Author Topic: Mel and Hutton Gibson (Read 8076 times)

Thursday · « **Reply #45 on:** January 22, 2013, 04:58:59 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Thursday
There have been a lot of threads about the validity of the Thuc consecrations, so we do speculate on this forum.

You're talking about pre-Vatican II, authorized orders - a totally different circuмstance than the Thuc consecrations.

There aren't many people here who question the Thuc consecrations.

Yes, and hardly anyone doubts Lefebvre's ordination, me included. But if your talking about Hutton Gibson and his argument that Lefebvre's ordination is doubtful and someone takes an hour out of his day to get Huttons original argument and rebuttals and post them you could at least leave it up for people to analyze/ discuss etc.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #46 on:** January 22, 2013, 05:05:58 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: Thursday
There have been a lot of threads about the validity of the Thuc consecrations, so we do speculate on this forum.

You're talking about pre-Vatican II, authorized orders - a totally different circuмstance than the Thuc consecrations.

There aren't many people here who question the Thuc consecrations.

Yes, and hardly anyone doubts Lefebvre's ordination, me included. But if your talking about Hutton Gibson and his argument that Lefebvre's ordination is doubtful and someone takes an hour out of his day to get Huttons original argument and rebuttals and post them you could at least leave it up for people to analyze/ discuss etc.

I'm sorry that you took an hour out of your day to retrieve Hutton's argument, but that isn't going to keep me from defending Archbishop Lefebvre from the absurd slanders and calumnies of an extremist layperson.

Not only did what you quote suggest that the Archbishop was not validly ordained, but Hutton even dared to say that Archbishop Lefebvre was in heresy and that he was in "masonic entanglement".

In a situation like this, we should not "leave it up for people to analyze/discuss". No, it's best to put arguments like that in the trash bin where they belong.

Thursday · « **Reply #47 on:** January 22, 2013, 05:44:36 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

I'm sorry that you took an hour out of your day to retrieve Hutton's argument, but that isn't going to keep me from defending Archbishop Lefebvre from the absurd slanders and calumnies of an extremist layperson.

Funny how the Novus Ordo crowd always labels traditionalists as extremists. As far as slander and calumnies, the fact Lefebvre was ordained by Lienhart is a fact, Lienhart, by his record was an infiltrator and most likely a high-level mason. The latter allegation according to Gibson Lefebvre accepted as fact. No slander so far.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Not only did what you quote suggest that the Archbishop was not validly ordained, but Hutton even dared to say that Archbishop Lefebvre was in heresy and that he was in "masonic entanglement".

Unfortunately, this is also worthy of speculation. As much as I like Ron Paul I'm not that naive as to believe that he is wittingly or unwittingly being used as controlled opposition. Lefebvre decision to consecrate Fellay is a bit troubling and there are other things too. Just look at the society now.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

In a situation like this, we should not "leave it up for people to analyze/discuss". No, it's best to put arguments like that in the trash bin where they belong.

Well that's the policy at Catholic Answers.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #48 on:** January 22, 2013, 06:08:18 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

Funny how the Novus Ordo crowd always labels traditionalists as extremists. As far as slander and calumnies, the fact Lefebvre was ordained by Lienhart is a fact, Lienhart, by his record was an infiltrator and most likely a high-level mason. The latter allegation according to Gibson Lefebvre accepted as fact. No slander so far.

I'm not a Novus Ordite, and yes, Hutton is an extremist. And again, it has never been proven that Leinart was a Mason.

Quote

Unfortunately, this is also worthy of speculation. As much as I like Ron Paul I'm not that naive as to believe that he is wittingly or unwittingly being used as controlled opposition. Lefebvre decision to consecrate Fellay is a bit troubling and there are other things too. Just look at the society now.

So you're suggesting that Archbishop Lefebvre was "controlled opposition"? That is madness.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #49 on:** January 22, 2013, 06:21:24 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Heiner

It is possible to sympathize with the Archbishop’s plight as he contemplated, alone, the very grave ecclesiological aspect of the crisis – the aspect which he felt unable to make up his mind about; indeed it would be heartless not to sympathize. Defend the faith, assure the continuity of the priesthood and the availability of the sacraments to the faithful, but leave “on hold” the difficult question of the status of the soul-murderers in the Vatican: however much we may regret it, that is at least a comprehensible policy. Certain glib young sedevacantists of our days, with no gift of hindsight and quick to attribute blame, clearly cannot imagine the weight of responsibility felt the Archbishop as he contemplated, trembling, the enormity of what sedevacantism implied.

This describes sedes like Hutton, who don't give Archbishop Lefebvre his due credit.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #50 on:** January 22, 2013, 06:56:09 PM »

Quote from: Thursday

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
I'm sorry that you took an hour out of your day to retrieve Hutton's argument, but that isn't going to keep me from defending Archbishop Lefebvre from the absurd slanders and calumnies of an extremist layperson.

Funny how the Novus Ordo crowd always labels traditionalists as extremists. As far as slander and calumnies, the fact Lefebvre was ordained by Lienhart is a fact, Lienhart, by his record was an infiltrator and most likely a high-level mason. The latter allegation according to Gibson Lefebvre accepted as fact. No slander so far.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Not only did what you quote suggest that the Archbishop was not validly ordained, but Hutton even dared to say that Archbishop Lefebvre was in heresy and that he was in "masonic entanglement".

Unfortunately, this is also worthy of speculation. As much as I like Ron Paul I'm not that naive as to believe that he is wittingly or unwittingly being used as controlled opposition. Lefebvre decision to consecrate Fellay is a bit troubling and there are other things too. Just look at the society now.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
In a situation like this, we should not "leave it up for people to analyze/discuss". No, it's best to put arguments like that in the trash bin where they belong.

Well that's the policy at Catholic Answers.

Thursday, it's already been SOUNDLY refuted.

When a person receives the FULLNESS OF ORDERS, that means they have ALL of the orders, including priestly orders. So, it makes no sense to argue about this, considering there were TWO OTHER CONSECRATORS OTHER THAN LEINART THAT MADE LEFEVBRE A BISHOP! WHO GIVES A RAT'S BEHIND IF LEINART WERE THE "MAIN CONSECRATOR?!" THE OTHER BISHOPS SUPPLIED FOR WHATEVER DEFECT THERE WAS, IF THERE EVEN WAS ONE!

THIS ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY POINTLESS!

You also never addressed the fact that Padre Pio kissed Archbishop Lefevbre's ring. EXPLAIN THAT PLEASE!

If Hutton is trying to say that Lefevbre was a mason, or some "controlled opposition," all I can say is :roll-laugh1:

If he's saying that, he is a total crackpot that really needs some serious mental help, and should keep his wacky opinions to himself.

What a nut. :dancing-banana:

Matthew · « **Reply #51 on:** January 22, 2013, 08:35:51 PM »

Hutton Gibson is a festering sore on the body of Traditional Catholicism.
He is one of the extremist "nutjobs" that we should all be ashamed of.
He has contributed nothing of substance, but has only harmed the Traditional movement.

His son, Mel Gibson, is a scandal and an embarrassment to Traditional Catholicism.

Sure, he made ONE halfway-decent movie "The Passion of the Christ" but that was the only one. That movie wasn't even his "repentance", as his life has been scandalous since. His other movies -- before and after -- were typical Hollywood trash. His personal life (drunkenness, divorce, etc.) is positively scandalous.

The fact that Hutton Gibson propagates the ridiculous charge against Archbishop Lefebvre just illustrates how far gone he is, and how he is an enemy of the Truth.

Thursday, it's ridiculous that you draw a comparison between Catholic Answers' censorship of all things traditional with my own censorship of all things heretical or erroneous.

I don't censor everything I disagree with, etc. I only censor things that are outright FALSE or LIES.

If someone (Dan Brown) wants to argue that Our Lord had children (blasphemy!) should we respectfully argue that charge on CathInfo as well?

NO! Such an argument will be thrown in the trash can, and given the rough treatment it deserves.

There are plenty of things that are open for debate. Some things are not.

If you have a problem with CathInfo's "stifling of the Truth" you're welcome to go to another message board which is more open. Good luck! Such a board doesn't exist. I'm so confident about that I dare you to go to a board where things are more free, or better in general.

I'm locking this thread.