with respect is the same way we should treat the more recent schismatics with respect. They may be in error but they do have several valid points the church has lost its way in some ways during the days of Vatican 2 and we need to look to adress these problems.

You need to educate yourself (reading helps). I’m actually defending the Church’s method of dialog with the Orthodox and the Anglicans. She DOES distinguish between material heretics and schismatics and formal ones (material ones are those brought up in church’s and ecclessiastical communities not in union with Rome and thus they are not culpable for that “sin of seperation” spoken of in the Catechism. “Not culpable” means “not guilty.”). Formal ones depart the Church of their own accord, such as the SSPX. The former don’t KNOW the necessity of being in the Church, the latter DO, thus their culpability is far greater. Pope John Paul used the very vivid and accurate phrase “the Church needs to breathe with both lungs.” It hasn’t passed into common parlance and it is not a phrase used in either ecclesiology or theology. I’m sorry your reading hasn’t been broad enough to expose you to the terms “material” and “formal” when used as adjectives before the word “heretic,” but let me assure you, the Church still uses them and you can find the examples by doing a little search of these forums or googling the words. As a Catholic convert myself, with beloved relatives who haven’t come into the Church, I find it insulting that you would associate me with Father Feeney, but then I forgive your apparent inability to avail yourself of information that is readily available in books or on the internet. One of the things that Fr. Feeney insisted on was that one had to formally be a part of the Catholic Church to be saved. He also insisted that water baptism was the only way to remit sins, ie, no baptism of desire, etc. Where in the above or in previous posts have you seen me assert either position? I happen to believe what the Catechism teaches about the possibility of salvation for our seperated brethren. Finally, your observation that the recent schismatics have “valid points” is an entirely subjective opinion. I don’t think they have any valid points and that they should return and make their submission to the Holy See. The problems experienced by the Church today are the problems faced after any council. No one has the right to hive off and start their own community sep. from the Church. No Catholic has the right to disobey the Holy Father.

 

[Lorarose]

I’m holding out one possiblility for Mel…that he may simply be doing what he sees as his duty as a son.
Hutton is old and cranky…and maybe Mel is just giving the old man what he wants.

The telling moment will be what Mel decides to put in his movie about the holocaust.
Hutton is a holocaust denier.
If Mel tells the truth about the holocaust, we will know that the son doesn’t always agree with the father.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Wisdom:

The language you use to describe our Orthodox and conservative Anglo-catholic brethren are never used in church documents nor church councils since perhaps Trent a lot has happened in 500 years perhaps you need to update your description of these church bodies it is now common practice to describe the Orthodox as our other lung of the church we don’t call them materail heretics. Please we are not the days of Trent and the Inquisition. A fan of Fr Feeney I see. Also I noted the ecunemical discussion we have with conservative anglo-catholics not the liberal Anglican churchs, we are in fact close to having the TAC anglican communion back in the fold, no doubt your language woudl have drove them away ages ago. All I am saying the same we treated them with respect is the same way we should treat the more recent schismatics with respect. They may be in error but they do have several valid points the church has lost its way in some ways during the days of Vatican 2 and we need to look to adress these problems.

If JKirk is a Feeneyite, the whole fabric of the universe is probably ripping apart as we speak. You’d have to put in some real effort to be more mistaken!

As it stands, I think the distinction between material and formal heresy/schism is a very charitable way of explaining the truth. The Orthodox are in schism and Protestants espouse heresy. Rather than leaving it at that, though, one should explain the distinction in culpability which JKirk has done. Lying about the objective existence of heresy or schism will never affect real reunion.

 

[Chickamauga]

Lorarose:

The telling moment will be what Mel decides to put in his movie about the holocaust.

Fact check. Mel Gibson is NOT currently making a movie about the holocaust. One of the companies he owns, Con Artists Productions, is working with ABC television which is exploring the possibility of making a movie about Flory Van Beek, a Dutch Jew whose gentile neighbours hid her from the Nazis. The film, if it is even made, will be based on her book Survival in the Valley of Death. Just because one of the companies he owns is *thinking *about investing in a a TV movie DOES NOT mean that Mel Gibson is the prime mover behind it. The film has not yet even been given a green light for production. If it is made it seems doubtful if Gibson will be doing anything other than helping to fund it. He is apparently not writing, directing, acting or even being an historical advisor on the Flory film. Therefore it is not exclusivly “his” movie nor should anyone presume to think that Gibson’s father’s views on the holocaust will or will not be in the film. Movies are a collaborative effort and he’s obviously not the prime mover behind this yet-to-be-realized project.

Read the entire story here: variety.com/article/VR1117934088?categoryid=14&cs=1

In my opninion this entire thread is nothing more than an exercise is bearing false witness.

%between%