My suggestion would be to research your Vatican II "bishop" to see if his are valid or not, who did it, what rite was used, was he insane?  etc etc.....

Quote from: Seraphim

Have you read the original article, or are you just claiming it wasn't quoted?

Am I missing something? The article referenced (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=639) does not contain a quote of Bp. Thuc on this matter. As far as I know, that is the original article. So, it's just a claim.

Now, the late Fr. Noel Barbara had this to say about how Bp. Thuc got involved with the Palmar de Troya fiasco:

Quote

One day a canon of Saint Maurice named Father Revas arrived at the seminary in
Econe. He was accompanied by a priest who spoke English. A lover of the extraordinary,
both had come from the location of the Apparitions. They came straight from Palmar to
beg Archbishop Lefebvre to come to this location immediately because the Blessed
Virgin was waiting for him. She was insisting that a Catholic bishop come in order to
confer the episcopacy on those she planned to designate.
The Archbishop excused himself and advised them to “approach Archbishop Thuc.
He is orthodox and he is not at present occupied. Go and seek him out. He will most
certainly agree with your request.” The two messengers immediately left and had no
difficulty in convincing the elderly Vietnamese Archbishop to respond to the Virgin’s
request.
As I explained, I have these explanations directly from the mouth of Archbishop
Lefebvre. He informed us of these facts on the occasion of a visit I made to Econe when
someone brought up the name of Archbishop Thuc at the dinner table.

This quote is taken from Fr. Barbara's 1993 article on the episcopal consecrations of Bp. Thuc. It was republished by Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt in "The Answers" (2006), pp. 65-81.

Pffft.

Yeah.  

OK.

Seraphim said:

Pffft.

Yeah.  

OK.

Are you accusing Father Noel Barbara of lying?  

You would do well to rethink your contemptuous tone for sedes, since besides the fact that we are correct about the Pope question, there is far more contradiction in the life of Abp. Lefebvre than there is in the life of Abp. Thuc.  Of course CMRI is not an Abp. Thuc cult in the way that SSPX is an Abp. Lefebvre cult, so among you, Abp. Lefebvre gets a pass for his in-your-face contradictions while Abp. Thuc gets stuck with the reputation of being erratic and scattershot among the majority of people.  But Abp. Lefevbre was just as flawed, if not more.

The cult of ABL is so strong with SSPX-ers that it has infected even sedes.  Father Noel Barbara, however, had some very interesting writings, and he was one of the few to question Abp. Lefebvre and not fall for the hype.  In my opinion he has a better chance to be made a saint one day than Abp. Lefebvre; he may not have the glory of having his own third order that acts as the Church, he may not have been a de facto Pope like ABL, but he had the virtue of telling the truth from the shadows, which is about the most you can do in a time where even the best Catholics seem to have a taste for half-truths.  In the future his view of ABL will be universal, I believe; ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.

Seraphim said:

Quote

Pffft.

Yeah.  

OK.

Are you accusing Father Noel Barbara of lying?  

You would do well to rethink your contemptuous tone for sedes, since besides the fact that we are correct about the Pope question, there is far more contradiction in the life of Abp. Lefebvre than there is in the life of Abp. Thuc.  Of course CMRI is not an Abp. Thuc cult in the way that SSPX is an Abp. Lefebvre cult, so among you, Abp. Lefebvre gets a pass for his in-your-face contradictions while Abp. Thuc gets stuck with the reputation of being erratic and scattershot among the majority of people.  But Abp. Lefevbre was just as flawed, if not more.

The cult of ABL is so strong with SSPX-ers that it has infected even sedes.  Father Noel Barbara, however, had some very interesting writings, and he was one of the few to question Abp. Lefebvre and not fall for the hype.  In my opinion he has a better chance to be made a saint one day than Abp. Lefebvre; he may not have the glory of having his own third order that acts as the Church, he may not have been a de facto Pope like ABL, but he had the virtue of telling the truth from the shadows, which is about the most you can do in a time where even the best Catholics seem to have a taste for half-truths.  In the future his view of ABL will be universal, I believe; ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.

Are you accusing ABL of allowing the Angelus to lie?

Seraphim said:

Quote

Pffft.

Yeah.  

OK.

Are you accusing Father Noel Barbara of lying?  

You would do well to rethink your contemptuous tone for sedes, since besides the fact that we are correct about the Pope question, there is far more contradiction in the life of Abp. Lefebvre than there is in the life of Abp. Thuc.  Of course CMRI is not an Abp. Thuc cult in the way that SSPX is an Abp. Lefebvre cult, so among you, Abp. Lefebvre gets a pass for his in-your-face contradictions while Abp. Thuc gets stuck with the reputation of being erratic and scattershot among the majority of people.  But Abp. Lefevbre was just as flawed, if not more.

The cult of ABL is so strong with SSPX-ers that it has infected even sedes.  Father Noel Barbara, however, had some very interesting writings, and he was one of the few to question Abp. Lefebvre and not fall for the hype.  In my opinion he has a better chance to be made a saint one day than Abp. Lefebvre; he may not have the glory of having his own third order that acts as the Church, he may not have been a de facto Pope like ABL, but he had the virtue of telling the truth from the shadows, which is about the most you can do in a time where even the best Catholics seem to have a taste for half-truths.  In the future his view of ABL will be universal, I believe; ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.

How can someone who is not part of the Church be made a saint by it?

It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.

"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.

Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.

Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.

Both.  SSPX are sedes in fact if not in name.  Neither of us submit to this heretical pope.