Type of Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosario
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rosario

Guest
Can someone please tell me the name and type of Catholicism Mel Gibson practices. He mentioned it once somewhere and I can’t remember. I also remeber him saying that it is legitimate and approved by the Vatican. And if I do recall he said that it was better in his opinion than what all the rest of us practice, he even went on to say that he didn’t believe transubstantiation occurs in our holy masses, only on the one he goes to. It’s kind of elitist, but I would like to know where he’s coming from.
 
Mel Gibson rejects Vatican II, so I don’t know why he would claim Vatican II supports his current position (or even care really)

This article is brief and to the point.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111979,00.html

BTW - Mel’s personal church has no connection with the Roman Catholic diocese he resides in…nor did he seek or receive permission from the local bishop.

Sadly…it appears that Mel has done what all schismatics must necessarily do - become their own pope, become their own magisterium.
 
Mel Gibson adheres to traditional catholicism which is the latin mass (the tridentine rite) = the fathers of the Society of St Pius X say this mass. There is great controversy over this group too - I guess depends on which side of the fence you sit on. I attend the latin mass.

You cannot say that Mel has become his own pope…you have no proof of that.

Also, why do people not see the irony of vatican 2. The pope has allowed all these changes to the mass, to the liturgy, to the sacraments - you cant tell me that there are more saints in this century since the vatican 2 reforms.

As Our Lord said by their fruits thou shalt know them…there continue to be no (or not many) vocations - there are many catholics not happy with the reforms - but they are too scared to make the break and go to the latin rite - they do not understand the meaning of infallibility - the pope may be in error - only God knows - are we obliged to follow someone who teaches error to the detriment of our faith? we are obliged to follow the pope - only if he is not in error

Jesus is the head of the church - the church is his mystical body - we as humans have no right to modernise his church. It has been handed down by tradition to each pope - and if the pope does not adhere to the traditions and teachings of the doctors and theologians of the church - is he not bringing in his own doctrine?? Blind obedience is another thing and if someone led me to a bridge and asked me to jump off - do you think i would blindly obey him - even though that person is in a position of authority over me??

It is in the gospel of Daniel the prophet - "Chapter 12 verse 31
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall defile the sanctuary, and shall take away the the continual sacrifice and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation
Click to expand...
and Matthew Chapter 24 verse 15
When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place : he that readeth let him understand.
Click to expand...
24 " For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.".

Dont get me wrong, we do pray for the pope after every single mass we respect his office as pope he is the vicar of christ on earth - but if he is leading us astray, then we can only pray for him.

He has disowned us (the sspx) on one hand, but then gone and embraced the other religions - and even put a statue of buddha in front of the tabernacle on the other hand…He is denying that Jesus is God by doing this - putting an idol in front of the tabernacle! He will have much to suffer (as Our Lady said in her apparition at Fatima).

I could go on…i just know that Christ was persecuted - the SSPX must follow our Lord in his persecution…as Our Lord says take up your cross and follow me - isnt that why there is much hate for the SSPX because they are trying to uphold the truth?
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free
Click to expand...
does Jesus not talk of being the truth - I am the way, the truth, and the life - in this passage is he not saying that you will know Jesus and he will make you free ?

let him read and understand.
 
I have read that Mel Gibson is a lay member of Opus Dei? Is this accurate?
 
I’m sorry, but I thought it was Mel’s *father * that had the connection to the ultra-traditionalist schismatic groups, and Mel’s Catholicism was in conformity with the Holy See. Just because one prefers the Tridentine Mass. That alone does not make one schismatic.

If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please share the link on this thread.

Much appreciated…

Peace and Charity,
 
Mel Gibson has nothing to do with Opus Dei. The founder, St Josemaria Escriva, asked all his priests to say the new Mass. But he continued to say the old Latin Mass.
The traditional Catholics make many good points. The wishes of the council fathers at Vatican II were not put into practise. The priest was never meant to face the congregation for the whole Mass. Especially at the consecration. There was supposed to be a continuation of the saying of the Latin Mass after the new Mass had been introduced. The fathers and the pope never meant for a lot of things happenning. It was disobedient bishops and priests who forced concessions.
It usually takes around 100 yrs for the full fruits of a council to appear after the dust settles. Lets hope thats true.
The traditional Latin Mass Catholics have there faults too. Many seem to think it’s more important to have all the trimmings of a traditional Catholic than to actually be a good Catholic striving for holiness of life. The answer to all the Church’s problems lies in the billion Catholics doing what they were told by the council fathers. As in the document, “The universal call to holiness” which was taken from the writings of St Josemaria Escriva, we are to be souls striving for true holiness of life. Apostles in the midst of this pagan and secular world. If we did, then the world would be converted within 2 generations I’ve heard.
 
Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic. His chapel is staffed by priests of the Society of St. Pius X, which is a schismatic group. It is NOT a sin to attend a Schismatic group’s Mass. It is a sin to support the schism.

Take this into consideration though: if you are a Catholic who knows the teachings of the Church, and all you want is to go to the Traditional Latin Mass, because you feel the spirituality of the Liturgy and the catechesis found in traditionalist circles will help you and your family grown in holiness, and the Novus Ordo Masses in your area are so irreverently done, you are afraid that your own spirituality will suffer because of it, and your children will see nothing special in the Catholic Faith which you hold very close to your heart, then which is better? Going somewhere where the Mass is celebrated with reverence and the Faith is taught as it is, and not watered down at all? Or going where the Mass is still valid, but it looks like a joke, it seems to bash the traditional spirituality and devotions you have come to love, and it teaches your kids that it doesn’t really matter where they go to church, that there is no definite right or wrong?

Michael
 
40.png
tradcatmel:
The pope has allowed all these changes to the mass, to the liturgy, to the sacraments - you cant tell me that there are more saints in this century since the vatican 2 reforms.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure that almost all saints of the past 25 years lived before VII, except for some.

And I’m no expert in the liturgy, but the vernacular was commonly used besides Latin before Trent. In the early Church, the priest said the whole Mass, consecration included, turned towards the congregation, as Jesus did and acting in persona Christi.

However, I did hear my share of liturgical horror stories, but was blessed for being spared any major abuse. That is, except for indiference to holly and spiritual matters.

:blessyou:
 
It is NOT a sin to attend a Schismatic group’s Mass. It is a sin to support the schism.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…would you consider financing the building, maintenance, and staffing of a schismatic parish to be supporting the schism?
 
40.png
Augustine:
… In the early Church, the priest said the whole Mass, consecration included, turned towards the congregation, as Jesus did and acting in persona Christi.

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
You know what, I am kinda getting a little frustrated with “Jesus did this or Jesus did that” in the Last Supper.

You have to remember that ALL the participants at the Last Supper were priests, the first priest, and technically the first bishops of the church. The apostles were not “congregation”.

How are anyone sure what the seating arrangement was for the Last Supper? In Davinci’s painting, they are all sitting on the same side of the table. Remember there is no congregation at the Last Supper. Since all the members there were priests it is fitting that all the priests are facing the same direction during the consecration. But lets say DaVinci’s painting is just art and there is no inspiration to it, Let’s say Jesus was facing the Apostles when he instituted the Eucharist. At a concelebrated Mass the celebrant gives the communion facing the other celebrants. The apostles were not mere congregation.

The problem I have with facing the congregation is that, the priest is supposed to be offering the sacrifice to God for the people, turning the priest around makes almost that the priest is offering the sacrfice to the people for God.
 
The problem I have with facing the congregation is that, the priest is supposed to be offering the sacrifice to God for the people, turning the priest around makes almost that the priest is offering the sacrfice to the people for God.
Click to expand...
OR you could look at it differently and see the priest is offering the sacrifice to God with the people as witnesses.
 
*You have to remember that ALL the participants at the Last Supper were priests, the first priest, and technically the first bishops of the church. The apostles were not “congregation”.
*
But we are a priestly people! As communicants, we are apostles, i.e., followers of Christ.

How are anyone sure what the seating arrangement was for the Last Supper? In Davinci’s painting, they are all sitting on the same side of the table.

Very true. We know that St. John was beside Him, but it’s a stretch to think that the other 10 were too.

Remember there is no congregation at the Last Supper.

I think that the apostles were a congregation. The early Church adopted the priest facing the congregation after the Apostles. This posture changed afterwards, AFAIK.
*
The problem I have with facing the congregation is that, the priest is supposed to be offering the sacrifice to God for the people, turning the priest around makes almost that the priest is offering the sacrfice to the people for God.*

Which is absolutely not the case. From another point of view, one can also say that God is in the center while the priest officiates the offering that the congregation also offers. More important than postures are the words said then: “receive the fruit of the vine and the fruit of our labor”, or something like this.

But I’m all ears, for I know very little about our beautiful liturgy.

:blessyou:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top