So, all the clowns involved in attempting to lay claim to the "support" of +Lefebvre, with Resistance bickering with +Fellay about who are the TRUE "heirs" of +Lefebvre, the date of every single quotation from +Lefebvre is critical.
During the early 1980s, +Lefebvre was easiliy as liberal if not moreso than +Fellay had become when the Resistance broke away. He was begging Rome to allow him to "make the experiment of Tradition" from within the Conciliar pantheon, this despite the fact that he was practically SV from about 1976-1978, embittered by Montini's suspension of SSPX. Then he became hopefully with the arrival of Wojtyla, having a reputation for conservatism, and with the notion that Montini might simply have been a one-off aberration. Nearing the mid-1980s, he began to realize that Wojtyla was no friend to Tradition, where right before Assisi, he again said that he might have to become SV.
In this same era around 1982, he threw the Nine under the bus, for basically the exact same things that the Resistance were objecting to in +Fellay's neo-SSPX orientation. No, it was not primarily about SVism, as some of the Nine were not even SV at the time.
Here too, The Angelus is conflating some warning by +Lefebvre against +Thuc, with getting colorful about Pope Dominguez, etc. ... detail that +Lefebvre did not go into, but which was embellished by the editorial staff. +Thuc consecrated them before he claimed to be Pope, and then repudicated them immediately after he "came out" as Gregory XVII. Certrainly that had not been the most prudent action by any means, but he was approached by SSPX Father Revaz after +Lefebvre had turned him down only on the grounds that he didn't hae the time, and +Lefebvre was the one who pointed him in the direction of +Thuc. We don't have the details of that initial request, but it's quite possible that Fr. Revaz name-dropped +Lefebvre, saying something along the lines of, "+Lefebvre is too busy, but he sent me to you." ... where that might had added some "authority" to the request. But, although this was not prudent, +Thuc was not the first nor the last to buy into and be fooled by false private revelation. For this we have the conspicuous examples of +Fellay and "Dawn Marie", and then, yes, Kimmage's hero +Williamson, who bought into Garabandal, Valtorta, and Bogus Ordo "Eucharistic" "Miracles" ... even requiring affirmation thereof to Father Hewko before giving him holy oils, as if the denial of such would constitute a defection from Catholic faith or some grave sin.
As for the allegation regarding the witholding of intention, no evidence of any such statement has ever been found or produced. In fact, we have numerous statement where +Thuc expressed regrets, and repudiated the consecrations, but at no time did he state that he witheld his intention. So, where did that allegation come from. Ironically, from Father Cekada, who in turn was quoting another commentary about where +Thuc had declared that he had NOT offered the Nouvs Ordo Mass. Fr. Cekada idiotically referred to that as "simulation" of the Sacraments, when what +Thuc clearly meant was to declare that he did not PERFORM the Mass because in Traditional Liturgical theology there was no Mass unless the priest had received Communion. Now, this may have been a technicality, and it was in uncharted theological waters, since prior to Vatican II, there was no such thing as "concelebration" (except for in a looser sense during the ordination of priests) ... and it was a technicality, since during said "concelebration", SOME priests certainly did receive Communion. He was responding to hostility he had received from some SV types. But no evidence has ever been produced where +Thuc stated that he had internally witheld his intention. There was a conflation between the "simulation" incident with the Bogus Ordo Mass and his renunciation or repudiation of the Palmar incident, where it was blended in a shit stew into this false allegation against him.
+Thuc was repeatedly asked about the +Guerard des Laurier and +Carmona / +Zamora consecrations, and repeatedly affirmed them ... sometimes to hostile interlocutors, not backing down and not producing any claim of having witheld his intention.
Nor has there ever been a shred of evidence produced that +Thuc ever exhibited impaired intellectual faculties, but his slanderers conflate imprudent actions with "insanity", even though they're not even close to being the same thing, yet another case of stirring up a shit stew, so that they could subsequently hurl the contents at the wall in hopes that some of it would stick. If imprudence would call into question the requisite mental faculties for the valid confection of Sacraments, we should hold both +Fellay's and +Williamson's orders positively doubtful, with +Fellay having believed in "Dawn Marie" and +Williamson in Valtorta, Garabandal, "Eucharistic" "Miracles", having ordained the "known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" (that phrase hurled against +Thuc regaring +Laborie ... see how that works?) Urrutigoity, Ensey, Carey, etc. ... and then later harboring this Father Abraham. Not a few people considered him to be a "nutcase" for his condemnation of "The Sound of Music", various diatribes on women at universities, his infamous "nithe" and "nath-ty" speeches, his "obsession" with the "Holocaut", etc. I could, if I wanted to create a smear campaign, probably whip up a "The Sacred and the Profane" with all manner of spin, omission, and out-of-context allegations against +Williamson (peppered with quotations from his housekeeper when he had been younger), take some select clips from his sermons or speeches where he makes strange faces to build the case, and could even resurrect the old +Lienart attacks, "Rosicrucian" allegations, along with the "one-handed ordination" problem (that chief slanderer of +Thuc, Bishop Kelly, used to attack the validity of +Williamson's Holy Orders) ... I too could stir it up in a pot, write a book about it, and generate enough FUD about +Williamson where a lot of simpletons, or others who simply had an ax to grind against him, would being to start having doubts and questions. Again, these would invariably be amplified by those who have some agenda, i.e. those who hate the Resistance, or who hate "R&R" in general ... just like Kimmage here has done against +Thuc. He's made it clear that he despises sedevacantism, and has declared no salvation outside the "line of Bishop Williamson". So, yeah, this bozo is being objective in assessing the actual objective evidence, or lack thereof, and has no ax to grind, and can be trusted as a good source ... rather than being a shameless slanderer who continues to commit objectively grave sin by persisting in these attacks even though they have been thorougly debunked.
Topic: Angelus June 1982 (Read 2069 times)