Krush2k2 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Ok, I havent posted much recently and I was just curious-why do some posters who I thought in the past were good reps of the Catholic faith have on thier posts 'Hello, I do NOT rep the Catholic church" i was like wha? lol What do they represent? And I keep hearing differences on SSPX-if you are a part of that you are possibly heretical? Is Mel Gibson SSPX? If so, he is possible heretical? I'm so confused, could someone clear these few things up? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23436"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23436[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krush2k2 Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 ok, but about the Mel Gibson question-Is he SSPX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I don't think he has ever stated his beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 According to Scott Hahn, who has talked to Gibson in depth, Gibson is a sedevacantist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I don't think he is SSPX, but may share similar sentiments with the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 [quote name='Dave' date='Nov 17 2004, 05:52 PM'] According to Scott Hahn, who has talked to Gibson in depth, Gibson is a sedevacantist. [/quote] That is not true, as far as I know... his father is a sedevacantist. He is not SSPX, either. He has a personal chapel with an independent Priest. He, according to what he said on Larry King Live about 10 years ago, does not believe the Novus Ordo can coonfect the Sacrament. His exact words, I believe, were, when questioned by King (a Jew) about why he does not like the Novus Ordo, he responded: First of all, I do not think Transubstantiation occurs. (That may have changed, but I think it was 1994 on Larry King he said that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krush2k2 Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 ok how does CatholicCrusader not rep the church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 [quote name='Krush2k2' date='Nov 17 2004, 07:39 PM'] ok how does CatholicCrusader not rep the church? [/quote] I am too Traditional. I enjoy the Traditional Latin Mass. I don't prescibe to Modernism and "neo-conservative" ways of thinking. I am too "rigorist" in believing what the Church teaches, etc. I am an "extremist". These are just a few reasons, I suppose. That is at least what people have been saying about me. If you really want to know, you can contact dUst. He is the one who gave me the title. Or just ask Bro Adam (or Socrates); he could spout off some reasons. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 [quote name='Krush2k2' date='Nov 17 2004, 07:39 PM'] ok how does CatholicCrusader not rep the church? [/quote] I think it's because he rejects Vatican II, not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 [quote name='Paladin D' date='Nov 17 2004, 09:16 PM'] I think it's because he rejects Vatican II, not sure. [/quote] What exactly do I reject? Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine. It proclaimed nothing infallibly. How can I reject something that defined no doctrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 CC, I hope that you know I am always open to intellectual debate and am not one to allow passions or emotional stirrings to get in the way of such things. I certainly do not know the entirety of your history here at phatmass, nor do I know what you believe in depth, so I beg your pardon if the following question seems blunt: Do you believe that the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] is a valid mass (ie confects the Blessed Sacrament) and, if so, do you believe that when the proper rubrics are followed (ie those outlined in the General Instruction for the Roman Missal) that there is anything in the liturgy of the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] that is either in theological error or that causes one to be in a state of mortal sin by attending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 18 2004, 12:04 AM'] CC, I hope that you know I am always open to intellectual debate and am not one to allow passions or emotional stirrings to get in the way of such things. I certainly do not know the entirety of your history here at phatmass, nor do I know what you believe in depth, so I beg your pardon if the following question seems blunt: Do you believe that the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] is a valid mass (ie confects the Blessed Sacrament) and, if so, do you believe that when the proper rubrics are followed (ie those outlined in the General Instruction for the Roman Missal) that there is anything in the liturgy of the [i]Ordo Missae[/i] that is either in theological error or that causes one to be in a state of mortal sin by attending? [/quote] The Novus Ordo is valid when following the rubrics correctly. It COULD cause someone to commit a mortal sin (anger and a morally inpermissible act that could follow from seeing hand Communion and the sacrilege that inevitably follows--the anger itself, though, is not sinful, as it is "holy anger", similar to that of Christ in flipping over the tables, written of in holy writ: "Be ye anger and sin not"), but it does not automatically put a man in a state of mortal sin by attending. Nonetheless, I see that there certainly are some grave theological errors in the Missae itself. Take, for example, the Good Friday prayer for the Jews, which has been a topic brought up here before. Also, the error (that was corrected in the 80s) that says at the beginning of a Preface for Eucharistic Prayer IV: "You ALONE ar God" speaking only of God the Father. There are various other instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 18 2004, 12:37 PM'] The Novus Ordo is valid when following the rubrics correctly. It COULD cause someone to commit a mortal sin (anger and a morally inpermissible act that could follow from seeing hand Communion and the sacrilege that inevitably follows--the anger itself, though, is not sinful, as it is "holy anger", similar to that of Christ in flipping over the tables, written of in holy writ: "Be ye anger and sin not"), but it does not automatically put a man in a state of mortal sin by attending. Nonetheless, I see that there certainly are some grave theological errors in the Missae itself. Take, for example, the Good Friday prayer for the Jews, which has been a topic brought up here before. Also, the error (that was corrected in the 80s) that says at the beginning of a Preface for Eucharistic Prayer IV: "You ALONE ar God" speaking only of God the Father. There are various other instances. [/quote] This is how he earns his title. Your first line is fine, but you go downhill after that. Communion in the hand is permitted by the Church. The Mass [u]does not [/u]contain grave theological errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts