Catholics, you have been robbed of the Mass! WHAT IS THIS VIDEO ABOUT? This is a clip from the 1973 made-for-TV film "Catholics" (later renamed "The Conflict"), shown full-length on US public broadcasting …More
Catholics, you have been robbed of the Mass!
WHAT IS THIS VIDEO ABOUT? This is a clip from the 1973 made-for-TV film "Catholics" (later renamed "The Conflict"), shown full-length on US public broadcasting stations. It is a visually and intellectually impressive film. The story line is faithful to Brian Moore's 1972 book by the same name. The film depicts the real-life confrontation between Traditionalists and Modernists in the Roman Catholic Church after the highly controversial and divisive Second Vatican Council. The Modernist occupiers of the Church's official structures arbitrarily order Catholics to join with heretical sects in a so-called "ecumenical" movement that contradicts the authentic teachings and traditions of Catholicism. A group of Irish monks decides to continue with Catholic Tradition and remain faithful to the Tridentine Latin Mass. When the monks' fidelity to the Mass inspires an international following, the Modernists become alarmed and disconcerted, rightly fearing worldwide Catholic resistance to their sinister plot. Martin Sheen is the agent sent by the Modernists to force the monks to accept the new religion and its schismatic new liturgy or face excommunication at the hands of the Modernists. Great dialogue ensues as some of the monks eloquently defend their Faith. The acting by Trevor Howard is absolutely flawless and authentic. It is masterful, heartfelt, and beautiful. Almost equally so is that of Cyril Cusack, who plays the role of Father Manus, a monk. Martin Sheen's role is important, but not nearly as much as Howard's, and not remotely as well-crafted. The DVD version of the film titled "Catholics" is very grainy, with lines running through it, and soundtrack distortions that make it hard to enjoy. The digitally re-mastered version of this film by Digiview, titled "The Conflict" (run time 77 minutes) has the best quality and is available for purchase on Internet. This film, like the book, will interest everyone that likes philosophy or religion, regardless of their faith or lack of one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join Una Voce Miami! Enjoy the video. Recommend it to your family and friends. Rejoice in the grandness of fidelity to Catholic Tradition. Courtesy of Una Voce Miami, POB 350372, Jose Marti Station, Miami, FL 33135-0372 // unavocemiami@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Únete a Una Voce Miami. Disfruta el video. Recomiéndaselo a tus familiares y amigos. Regocijate en la grandeza de la fidelidad a la Tradición católica. Cortesía de Una Voce Miami, POB 350372, José Martí Station, Miami, FL 33135-0372 // unavocemiami@aol.com
WHAT IS THIS VIDEO ABOUT? This is a clip from the 1973 made-for-TV film "Catholics" (later renamed "The Conflict"), shown full-length on US public broadcasting stations. It is a visually and intellectually impressive film. The story line is faithful to Brian Moore's 1972 book by the same name. The film depicts the real-life confrontation between Traditionalists and Modernists in the Roman Catholic Church after the highly controversial and divisive Second Vatican Council. The Modernist occupiers of the Church's official structures arbitrarily order Catholics to join with heretical sects in a so-called "ecumenical" movement that contradicts the authentic teachings and traditions of Catholicism. A group of Irish monks decides to continue with Catholic Tradition and remain faithful to the Tridentine Latin Mass. When the monks' fidelity to the Mass inspires an international following, the Modernists become alarmed and disconcerted, rightly fearing worldwide Catholic resistance to their sinister plot. Martin Sheen is the agent sent by the Modernists to force the monks to accept the new religion and its schismatic new liturgy or face excommunication at the hands of the Modernists. Great dialogue ensues as some of the monks eloquently defend their Faith. The acting by Trevor Howard is absolutely flawless and authentic. It is masterful, heartfelt, and beautiful. Almost equally so is that of Cyril Cusack, who plays the role of Father Manus, a monk. Martin Sheen's role is important, but not nearly as much as Howard's, and not remotely as well-crafted. The DVD version of the film titled "Catholics" is very grainy, with lines running through it, and soundtrack distortions that make it hard to enjoy. The digitally re-mastered version of this film by Digiview, titled "The Conflict" (run time 77 minutes) has the best quality and is available for purchase on Internet. This film, like the book, will interest everyone that likes philosophy or religion, regardless of their faith or lack of one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join Una Voce Miami! Enjoy the video. Recommend it to your family and friends. Rejoice in the grandness of fidelity to Catholic Tradition. Courtesy of Una Voce Miami, POB 350372, Jose Marti Station, Miami, FL 33135-0372 // unavocemiami@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Únete a Una Voce Miami. Disfruta el video. Recomiéndaselo a tus familiares y amigos. Regocijate en la grandeza de la fidelidad a la Tradición católica. Cortesía de Una Voce Miami, POB 350372, José Martí Station, Miami, FL 33135-0372 // unavocemiami@aol.com
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Holy Cannoli,
You are still unable to get a comment from Joseph Shaw or Fr.Hunwicke on this issue?
Do you think they know I am correct but are not saying anything for political or personal reasons?
The issue is about Catholic faith.Surely they can comment on the faith.
Curious, have you noticed that none of the Catholic apologetic websites have a tag on this issue.If you check the word Salvation on …More
Holy Cannoli,
You are still unable to get a comment from Joseph Shaw or Fr.Hunwicke on this issue?
Do you think they know I am correct but are not saying anything for political or personal reasons?
The issue is about Catholic faith.Surely they can comment on the faith.
Curious, have you noticed that none of the Catholic apologetic websites have a tag on this issue.If you check the word Salvation on these websites none of them state that Jews need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.Why not? Do Jews not need to convert into the Church 1) since there are known exceptions 2) or has the teachings of the Church changed or 3) or are they afraid of something....
Do you know any cardinal or bishop or FSSP priest who is willing to discuss this?
-Lionel
You are still unable to get a comment from Joseph Shaw or Fr.Hunwicke on this issue?
Do you think they know I am correct but are not saying anything for political or personal reasons?
The issue is about Catholic faith.Surely they can comment on the faith.
Curious, have you noticed that none of the Catholic apologetic websites have a tag on this issue.If you check the word Salvation on these websites none of them state that Jews need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.Why not? Do Jews not need to convert into the Church 1) since there are known exceptions 2) or has the teachings of the Church changed or 3) or are they afraid of something....
Do you know any cardinal or bishop or FSSP priest who is willing to discuss this?
-Lionel
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Holy Cannoli,
I have mentioned that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with an irrational premise and irrational conclusion, or without it. You have not commented on this.
I refer to the irrational interpretation as Cushingism and the rational and traditional interpretation as Feeneyism.You have not commented on it.
I have written that without the four points( mentioned below) the interpretation …More
Holy Cannoli,
I have mentioned that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with an irrational premise and irrational conclusion, or without it. You have not commented on this.
I refer to the irrational interpretation as Cushingism and the rational and traditional interpretation as Feeneyism.You have not commented on it.
I have written that without the four points( mentioned below) the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.You have also not thought this through and commented on it.
You could ask these questions in your church. Or phone up Fr. Hunwicke,FSSP or SSPX priests and ask there opinion and post it here.
I think they all know what I am saying. Since I have been saying the same thing for the last few years.
However they do not want to be suspended by the Vatican or lose their reputation or some interest.So they remain politically correct even though the Traditional Latin Mass which they offer, is theologically modernist.
Today we have the phenomenon of the modernist Traditional Latin Mass which is a rupture with the Mass of the 16th century for example.
The Vatican and the two popes know this. So they are approving the Tradtional Latin Mass to be offered by the FSSP and other comunities who interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational Rahner theology, Cushingite theology.While they do not permit the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who reject 'the speculative doctrines of Karl Rahner, the Jesuit', to offer the Latin Mass.
Fr.Hunwicke does not have any problem. Since he interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and conclusion.He does it with the four points mentioned here.So he keeps quiet on this issue.He is politically correct with the Left.
The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales is also Cushingite. Dr.Joseph Shaw will not affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II. He could be protecting his job at Oxford University .Now he has the approval of the Vatican and the liberal English bishops.
I have written all this not out of dis-respect for any of them but so that this issue is discussed and resolved.-Lionel
I have mentioned that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with an irrational premise and irrational conclusion, or without it. You have not commented on this.
I refer to the irrational interpretation as Cushingism and the rational and traditional interpretation as Feeneyism.You have not commented on it.
I have written that without the four points( mentioned below) the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.You have also not thought this through and commented on it.
You could ask these questions in your church. Or phone up Fr. Hunwicke,FSSP or SSPX priests and ask there opinion and post it here.
I think they all know what I am saying. Since I have been saying the same thing for the last few years.
However they do not want to be suspended by the Vatican or lose their reputation or some interest.So they remain politically correct even though the Traditional Latin Mass which they offer, is theologically modernist.
Today we have the phenomenon of the modernist Traditional Latin Mass which is a rupture with the Mass of the 16th century for example.
The Vatican and the two popes know this. So they are approving the Tradtional Latin Mass to be offered by the FSSP and other comunities who interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational Rahner theology, Cushingite theology.While they do not permit the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who reject 'the speculative doctrines of Karl Rahner, the Jesuit', to offer the Latin Mass.
Fr.Hunwicke does not have any problem. Since he interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and conclusion.He does it with the four points mentioned here.So he keeps quiet on this issue.He is politically correct with the Left.
The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales is also Cushingite. Dr.Joseph Shaw will not affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II. He could be protecting his job at Oxford University .Now he has the approval of the Vatican and the liberal English bishops.
I have written all this not out of dis-respect for any of them but so that this issue is discussed and resolved.-Lionel
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Lionel L. Andrades wrote:
.
Fr. John Hunwicke, Joseph Shaw, the FSSP priests and the sedevantists influenced by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, do not say that they reject Cushingism and accept Feeneyism.They offer/ attend Mass with an irrational and heretical interpretative theology.
.
There you have it. According to Lionel Andrades, the above priests are all heretics. Do you realize what you are Lionel …More
Lionel L. Andrades wrote:
.
Fr. John Hunwicke, Joseph Shaw, the FSSP priests and the sedevantists influenced by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, do not say that they reject Cushingism and accept Feeneyism.They offer/ attend Mass with an irrational and heretical interpretative theology.
.
There you have it. According to Lionel Andrades, the above priests are all heretics. Do you realize what you are Lionel and what your demeaning posts say about you? I don't think you do so I am going to tell you.
.
You are a spamming egomaniac. You will repeat a line or two of an article that is posted and follow it by making a non-relevant rambling post polluting and hi-jacking that given article in order to 1) feed your own ego and, (you hope) 2) generate hits to your boring, convoluted and pathetically written blog.
.
In spite of your using bright colors to highlight text, bold and other childish gimmicks to attract attention, you deceive nobody and your actions are obvious to everyone. You are so identified with your own bizarre spamming posts you are unable to see what an uninteresting dullard you actually are.
.
You have no idea what EENS is and is not. You do not understand what VC-II taught or did not teach. Instead you prefer to make rambling screeds railing against only heaven knows what each and every day. You think you know more than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. You think you know more than the priests of the FSSP. You think you know more than the SSPX bishops. In short, you think you know more than every Catholic who has ever lived or is currently living.
.
You are an individual who is deeply disturbed, obsessive, egomaniacal and self-absorbed in his own eccentric thoughts who has made his very deep seated pathology clear to everyone at this website for weeks and weeks. You desperately need psychological/psychiatric intervention.
.
Fr. John Hunwicke, Joseph Shaw, the FSSP priests and the sedevantists influenced by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, do not say that they reject Cushingism and accept Feeneyism.They offer/ attend Mass with an irrational and heretical interpretative theology.
.
There you have it. According to Lionel Andrades, the above priests are all heretics. Do you realize what you are Lionel and what your demeaning posts say about you? I don't think you do so I am going to tell you.
.
You are a spamming egomaniac. You will repeat a line or two of an article that is posted and follow it by making a non-relevant rambling post polluting and hi-jacking that given article in order to 1) feed your own ego and, (you hope) 2) generate hits to your boring, convoluted and pathetically written blog.
.
In spite of your using bright colors to highlight text, bold and other childish gimmicks to attract attention, you deceive nobody and your actions are obvious to everyone. You are so identified with your own bizarre spamming posts you are unable to see what an uninteresting dullard you actually are.
.
You have no idea what EENS is and is not. You do not understand what VC-II taught or did not teach. Instead you prefer to make rambling screeds railing against only heaven knows what each and every day. You think you know more than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. You think you know more than the priests of the FSSP. You think you know more than the SSPX bishops. In short, you think you know more than every Catholic who has ever lived or is currently living.
.
You are an individual who is deeply disturbed, obsessive, egomaniacal and self-absorbed in his own eccentric thoughts who has made his very deep seated pathology clear to everyone at this website for weeks and weeks. You desperately need psychological/psychiatric intervention.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
There can only be a conflict between Traditionalists and Modernists over Vatican Council II when it is wrongly assumed :-
1.Invisible cases are visible in the present times ( 1960-2016).
2.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) refer to a visible case.
3.Vatican Council II contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus…More
There can only be a conflict between Traditionalists and Modernists over Vatican Council II when it is wrongly assumed :-
1.Invisible cases are visible in the present times ( 1960-2016).
2.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) refer to a visible case.
3.Vatican Council II contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible exceptions to the dogma.
4.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has exceptions. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water.
AVOID THESE FOUR POINTS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONALISTS AND MODERNISTS ENDS, WITH REFERENCE TO VATICAN COUNCIL II.
It's as simple as this.Try it! Interpret Vatican Council II without this error.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for example, was not aware of these four points.So Vatican Council II became a rupture with Tradition.
He could not say that Vatican Council II traditionally says all non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation and so Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.
He could not say this. Since he was not aware of the four points above. So he interpreted the Council as a break with Tradition.The SSPX bishops, even after being informed today, still do the same.
When Vatican Council II does not contradict the old ecclesiology how can there be the difference between traditionalists and modernists ? The modernists have their legitimacy only by interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
So this was the mistake made in the film in 1972.It ignored the four points mentioned above.
With these four points in order, a Catholic can attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and the ecclesiology would be the same. It would be that of the 16th century missionaries,traditionalists.
It is the present day 'modernists' who should be on the defensive. Since there will be no text which they can cite from Vatican Council II to support their interpretation of the Council as break with Tradition.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc would all refer to hypothetical case. So they cannot be known exceptions to the old ecclesiology based on Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
1.Invisible cases are visible in the present times ( 1960-2016).
2.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) refer to a visible case.
3.Vatican Council II contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible exceptions to the dogma.
4.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has exceptions. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water.
AVOID THESE FOUR POINTS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONALISTS AND MODERNISTS ENDS, WITH REFERENCE TO VATICAN COUNCIL II.
It's as simple as this.Try it! Interpret Vatican Council II without this error.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for example, was not aware of these four points.So Vatican Council II became a rupture with Tradition.
He could not say that Vatican Council II traditionally says all non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation and so Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.
He could not say this. Since he was not aware of the four points above. So he interpreted the Council as a break with Tradition.The SSPX bishops, even after being informed today, still do the same.
When Vatican Council II does not contradict the old ecclesiology how can there be the difference between traditionalists and modernists ? The modernists have their legitimacy only by interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
So this was the mistake made in the film in 1972.It ignored the four points mentioned above.
With these four points in order, a Catholic can attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and the ecclesiology would be the same. It would be that of the 16th century missionaries,traditionalists.
It is the present day 'modernists' who should be on the defensive. Since there will be no text which they can cite from Vatican Council II to support their interpretation of the Council as break with Tradition.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc would all refer to hypothetical case. So they cannot be known exceptions to the old ecclesiology based on Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Abramo wrote: “I do not care much about movies, but this is truly an astonishing piece.”
.
Even if one could overlook the horrendous music that accompanied this video, what I managed to endure of this film still doesn't interest me. There is nothing new. The goal of a movie ought to be entertainment and the most successful movies are very entertaining. Preaching moral instruction in a film is boring …More
Abramo wrote: “I do not care much about movies, but this is truly an astonishing piece.”
.
Even if one could overlook the horrendous music that accompanied this video, what I managed to endure of this film still doesn't interest me. There is nothing new. The goal of a movie ought to be entertainment and the most successful movies are very entertaining. Preaching moral instruction in a film is boring. In addition, the acting here is weak and the dialogue is slow moving and unexciting.
.
I fully understand why you do not ordinarily like movies. What we all need (even without admitting it) is EXCITEMENT. Perhaps a murder would be nice or at least some form of violence to pique your interest.
.
Here is a quick example. For background, what the boy is referring to during his confession is the Fifth which is the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution providing for the right against self-incrimination. Americans know they have the right not to answer police questions both while in custody or in court. When someone exercises this right, as does this boy in the clip while making his confession – although it obviously is not necessary while making a confession -- we often say that the person “pleads the Fifth.” The priest is referring to the 5th commandment while the boy, with his Italian background,
thinks the reference is to the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. The clip and the movie itself are both entertaining and funny. 
.
Tell me if you like it.
.
Even if one could overlook the horrendous music that accompanied this video, what I managed to endure of this film still doesn't interest me. There is nothing new. The goal of a movie ought to be entertainment and the most successful movies are very entertaining. Preaching moral instruction in a film is boring. In addition, the acting here is weak and the dialogue is slow moving and unexciting.
.
I fully understand why you do not ordinarily like movies. What we all need (even without admitting it) is EXCITEMENT. Perhaps a murder would be nice or at least some form of violence to pique your interest.
.
Here is a quick example. For background, what the boy is referring to during his confession is the Fifth which is the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution providing for the right against self-incrimination. Americans know they have the right not to answer police questions both while in custody or in court. When someone exercises this right, as does this boy in the clip while making his confession – although it obviously is not necessary while making a confession -- we often say that the person “pleads the Fifth.” The priest is referring to the 5th commandment while the boy, with his Italian background,
.
Tell me if you like it.
@Jungerheld: I do not care much about movies, but this is truly an astonishing piece.
Jungerheld
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Abramo as chance would have it, this movie has been on our shelf, unopened. Thanks for the intro!
rhemes1582
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@VRS The movie is very good yes. The movie is very painful, because of the realities that parallel what this fictional movie highlights, including what you mention.
The revolutionaries only win at the end because the movie is fiction.
The revolutionaries (today) will lose because they do not believe, nor understand the Power of the Cross.
O` Holy Mary ever virgin and conceived without sin; Pray …More
@VRS The movie is very good yes. The movie is very painful, because of the realities that parallel what this fictional movie highlights, including what you mention.
The revolutionaries only win at the end because the movie is fiction.
The revolutionaries (today) will lose because they do not believe, nor understand the Power of the Cross.
O` Holy Mary ever virgin and conceived without sin; Pray for us that have recourse to thee.
Amen
The revolutionaries only win at the end because the movie is fiction.
The revolutionaries (today) will lose because they do not believe, nor understand the Power of the Cross.
O` Holy Mary ever virgin and conceived without sin; Pray for us that have recourse to thee.
Amen
rhemes1582
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I have this movie, and encourage all to watch it.
A few exaggerations, but many more uncanny insights into the future trials for faithful Catholics, considering the date of the film, and that it is supposed to be fiction.
A few exaggerations, but many more uncanny insights into the future trials for faithful Catholics, considering the date of the film, and that it is supposed to be fiction.