About Hunter Wallace 9323 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

7 Comments

  1. You are right about Hutton Gibson being a Genius, Denise. More than a genius. The senior Gibson has faith and honour and courage and is prepared to make sacrifices for his people. To quote Mel’s script again: “People don’t follow titles. They follow courage”.

    And Hutton Gibson is a leader of one of the most important social movements in America – the Roman Catholic Traditionalists who are establishing parishes independent of Rome’s jurisdiction, buildling schools and having large White families. These people are not against Euro America – they are for White America as a going concern that is defending and building back against a hostile elite targeting them for crime, poverty, powerlessness and the whole list of Jew induced social ills.

    Gibson is fearlessly semitically incorrect. And so his Mel. To my mind this covers a multitude of sins and failings.

    There would be few in America as clued up on the American nightmare than Hutton Gibson. God bless him. And God bless Mel – he may yet find his way to the straight and narrow that his father has mapped out for him. At any rate, I see he wants to make a movie on the Macchabees.

    That should punch all the buttons over at the ADL and make Abe cough up his fur ball.

  2. “And Hutton Gibson is a leader of one of the most important social movements in America – the Roman Catholic Traditionalists who are establishing parishes independent of Rome’s jurisdiction, buildling schools and having large White families.”

    Then he’s nothing more than a protestant sectarian, with an Anglo-catholic Liturgy. But hey, more power to him, if he sees Rome as being false.

    Simply corroborates my thesis, Lynda. Thanks

  3. Bp. Williamson’s words should shed some light on this topic, Lynda. His concept of “Tradition” is every bit as Orthodox as the Byzantines. Papal concepts of ‘tradition’ with its ‘progressive truth’, OTOH? Well, let’s just say anathema, and get it over with, shall we?

    “CONCILIAR AMBIGUITY
    Imagine a strong and well-armed foot-soldier who in hot pursuit of the enemy walks into a quicksand. That is what it is like for a brave Catholic armed with the truth who ventures to criticize the documents of Vatican II. They are a quicksand of ambiguity, which is what they were designed to be.

    Had the religion of man been openly promoted by them, the Council Fathers would have rejected them with horror. But the new religion was skilfully disguised by the documents being so drawn up that they are open to opposite interpretations. Let us take a clear and crucial example.

    From section 8 of Dei Verbum comes a text on Tradition which John-Paul II used to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 : “A/ Tradition…comes from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. B/ There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are passed on. This comes about in various ways. C/ It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. D/ It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. E/ And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession to the apostolate, the sure charism of truth.”

    Now true Catholic Tradition is radically objective. Just as common sense says that reality is objective, meaning that objects are what they are outside of us and independently of what any subject pretends that they are, so the true Church teaches that Catholic Tradition came from God, and is what he made it, so that no human being can in the least little bit change it. Here then would be the Catholic interpretation of the text just quoted : “A/ With the passage of time there is a progress in how Catholics grasp the unchanging truths of the Faith. B/ Catholics can see deeper into these truths, C/ by contemplating and studying them, D/ by penetrating more deeply into them, and E/ by the bishops preaching fresh aspects of the same truths.” This interpretation is perfectly Catholic because all the change is placed in the people who do indeed change down the ages, while no change is placed in the truths revealed that make up the Deposit of Faith, or Tradition.

    But see now how the same passage from Dei Verbum can be understood not objectively, but subjectively, making the content of the truths depend upon, and change with, the subjective Catholics : “A/ Catholic truth lives and grows with the passing of time, because B/ living Catholics have insights that past Catholics never had, as C/ they discover in their hearts, within themselves, newly grown truths, D/ the fruit of their inward spiritual experience. Also, E/ Catholic truth grows when bishops preach things unknown before, because bishops can tell no untruth (!).” (In other words, have the religion that makes you feel good, but make sure that you “pay, pray and obey” us modernists.)

    Now here is the huge problem: if one accuses this text from Dei Verbum of promoting modernism, “conservative” Catholics (who conserve little but their faith in faithless churchmen) immediately reply that the real meaning of the text is the Traditional meaning first given above. However, when John-Paul II in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta used this text to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre, and therewith the Consecrations of 1988, obviously he can only have been taking the text in its modernist sense. Such actions speak far louder than words.

    Dear readers, read the text itself again and again, and the two interpretations, until you grasp the diabolical ambiguity of that wretched Council.
    Kyrie eleison”

  4. FYI ‘Fr’ John, Bishop Williamson is the senior bishop of the Society of St Pius X – a Roman Catholic sodality that is independent of the jurisdiction of Rome (post Vatican Council II 1963 – ?). Roman Catholics holding to Tradition reject the anti-papacy in Rome post Vatican II. This does not mean they reject the legitimate papacy or the Holy See or the ordinary and constant teaching of the Church – which is contradicted by Vatican II and modernist Rome 1963 – ?.

    Your quotation of Bishop Williamson here does not mean that the SSPX in any way supports your heresies.

Comments are closed.