MERGED: Mel Gibson 's New Church/A protestant?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

trth_skr:

That is not true. SSPX have not rejected any popes. They disagree with many of the popes since Vat. II, and feel that Vat II was in error, but they do recognize the validity of the popes.

SSPV are more in the position you are referring to. And, technically, those who are in this position tend to reject John XXIII and onwards (i.e., they recognize Pius XII as the last legitimate pope).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Mark,
Its a very fine line between rejecting the popes and saying that the popes are vaild while being disobedient.

Some would argue that those who say they are vaild but chose not to follow them are playing at semantics. Which is just what the SSPV did when they broke away from the SSPX and entered into full sedevacantism.

But either way, both groups are schismatics.

 

[Loy]

awfulthings9:

I have seen the interview where he tells Larry King that he doesn’t accept the authority of the Pope, yet this is from several years ago. Do we know that he still holds these views from a reliable source, such as from an interview with Gibson, himself. OR, to put the burden of proof on the other side, does anyone know of an interview with Gibson or a story which documents that he currently HAS returned to the fullness of the faith.

I didn’t see this, but I’ll take your word that it’s true. Hopefully he has changed his view.

awfulthings9:

I’d also like to see documentation for his beliefs about his wife. This seems rather strong, and I would be surprised that Gibson actually said this in a forum that would have put it before the public eye.

Actually, I do remember this although I forget whether it was in the U.S. or Australia. Yes, at one time he said he believed that all those outside the Church would not be saved, that he loved his wife but he believed that the Church taught only those in the Church could be saved. Perhaps he has changed his views since the interview.

 

[Cath.orProtes]

Quote from site of Church Mel apparently financed:

"About Holy Family Chapel

In the Charleston area since 1977, Holy Family Chapel has provided the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and other sacraments, in the traditional Latin rite (Tridentine rite) of the Roman Catholic Church.

These Masses are authorized by immemorial custom and by the bull Quo Primum Tempore of Saint Pius V, who codified this already ancient rite of Mass in the 16th century, in implementation of the Council of Trent. While many Church officials today show an aversion to this rite of Mass, and to the faith it so beautifully enshrines, no competent official or Church body has cancelled St. Pius V’s authorization for it.

Holy Family Chapel has no formal ties with any movement or organization other than the Roman Catholic Church; it has no agenda other than to preserve the old Mass in order to preserve the Catholic faith, which is in crisis.

The Chapel is in Givhans, S. C., about 30 miles from Charleston, near Summerville. It is just off Hillbranch Road on Phillips Lane. Masses are scheduled regularly on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Sundays of every month, and on major feast days."

holyfamilychapel.org/

 

[Cath.orProtes]

awfulthings9:

I’d also like to see documentation for his beliefs about his wife. This seems rather strong, and I would be surprised that Gibson actually said this in a forum that would have put it before the public eye.

Not saying the above information is incorrect - or that it is correct - but thought we should be documenting our claims against someone who may have repented of former ways.

As Malachi_a_serv stated above:

msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/

“There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”

He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”

 

[Loy]

jmcclane:

The question I have is, why watching the movie, twice at the theater, and buying the DVD, am I participating in his schism from the Church? It was the profits from this movie that he using to build this compound in California and in Pennsylvania and I defiantly contributed to that.

You wouldn’t be participating in a schism unless you intended for the profits from your purchases to support a schismatic church.

I would assume that you believed (and still believe) that the movie itself gives glory to God.

Now that you disagree with how Mel Gibson is using his profits, pray about your purchases, perhaps discuss the matter with a priest, and see where the Holy Spirit leads you.

 

[Annunciata]

Cath.orProtes.?:

As Malachi_a_serv stated above:

msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/

“There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”

He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”

This story was dated 2/10/04…Does anyone know for sure that he still feels this way??? I spent a lot of money and encouraged many to go to see it… if the funds are going to a church that isn’t in Communion w/ Rome…then I’m very upset…

 

[bear06]

Mel Gibson is very careful in what he says and the folks like EWTN don’t ask. The one fact that is not speculation is that his chapel is not operating with permission from the local bishop so it’s doubtful his priest have faculties from Cardinal Mahoney either so the confessions and marriages in that chapel would be invalid.

jimmyakin.org/2005/03/mels_next_film.html
catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=19145

It would be nice if someone would just come out and say “Mr. Gibson, is your Church operating under an Indult?” Considering the Indults also come from the local bishop, it’s doubtful.

BTW, Mel’s sprititual advisor writes for SSPX even though he isn’t a member.

 

[David_Zampino]

Lazerlike42:

St. Paul did much worse before he got into his faith!

As did St. Augustine of Hippo!

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

Cath.orProtes.?:

I do not recal how this came up but I received in in a PM from a fellow poster here who knows Mel.

“Mel Gibson is a LAtin Rite Catholic and is in communion with the Pope. No doubt he is a Catholic that holds to traditional beliefs but he is not Schismatic.”

“As far as the stuff about Mel, There are a lot of bashers out there and a lot of stuff is taken out of context. If Mel was not in communion he definetly would not be interviewed on EWTN! I know Mel quiter well. He is in communion with Rome.”

I do not recall why this came up but it was in response to a query of mine I believe. Nonetheless, some info saying Mel is not in communion with Rome, this poster who says he/she knows Mel (“I know Mel quiter well”)…from above quote, would suggest otherwise.

It is also important to note that, although Mel has made it clear that he dearly loves his father – one cannot lump the two together. The opinions of the father cannot be automatically appropriated to the son.

Blessings,

 

[Loy]

ByzCath:

Mark,
Its a very fine line between rejecting the popes and saying that the popes are vaild while being disobedient.

Some would argue that those who say they are vaild but chose not to follow them are playing at semantics. Which is just what the SSPV did when they broke away from the SSPX and entered into full sedevacantism.

But either way, both groups are schismatics.

The SSPX and the SSPV use different lines of logic to attempt to justify their independence from the Pope. The SSPX’s reasoning is less sound, and perhaps the majority of the SSPX realize this, which might be what is actually driving them (at least the majority of them) towards reconciliation.

The SSPV, unfortunately, have a more solid logical basis for their separation. We should never underestimate the level of their sincerity merely because we disagree with them. The arguments supporting sedevacantism can certainly be overcome, but it will take more time. And charity.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Annunciata:

This story was dated 2/10/04…Does anyone know for sure that he still feels this way??? I spent a lot of money and encouraged many to go to see it… if the funds are going to a church that isn’t in Communion w/ Rome…then I’m very upset…

This is from another thread/post here on the CA board. Dated today.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184668,00.html

 

[JSmitty2005]

religioustolerance.org/chrgibson1.htm

I would not use this site. This should be obvious with a name like Religious Tolerance dot org. They do not present sound teachings (ie. - “Mary is regarded as a co-redemptrix and mediatrix, sharing these powers with Jesus Christ.*”) and they’re goal is essentially religious indifferentism and pluralism. Groups like this are the biggest enemies of the Church.

*BTW - Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate do NOT put her on the same level as her Son. The second thing that the site got wrong was that the Church does not hold these roles to be true for the Blessed Virgin. In actuality, official Catholic teaching says that Mary is most certainly all 3. There currently is, however, a movement to have this recognized as dogma.

 

[Wisdom]

Ignatius:

Didn’t Mel Gibson meet with HH JPII of blessed memory? I thought I had read that they had a very cordial visit just before the release of The Passion of the Christ.

No your mistaking him with James Caviziel the actor who potrayed Christ in Mel’s film the Passion of the Christ. His visit was shortly after the release of the film as I remember. James is definitly in communion with Rome. Mel’s situation is murky from my point of view. Mel did visit with Sister Lucia of Fatima fame and presented her with a viewing of his movie.

One does not need to be in under the jurisdiction of Cardinal Mahoney in order to be in communion with Rome. If Mel got a priest from perhaps the Jesuits or the Society of Saint Peter who don’t have strict regional prophibitions under the local dioceese than perhaps he might be in communion with Rome while not associating himself with the archdioceese of Los Angeles. THis much is sure his church is not related to the archdiocees of Los Angeles in any way.

I also hate how every time they mention Mel they have to throw in that the church suddenly during vatican 2 stopped accusing the Jews of killing Jesus. This is pure hogwash this was explicitly denied during Vatican I and really the mindset of the church since the Renaissance. This is just another tactic to accuse the church of being anti-semtic until after wordl war 2. This is because they want to hold the church accountable for the holocost and not preventing Hitler from his attorcities and of course gives the anti-Pius XII crowd more ammo. And of course this paints Mel as an anti-semite all in the same breath.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Lazerlike42:

SSPX is a schismatic group of Catholics who believe that every Pope after and including Paul VI were not truly Pope, and that Vatican II was not a true council. They believe that Vatican II changed many doctrines of the faith, although this is not true. If you want more on this, ask.

That’s the SSPV position on the Popes - the SSPX accept all Popes since and including and before Pius XII as valid, but reject or question the validity of some - not all - papal or conciliar or ecclesiastical acts and teaching since 1965. If the SSPX now reject Vatican II, they have gone far further than Mgr. Lefebvre ever did.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Quote from site of Church Mel apparently financed:

"About Holy Family Chapel

In the Charleston area since 1977, Holy Family Chapel has provided the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and other sacraments, in the traditional Latin rite (Tridentine rite) of the Roman Catholic Church.

These Masses are authorized by immemorial custom and by the bull Quo Primum Tempore of Saint Pius V, who codified this already ancient rite of Mass in the 16th century, in implementation of the Council of Trent. While many Church officials today show an aversion to this rite of Mass, and to the faith it so beautifully enshrines, no competent official or Church body has cancelled St. Pius V’s authorization for it.

Holy Family Chapel has no formal ties with any movement or organization other than the Roman Catholic Church; it has no agenda other than to preserve the old Mass in order to preserve the Catholic faith, which is in crisis.

The Chapel is in Givhans, S. C., about 30 miles from Charleston, near Summerville. It is just off Hillbranch Road on Phillips Lane. Masses are scheduled regularly on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Sundays of every month, and on major feast days."

holyfamilychapel.org/

If the chapel is not recognised by the bishop, it’s not clear how they are not - to use a word very popular hereabouts - “dissenters.”. If they are union with Rome, what are they doing disobeying their bishop ? How can they be in unuion with Rome, if they do not worship as the bishop whom the Pope has set over them desires of them ? It is the bishop - not the laity - to whom Rome gives responsibility for the liturgy. If the bishop does not recognise them as being in communion with him, they are not in communion with him.​

It’s curious how dissent and disobedience is rebuked almost only when it comes from “liberals” (whatever the word means). When it is from the opposite direction, it seems to be looked on very indulgently. :whacky: ##

 

[bear06]

One does not need to be in under the jurisdiction of Cardinal Mahoney in order to be in communion with Rome. If Mel got a priest from perhaps the Jesuits or the Society of Saint Peter who don’t have strict regional prophibitions under the local dioceese than perhaps he might be in communion with Rome while not associating himself with the archdioceese of Los Angeles. THis much is sure his church is not related to the archdiocees of Los Angeles in any way.

Here’s the canons on this issue. I’d look into the ones on marriage as well:

Can. 969 ß1 Only the local Ordinary is competent to give to any priests whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any whomsoever of the faithful. Priests who are members of religious institutes may not, however, use this faculty without the permission, at least presumed, of their Superior.

ß2 The Superior of a religious institute or of a society of apostolic life, mentioned in can. 968 ß2, is competent to give to any priests whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of his own subjects and of those others who live day and night in the house.

Can. 970 The faculty to hear confessions is not to be given except to priests whose suitability has been established, either by examination or by some other means.

Can. 971 The local Ordinary is not to give the faculty habitually to hear confessions to a priest, even to one who has a domicile or quasi‚domicile within his jurisdiction, without first, as far as possible, consulting that priest’s own Ordinary.

Can. 972 The faculty to hear confessions may be given by the competent authority mentioned in can. 969, for either an indeterminate or a determinate period of time.

Can. 973 The faculty habitually to hear confessions is to be given in writing.

Can. 974 ß1 Neither the local Ordinary nor the competent Superior may, except for a grave reason, revoke the grant of a faculty habitually to hear confessions.

ß2 If the faculty to hear confessions granted by the local Ordinary mentioned in can. 967, ß2, is revoked by that Ordinary, the priest loses the faculty everywhere. If the faculty is revoked by another local Ordinary, the priest loses it only in the territory of the Ordinary who revokes it.

ß3 Any local Ordinary who has revoked a priest’s faculty to hear confessions is to notify the Ordinary who is proper to that priest by reason of incardination or, if the priest is a member of a religious institute, his competent Superior.

ß4 If the faculty to hear confessions is revoked by his own major Superior, the priest loses everywhere the faculty to hear the confessions of the members of the institute. But if the faculty is revoked by another competent Superior, the priest loses it only in respect of those subjects who are in that Superior’s jurisdiction.

Can. 975 Apart from revocation, the faculty mentioned in can. 967 ß2 ceases by loss of office, by excardination, or by loss of domicile.

 

[Wisdom]

Well bear how often is this even addressed in the real world. Witness the chaos of the Terry Schiavo fiasco, she was given the annointing of the sick, holy communion, the viacitum, all by priest not in union with the local bishop. Where these sacraments not valid?
You know the local bishop had instructed his local priests to stay out of the matter and so they did. Terry’s family therefore resorted to having out of state friars, retired priests etc give the sacrametns to their dying daughter. Of course since the Bishop was in Thailand for the entire incident he did not reverse his previous instruction of staying out the issue. All I am saying is that indivudal priests that are not under a dioceese tend to do their own thing since they don’t answer to the local bishop. The Jesuits, the Soceity of St Peter and now Fr Pavone’s new order don’t answer to local bishops. So don’t be suprised if Fr Pavone visits the LA area when Cardianal Mahoney rips secret emails to his priest to stay out of a Terry Schiavo like issue.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

But, If Mel is not in communion with Rome, why did he have interviews with EWTN? Wouldn’t that go against the grain?

 

[puzzleannie]

we had lengthy discussion on this when the movie came out, do a search, bottom line, Mel’s father belongs to a schismatic Church, Mel does not, but refuses to discuss his father’s beliefs in public, no doubt adhering to the commandment: honor thy father and mother.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

puzzleannie:

we had lengthy discussion on this when the movie came out, do a search, bottom line, Mel’s father belongs to a schismatic Church, Mel does not, but refuses to discuss his father’s beliefs in public, no doubt adhering to the commandment: honor thy father and mother.

Oh, Thanks. And gee isn’t that nice of Mel.