Hey guys

[Wolseley]

Awww man, whats up with Mel? How can Vatican II be invalid? LOL

Vatican II isn't invalid, that's the point. What happened was, Vatican II just happened to coincide with the Sickening Sixties with all of it's appended social, moral, and political disasters. Vatican II was never fully or properly implemented in the United States; instead, what you got was a boatload of liberal balderdash that was foisted off on the faithful and labelled Vatican II, when in fact, it had nothing to do with it and still doesn't.

Many of the Catholics who remembered the "good old days", back in the late years of the Eisenhower Administration, When America Was On Top And All Was Right With The World, saw how everything went to hell in a handbasket after Vatican II, and decided it was because Vatican II couldn't have been valid, otherwise this never would have happened to the Church.

One of the things they seize upon to back their claim is a misinterpretation of a statement made by Pope Paul VI, that "the smoke of Satan" had entered the Church; he meant dissent from the Magesterium, but the dissidents assumed he meant that the Church had gone astray and no longer had any validity and wouldn't until it returned to the good old days and the Tridentine Mass of 1546.

The odd thing is, Paul VI is one of the Popes that they think was invalid---so why would his statements about "the smoke of Satan" (or anything else for that matter) carry any weight with them?

Go figure.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Thats moronic. If you are Catholic, you believe Jesus protects His Church. They cant teach lies and Satan cant enter it.

 

[chelcb]

I like Paul VI. I thought his intention was good.

 

[Wolseley]

Thats moronic. If you are Catholic, you believe Jesus protects His Church. They cant teach lies and Satan cant enter it.

Correct. Not to mention the fact that if they really believe their own ideas, then Jesus was a liar, because He said He would establish His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

 

[seebs]

I personally think that the Church could teach false things as doctrine, and other churches might be more correct on some issues, and it would still be laughable to claim that the gates of hell had prevailed. Church still here? Check. People still worshipping God? Check. Looks like Hell is losing, no matter how accurate any given piece of doctrine is.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Mat. 10: 25 "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household!"

 

[isshinwhat]

Friday, Sept. 13, 2002

Mel Gibson Attacks Vatican

Actor Mel Gibson, a staunchly orthodox Roman Catholic who will play Christ in an upcoming movie, says the Vatican is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and that he doesn't believe in the present-day Church as an institution.

Gibson, who calls himself an "old-fashioned Catholic" devoted to the Latin mass and pre-Vatican II Catholicism told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale that he believes in God and is happy that his only daughter has decided to become a nun.

In Rome to film "Passion," a new film about the final hours of Christ's life, Gibson, 46, recalled that he had a stern Catholic upbringing as a youngster in Australia, where he attended Catholic school.

"My love for religion was transmitted to me by my father," he told the newspaper. "But I do not believe in the Church as an institution." Gibson said he has a private chapel at his home in Malibu, Calif., at which mass is celebrated every Sunday in Latin.

The replacement of the Latin liturgy by vernacular languages has caused many Catholics such as Gibson to seek out parishes where the Latin mass is celebrated on Sundays. The Vatican allows Latin masses but they are rare in the U.S.

Vatican II rules permit local bishops to apply for so-called "indults" -exceptions that allow celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine liturgy. In recent years there has been a growing movement to restore Latin as the language of the mass. Adherents point to the fact that the pope continues to say his private daily mass in Latin.

Gibson's objections to the post-Vatican II church echo those of the members of the Society of St. Pius X, which broke away from Rome partially because of the abandonment of the Tridentine liturgy. It has chapels scattered around the U.S., where the liturgy is the pre-Vatican II Tridentine mass celebrated in Latin.

In the U.S. the Society claims it has 43 priests, 60 seminarians, 15 priories, 98 chapels and 26 schools.

According to Britain's Times, Gibson and his wife, Robyn, have been married for more than 20 years. He is fiercely protective of his seven children (six sons and one daughter, who he says wants to be a nun, which he is very happy about). He says he was attracted to the story of Christ's last hours before the crucifixion because it is "the drama of a man torn between his divine spirit and his earthly weakness."

In the Garden of Gethsemane, on the road to Calvary and at Golgotha, Gibson said, Jesus is often described as being calmly resigned to his suffering and death despite St. Luke's account of Christ's agony in the Garden of Olives, where he underwent an attack of hematidrosa - where victims sweat blood as a result of profound emotion or great fear.

Gibson says, "my Jesus will be shaken by his human suffering. Real blood will flow from the wound in his side, and the screams of his crucifixion will be real as well."

Catholic sources told the Times that Gibson sought the advice of theologians and prelates in Rome for his film and that the actor has strong views on divorce, abortion and contraception.

 

[Reformationist]

Sorry, seven kids, not eight as I had said.

 

[Reformationist]

So do you Roman Catholics consider him a Catholic?

 

[chelcb]

Originally posted by Reformationist
So do you Roman Catholics consider him a Catholic?

Personally, I don't.

 

[Wolseley]

I consider him to be Catholic in his moral views, but doctrinally he's a schismatic. If you reject the authority of, and refuse to submit to, the Holy See it automatically places you in a state of separation from the Church.

It's sad, really. I kind of admire Mel. But it's his choice. I don't agree with it, but I'm not him. One thing that I would never, in my most bizzare and hallucinogenic imaginings, do is place myself outside of the authority of Rome.

 

[dignitized]

wols: now see, I'm the opposite It takes all kinds to make the world go round

 

[Wolseley]

(Wols seizes Br. Max by the arms, screaming for help from the Catholic staff)

BURN this heretic!!!!!

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Reformationist
So do you Roman Catholics consider him a Catholic?

Breaking from Rome is breaking from Rome, and is in defiance of Christ Himself when He put Peter in charge of the Church on earth.

 

[chelcb]

Let me add that it's that I don't see him as Catholic in the full sense of what it is to be called Catholic. I would consider him as I would consider any orthodox or eastren rite church. Their "catholic", but not CATHOLIC. Know what I mean?

 

[Wolseley]

He's catholic, but not Catholic.

(Note the big C and little c....)

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Wolseley
He's catholic, but not Catholic.

(Note the big C and little c....)

Does that mean catholic as in universal church and Catholic as in Roman Catholic?

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Reformationist
So do you Roman Catholics consider him a Catholic?

I'm not Roman Catholic so I suppose I can't answer that question.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by nyj
I'm not Roman Catholic so I suppose I can't answer that question.

Really?  I did not know that.  I think I make the assumption that when someone says they are Catholic that they are Roman Catholic.  So what Pope do you submit to, the Orthodox one?  What's his name?

God bless

 

[Wolseley]

Does that mean catholic as in universal church and Catholic as in Roman Catholic?

It means catholic as in universal church and Catholic as in communion with the Holy See.

Technically, there is no such thing as "Roman Catholicism"; more properly it would the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. "Roman Catholicism" is a somewhat acrimonious term devised by Protestants a couple of centuries ago. It's common among non-Catholics, but Catholics themselves rarely if ever use that term.