Author Topic: Mel and Hutton Gibson (Read 8578 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.