Mel Gibson says his wife could be going to hell

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
This is actually an article on MSNBC, the topic of this post is the title of the article. Link

Here is what Gibson actually said:

“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.”

Good ol' Mel. He also has problems with depression, aparently:

Gibson also said in the interview that he was nearly suicidal before he made his controversial film. “I got to a very desperate place. Very desperate. Kind of jump-out-of-a-window kind of desperate,” he said in the interview. “And I didn’t want to hang around here, but I didn’t want to check out. The other side was kind of scary. And I don’t like heights, anyway. But when you get to that point where you don’t want to live, and you don’t want to die, it’s a desperate, horrible place to be. And I just hit my knees. And I had to use ‘The Passion of the Christ’ to heal my wounds.”

Oh, and finally, on the MSN poll, 63% of people thought Mel was "one bead short of a Rosary". LOL!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 11, 2004

Answers

Top

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 11, 2004.
"But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”"

Good for Mel; in these statements, he's loyal to the Catholic Faith, and loyal to the papacy and it's infallible statements. He doesn't question the Catholic Faith because it's hard to accept or hard hold onto under pressure. He does not disbelieve based on humanistic conclusions drawn from his own limited judgment or interpretation or those of others; he has Faith. That's what Faith is: the belief in unseen divinely revealed truth despite all obstacles, despite being shouted down by a mob withouth Faith.

"But when you get to that point where you don’t want to live, and you don’t want to die, it’s a desperate, horrible place to be. And I just hit my knees. And I had to use ‘The Passion of the Christ’ to heal my wounds.”"

Good for Mel; he realizes he is a fallen human being and can't save himself, and needs to fall back on the Catholic Faith and on Christ. I know exactly what he's talking about because I've been through something like that. I hope it happens to everyone.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 11, 2004.

...and may the saints, the angels, Christ and the Mother of God assist and guide Mel's wife into the One True Church; the truth is the color of hope.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 11, 2004.
How strange that you agree with Mel about the clause being ''straight from the chair.''

If the ex cathedra teaching were indeed what you and Gibson understand, then sure. His poor wife will have to go to hell. She is no better than a pagan.

But it can't be. The Church has never said such a thing. Both of you are out to lunch. I am ammazed at what you call from the chair. Intolerance and injustice. ''The letter kills, the spirit gives life.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 11, 2004.

"If the ex cathedra teaching were indeed what you and Gibson understand, then sure. His poor wife will have to go to hell."

Wrong.

She's not dead yet. God is good, good is all powerful. All things occur under God's watch. Active participation, the real kind, involves the efforts of the members of the Mystical Body of Christ to follow Christ and participate in His Passion.

If you and myself and others pray for, and make a few small sacrifices for this woman, it could have an incredible impact on her wellbeing and ultimately her salvation. We don't question the Faith; we hold the Faith; we participate in the Faith. We actively work for the salvation of souls.

This isn't holier-than-thou; this is the Catholic Faith.

We hold it and do it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 11, 2004.

If his wife comes to salvation it will clearly be with or without your say-so. She will have been accepted into the Catholic Church without you for the devil's advocate. There is no salvation outside the Church. We are aware of that. But you have no authority by which to judge who has come in. This is God's call. You have only some very limited human wisdom, which is FOLLY as far as God is concerned.

You talk a good ball game, but you can't hit, pitch, or field. You just THINK you should manage. No, thanks!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 11, 2004.

"If his wife comes to salvation it will clearly be with or without your say-so."

But I never said it needed my say-so. Are you implying that I said that it did?

"She will have been accepted into the Catholic Church without you for the devil's advocate."

But I never mentioned anything of the sort, about being needed as a devil"s advocate. Did I?

"There is no salvation outside the Church. We are aware of that."

Right.

"But you have no authority by which to judge who has come in."

My whole point is this: neither does anyone else. Nor do they have the authority to deny doctrine.

"This is God's call."

He called it; he called it the Catholic Church.

"You have only some very limited human wisdom, which is FOLLY as far as God is concerned."

It's a good thing I'm not using it to call into doubt a doctrine of the Church. That was my whole point.

"You talk a good ball game, but you can't hit, pitch, or field. You just THINK you should manage. No, thanks!"

That's neither here nor there. Here's what I said:

"If you and myself and others pray for, and make a few small sacrifices for this woman, it could have an incredible impact on her wellbeing and ultimately her salvation. We don't question the Faith; we hold the Faith; we participate in the Faith. We actively work for the salvation of souls."

Are you saying no thanks to that?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2004.

Oh, and finally, on the MSN poll, 63% of people thought Mel was "one bead short of a Rosary". LOL!

what i find amuzing is that a man who follows the church devoutly, who is humble, a family man, and a catholic... who comes on some hard times and is forced to turn to God and to religious production to pull himself out of his rut, is regarded by society as a nut.

To me that seems the hieght of stupidity. When are we, as christians going to stand up and fight back against those claiming that the religious are "one bead short of a full rosary"? mark my words, our society needs some serious spiritual help...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 12, 2004.

Paul,

I think he's nutty too. "And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it." What? It's simply nutty to believe that God could be unfair. God defines fairness. He also made us in his image and wrote his law into our hearts. It's wrong for us to deny that our idea of fairness has nothing to do with God's perfect justice and mercy; it's totally wrong (even sinister) for Mel to despair of his wife's possibility for salvation.

...even IF she dies as an Episcopalian. The possibility of invisible membership in the Catholic Church is an ancient doctrine.

Let's look at some pre-Vatican II Church teaching. These come from Richard McBrien's "Catholicism" and other sources.

Hence, Mel Gibson needs to stop his pseduo-theology jibber-jabber.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 12, 2004.
If Gibson had made a statement that he thought his wife's salvation is assured, you liberals would have a field day calling him a "bad" Traditionalist for not taking a strict Extra Ecclesiam stance.

See how that works?

I do.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 12, 2004.

"I think he's nutty too."

Funny thing is, he's going to be first to show an accurate depiction of the crucifixion of Christ.

Where's your movie? I would like to see the non-nutty version as well.

"...it's totally wrong (even sinister) for Mel to despair of his wife's possibility for salvation."

What you are doing here is loading something into Mel's thoughts that are not expressed by him at all. He never said he depaired of his wife's salvation, or the possibility of it. I think you aren't being really honest here, anon.

You twisted Mel's words and added stuff to his thoughts to make him look sinister. How is it that a man who is sinister and nutty is the very one putting out a movie which, for the first time, accurately depicts the Passion of Christ? Is that threatening somehow?

"The possibility of invisible membership in the Catholic Church is an ancient doctrine."

There is no doctrine of invisible membership. Furthermore, there are no doctrines about possiblities. Doctrines aren't about possibilities, they are about divinely revealed Truth. Also, there is no possible way to define invisible as in "invisible membership", so it could never be a doctrine anyways. Perhaps that's why the Church has never defined "invisible membership".

I'll bet you a lot of this kind of thinking has to do with people letting down their guard and not praying, and not praying for other people, and taking virtue less seriously, and the divine precepts of the Catholic Faith less seriously. Someone is trying to talk you out of your Catholic Faith, anon. Now that would be sinister. Don't let them do it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2004.

Oh, and finally, on the MSN poll, 63% of people thought Mel was "one bead short of a Rosary". LOL!

what i find amuzing is that a man who follows the church devoutly, who is humble, a family man, and a catholic... who comes on some hard times and is forced to turn to God and to religious production to pull himself out of his rut, is regarded by society as a nut.

Someone who thinks his wife is more likely than him to go to Hell even though (in his opinion) she's a better Christian is IMO, a nut. Why did he marry her anyway, if he thinks she's likely to go to Hell? Would YOU want someone who you thought was Hellbound raising YOUR children? I find it odd and abnormal when people try to use the church as a sword and not a shield -- "I may be a murderer, but as a Catholic I'm likely to be saved, unlike that saintly Anglican over there". I guess I just have more faith in God's mercy than the misinterpretations of my fellow man.

Nope, the guy's not playing with an entirely full deck, but then that could be said of everyone, I suppose. Mel just seems to be missing a few more cards than most.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 12, 2004.

Pay some attention, Emerald:
''It's a good thing I'm not using (human wisdom) to call into doubt a doctrine of the Church. That was my whole point.''--Makes me seem a renegade Catholic. Do you really think I'd deny a Catholic doctrine? Or ''call one into doubt''--?

Your problem is, you apply sola scriptura to a verse from one Pope's encyclical, as if only that literal truth were relevant to God. Maybe Mel G. has the same problem.

But Catholic faith should never become faith in our knowledge of doctrine for its own sake. God has revealed all the doctrine, but not all His Wisdom. Like the man says, "I taught them all they know; but I didn't teach 'em all I know.''

The Gospel LIVES, it's the Word of God from Jesus Christ. We must ponder more deeply, as mysteries, the manner of His infinite Mercy vs. His infinite Justice. It seems reasonable to think, as Savonarola would, God will destroy every heretic; He can't save even a single one! Because, the Pope declared, ''Outide the Catholic Church is no salvation.''

The Church is our refuge. No one will enter heaven except through Jesus Christ; and He IS the Church. In my view, when Christ himself forgives your sins, you have been brought into HIM, and, ipso facto, into the Catholic Church. (By the back door.)

What you've been trying to force from the encyclical is an alternate way of salvation; salvation by encyclical; by non-forgiveness of sins under any circumstance. That's totally anti- Christian. God can forgive whomever he loves. The Prophet said it well: ''A humble and contrite heart Thou wilt not spurn.'' This is not denial of doctrine. It's Christ's divine mercy and love, the first doctrine of them all!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2004.

"Funny thing is, he's going to be first to show an accurate depiction of the crucifixion of Christ.

Where's your movie? I would like to see the non-nutty version as well."

First, I have no opinions about the craziness/sanity of Gibson's movie. However, if you're going to say it's accurate, I must ask you what you mean by the term. There was no video camera at Golgotha and was never meant to be. A bare-bones un-interpreted depiction of the Passion is simply impossible, and it is dishonest for any artist to deny the role of interpretation. Gibson's Passion should be understood as art, and possibly perhaps a kind of evangelization. But a documentary it is not.

"You twisted Mel's words and added stuff to his thoughts to make him look sinister."

Upon reflection, I think you have a point. Gibson is saying something wrong, but he is not despairing of his wife's salvation. His errors are

  1. classifying 'extra ecclesiam...' as "from the seat," when it does not meet the criteria for this (which are clearly delineated in Vatican I, II, and Canon Law, in such a way that only two doctrines we know of are officially "from the seat"). The criteria are as follows:
    1. "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals." -Pastor Aeternus
    2. "...by a definitive act..." -Lumen Gentium
    3. "Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held... §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
    No bishop has ever applied the distinction "Ex Cathedra" to any teaching before that of the Immaculate Conception. (Of course, "Extra Ecclesiam..." is infallible for other reasons, but it is heresy to believe that only visible Catholics can be saved.
  2. Gibson is also QUITE wrong to say that God can condemn someone unfairly, and that God would condemn someone actually 'better than' he is because they were an Episcopalian. I'm sure you agree that there is no "Good" independent of God's own will. Either Gibson is wrong about what is "fair" or "good," or else he is wrong to deny the connection between his wife's "better-"ness and the working of Grace in her life.
"There is no doctrine of invisible membership."

That is true. But there is a doctrine of mysterious relationship with the Church efficacious for salvation (of course this is never individually certain). The Church teaches that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." But in her condemndation of Fr. Feeney, she wrote, "(T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it." She understands it as follows:

I apologize for my above mistake of confusing "relationship with the Church" with "membership in the Church."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 12, 2004.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with anon's response 1.3?

I'm interested if anyone else sees it.

Btw, I clear myself of any instigation on this or the other recent thread. I didn't bring this up; I'm only reacting in typical fashion. No instigation from my end mind you! lol.

Alright, what's wrong with response 1.3 above? Someone tell me. Anyone?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2004.

"Someone who thinks his wife is more likely than him to go to Hell even though (in his opinion) she's a better Christian is IMO, a nut. Why did he marry her anyway, if he thinks she's likely to go to Hell? Would YOU want someone who you thought was Hellbound raising YOUR children? I find it odd and abnormal when people try to use the church as a sword and not a shield -- "I may be a murderer, but as a Catholic I'm likely to be saved, unlike that saintly Anglican over there". I guess I just have more faith in God's mercy than the misinterpretations of my fellow man."

I agree, Frank. How can someone say such an awful thing about a spouse?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 12, 2004.

Dear Emerald:
Could you refrain from this typical condescending attitude to others who are just as sincere as you may be? Anon stated his case with quotations the same way you constantly do. He isn't presuming to KNOW, as you always do, all the answers. Don't YOU presume here, to point out his ''mistakes''.

He makes one remark I would not make. ''. . .it is heresy to believe that only visible Catholics can be saved.'' I can easily see how ''heresy'' is not appropriate, and clearly he means ''to believe that only visible practicing Catholics can be saved.'' This isn't anything but faulty communication. Basically, he's correct: we should NOT think only practicing Catholics can be saved. But it's not heresy. All it is is bad theology. YOUR bad theology. There are many ways to prove it to you, and to Mel Gibson.

Anon might not be a male; and I should have said he/she; but Oh what the Heck. Just figure I said it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2004.

Eugene:

Dear Emerald: Could you refrain from this typical condescending attitude to others who are just as sincere as you may be? Anon stated...

He stated this:

"Hence, Mel Gibson needs to stop his pseduo-theology jibber- jabber."

I don't see a problem with anything I've said or asked, but whatever.

It's not me that claims to know all the answers; it's those who think they can explain away denials of doctrine. They think they know better than the doctrines of the Faith.

So what is an visible member anyways?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

If you catch me denying an article of faith, or some perceived doctrine you rely on, then shoot. I stand squarely with the Church on doctrine. You're implying something false.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2004.
I wasn't really aiming at you, but at anon.

But since you thought I meant you, let me ask you this though, Gene.

Someone's in a life threatening situation, and they are about to die. This person has some kind of faith but isn't a Catholic. He has a fair sense of right and wrong and knows Jesus, and has done reasonably well by those beliefs in his actions. He's a good person... flawed and fallen, but just and equitable, charitable and loyal, and all that good stuff. He's sorry for anything and everything he ever did wrong, and wants to do right. He is truly the justified man if there ever was one.

So he's about to die; his eyes are closed and his mind is fading, but he's not Catholic yet.

Which would be the most likely portrayal of the infinite mercy of God, and the power of God, and the love of God and yet still keeps doctrinal purity and belief intact?

1. God takes him to Heaven in a special by-pass of the Sacraments.

2. Somehow beyond our sight, God being all powerful, provides a means for this man to receive the Sacraments necessary for salvation before death even if it's in the split second beyond our knowing.

Minute deviations of course at the beginning of a long journey can lead to two very different destinations.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

You and I aren't qualified to say what God thinks of such men. One might be saved and twenty others might be damned. It's God's decision. As it will also be for our own souls someday.

What we have for our bone of contention is, what makes a soul pure and acceptable in God's sight? It is the mirror-image upon the soul of His beloved Son, Jesus Christ. No more, no less.

When it is seen so by God the Father, that soul goes to heaven for eternity. It didn't ''bypass'' sacraments or Church. He/she won salvation through Christ's Church. She is the mother of Christ's people, all of them. These come in all colors and even out of nowhere. Christ said plainly, God can raise children to Abraham from the very stones. That may well be the reason He willed His holy Church the name universal.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2004.

Emerald,

Here's option 3:

Who CARES? If God saves the man, that's what's important, not how he does it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 13, 2004.

I like that one. Supposing that who cares doesn't equate with complacency. That we actually care about the wellbeing of souls can't be called into question.

Who cares as in "I have no idea, but God is good and merciful and just, so I'll not worry about it and keep holding to Catholic doctrine"? Sure.

Gene, I don't think we are thinking all that far apart, believe it or not. What's a fact though: most of the rest of Catholics out there? They don't think like you do; they think in terms of damaged or lost doctrine. They're practicing indifferentism.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

--That was only an impromptu remark by Frank, Emmy. Don't leap to it like a bear on a wedding cake.

Frank will never deny sound Catholic doctrine. He follows our Holy Father, given us as the Rock. You aren't willing. You're wedded to a broken record, keeping time to your own marching drum. A fanatic, Son.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

Emerald,

I have no about about your #1. But where in all of Catholic tradition did you find a basis for #2? I have never even _seen_ that before. Is there an encyclical or bull I missed somewhere?

I mean, it looks to me like even you yourself couldn't stomach some of the radicalism of Traditionalist interpretations; is that why you're presenting us with this Deus Ex Machina solution?

I actually have to retract something--I have seen something like your #2 option before... but it comes--in slightly modified form- -from Protestant theologians Karl Barth and Hendrik Kraemer.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 14, 2004.

First line in that last post is suppose to read, "I have not [idea] about your option #1."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 14, 2004.
To dig deeper to the root, anon... no explanations, theories or speculations are required of us at all; none whatsoever.

Just to hold the Faith, that's all that's required.

We don't need to know the answers about that hypothetical man. We can speculate so long as our speculations do not contradict doctrine, but speculation itself is not required of us.

We don't need to know the answer.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

Wow, that's a quick turn-around. You suddenly sound like Frank.

But unfortunately for you, we are not free to withold judgement or speculate as to the nature of the Church's teaching, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus." That is because she has already clarified herself, abundantly and repeatedly, within the last two centuries.

This discussion has had the one grace that it has forced me to aquaint myself better with the doctrinal matter at hand. Now I can point to pre-Vatican II teaching to show that (1) the understanding of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," which will always be taught, has nevertheless licitly developed. Those developments, while perhaps not present in the minds of some medieval Magistrates, are nevertheless not new and not contradictory to "E.E.N.S." They qualify it, certainly, but E.E.N.S. remains the indestructible core of the Church's teaching on salvation.

(2) The deeper heresy of rejecting those developments lies in depicting a false conflict between the Church past and the Church present. But then, that is the common strain underlying every non- Catholic church/sect in existence.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

"Wow, that's a quick turn-around. You suddenly sound like Frank."

They are different. Case #1 posits that one can bypass the sacraments; case #2 allows God to be perceived as powerful enough to provide what seems impossible to our senses to provide. The first forces God to confrom to man's understanding; the second forces man's understanding to yeild to the power and majesty of God. The first is a denial of doctrine, the second doesn't seem to conflict whit it. The first can't be the case, the second might be the case. The first is impossible according to faith, the second seems like it might be possible.

In any case, no explanations are necessary to one who holds Faith.

I see that you have moved to introduce the development of doctrine, and have also introduced the adjective "medieval". The latter seems to cast the necessary element of underdevelopment on our ancestors in the face of our present-day enlightenment; that part of any discussion should be lots of fun. I think this is the portion of the conversation to keep the mind's eye on.

"(2) The deeper heresy of rejecting those developments lies in depicting a false conflict between the Church past and the Church present." Seeing a desparity is a heresy? Anon, heresy is the holding of a position which is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

"But then, that is the common strain underlying every non- Catholic church/sect in existence."

I thought error was. I think at this point you need to delve into greater depth on the concept of the development of doctrine, and flesh that out a bit to see if it is really a doctrine, and if so, what is and what it is not. Also explain why we are better developed than the medievals were. Is there some trace of an evolutionary component to all this by any chance?

If I sound curt, I don't mean to. I'm just being upfront.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

Emerald,

I see that you have moved to introduce the development of doctrine, and have also introduced the adjective "medieval". The latter seems to cast the necessary element of underdevelopment on our ancestors in the face of our present-day enlightenment;

This is such a crock. You and the others dissenters on the church assume "underdevelopment on our ancestors in the face of our present-day enlightenment" as the basis of your position. Why isn't the mass still in Greek? They later changed it to Latin. Were the first Christians underdeveloped? If not, why change? Communion was originally in the hand, later in the Middle Ages the church decided against this, why? Were the first Christians underdeveloped in their understanding?

You see Emerald, you have no problem at all with assuming *other people* are underdeveloped, every Catholic before or after the segment in time you prefer the church, is underdeveloped, or they would agree with your position, right?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2004.

I don't suggest that the medieval Church was underdeveloped at all. I don't believe in necessary progress; I don't believe we have all the answers (or even necessarily better ones) just because we happen to be in the present.

I only know that any formulation of Church teaching, whether infallible or not, may be stated more completel in one age than another. For example, the Medievals had a much fuller understanding and appreciation of Transubstantion than we do now--we kept their teaching, but it is more difficult for us to be immersed in the world that made that doctrine jump out at us. Perhaps sometime later that will happen again.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 15, 2004.

Mel Gibson supposedly said this:

"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."

Frank said:

Someone who thinks his wife is more likely than him to go to Hell even though (in his opinion) she's a better Christian is IMO, a nut. Why did he marry her anyway, if he thinks she's likely to go to Hell? Would YOU want someone who you thought was Hellbound raising YOUR children? I find it odd and abnormal when people try to use the church as a sword and not a shield -- "I may be a murderer, but as a Catholic I'm likely to be saved, unlike that saintly Anglican over there". I guess I just have more faith in God's mercy than the misinterpretations of my fellow man.

And then GT responded:

I agree, Frank. How can someone say such an awful thing about a spouse?

I think there's a few things you guys are forgetting here.

The first being the virtue of humility. Saints always thought others better than themselves, when in fact they far surpassed the others in holiness and virtue. The virtue of humility, would make them see themselves as full of faults, full of imperfections, and a great sinner. Look at Anne Catherine Emmerich. Here was a nun, who did nothing but suffer and pray her whole life for the salvation of souls and for the Church. She bore not only the stigmata in her hands, feet and side, but also the wounds from the crown of thorns. She would take on the sicknesses of others until their death, so that they would feel well enough to prepare themselves properly for death (Confession, Viaticum, Extreme Unction, etc.). Once they died, Anne Catherine would be well again. In her ecstasies she would see herself and how much she was suffering. Only her humility would not allow her to think it was her, she always thought it was another nun. She felt completely inferior to this "other nun" because of her "many" faults, and was sure this "other nun" suffered moreso than herself.

Now, am I not calling Mel Gibson a saint, nor am I implying that he greatly possesses the virtue of humility. I have never met the man, I cannot make that call. What I am saying, is that humility would demand one to see another as possessing more virtue than themselves. True humility would demand that one sees himself as being unworthy of his blessings, full of fault and imperfections. True humility does not take pleasure in praise, but relishes to be scorn like Christ. IF Mel Gibson possesses humility, he could not have said anything other than what he said about his wife. And Catholic doctrine would not allow him to entertain this error: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ."-Syllabus or Errors.

But then, ya'll knew that, right?

Also, one needs to take into account that Mel Gibson has been married a long time. He has not always practiced his Catholic faith fervently. One must not outrule that as a possibility of his marrying a non-Catholic. We also cannot assume the history of his life. We have no idea as to the intimate details of his personal life (past or present), of his marriage, etc. To assume that he married someone years ago, thinking that person would one day be in hell is a call we have no right to make. And it's an injustice. What does matter though, is that he is one of the rare few in Hollywood who has remained faithfully married, not used birth control, and stands up for the "Passion of the Christ."

I also think that you guys are just taking cheap jabs at a fellow Catholic, because he is a traditionalist. Shame on you. You are forgetting that while upholding Catholic doctrine [not denying it because of the human sentiment of love], he shows no sign of despair. One can assume that he still hopes, prays and makes sacrifices for the conversion of his wife. Hope is still a virtue, is it not? It would be more Catholic of Mel to hope and pray for the conversion to Catholicism and salvation of his wife, than to assume she can make it to Heaven without being a Catholic. If he were to assume her salvation in her present state, he would be guilty of denying doctrine and committing himself to the error listed above from the Syllabus. Because, you see, one would be hardpressed to place Mel's wife into the category of the "invincibly ignorant". She has been, on more than one occasion I'm sure, confronted with the Catholic Church. God even tells us that people do not see the truth because of the hardness of their hearts, not because they are not confronted with it. It would make no sense, besides being a denial of doctrine, that God would allow her to be confronted with the truth, she denies it, and yet still save her.Because when one denies the truth, they deny Him who gave us the truth.

Besides, one of the purposes of marriage is to attain eternal salvation for yourself, as well as your spouse and children.

Frank,

I find it odd and abnormal when people try to use the church as a sword and not a shield --

I find it odd and abnormal when Catholics assume that someone can be saved outside of what Catholic doctine tells us. I find it odd and abnormal when people assume that Christ's death on the Cross will save any 'good person', even though they reject the will of God [which is for all to be Catholic] and do not pray and sacrifice for the salvation of souls.

"I may be a murderer, but as a Catholic I'm likely to be saved, unlike that saintly Anglican over there".

That's one of the silliest things I've ever seen you write. You'd be hard pressed to prove your point with that statement. It almost sounds as if you are equating Mel Gibson with an unrepentant murderer. Give me a break. Only the superficial would derive that from what he really said. (Just for the record, though, a repentant murderer, who has confessed to a Catholic priest and reformed his life DOES have a better chance at salvation than a 'saintly' Anglican.)

I guess I just have more faith in God's mercy than the misinterpretations of my fellow man.

But you must also have faith in His justice. His mercy and justice go hand in hand, one cannot overrule the other. Rest assured that there is no one in hell who does not deserve to be there. And they are falling into hell, like snowflakes from Heaven. We cannot determine who has made it and who hasn't. We cannot see the inner workings of one's soul. But we must not assume that those outside the Catholic Church have been saved. We implicity, at the very least when doing so, deny doctrine. Our duty as the Church militant instead, is to pray and sacrifice for the conversion of sinners and salvation of souls. Our Lady said that many souls are falling into hell, because there is no one to pray and perform sacrifices for them.

So, instead of twisting Mel's words into something he probably didn't even mean, show true Catholic charity and love by praying and sacrificing for the conversion of his wife.

And Frank, in your above post, Emerald was speaking of the development of *doctrine*, not of practices and/or discipline. Huge, and I mean HUGE, difference. One can be acceptable, the other has been condemned by the Church.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 15, 2004.

-Syllabus or Errors.

LOL. Whoops. That could be quite misleading. It should be Syllabus OF Errors.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 15, 2004.

Napalm, Isabel. No Frank, this is not a crock. The assumption that the Catholic holding to traditional Catholicism and holding to doctrine translates to lack of love of God and neighbor, rebellion and dissent, and a complete and utter lack of understanding is entirely your own assumption. It is all of your own making; call it your own private interpretation of other people's motives and condition. It's the norm, though, so don't feel too bad, if you do ever decide to feel bad about it.

Take a step back and realize that compromising doctrine, under the guise of anything at all, is not required of us as Catholics and no one in the Church has ever bound any member of the Church to deny, in any fashion whatsoever, what has always been known to be doctrine.

This is completely Thomistic, Frank. It's 100% Thomistic to hold that each and every point of doctrine is to be held as more certain than that 2+2=4, and that of each and every point of doctrine it is not required of us to achieve complete understanding, but simply to believe. Mel's approach and Isabel's approach seems in complete alignment with St. Thomas' approach to the principles of Divine Revelation and how we are to manage those principles when set in conflict with the ways and thinking of those of this world.

Catholics holding to doctrine, traditional Catholics: they love God, they love souls. They are the opposite of what everyone says they are and assumes and thinks they are.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

Isabel,

(a) The Syllabus condemns hope for those are are "not at all [sometimes translated, 'in no way'] in the true Church..." But Gibson's wife is a baptized believer in Christ. If his words are any indication, she seems to be "keep[ing] the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men,... prepared to obey God, and... lead[ing] a virtuous and dutiful life." Hence he could indeed hope that she "...can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."

And that comes from Pius X's predecessor.

re: Gibson's wife's invincible ignorance--we have no way to discover that. If she was invincibly ignorant, though, it might have something to do with her husband's misrepresenting the Catholic Church. I certainly know that my conversion experience to Catholicism depended partly on discovering that all of my public school friends weren't automatically damned. That kind of talk has a way of keeping possible converts away, you know. :)

(b) I agree that we can say nothing about Gibson's private life without being guilty of gossip. Still, one simply does not speak of one's wife's possible damnation to the news media. That's just principle.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

Emerald,

Use Thomas to support your Feenyism, and we'll use him to smash it.

You're being rather obstinant in refusing to understand that your "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is not the Church's "extra ecclesiam nulla salus". You still have never said anything about the pre- or post-Vatican II teaching which conflicts with your opinion. I call upon you to do so.

If you reject all of the teaching in Singulari Quadam, Quanto conficiciamur Moerare, Suprema Haec Sacra, Mystici Corporis Christi, Lumen Gentium, and Redemptoris Missio which pertains to 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus', then come out and say it instead of skulking in the shadows.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

"Use Thomas to support your Feenyism, and we'll use him to smash it."

Don't get angry. As stated elsewhere, I draw nothing from Feeney; I do nothing but accept the following doctrines:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That baptism is necessary for salvation.

This charge of Feeneyism is entirely your own private interpretation. All I lay claim to as the non-dissent from the above two doctrines. I accept them as being Catholic truth and Divine Revelation.

Perhaps you mean to fight with me over the right to perform the same function? I mean in particular this line out of Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris, On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy:

Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful; but, inasmuch as it weakens the contrary arguments of the sophists and repels the veiled attacks against the truth, it has been fitly called the hedge and fence of the vine.[22] For, as the enemies of the Catholic name, when about to attack religion, are in the habit of borrowing their weapons from the arguments of philosophers, so the defenders of sacred science draw many arguments from the store of philosophy which may serve to uphold revealed dogmas. Nor is the triumph of the Christian faith a small one in using human reason to repel powerfully and speedily the attacks of its adversaries by the hostile arms which human reason itself supplied. This species of religious strife St. Jerome, writing to Magnus, notices as having been adopted by the Apostle of the Gentiles himself; Paul, the leader of the Christian army and the invincible orator, battling for the cause of Christ, skillfully turns even a chance inscription into an argument for the faith; for he had learned from the true David to wrest the sword from the hands of the enemy and to cut off the head of the boastful Goliath with his own weapon.[23] Moreover, the Church herself not only urges, but even commands, Christian teachers to seek help from philosophy. For, the fifth Lateran Council, after it had decided that "every assertion contrary to the truth of revealed faith is altogether false, for the reason that it contradicts, however slightly, the truth,"[24] advises teachers of philosophy to pay close attention to the exposition of fallacious arguments; since, as Augustine testifies, "if reason is turned against the authority of sacred Scripture, no matter how specious it may seem, it errs in the likeness of truth; for true it cannot be."

If you want to go Thomistic, I can do that. We could talk about matter & form and the nature of composite being. You can then smash me a la Leo XIII, or you may get smashed.

One way or the other, smashing and winning doesn't seem to fit with the whole concept of brothers in search of truth in charity.

You're being rather obstinant in refusing to understand that your "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is not the Church's "extra ecclesiam nulla salus".

I think it's simpler than that. I think you just haven't shown me the difference.

"You still have never said anything about the pre- or post-Vatican II teaching which conflicts with your opinion. I call upon you to do so."

I simply hold what Catholics have always held. You are the proponent of something new, so wouldn't it be incument upon you to be the bearer of proof?

"If you reject all of the teaching in Singulari Quadam, Quanto conficiciamur Moerare, Suprema Haec Sacra, Mystici Corporis Christi, Lumen Gentium, and Redemptoris Missio which pertains to 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus', then come out and say it instead of skulking in the shadows."

I reject nothing which has not always been part of the Deposit of the Faith. I skulk in the light of Faith, not in the shadows of ambiguity.

There is no binding doctrine which forces me to believe that there is salvation outside the Church.

If this is mind-cracking stupidity and complete density of intellect on my part, then I'm covered under the ignorance clause.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

Do I know you anon? You sound familiar to me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.
"I reject nothing which has not always been part of the Deposit of the Faith."

Oops; I meant: "I reject nothing which HAS always been part of the Deposit of the Faith."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

Isabel,

On your whole "Mel Gibson, humility" rant: IF he was truly humble, he would think she had a better chance of attaining salvation than him. He would NOT think "she's a saint, but *I* am the one who's going to be saved". Therefore, he's not humble, he's a nut. Do you really believe that everyone who isn't literally a card carrying member of the Catholic church is guaranteed to go to Hell like Emerald does? I really find that shocking. You always seemed like the more reasonable of you guys.

I find it odd and abnormal when Catholics assume that someone can be saved outside of what Catholic doctine tells us.

Catholics don't do this. YOU, thankfully, do not determine what is or is not authentic Catholic belief. Your opinion doesn't matter to anyone's salvation but your own. Catholics believe what the church tells us is true.

"I may be a murderer, but as a Catholic I'm likely to be saved, unlike that saintly Anglican over there".

That's one of the silliest things I've ever seen you write.

Do you understand the point behind this or not? Yes, it's exaggerated to make the point clear, but if you can see what I'm driving at, it's not THAT silly, is it?

Rest assured that there is no one in hell who does not deserve to be there.

Isabel, what person does NOT deserve Hell? Do you think yourself perfect enough to walk into Heaven like you own the place? All fall short of that bar. I find it strange that you think God has mercy enough to spare you, but not enough for Mel Gibson's wife, that's all.

And Frank, in your above post, Emerald was speaking of the development of *doctrine*, not of practices and/or discipline. Huge, and I mean HUGE, difference. One can be acceptable, the other has been condemned by the Church.

These are examples, Isabel. The point is to show Emerald that his mind is locked in a certain place, not to differentiate discipline from doctrine. It does it's intended job quite well, IMO.

Emerald,

Take a step back and realize that compromising doctrine, under the guise of anything at all, is not required of us as Catholics and no one in the Church has ever bound any member of the Church to deny, in any fashion whatsoever, what has always been known to be doctrine.

Again, you can quote a dictionary, big deal. What you need to do is figure out what what you are saying MEANS.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2004.

You understand it apparently, so you tell me what it means that there's no salvation outside the Church and that there's also salvation outside the Church.

Explain this to me. You understand it so well, and me? I'm just devoid of understanding.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

Emerald,

You have been present on half a dozen invincible ignorance threads, Anon is quoting several sources on this very thread. It's not that you can't understand, it's that you refuse to listen. Explaining for a 7th time won't do any good if you won't hear the answer.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2004.

On your whole "Mel Gibson, humility" rant: IF he was truly humble, he would think she had a better chance of attaining salvation than him.

But you see, he never said that he had a better chance at attaining salvation than his wife. You construed it into that to fit your agenda. It's your own private interpretation. What he did say was in perfect conformity with Catholic doctrine on the subject. To say otherwise would be saying, "I know the Church says that there is no salvation outside of Her, but my wife is the exception to that rule." *That* would be a denial of Catholic doctrine.

He would NOT think "she's a saint, but *I* am the one who's going to be saved".

How do you know that's what he thinks? Do you have access to the inner workings of a man's heart and soul? If he believes as a Catholic should, then he would believe that [as a Catholic] he was given the grace from God to see the truth and have access to the things one needs to attain salvation [the Sacraments], but he must still work out his salvation in fear and trembling, and that at any moment God can take away the gift of faith. It [salvation] is not assured for any of us, Catholic or not.

Therefore, he's not humble, he's a nut.

Opinion. Private interpretation. Gossip. Slander. Holds no water in a debate.

Do you really believe that everyone who isn't literally a card carrying member of the Catholic church is guaranteed to go to Hell like Emerald does?

You're looking at the glass half empty, Frank. I believe that everyone who is a Catholic has at their disposal all the necessities for salvation [the Sacraments] should they so desire to use them. I believe that everyone who is a Catholic knows to pray and sacrifice for the conversion of sinners and the salvation of souls. I believe that if you are a Catholic, you will be judged as a Catholic. And if you are not a Catholic, you will have to answer for why you are not. I believe the Catholic doctrine "Outside the Church, there is no Salvation" in its entirety, without always understanding it.

But I also believe that God works in wonderful and mysterious ways. I believe it more likely that he would have the necessary Sacraments administered to those he deems worthy in ways we cannot see or understand, before he would act in a way contrary to the laws He Himself set down.

I really find that shocking. You always seemed like the more reasonable of you guys.

Shocking people is really nothing new to me. I'll be sure to add you to the list. lol. Me more reasonable than Emerald? I guess being reasonable in your book, means to compromise doctrine for the sake of human reasoning. Sorry, no can do.

Catholics don't do this. [saying someone can be saved outside of Catholic doctrine.]

Sure they do. You just did.

YOU, thankfully, do not determine what is or is not authentic Catholic belief.

And thankfully, neither do you, or we'ld all end up in a world of hurt. Literally.

Your opinion doesn't matter to anyone's salvation but your own.

You're exactly right there. The only thing I need to do for the salvation of other's souls is to pray and sacrifice.

Catholics believe what the church tells us is true.

But the Church has told you three times.

Do you understand the point behind this or not?

No, I don't. Because it's an exaggeration to the extreme, nor can you say that is what Mel Gibson thinks.

Yes, it's exaggerated to make the point clear,

Exaggerated.....to say the least. And actually, it was about as clear as mud.

but if you can see what I'm driving at, it's not THAT silly, is it?

Beg to differ. It was very silly, without one iota of truth in it.

Isabel, what person does NOT deserve Hell?

Of course we all deserve hell, but God, in His mercy, gave us the Sacraments to help us avoid hell. In His justice, he condemns those who refuse to avail themselves of the Sacraments. This is Catholic dogma.

Do you think yourself perfect enough to walk into Heaven like you own the place?

Just like you did with Mel, you are putting ideas into writing that were never expressed by me. The Catholic Church exhorts us, out of love for souls, to pray for the conversion of others. I neither think myself anywhere near perfection, not do I think myself better than others. I can only do what is expected of me as a member of the Church militant, hold unwaveringly to doctrine, and hope and pray that my prayers may help others to see the truth of the Catholic Church so that they may have a better chance of saving their souls. Outside of this, I am not free to speculate whether anyone has saved their soul, excepting those pronounced as Saints by the Church. I have faith in the promise of God, that should I die in a state of grace I will not suffer the fires of hell.

All fall short of that bar. I find it strange that you think God has mercy enough to spare you, but not enough for Mel Gibson's wife, that's all.

But I'm not dead, yet. And neither is she. There is still time left to offer sacrifices for her soul and mine, don't you think? All I'm saying is that, God in His mercy, gave us the Church. God, in His justice, may condemn those who do not make use of Her.

These are examples, Isabel. The point is to show Emerald that his mind is locked in a certain place, not to differentiate discipline from doctrine. [examples to try and prove development of doctrine.]

But if you want to drive your point home, you should stick with the subject at hand. Not invent new ones. You know, as well as I, that development of doctrine has been more than once condemned by the Church, but practices and disciplines may be changed as the Church deems necessary. So, really, the point doesn't make sense, not does prove anything.

It does it's intended job quite well, IMO.

But not in mine.



-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 15, 2004.

Thanks, Frank.

Isabel, I'm s-k-o-o)b*o&u^y. I'm trying to shed the name from my 'Net ID--it's just a goofy name. Not that my current one is much better.

Emerald,

I think I understand what you're trying to do. I don't agree with it, and I don't believe that you're being honest with yourself or others, but I think I understand it nevertheless.

  1. You know at least that you must affirm those two lines of doctrine, because they're infallible.
  2. Thereafter, you deliberately withold judgement on what exactly those lines mean, neither taking a Feeneyist position nor an orthodox position, or any position. That is because the orthodox position appears contradictory (whether post-Vatican II or not), and the Feeneyist (a.k.a. exclusivist) position means you put yourself in schizm.
  3. This is called a "know-nothing" approach. i.e., "I don't know nuthin' but that they's ain't no savin' outta the Church, and ya'll gotta get y'selves baptized!"
Of course, this is flawed, both in its foundation and in its purpose. First of all, it rests upon an erroneous understanding of what "infallibility" means, as if we were free to speculate or withhold judgement on any teaching which is not infallible, i.e., "not always been part of the Deposit of the Faith." There is no precedent for this 'option' in all Church history. It also assumes that infallibly taught doctrines are beyond further explanation or understanding; that individuals have direct access to complete understanding of past doctrine without the aid of the Magisterium; that hedging one's bets is the only safe option. All are false. Regarding the last, there is no concrete difference between "refusing to give assent" and "rejecting". This is what William James would call a "forced option." In other words, the challenge is not, "accept these teachings or reject them," but "accept these teachings or go without them." Whether you explicitly reject or merely refuse assent to all subsequent teaching pertaining to extra ecclesiam... you go without it, and you withold what the Church asks of you. As a Catholic, you do not have the right not to assent, whether you reject or not. You especially do not have the right to proclaim to others that Catholics have the right with withold assent. You lack faith in the Church; your perception of disconuity, and especially your spreading of that perception, is a sin against faith. And neither can you claim invincible ignorance for yourself, because you are at this moment surrounded with the testomny which says otherwise: We affirm, whole-heartedly, that noone who, knowing that the Church was founded by Christ and is necessary for salvation, remains outside of it, can be saved. All salvation comes from Christ through the Church, and there is no salvation outside of the Church--not in or by any other religion. Evangelization is a constant duty and right of the Church. Those who are faultlessly ignorant and live according to the law written on their hearts can be saved, albeit only by grace in Jesus Christ, and we cannot determine to whom this applies. That is the teaching of the living Magisterium, and if you don't like it, then whatever, but I will continue to call for your banning unless you cease to call any part of the above "optional" or "false."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.
Just repeating myself--this is easier to read.

Of course, this is flawed, both in its foundation and in its purpose. First of all, it rests upon an erroneous understanding of what "infallibility" means, as if we were free to speculate or withhold judgement on any teaching which is not infallible, i.e., "not always been part of the Deposit of the Faith." There is no precedent for this 'option' in all Church history.

It also assumes that infallibly taught doctrines are beyond further explanation or understanding; that individuals have direct access to complete understanding of past doctrine without the aid of the Magisterium; that hedging one's bets is the only safe option. All are false.

Regarding the last, there is no concrete difference between "refusing to give assent" and "rejecting". This is what William James would call a "forced option." In other words, the challenge is not, "accept these teachings or reject them," but "accept these teachings or go without them." Whether you explicitly reject or merely refuse assent to all subsequent teaching pertaining to extra ecclesiam... you go without it, and you withold what the Church asks of you.

As a Catholic, you do not have the right not to assent, whether you reject or not. You especially do not have the right to proclaim to others that Catholics have the right with withold assent.

You lack faith in the Church; your perception of disconuity, and especially your spreading of that perception, is a sin against faith. And neither can you claim invincible ignorance for yourself, because you are at this moment surrounded with the testomny which says otherwise:

We affirm, whole-heartedly, that noone who, knowing that the Church was founded by Christ and is necessary for salvation, remains outside of it, can be saved. All salvation comes from Christ through the Church, and there is no salvation outside of the Church--not in or by any other religion. Evangelization is a constant duty and right of the Church. Those who are faultlessly ignorant and live according to the law written on their hearts can be saved, albeit only by grace in Jesus Christ, and we cannot determine to whom this applies. That is the teaching of the living Magisterium, and if you don't like it, then whatever, but I will continue to call for your (and Isabel's) banning unless you cease to call any part of the above "optional" or "false."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

Doctrinal development condemned by the Church? Whatever happened to Cardinal Henry Newman?

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.
"Isabel, I'm s-k-o-o)b*o&u^y. I'm trying to shed the name from my 'Net ID--it's just a goofy name."

Don't feel bad. Look at me. lol!

I'm reading your post.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

I hope you don't mind if before anything else I address your method.

"I think I understand what you're trying to do. I don't agree with it, and I don't believe that you're being honest with yourself or others, but I think I understand it nevertheless."

I believe you do too. But while you look at it as a bluff though, I think that the Faith cards I'm holding will win the match. More than that though, I truly don't consider it a game, but reality. For that reason, I am being completely and fully honest. If my opponent dodges Faith, I am left with little option than to dodge my opponent.

"You know at least that you must affirm those two lines of doctrine, because they're infallible."

This is absolutely the truth. "Thereafter, you deliberately withold judgement on what exactly those lines mean, neither taking a Feeneyist position nor an orthodox position, or any position."

Even inside one sentence there are so many things to see and hear. What I would like to have to do, anon, is to try to take a step back and look at this sentence from my perspective if you are able to do so. I think you can because you claim to know what I'm on about, so let me assume that's true and ask you to please see it from my perspective:

I see you loading the sentence with a premiss that you know that I don't accept, and that is that any declaration or definition or profession of a point of doctrine by the Universal Church requires interpretation... that I would say that the very nature of such a clarifying action by the Church rules out the need for interpretation, and that what is, in fact, is. So I see this thing about the assumed need for interpretation, point it out, and call it into question. Why? Because it seems foreign to Faith. And because the Church never proposed a doctrine of interpretation.

Secondly, based upon this hidden premiss that clarifications by the Church are subject to further interpretation, you have loaded the sentence further by stepping forward and positing two camps of interpretation: one you have called Feeneyite, and the other, orthodox. I perceive this as a setup, if you will. Call it insanity on my part, but I sense something in it. I see it as an isolation and containment strategy for the termination of an article of faith. There's that persistant shadow of the left, the right and the center in the background here. I'm not calling you evil, so don't get upset; I'm only crosshairing the process itself, not you.

Lastly, I eyeball your depiction of each of those two camps you have posited into existence, and see yet a further assumed hidden premiss that Feeneyite is heterodox and that orthodox is, well, orthodox. But you know well that if I allowed myself to be led into the containment strategy up this point, that I would stop cold long enough to differ with you about these categories which you have erected, and would argue for the juxtapositioning of their definition and characterization.

I see this and it scares me, anon. People are being taught this. In all honesty, in reading your posts you have a natural brilliance on your side. I sense something remarkably similar in kiwi's posts and he seems at a critical juncture in his awareness of reality, and the same things seems to be coming out in his posts as in yours; something of a similar process, or a leaning into a certain deviant perception of reality while retaining a very enlightened stance. I see Mateo as one you doesn't sell it but buys it, as does Eugene and Paul and Frank, and I see John as using it in a policing sort of role. Somebody has taught you all well a certain method. If it were in my power to snap you all out of it I would but it's beyond me to do so. I envision what's happening inside people's minds is like wheat and weeds tangled together. I worry less about myself getting pinned into a corner by all of you so much as that I see the rest of you all getting corralled and cornered by something else.

"That is because the orthodox position appears contradictory (whether post-Vatican II or not), and the Feeneyist (a.k.a. exclusivist) position means you put yourself in schizm."

Again here, similar to the previous sentence, there exists what is a motion in play towards having me accept your hidden premisses. But I'm watching this carefully and I see it. You want to fit my acceptance of an article of faith into an existing, prepackaged "school of thought", and you have named it Feeneyist. Attached to this prepackaged and isolated category is a stigma. If you can coral me into that, then you can begin the process of separating, or schizzing, it out of and away from your prepackaged concept of orthodoxy. Feeneyist is just one of many stigmatized and prepackaged categories of isolation.

But I'm an individual soul. I see this process, and see it for what it is, which is a construct devised to pry the human mind away from immutable truth. You move to contain me into a sort of temporary holding cell here: "This is called a "know-nothing" approach. i.e., "I don't know nuthin' but that they's ain't no savin' outta the Church, and ya'll gotta get y'selves baptized!""

But this is where the weapon of the opponent can be used against him, that of redefinition and juxtapositioning and containment or isolation. What I can do is to rename what you call the "know- nothing" approach. I'm going to call it The Fiat approach. I'm going to liken it to the response of Luke Chapter 1. Then, I will name the containment strategy to identify, isolate and condemn The Fiat approach as being the Cross or The Passion. It isn't a bluff or strategy on my part, though; it's real.

We are on about the subject of hard reality, anon. I know a little about hard reality. Let me stop there for now on your post, since that's a lot to deal with, and I want to see if you understand what I'm getting at. I know your position, and know it well; what I know is difficult to express in words, but I know your method of thought. Putting it into words is hit and miss for me in getting it across to people because it's more of an awareness than what is expressable with words.

You want me to follow along with a direction in the Church, and I can't do it. But the Church and Jesus and Mary never told me that I had to.

If I get anything across to you at all, it would be a warning: continue down this road with this process, and you will one day have no Faith left; none.

Don't get frustrated with this post. It's my best attempt to be upfront.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

This is what I get for doing a Ctrl-F on a thread...

"I see Mateo as one you doesn't sell it but buys it..."

Emerald, I'm having a hard time understanding this sentence. I'm just curious: what are you saying here?

Sorry for distracting from the thread!

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 16, 2004.

What I mean is, that you buy into moving with this new direction in the Church. It's ok with you. You don't really expound on it's virtues so much as Anon. Anon would seem to make a market for it so to speak.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.
"What I mean is, that you buy into moving with this new direction in the Church."

You know what they say about people who assume...

I don't think you can just speak for me...or Frank or Paul or Eugene. If you're going to insert me into this conversation, I'd prefer you ask me specific hypotheticals about whatever "new direction in the Church" that you're talking about. I think it's foolish (and patronizing) for you to assume that you can pigeon-hole my own thoughts or the thoughts of others. Just to be sure you get the message, it's also presumptuous of you to assume that you know what theology I would "buy" from others.

I hope you would provide us a little more courtesy and let us speak for ourselves in the future.

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 16, 2004.

That's fine.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.
"I think it's foolish (and patronizing) for you to assume that you can pigeon-hole my own thoughts or the thoughts of others. Just to be sure you get the message, it's also presumptuous of you to assume that you know what theology I would "buy" from others."

Do I get the same from you though?

I want to make sure that we've got a fair trade here.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Emerald, you write,

"I don't accept... that any declaration or definition or profession of a point of doctrine by the Universal Church requires interpretation... "

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Thing is, that's more than an assumption on my part; it's a long-standing philosophical and theological foundation. Everything is interpreted; the ball in front of your face is interpreted; the Eucharist is interpreted. I am NOT repeating Nietzsche's "everything is an interpretation" (that's a nihilistic point of view). What I am saying is that no human being has direct access to "Thing-In-Itself." That's just a point in philosophy.

You do not have direct access to the Council of Florence any more than Luther had direct access to Scripture. Feeney was confronted on the private interpretation of Church documents. He believed as you did--that he was not interpreting anything. It is dangerous for a person to believe they are not subject to a point-of-view. That's where infallibilistic attitudes come from. Remember Luther's "I stand here, I cannot do otherwise"? That's exactly my point--when people forget their subjectivity, they begin believing that propositions perfectly and eternally speak for themselves. It is a fetishism of words.

Emerald, plesae don't worry about my faith; it has a firm foundation in Christ and obedience to his Church. What is more, do not give others the impression that I am in any way bound for faithlessness. You're the one who has placed his faith in the arguments of a bunch of sore schizmatics, which simply cannot stand the test of time.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 16, 2004.

I think I'll read Cardinal Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Doctrine." He was the Church's greatest advocate of unflinching faith, especially in assent to all of the teachings of the Church. You can see it for yourself. His arguments will either make you lose your faith (if you insist on thinking like a fundamentalist), or fully convert you to Catholicism, with all of that's implied fidelity to the living Magisterium of the Pope and his bishops.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 16, 2004.

"What I am saying is that no human being has direct access to "Thing-In-Itself.""

Then what was IT that I received today at Mass other than "Thing-In-Itself? I have received Thing-In-Itself, and it has assimilated me; I am not worthy.

"Emerald, plesae don't worry about my faith; it has a firm foundation in Christ and obedience to his Church."

But I do worry about you. I actually worry about your wellbeing. Is that so crazy?

"What is more, do not give others the impression that I am in any way bound for faithlessness."

Of course you aren't bound. You have the free will to serve God or not to serve God. You're not bound at all; you are a free agent, at least until you are dead.

"You're the one who has placed his faith in the arguments of a bunch of sore schizmatics, which simply cannot stand the test of time."

I have placed my Faith in the words of Christ through His Catholic Church. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it; there is no salvation outside it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Emerald,

re: direct access to the Thing in Itself ala Eucharist--no, no, that's not what I meant. I mean conceptually.

"...assumed hidden premiss that Feeneyite is heterodox..."

Nothing assumed or hidden about it. Feeney and his followers and defenders are absolutely heterodox. They reject the dox of Pius IX before them. Simple as that.

"want to fit my acceptance of an article of faith into an existing, prepackaged "school of thought", and you have named it Feeneyist."

Yep. The same article, by itself, branches into several different schools. But now there are only two schools: those who think with the Church (who has not been silent on the correct understanding of her doctrine), and those who think without her: you.

"...which is a construct devised to pry the human mind away from immutable truth..."

Two things. First, my immutable truth is that the Church is right. Second, you confound immutable truth with its expression and formulation. These are not seperate, but they are distinct. "The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary." Pope John XXIII, opening speech of the Vatican Council II.

Re: The Fiat

"Let it be done to me according to your will." Sounds to me a lot like, "This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it." In that respect the Fiat is most certainly my model. Perhaps we interpret it differently.

"I have placed my Faith in the words of Christ through His Catholic Church."

In you're world, the Catholic Church is dead, we are her murderers, and this forum is your mourning board. Buzz off. I don't want your sympathy. Your tears stink of mutiny; you want the captain's gold but not his orders.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 16, 2004.

But who is left holding doctrine?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.
Btw, you're pretty smart.

What if I really did know what I was talking about, and what if I really was right, though?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

How many dark nights of the soul have you been through, anon? I remember calling out to the Mother of God; I remember learning something from St. Louis DeMonfort, that if I did nothing else each day, that if I said my Rosary I would be ok in the long run. Asking for her help though was something a bit more than I had bargained for.

Who is the mutinous here? I refuse to jump off your Ark. This is my Ark too. What do you learn when you meditate on the mysteries of the Rosary? Does it teach you to reconcile the Church with the world or does it ask you to die to the world with Christ? Does it teach you that if you possess knowledge that you can impart it upon the world, and the world will listen and accept it and be saved, or does it tell you that the world hates the truth and will do you in for it, and call you what you are not? Does it teach you to say "Buzz off"?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

1.) I hold the doctrines as the Church understands them. You do not.

2.) If you are right, then the Catholic Church is false, because if developments are impossible, then we are in a false church. Might as well be Jewish.

3.) When I meditate on the mysteries of the Rosary, they bring me to an assuredness and comfort as being a Catholic; that the world could end, or I could get a tumor, or be attacked, or slandered in international news, and I could breathe easy and smile in the love of Christ, thanking him for that most precious of gifts--faith and suffering for his sake. When I think of our Lord's Resurrection, I pray for the brevity of the purgation of souls: Lord, do not forsake the children you won for yourself with your blood.

But which of us is the better mystic or whatever doesn't change the fact that, for you, the church is dead; you cannot trust any bishop, because your foundation is a lie--that the Church does not have the right to teach the content of her own definitions.

You do not have any authority, divine or otherwise, by which to say that 'E.E.N.S.' excludes the Church's own teaching pertaining to it. She is NOT of the world, and all of her teachings are sound. She--by which I mean the living and breathing bishops and the Pope who work in the Vatican NOW, at this moment, yet steeped in history and faithful to tradition--is my guide; I know no other. She is the ONLY authority on what it means--extra ecclesiam nulla salus; and you are her opponent, and your spurious filth can be consigned to the flames, because for you the church is dead; for you, the gates of Hell have already prevailed, because you have no living bishop in communion with Rome who supports you.

You can have your dead church, your 1-man magisterial interpreter of 15th century texts, but don't drag it in here. We are faithful to John Paul II, because there is no other Pope, and there is no other reliable source by which we understand what the doctrine means--extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I would like to request at this point that our moderators, at their convenience, begin purging the forum of Feenyite material. It is not edifying.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 16, 2004.

There is no Feeneyite material here. It's just me saying that

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church is a doctrine, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation, and is a doctrine.

If what you personally and privately interpret as Feeneyite material off the forum, what you've really done is simply purged two doctrines off the forum and a guy that holds them.

You can't fool anyone, least of all God Almighty.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Anon/skoo,

That's a fine set of posts. I, at least find them very helpful, and will reread them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 16, 2004.

"1.) I hold the doctrines as the Church understands them. You do not."

I simply hold them as articles of Faith. Understanding of them may or may not be present, but it need not be, as stated by Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris:

"As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God. And the assistance of the Greek philosophy maketh not the truth more powerful..."

So I simply hold them, and do not need to understand them as you feel you do and that I need to to be a "good" Catholic by your definition. You are saying that I have to, but this is not required of me. All that is required of me is to hold the articles of Faith and to live according to them. The understandings you hold of these articles of Faith you want to be able to call doctrine as well, but you are unable to do so. You want to anathemetize those who propose no understanding or no new understanding for simply holding the articles of Faith. But the Church has always taught, and so have the doctors of the Church, that simple acceptance of the articles of Faith even without understanding is sufficient and complete and occurs prior to and takes precedence over any understanding of them whatsoever.

"2.) If you are right, then the Catholic Church is false, because if developments are impossible, then we are in a false church. Might as well be Jewish."

Do you mean to actually say this? I want to make sure I have this right: are you saying that the Catholic Church must undergo development or it is a false Church? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Because this is counter to what I know to be the new and eternal testament; if you are saying this, then your view is truly evolutionary and omegaman.

"3.) When I meditate on the mysteries of the Rosary, they bring me to an assuredness and comfort as being a Catholic; that the world could end, or I could get a tumor, or be attacked, or slandered in international news, and I could breathe easy and smile in the love of Christ, thanking him for that most precious of gifts--faith and suffering for his sake."

We're on the same page here.

But this is interesting:

"...for you, the church is dead", and later on "You can have your dead church."

I know very well your attitudes and ideas. I recognize them. Where I attend Mass is in a mausoleum; that's where we have been told we would be allowed to have our Tridentine Mass. We've been granted this particular location as intentional symbolism on the part of those who granted it to us; we know this because we've heard them say so. We are referred to as the walking dead of the Roman Catholic Church... so naturally they say, let's let them have their Mass in a mausoleum; it's fitting.

I thought that was just a local thing and a local in[s]ult, a symbolic gesture aimed at us just around here, if you will. But it's not; that's what I found out when I went up to visit Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in LA.

The entire Church is an architectural symbol of exactly what you believe, anon, about my dead Church. All the relics of traditional Catholicism depicting traditional Catholic theology is shoved out and down. Out into the outer hallways and away from the main body of the Church, and down into the mausoleum. The mausoleum is under the main body of the Church; it's the lower basement level. When you go down there, suddenly all the art and architectures goes traditional. It's a catacombs where they've symbolically buried traditional Catholicism there and built a new church on top of it, like a new city on the ruins of an old one. Old theology is down there, but on top, new theology. On the topside, they were having an ecumenical get together; at that ecumenical get together, they were talking about what was printed on that yellow card that said this:

"Come live in an exhilarating reality of church unity! An African Methodist Episcopal bishop preaching at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels surrounded by Greek and Armenian Orthodox, Quakers, Methodists, UCC's, Presbyterians, Episcopals and others. Join us to celebrate our common heritage in Jesus Christ and our commitment to the visible unity of the church."

They openly call this the Mystical Body, and they all claim to be members of it; they claim not to be working towards unity but to actually be in possession of it. That's what that main body of the Cathedral was built for, for get togethers like this; everything about it's design was meant for this, even the placing of the Blessed Sacrament off into to outer hallway.

So yeah, when you talk about being part of a dead Church, I know what you mean.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Emerald: "Do I get the same from you though?"

This seems like an indirect accusation. If you believe I've been treating you differently than what I'm asking for, please show me an example.

"I want to make sure that we've got a fair trade here."

This seems kinda funny. I think it's out of Christian charity that one should deal honestly with others. I'm not holding back my honesty until I see others exhibit it toward me. Isn't it moral relativism to remain uncharitable as long as one thinks he doesn't receive charity from others? It's something akin to the kids who say, "But mom, he hit me first." Christian virtue shouldn't be conditionally given based on the presence or absence of a good example.

When I characterize your position (or anyone else's), I provide direct quotes (written by you) to support my claim. In contrast, you've actually made up quotes and then attributed them to me (for example, see this thread and search for "I know the traditionalists are in dissent against Vatican II...").

I don't make it a habit to definitively tell someone else what they think or believe. When I make a conjecture, I typically preface my opinions with phrases like "I think..." or "In my opinion..."

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 16, 2004.

"Isn't it moral relativism to remain uncharitable as long as one thinks he doesn't receive charity from others?"

Yes it is; I apologize for that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

I tried the Ctrl F and I see it. If I assumed what I couldn't or if I mischaracterized your position, then I need to apologize for it.

What's more is it's pretty of nasty the way I wrote that. It's a lack of charity on my part; I apologize.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Emerald,

On the contrary to what you have written, I (a) firmly believe that the beauty and majesty of traditional Catholicism must be preserved and promoted, that it is very much alive, and that people rightly crave the art, symbolism, and teaching that makes Catholicism a truly Universal church, and (b) detest, along with you, the false ecumenicism and perversion of the notion of Christian unity such as you have mentioned. We're not in conflict about that.

However, as the adage goes, Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.

For you, the church is dead--you have no living relationship with the Church in Rome. You go to www.vatican.va, and all you see is Error, error, error! For you, a bishop's or even the Pope's own teaching does not shine with truth; on the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church is no longer reliable for you; the Catechism is Hell's book to you; your faith is DEAD. You're a bottom-feeder, literally; you sustain yourself on the lichen that grows on one teaching alone. Not even a teaching, but the shell of a teaching; the depths of the riches of wisdom of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is too rich for you, when it is placed in vibrant synthesis with the whole Church's Tradition, from 0 Anno Domini to last week. You're surrounded with a banquet of Christ, which you reject, whilst gnawing on a discarded bone from a succulent roast.

John Paul II is the only Pope I've known in my short life, and through him I've come to love Mother Church as a living (literally) institution. When they write something, I can write back and ask questions. When a theologian goes bad, Cardinal Ratzinger can contact him and put a stop to it, and the whole flock need not question him--he is a father to us as is the Pope. That's life. When your faith in the people die, that's it.

An orthodox Catholic is living in a home richly furnished and well- populated; a traditionalist thinks the whole house is all but fallen and hangs on to a coat-rack for dear life. In his paranoid cries, "the rack! The rack! Only the rack! The floor is falling, everybody grab onto the rack!" another Catholic may jest, "But if the floor truly fell, so would your coat-rack and you along with it. Come now, we're standing on the same floor, and it has not fallen. That rack was not meant for you--it was meant for coats. We all see the rack, but come, the dinner is prepared."

But I wrote that more for other reasonable people than for you. You're lost, and there's nothing really left for you but to remove you so you cease bothering the other guests of the banquet of the Lord with your unfounded despair.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 16, 2004.

Well, it's off to the catacombs for me then.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.
Our subject started as Gibson and a doctrine he believes is narrow.

It now revolves around Emerald. Every time a thread goes longer than a day or two, it's Emerald who becomes the subject. Not from a natural attraction for others; but because he'll never stop posting about himself. He's stronger than Mel Gibson.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2004.

"You're surrounded with a banquet of Christ, which you reject, whilst gnawing on a discarded bone from a succulent roast ... You're lost, and there's nothing really left for you but to remove you so you cease bothering the other guests of the banquet of the Lord with your unfounded despair."

This is an interesting analogy, but is there any possible way you could make it look less like Luke 16:19-31?

Fair is fair, right? I can't possibly be over the line wondering such a thing here after what you have written in your post above.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Eugene, Frank just got what he was trolling for when he posted this topic in the first place, that's all. And you know it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.
I thought about that myself, actually. It needs no amendment. Only a completely self-serving and overtly dishonest person would equate accept ALL of the teaching of the Church (the banquet) and the selfishness of the rich man.

Besides, if the rich man every day invited Lazarus to the table, and Lazarus refused, the 'tables' would be turned, wouldn't they?

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 16, 2004.

I'm a completely self-serving and overtly dishonest person. That has to be the best argument I've heard yet as to why I shouldn't hold that:

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

My peers have pronounced judgment upon me; they have damned me with charity. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

No, you're not damned. You are in invincible ignorance. And so are your peers who believe as you do. Here we're just ordinary Catholics, who confess we're sinners. No delusions of grandeur in our Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2004.
Oh good. I'll cancel my bid for the asbestos suit on Ebay.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.
Why not bid for something you actually need -- the Catechism.

-- (r@e.x), February 17, 2004.
"Why not bid for something you actually need -- the Catechism."

All the catechisms will tell you that

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Perhaps you're just mistaken in your assumption that I don't have one. After all, I know hold the doctrines.

And you have a remark to make about it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

Emerald,

You turned a new corner! You've entered into the sola scriptura realm. After all, there's no reason to read ANY of the Papal bulls, encyclicals, church councils, etc., right? After all, all they will tell you is:

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Yep, there's no reason to read ANY of it. So, do you intend to continue to call yourself a Catholic, or have you picked out a new name for your religion?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 17, 2004.

Oops, left out a line:

Yep, there's no reason to read ANY of it. It's all in the Bible, right? So, do you intend to continue to call yourself a Catholic, or have you picked out a new name for your religion?

Hate when that happens,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 17, 2004.

I'll repeat what I wrote in the other thread because I think it's pertinent:

"This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it." Either you believe them in the way the Church understands them, or else you do not believe them at all. Indeed, you reject those doctrines as the Church understands them.

And Eugene, I would certainly not be hasty to call any of what Emerald has written the result of 'invincible ignorance'--(we're not supposed to judge the particulars of that anyway, remember?) The only sense in which that could true is if Emerald's obstinence and schizm were the result of a pre-rational thought pattern that is not entirely of his own control and prevents his assent to Holy Mother Church.

Yet even then, he could most certainly be culpable before God of rising against the Church that Christ established (as much as Emerald can't believe that because--*smacks forehead*--Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has "no need" for the Church's teaching about it and everybody can believe what they think it means). He has already created confusion among some people here just now entering the Church. He stirs in others the seeds of rebellion, dissent, and a consumerist approach to Catholicism.

Emerald does a lot of damage in the Church. I pray that his new baby won't be repelled from the Church by Emerald's vilely mutated, individualistic version of it, or else follow his errors and thus be locked in conflict with the Pope and his bishops, who are our only earthly guides, given authority by Christ.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 17, 2004.

I just caught something from an older post:

"your prepackaged concept of orthodoxy."

Indeed. Packaged, wrapped, and presented by the Church, the only truly trustworthy authority. My concept of orthodoxy? Whether infallible or not, I accept the teachings. Check it out--Canon Law says it; Vatican II says it; Vatican I and Trent say it; the Creed says it.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 17, 2004.

I'll save Emerald the trouble of answering, by answering for him (without his consent, btw). My answer will also have the advantage of brevity. Here it goes:

Yes, that's well and good, I'm condemned by people claiming to be Catholic. Nothing changes the fact that:

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

No one has proven me wrong! The church has changed! The wool has been pulled over everyone's eyes but mine (and a select few others of my choosing)!

How'd I do?

Frank

-- Someone (ChmingIn@twocents.cam), February 17, 2004.

I point all concerned towards the Catholic Encyclopedia's excellent treatment of the subject. See the section on "The Church: The Necessary Means of Salvation."

I only make this warning: if you quote a single line from it whilst ignoring all content pertaining to that line, you are being a very, very bad boy.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 17, 2004.

Thanks, Frank. Delegation is key; you're doing fantastic. Keep up the good work. While you're busy restating Catholic doctrine, let's talk about who is accomplishing authentic ecumenism:

"After watching "The Passion of The Christ," I feel as if I have actually been there. I was moved to tears. I doubt if there has ever been a more graphic and moving presentation of Jesus' death and resurrection." --Billy Graham, President, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

"I experienced moments of profound spiritual intimacy with Jesus Christ...I would gladly trade some of the homilies that I have given about the passion of Christ for even a few of the scenes of this film." --Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Worldwide Prefect of the Clergy, The Vatican

"It is deeply moving, powerful, and disturbing. A film that must be seen." --James Dobson, Chairman, Focus on the Family

"Mel Gibson captures with explosive poignancy the final excruciating hours of Jesus' life. This movie will forever change your view of God himself, and what He did for us all on that dark day in history as He endured an ignominious trial and hung on the cross." --The late Dr. Bill Bright, President, Campus Crusades for Christ

"Gibson's film represents by far the most moving, substantive, and artistically successful adaptation of biblical material ever attempted by Hollywood." --Michael Medved, Film Critic & Radio Show Host

Ok, so what you have here is a traditional Catholic who isn't afraid to hold the line on Catholic doctrine in front of the entire world, put his entire image and career on the line, take the insults and puzzled looks and disparaging remarks, the heat, the rebukes, the ridicule. He simply tells the Catholic Truth. He doesn't water it down, reinterpret it, hide it or deny it.

He's the one portraying the Christ that people recognize; he's got the goods. So who is it that is doing the real ecumenism.

Are you going to boycott this movie?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 18, 2004.

Emerald,

What is the relevance of your post? Even someone who's stone crazy can do God's will. I'm NOT saying Gibson is here, but if he was, it wouldn't stop him from making a good movie. Similarly, someone can be a faithful Catholic and make a horrible movie. So what?

Btw, before you claim Gibson as your own, you'd better make sure he's not a closet sedevacantist, like his father is an open one. Unless, that is, Emeraldism has stopped trying to say it's Catholic.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 18, 2004.

Em

Give it up. some of the peeps in this form just do not get it.

I find it funy that the link @ the top of this post goes to the msnbc's gossip form.. I do beleve that spreading Gossip and playing into gossip is a sin.

SS

-- SS (steven@schneider.net), February 18, 2004.

You're right; I think it's past the time already. KtF.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 18, 2004.
Hell? I think he said that she would be traveling to Detroit. It was just interpreted as being "hell". lol

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), February 19, 2004.
The Bible says, "for whosover calls upon the name of the Lord, SHALL BE SAVED"

Whosover is just that.

THe "church" is made up of ALL those that put their trust and faith in Jesus Christ.

"If thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in thine heart that God has rased Him from the dead, THOU SHALT BE SAVED"

Why does Mel come off as being a little "nutty" ?

Because he is confused.

he doesn't know who to believe. The "chair", or the Bible.

If he would simply stick to the TRUTH (the Word), he would be ok, but in these last days of "strong delusion", he could easily be drawn away from the Truth by the "tradtions of men".

Either way, it is obvous that the man has become a Christian and was "born again" when he fell to his knees and cryed out to God.

"Ye must be born again", is once again proven!

"Not everyone that says, Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of God."

Only those that do the will of the Father which is in heaven SHALL BE SAVED>

What is His "will" ?

"God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to REPENTANCE".

Jim

-- Jim Teacher (Jim@aol.com), February 20, 2004.

Hi Jim,

Welcome to the forum. Because you aren't a Catholic, you might not understand the nature of this debate. You mentioned before that it is a shame no Scripture was used in the preceding debates. I agree with you. The mind of people like Emerald at. al., is such that "Scripture need not apply."

Just as Orthodox Catholics understand their living Church as the authentic interpreter of the Sciptures (although we are encouraged constantly to read, study, and meditate on Scripture, and God's Word has preeminent importance in all Catholic worship), self- styled 'traditionalists' believe that only infallible papal definitions are reliable guides to understanding or accepting anything that came before or after.

In other words, a Catholic would dispute you and say that "Faith without works is dead," and "Whoever does not DO the will of my Father cannot be saved."

I would recommmend you see Catholic Outlook for a very good "Guide to Catholicism for Protestants." It is packed full of the Word of God, and demonstrates most admirably the unity and inextricability of the Catholic Church with the truth of Scripture.

But traditionalists are a different animal. While you constrict Christian truth to an incomplete reading of the Bible, which Catholics do not, traditionalists constrict Christian truth to an incomplete reading of certain ecumenical councils.

Hence it as futile for a Catholic to use Scripture to dispute with a traditionalist as it is for a Protestant to use Scripture to convert a Muslim.

I hope you understand that. God bless you keep you, and may we see each other as loving brothers and members of God's one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church with no long delay.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 20, 2004.

My Apologies, I linked to New Advent. Here is Catholic Outlook.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 20, 2004.
The mind of people like Emerald at. al., is such that "Scripture need not apply."

Huh?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

He admits that his wife is better than he is and he really believes that she will not make it....a religion full of hates and prejudices toward others, not sparing his own wife...so sad. He should really reconsider jumping out the windows, and make sure it's a really tall building. Or perhaps his wife should push him out.

-- L. D. (amql@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.
Umm...Proud non-Catholic adding her two cents.

First of all, have you people ever heard of the Bible? Ever read the New Testament? You know, the section of the book that explicitly states that salvation can be found only through Jesus Christ? If you depend upon any church for salvation and choose to ignore the fact that said salvation can only be found through Christ, you've been seriously misled, and you're walking on a dangerous road.

This is one of many reasons why I belong to a non-denominational church. We don't depend upon the church or fancy rituals for salvation. We acknowledge the fact that Jesus Christ suffered a terrible death, so that ALL of us (Yes, even those of us who refuse to take part in the Catholic Church) can find salvation through Him and ONLY Him.

Finally, who declared Mel to be the authority on who is and who is not going to Hell? Last I heard, we're all sinners. None of us are 100% pure. We ALL need salvation, and once again, that salvation comes through Jesus Christ. He is the ONLY Savior, and I pray that He will open the eyes of every person who's been blinded, so that they may turn to Him and turn away from their sinful lifestyles and beliefs.

Sincerely,

Lin

-- Lin (Mischief_555@yahoo.com), March 06, 2004.

Please open your Bibles to John 14:6, which states:

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me."

This says it all. You cannot come to the Father through the Pope, or Mel Gibson, the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter. You must approach God through Jesus Christ. That is the only way. Please, rely on HIM for your salvation. I'm begging you. Do NOT place your faith in the world of men, because human beings are flawed, and we are full of lies and deceit. But Jesus Christ is better than that. He's ABOVE all of this. Please, open your Bibles and find out for yourself.

-- Lin (Mischief_555@yahoo.com), March 06, 2004.

MISCHIEF,

First of all, have you ever heard of history? Do you know who gave you the Bible you're reading? I don't think so.

The Catholic Church came first before the Bible. The Catholic Church wrote, assessed, defined, assembled, published, & correctly interpreted the first Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Do some research. History will set you free.

-- (TheBibleIs@Catholic.Book), March 06, 2004.

Lin,

The Bible is a Catholic book, compiled at the end of the 4th century by the bishops of the Catholic Church, at the command of the Pope, for the use of the Catholic Church. It was never intended to be used by anyone else. Your human founders adopted our book, and tried unsuccessfully to make it an "authority", replacing the genuine authority Jesus provided - His Church - as clearly described in the Bible. It is impossible to "approach God through Jesus Christ" or to "rely on HIM for your salvation" without the Church. In fact you would never have HEARD of Jesus Christ or His message except through the Church. You don't realize it, but the only reason you can find even a partial relationship with Jesus in your Protestant church is because of the Catholic roots of your tradition. If you didn't have Catholic roots, you would not even be Christian.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 06, 2004.

"First of all, have you people ever heard of the Bible?"

Yes.

"Ever read the New Testament? You know, the section of the book that explicitly states that salvation can be found only through Jesus Christ?"

Yes.

"If you depend upon any church for salvation and choose to ignore the fact that said salvation can only be found through Christ, you've been seriously misled, and you're walking on a dangerous road."

I suppose so, especially in consideration of the bolded part.

"This is one of many reasons why I belong to a non-denominational church."

It's got a denomination: it's denomination is call non- denonminational. An un-named animal is still an animal; and attendance of this or that non-denominational church falls under the category of depending on any church for salvation. If pressed to it's conclusion, your admonishment is ultimately turn-back-able upon any non-denominational church; it's an easy reductio.

"We don't depend upon the church or fancy rituals for salvation."

This is expressed in the negative. If it is not the above, then what do you depend on for salvation?

"We acknowledge the fact that Jesus Christ suffered a terrible death, so that ALL of us (Yes, even those of us who refuse to take part in the Catholic Church) can find salvation through Him and ONLY Him."

The Catholic Church has Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament: this is the absolute heart and essence of the discussion. Everything revolves around this reality at the core.

"Finally, who declared Mel to be the authority on who is and who is not going to Hell?"

No one; not that I'm aware of.

"Last I heard, we're all sinners. None of us are 100% pure. We ALL need salvation, and once again, that salvation comes through Jesus Christ."

That's what I heard too; I believe that. Did someone disagree with this and I missed it?

"He is the ONLY Savior, and I pray that He will open the eyes of every person who's been blinded, so that they may turn to Him and turn away from their sinful lifestyles and beliefs."

Me too.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.

I just wanted to offer a quick apology for being sarcastic. It's always been in my nature, and I didn't mean to sound mean-spirited or anything like that. I do, however, disagree strongly with the "You either belong to the Catholic Church, or you're damned" mentality. It's wrong and deceitful. I know it, the Lord knows it, and somewhere deep inside, you know it.

May God bless you and yours, and may He always be a light leading you to truth and grace.

-- Lin (Mischief_555@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.

Lin,
Just by your words, we know you ARE a Catholic at heart. You reject whatever you know to be ''wrong and deceitful''.

The problem is, you've determined the Catholic faith is wrong and deceitful without finding out what the faith really is. It is Christ's Holy Gospel in the world. We follow all the teachings of his holy apostles, as ONE communion, one flock.

If the Church were deceiving us, she wouldn't teach us exactly what the apostles brought the world. She would do wrong by Jesus Christ, and lead souls AWAY from the truth.

You're a Catholic at heart because you love Christ. Love for Him and your neighbor is what sets you apart as His own; and guess what? That's what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years.

For some reason (I think I know what that is) you've always thought Catholic faith wants you to be ''Catholic or damned.'' You focus on damnation, not LOVE. Catholic faith is our LOVE brought to perfection, love for Jesus Christ and for our neighbor. Love for every soul created in the image of God. Does that sound like wishing damnation on another soul? If so, explain why.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2004.

Frank, I'm not a "Catholic at heart." I am a CHRISTIAN at heart. I believe what the Bible tells me, and nowhere in that Bible have I found a Scripture that states, "You're either Catholic, or you're damned."

End of discussion. I'm out of here. I suggest you leave the judging to the one Person who knows what He's doing.

-- Lin (Mischief_555@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.

Lin,

What did I do?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 09, 2004.

Hi, Frank!
You're taking my heat, I guess. Do you think you should apologise to Lin for what she thinks YOU said? That she's a Catholic at heart? The knee-jerk way in which Lin reacted is a sign of some deeply ingrained prejudice. At least I think so.

It's really the same motivation that so many non-Catholics frame their Bible interpretations in. When obvious and patent discernments of crucial passages in scripture support a Catholic doctrine in any way, they casually exchange a clear meaning for something ''un- Catholic''. Even if it requires standing scriptures on their head.

Prejudice against the Church is alive and well in the world. ''An enemy has done this.'' You see it both in Matt 13:19; and 13, :28.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ