http://traditioninaction.org/Questions/B978_Orgy.html

Bishops Against VC2 in 1965



Dear Friends,

 A couple of times in the past I've phoned you with a question that you have answered promptly, both times while I was on the line. So, not to take too much advantage, I thought I would ask a question that has several times in the past (converting to Catholicism 25 years ago) nagged at me and I don't seem to be able to find any statistics on.

 During the English Revolution, I believe that out of about 27 Catholic bishops, 26 signed their names to a docuмent attesting to their new-found support of Henry VIII being the head of the Church in England. One who did not was St. John Fisher and so he died as a result for the Catholic Faith and his oath of allegiance to the pope. So if my information is correct, one in 27 refused the Oath of Supremacy.

 So, then, I ask myself, I wonder how many bishops throughout the world refused to endorse or sign Vatican II?

 Thanks for any information you might provide.

      D.B.

______________________


 TIA responds:

 Dear D.B.,

 As far as we know, the only Prelate who left the Council because he was against its progressivist decisions and who did not sign the 16 docuмents was Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Hue, Vietnam.

 Several American Bishops left the Council because they could not follow the discussions, which were conducted in Latin. They returned to their dioceses and, for this reason, they failed to sign the final docuмents when they were approved. However, after the end of the Council, the Vatican established a commission to visit those Bishops and ask for their signatures. We are not aware that any of those Bishops denied his signature based on doctrinal reasons.

      Cordially,

      TIA correspondence desk

 
______________________

Seems to contradict everything that is said about him elsewhere.  

Ngo-dinh-Thuc was an arch-liberal at Vatican II, arguing in favour of women priests and the participation of non-Christian groups in the Council. (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol.2 pt.3 p.573, and vol.2 pt.1 pp.358, 359 respectively; English translation available from Britons Catholic Library)

So when it became obvious that Vatican Council II was attempting to destroy Catholicism, not preserve it, where was Bishop Thuc? Where is to be found the record of him “preserving the true faith” at Vatican Council II? The answer is that there is no record of him doing this. He was silent while Catholicism was being assaulted. Was the reason that Bishop Thuc didn’t speak out at the Council in defense of true Catholicism due to the fact that he was simply a timid old man, too cowardly to speak out, as some have suggested? The record shows that he was not afraid to speak out, and speak out he did – but not against the errors of Vatican Council II; shockingly, he railed against the Council because it wasn’t liberal enough!  Below are two quotes from Bishop Thuc given at Vatican Council II:

Quote

“With great consolation I see present in these assemblies the delegates of the non-Catholic Christian Churches, to be witnesses of our fraternity, sincerity and liberty. But where are the delegates or observers of the non-Christians? Do they then not need this wondrous sight of the unity of the Catholic Church? Or do they not need an explanation of our Christian faith? What! do the people whom they represent not form a third part—or rather more truly the greater part— of these scattered sheep that Christ eagerly desired to enter into one sheepfold? The scandal coming to the whole world from the absence of any invitations sent to the chiefs of the non-Christian religions I expounded in the central commission—but in vain. I earnestly begged the council to make good the omission, so that this most loathsome discrimination between some religions and religions may not longer be found. This absence of an invitation to the heads of the Christian religions confirms in a certain manner that prejudice creeping through the Asiatic and African world: ‘The Catholic Church is a church for men of white color and not for colored men.’”

(Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359)

Quote

“…it seems to me an extraordinary thing that in the schema concerning the people of God, express mention is nowhere made of women, so that the Church appears totally masculine, whereas the reality is quite different. Do not women constitute the greater part of the laity—even of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course I well know the Church had to behave like this in order not to offend the prejudices of those ages. Thus, St. Paul imposed the veil on women in Church, lest they displease the angels. So why must men proudly enter the church bareheaded which is contrary to the custom of clerics today both in the West and the East? In the same way, silence was imposed on women whereas in this Basilica the walls recently resounded to the voices of the Fathers. So to, nuns must obtain the permission of churches to wash the sacred linens. And likewise this unjust discrimination appears here and now in this conciliar hall… Why is it that in our atomic age, when almost everywhere in the world women have obtained juridical equality with men, it is only in the Church of Christ that they still suffer these injurious discriminations… I eagerly seek… these discriminations against the most valiant sex be eradicated. Last of all I shall be grateful to him who can present me with a plain apodictic text of the Gospel which excludes the sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the sacred functions.”

(Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp. 513)

He attended the robber’s Second Vatican Council (1964) and signed its docuмents.

Bishop Thuc was an active participant in Vatican Council II and reportedly signed all of the docuмents of that false council.

Where did TIA get this info that he did not sign the docuмents and that he left the Council early?  This seems to be contradicted everywhere else on the internet.  I did not check to see if the quotes attributed to +Thuc above are true, but it shouldn't be hard to verify, since they have references, whereas the TIA information does not.  Also would like to see proof that he not only left the Council early, but also proof that he did so because he didn't like the liberal direction, which would not seem consistent with the quotes above.  

There are a lot of Truth and amazing things told of +Abp. Thuc however "they" who think of themselves as Catholics can't admit it because it will blow their own theory.   

Yes, I have proof and you can have it too.  

Order the two CD's from Mount St. Michael in Spokane;  Titled: Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, talks from Father Francis Miller, OFM
A real eye opener, and now the enemy is trying to stop the good priest from telling the truth about Archbishop Thuc.  

Rev. Father Francis Miller, OFM: Fr. Miller entered the Franciscan Order at the recommendation of his spiritual director Msgr. Hodgeson in 1980. He was the first novice and solemnly professed member of his traditional Franciscan community. When Archbishop Thuc joined the household in 1982, Fr. Miller and one other Brother were assigned to look after the bishop’s needs and to assist him. Currently, the pastor of Christ the King Church in Lafayette, Louisiana, Father Francis will share with us his recollections of the late Archbishop Thuc.

What makes you think anyone here will take my word for anything I write. 

Anyone who loves the truth can purchase the CD's.  That way they won't have to take my word, or say I took it out of context or lack the understanding.    

You wanted proof, spend the few $$$$, that way you will always have it.  

You should buy the cd yourself and do your own research.

It obviously means a great deal to you. That is why you should do it. It is not Myrna's responsibility or duty to answer your questions.