Movie: 'The Conflict', aka 'Catholics: A Fable of the Future'

[flameburns623]

This movie was for sale for a buck. It’s actually pretty good although it gets almost surreal towards the middle. Basically, Irish priests in a monstery are becoming the last holdouts as the Roman Catholic Church unites with other churches worldwide in a radical liberalization of doctrine and practice. Early on, the movie seems to be about radical traditionalists versus a relatively mainstream RCC–then it becomes obvious that the larger Catholic Church is nothing like the mainstream Catholic Church we all know.

Has a great cast of actors: Martin Sheen plays the Vatican representative sent to bring the monks to heel. Trevor Howard and Cyril Cusack play the main monk characters, very credibly. I did not like the ending–the monks basically cave to the pressure–but it lived up to it’s billing as a ‘thought-provoking’ film.

Anyone else seen this? Given the subject matter, I thought this would be the best place for this post.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Leave it to Hollywood to put out something that will likely lead some astray. i don’t fault them as much as some of the “Catholic Actors” who take part in making this trash for nothing other than money.
Deacon Ed B

 

[TMGallyon85]

Deacon Ed talking about “Catholic actors” bring to mind Nicole Kidman, who has played sleezy roles in many movies then was in everyones favorite “Golden compass.”

 

[saint_rafael]

I bought the movie and I thought it was great. It’s sad to see how phrophetic it was. It was made in the 70’s and takes place in the “distant” future of 1999, after Vatican IV. The Church has gone off the deep end with the power of the Papacy replaced with a Council of Churches type assembly. There is no longer any private confessions, Liberation theology is the rage in America, and Buddhism is practiced by many priests and are partners in with the Church in conferences.

It is sad that much of the nutty heretical ecumenism of ecumania has actually come to pass in the Church in the last couple of decades.

The faith of the abbott was the casualty of all the liberalization and secularization of Catholicism. He was the a tragic figure to behold.

 

[Freshman88]

The movie was amazing and I found it related a lot to a story of a local priest.

In the years following the implementation of the NO, various dioceses began to phase out the TLM going as far as to prohibit its celebration. A certain priest was uncomfortable with the new mass and so he began to return to the TLM. Once the diocese had banned the TLM, this priest was eventually kicked out of his own parish by the diocese. This priest was faced with choice of following his own conscicene which would not permit him to celebrate the new mass and the local bishop that demanded he succumb to the new mass.

Like the local priest the movie is great because it brings to attention the dilemma of obedience to authority vs obedience to truth.

What if the Vatican began to reject Catholic dogma/doctrine as it happened in the move? In such a case is it more important that we are loyal to the Vatican or is it more important that we are loyal to our conscience and to the truth?

History provides us with countless examples of men who were forced to chose between their own conscience and authority.

It would be a tough decision to make, and I hope we will make the right one.

 

[flameburns623]

Leave it to Hollywood to put out something that will likely lead some astray. i don’t fault them as much as some of the “Catholic Actors” who take part in making this trash for nothing other than money.
Deacon Ed B

Had you seen the movie? Or are you just reacting to my description of it?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Had you seen the movie? Or are you just reacting to my description of it?

No, I have not seen the movie. Just as I refused to see “The Last Temptation of Christ”, I chose not to waste my time on Hollywood s version of Catholicism which will just make people get themselves in a wad trying to make something out of it. It’s Hollywood for heaven sake. Need I say more.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[flameburns623]

No, I have not seen the movie. Just as I refused to see “The Last Temptation of Christ”, I chose not to waste my time on Hollywood s version of Catholicism which will just make people get themselves in a wad trying to make something out of it. It’s Hollywood for heaven sake. Need I say more.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The “Passion of the Christ” was Hollywood. “Ben Hur” was Hollywood. “The Spear” was Hollywood. Two or three other darned good movies with Christian and even Catholic themes were Hollywood. This particular “Hollywood” movie is about 30 years old, and it doesn’t fit the mold of “The Last Temptation of Christ”. It is faith-challenging, but not in the destructive, poisonous way that “Jesus of Montreal” or “The Da Vinci Code” are faith-challenging. Look at some of the other posts on the film in this thread.

You don’t have to watch the film or like it if you do watch it. (As i say, I wish the abbott in the film had stood up to the Vatican representative a bit more firmly–it was made clear he had rights of appeal that he could have resorted to, short of open rebellion and schism).

But . . . why launch a broadside against it sight unseen? Have you read a review of it somewhere that suggest to you that it is inimical to faith or morals? I could respect that you have taken some authoritative opinion about the film to heart and would not expose yourself to potential spiritual harm.

Or are you just reacting to my description of it?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

T

But . . . why launch a broadside against it sight unseen? Have you read a review of it somewhere that suggest to you that it is inimical to faith or morals? I could respect that you have taken some authoritative opinion about the film to heart and would not expose yourself to potential spiritual harm. Or are you just reacting to my description of it?

Call lme a fuddy-duddy, but I make it a practice to watch almost nothing that comes out of Hollywood. My last time at the movies was to watch “The Passion” by Mel Gibson. I don’t know when the last time before that was.
Prayers and Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[flameburns623]

Call lme a fuddy-duddy, but I make it a practice to watch almost nothing that comes out of Hollywood. My last time at the movies was to watch “The Passion” by Mel Gibson. I don’t know when the last time before that was.
Prayers and Blessings
Deacon Ed B

:tiphat:

 

[CollegeKid]

The movie was amazing and I found it related a lot to a story of a local priest.

In the years following the implementation of the NO, various dioceses began to phase out the TLM going as far as to prohibit its celebration. A certain priest was uncomfortable with the new mass and so he began to return to the TLM. Once the diocese had banned the TLM, this priest was eventually kicked out of his own parish by the diocese. This priest was faced with choice of following his own conscicene which would not permit him to celebrate the new mass and the local bishop that demanded he succumb to the new mass.

Like the local priest the movie is great because it brings to attention the dilemma of obedience to authority vs obedience to truth.

What if the Vatican began to reject Catholic dogma/doctrine as it happened in the move? In such a case is it more important that we are loyal to the Vatican or is it more important that we are loyal to our conscience and to the truth?

History provides us with countless examples of men who were forced to chose between their own conscience and authority.

It would be a tough decision to make, and I hope we will make the right one.

First of all, when we’re talking about the highest teaching authority in the Catholic Church, I think its best to refer to it as “the Holy See” or “the See of Rome.” Just my opinion. “The Vatican” is a shorthand way of refering to the secular governing aparatus of the state of Vatican City, Italy, and it only dates back to its creation by the Lateran Treaty of 1929, not to the birth of the Catholic Church 2000 years ago.

As to the question of whether the Bishop of Rome could ever, in a definitive and binding Ex Cathedra teaching, teach something that is contradictory to Catholic faith, isn’t that kind of like asking what if at some point 2+2=5, a contradiction in terms? The charism of infallibility was given to the Church so that she would not fall into error when invoking her definitive and final teaching authority.

If you’re referring to a situation kind of like the present, where we have some Catholics, notably groups like the Society of Saint Pius X, claiming that teaching errors have been introduced through a non-infallible ecumenical council of the Church (Vatican II), in that case I think they’re wrong to continue their ministry when all of their sacraments are held to be illicit by the Holy See. I don’t see any other description for it than disobedience.

Furthermore, I object to the way they’ve chosen to voice their disagreement with Vatican II, by publicly declaring the Council and the Fathers to be in error. Again, I can’t think of another word for it than disobedience. It seems that a much more Catholic way to handle the dilemma would be to submit formal requests to the Holy See that the documents in question be clarified and their links to Catholic tradition made clearer, even if it meant amendments being made to some of the documents, while at the same time submitting to the Pope and the Magisterium.

Personally, I don’t see why the priests of the SSPX couldn’t continue teaching traditional Catholic doctrines in their chapels, right now in 2008, the way the Institute of Christ the King or the Fraternity of St. Peter do, while at the same time being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome just as the Fraternity and Institute are.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**Leave it to Hollywood to put out something that will likely lead some astray. **

Actually, this is a TV movie from the '70’s, and itself an adaptation of a novel.

 

[CollegeKid]

First of all, when we’re talking about the highest teaching authority in the Catholic Church, I think its best to refer to it as “the Holy See” or “the See of Rome.” Just my opinion. “The Vatican” is a shorthand way of refering to the secular governing aparatus of the state of Vatican City, Italy, and it only dates back to its creation by the Lateran Treaty of 1929, not to the birth of the Catholic Church 2000 years ago.

As to the question of whether the Bishop of Rome could ever, in a definitive and binding Ex Cathedra teaching, teach something that is contradictory to Catholic faith, isn’t that kind of like asking what if at some point 2+2=5, a contradiction in terms? The charism of infallibility was given to the Church so that she would not fall into error when invoking her definitive and final teaching authority.

If you’re referring to a situation kind of like the present, where we have some Catholics, notably groups like the Society of Saint Pius X, claiming that teaching errors have been introduced through a non-infallible ecumenical council of the Church (Vatican II), in that case I think they’re wrong to continue their ministry when all of their sacraments are held to be illicit by the Holy See. I don’t see any other description for it than disobedience.

Furthermore, I object to the way they’ve chosen to voice their disagreement with Vatican II, by publicly declaring the Council and the Fathers to be in error. Again, I can’t think of another word for it than disobedience. It seems that a much more Catholic way to handle the dilemma would be to submit formal requests to the Holy See that the documents in question be clarified and their links to Catholic tradition made clearer, even if it meant amendments being made to some of the documents, while at the same time submitting to the Pope and the Magisterium.

Personally, I don’t see why the priests of the SSPX couldn’t continue teaching traditional Catholic doctrines in their chapels, right now in 2008, the way the Institute of Christ the King or the Fraternity of St. Peter do, while at the same time being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome just as the Fraternity and Institute are.

As a brief addendum to my previous post, let’s take one possible example of many of a practical problem the Society might face and how it could be resolved if they were in full communion with the Church: Catechisms.

In the instruction of their faithful in RCIA and children’s catechesis and so on, couldn’t the SSPX just use the older Baltimore Catechisms if they were uncomfortable with the newer ones? Would this in any way, according to canon law, be an act of defiance against the local bishop or the Pope? I sure don’t see how it would be.

If someone wants to jump in and correct or contradict anything I’ve said or give extra information, go for it. I’m just trying to figure this out.

 

[saint_rafael]

collegekid,

SSPX are faithful Catholics that are not schismatic. They have to fix their canonical state that they are in. The problem is that the Church is in crisis right now. Modernist bishops are all over the Church.

The Fact is that the SSPX cannot trust Rome right now. They will stab them in the back like the FSSP. Catholic traditionalists believe the new Mass is bad liturgy. The SSPX will never celebrate the new Mass and Rome cannot stand that. The hierarchy insists that every Catholic shold affirm the New Mass. Many in the FSSP were under the impression at the begginning that the were exempt from the New Mass, but Rome forced them to celebrate it on occassion.

The SSPX must wait it out until the situation improves and the unjust excommunications are lifted from the bishops.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

collegekid,

SSPX are faithful Catholics that are not schismatic.

The SSPX must wait it out until the situation improves and the unjust excommunications are lifted from the bishops.

These two statements certainly do seem self contradictory to me.
Prayers & Blessings.

 

[CollegeKid]

collegekid,

SSPX are faithful Catholics that are not schismatic. They have to fix their canonical state that they are in. The problem is that the Church is in crisis right now. Modernist bishops are all over the Church.

The Fact is that the SSPX cannot trust Rome right now. They will stab them in the back like the FSSP. Catholic traditionalists believe the new Mass is bad liturgy. The SSPX will never celebrate the new Mass and Rome cannot stand that. The hierarchy insists that every Catholic shold affirm the New Mass. Many in the FSSP were under the impression at the begginning that the were exempt from the New Mass, but Rome forced them to celebrate it on occassion.

The SSPX must wait it out until the situation improves and the unjust excommunications are lifted from the bishops.

To Whom it May Concern,

Respectfully, I noticed you launched a shotgun blast of charges I didn’t even bring up, such as whether the SSPX is schismatic or not. Please note that I did not say that they schismatic. I don’t know if they are or not. I said that their sacraments are illicit. There is a difference.

I just going to be blunt: though I disagree vehemently with most of what you said, if we spoke at length we’d probably agree on certain issues re: modernism in the Church today, etc. However, I’m not going to get into this with you. I know that these debates never, ever end. Much less still do they ever end charitably.

 

[flameburns623]

Hi folks!

I’ve asked for a review of several posts in this thread which may be trampling on some of the rules of this forum. It appears there was an abrupt shift in the conversation several posts ago to subject matter not in any way connected to this thread. Can we please discuss the movie I mentioned? Thanks!

 

[Freshman88]

First of all, when we’re talking about the highest teaching authority in the Catholic Church, I think its best to refer to it as “the Holy See” or “the See of Rome.” Just my opinion. “The Vatican” is a shorthand way of refering to the secular governing aparatus of the state of Vatican City, Italy, and it only dates back to its creation by the Lateran Treaty of 1929, not to the birth of the Catholic Church 2000 years ago.

“Vatican” is not just a shorthand way of reffering to the secular governing aparatus and suggests no disrespect what so ever… and the term “Vatican” is older than the Church herself.

As to the question of whether the Bishop of Rome could ever, in a definitive and binding Ex Cathedra teaching, teach something that is contradictory to Catholic faith, isn’t that kind of like asking what if at some point 2+2=5, a contradiction in terms? The charism of infallibility was given to the Church so that she would not fall into error when invoking her definitive and final teaching authority.

I never mentioned infallibility.

If you’re referring to a situation kind of like the present, where we have some Catholics, notably groups like the Society of Saint Pius X, claiming that teaching errors have been introduced through a non-infallible ecumenical council of the Church (Vatican II), in that case I think they’re wrong to continue their ministry when all of their sacraments are held to be illicit by the Holy See. I don’t see any other description for it than disobedience.

I only brought up cases of legitimate disobedience - that is after all, what this movie is about, the question of legitimate disobedience.

Furthermore, I object to the way they’ve chosen to voice their disagreement with Vatican II, by publicly declaring the Council and the Fathers to be in error. Again, I can’t think of another word for it than disobedience. It seems that a much more Catholic way to handle the dilemma would be to submit formal requests to the Holy See that the documents in question be clarified and their links to Catholic tradition made clearer, even if it meant amendments being made to some of the documents, while at the same time submitting to the Pope and the Magisterium.

…I never mentioned SSPX.

Personally, I don’t see why the priests of the SSPX couldn’t continue teaching traditional Catholic doctrines in their chapels, right now in 2008, the way the Institute of Christ the King or the Fraternity of St. Peter do, while at the same time being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome just as the Fraternity and Institute are.

… ask the SSPX?

 

[CollegeKid]

“Vatican” is not just a shorthand way of reffering to the secular governing aparatus and suggests no disrespect what so ever… and the term “Vatican” is older than the Church herself.

Well, I realize the hill that Vatican City is situated on has been known as “Vatican Hill” since before the birth of the Church, but I was under the impression that the Holy See has only been commonly referred to as “The Vatican” since about 1929, when the Vatican City state came into existence. Maybe I’m mistaken. If so, I’m open to being corrected on this. I didn’t think you meant any disrespect.

Its just my personal opinion that “the Holy See” is a more ecclesial-minded and thus more appropriate term for the local jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, when we’re talking about that bishopric’s teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

I never mentioned infallibility.

Ok. I was just exploring the possibilities.

I only brought up cases of legitimate disobedience - that is after all, what this movie is about, the question of legitimate disobedience.

Could you define what you mean by “legitimate disobedience?” Maybe give some examples? I haven’t seen the movie.

…I never mentioned SSPX.

Fine. Again, just bringing up an example off the top of my head.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

The SSPX is currently an off-limits topic. Posts on that subject have been deleted. Please return to the topic of this thread. Thank you.