Author Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 28971 times)

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2011, 11:41:12 PM »

Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..

Gregory I · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2011, 01:55:55 AM »

For all intents and purposes, the only consecrationsthat really MATTER are the Consecrations of Gerard de Lauriers, Mckenna, and Moises Carmona.

Carmona most especially because HE consecrated Bishop Pivarunas, who heads the CMRI which is the largest and most organized Sedevacantist Traditionalist Congregation. They are very important.

So, let's see here:

Here he is before the consecration of Bishop Carmona, and After, and oh, looky, a HANDWRITTEN LATIN certificate of consecration. Could a feeble minded person really write out a consecration certificate in LATIN ON THEIR OWN? Please.

Pictures speak louder than words.

Valid. No doubt. Move on.

romantheology · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2011, 10:33:32 AM »

Where is Thuc's Signature? And look at one of the so-called Bishops in the Pic...he looks like he is wearing a V2 (post) vestment. In addition, Why no Video? Why not more photos? Why not more testimonies?

What junk!

In addition, no notary public? And where this took place? No announcements either?

Gregory I · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2011, 11:27:57 AM »

Quote from: romantheology

Where is Thuc's Signature? And look at one of the so-called Bishops in the Pic...he looks like he is wearing a V2 (post) vestment. In addition, Why no Video? Why not more photos? Why not more testimonies?

What junk!

In addition, no notary public? And where this took place? No announcements either?

The case being made is not whether all the bishops exercised the best decision making skills, but whether Thuc possessed the necessary intelligence and presence of mind to consecrate Bishops. TO handwrite a certificate of episcopal consecration shows presence of mind. Where it can be reasonably certain a sacrament took place, the burden of proof is on those seeking to disprove it. There is no reason to question it.

The type of evidence you are asking for is evidence demanded by a tribunal that has no lawful authority to be convened. YOU are certainly not competent to judge these matters, above all.

katholikos · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2012, 03:33:12 PM »

Quote from: romantheology

Where is Thuc's Signature? And look at one of the so-called Bishops in the Pic...he looks like he is wearing a V2 (post) vestment. In addition, Why no Video? Why not more photos? Why not more testimonies?

What junk!

In addition, no notary public? And where this took place? No announcements either?

It is obvious you have done no research on the matter. Where's Bp. Thuc's signature? Right above where he states who the eye witnesses were.

Oh my, a post-Vatican II vestment! Surely, THAT would render the consecration invalid or prove at least one of the men was insane, right? Do you have any idea under which circuмstances these men were operating? We can thank God that they had vestments at all!

Why no video? To what purpose? This was in 1981, when video-taping was a bit more difficult. Considering that it is not required to begin with, this is not an issue. There are plenty of more photos. You can find some more at thucbishops.com and also at einsicht-online.de and see many published in the CMRI's Reign of Mary.

All the necessary testimony was published in 1982/83 by Einsicht magazine -- it's all still online, though not necessarily in English.

You just don't want these consecrations to be valid, do you?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2012, 03:33:52 PM »

romantheology is banned, katholikos.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2012, 04:58:58 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:

http://www.thucbishops.com/

There is no other side to the argument.

Thuc himself says he withheld consent.

Discussing the matter further is frivolous.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #22 on:** February 11, 2012, 05:04:56 PM »

Quote from: GregorianChat

Quote from: Iuvenalis
Thuc was pretty mentally ill. I would wonder if his consecrations could be valid in light of that. He had a lot of owls in his attic.

There is no evidence to support this statement, it's propoganda from the Vatican II church. Countless people attest to his clear, lucid mind many years after the consecrations.

Yes, I agree. Ordaining and consecrating 14 and 16 yr olds is proof oh his good mental health.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2012, 05:09:52 PM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..

They don't.

Sedevacantism is more a personality type than theological position.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2012, 05:11:56 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

For all intents and purposes, the only consecrationsthat really MATTER are the Consecrations of Gerard de Lauriers, Mckenna, and Moises Carmona.

Carmona most especially because HE consecrated Bishop Pivarunas, who heads the CMRI which is the largest and most organized Sedevacantist Traditionalist Congregation. They are very important.

So, let's see here:

Here he is before the consecration of Bishop Carmona, and After, and oh, looky, a HANDWRITTEN LATIN certificate of consecration. Could a feeble minded person really write out a consecration certificate in LATIN ON THEIR OWN? Please.

Pictures speak louder than words.

Valid. No doubt. Move on.

Ys, and he was also able to write the ones to the 14 yr olds in Latin too.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** February 11, 2012, 07:02:16 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Iuvenalis
Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..

They don't.

Sedevacantism is more a personality type than theological position.

I can't believe you are even saying this right now (congrats for spelling it right!). I recently posted directly to you that ABL believed that a pope could automatically cease to be pope, and that we could act upon that realization. That is not personality type...that is principle.

Ok

You are right.

ABL was a sede.

Smelling salts?

katholikos · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2012, 07:26:59 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Iuvenalis
Wow, it's like none of the responders actually *read* what I just wrote..

They don't.

Sedevacantism is more a personality type than theological position.

Really?

http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm
http://www.novusordowatch.org/refinishing_the_great_facade.htm

katholikos · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2012, 07:27:36 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Gregory I
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:

http://www.thucbishops.com/

There is no other side to the argument.

Thuc himself says he withheld consent.

Discussing the matter further is frivolous.

Where did Bp. Thuc say he withheld consent?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2012, 07:37:22 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Gregory I
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:

http://www.thucbishops.com/

There is no other side to the argument.

Thuc himself says he withheld consent.

Discussing the matter further is frivolous.

Where did Bp. Thuc say he withheld consent?

Please read the post that began this thread.

katholikos · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2012, 07:48:28 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: katholikos
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Gregory I
If you want UNDERSTANDING and you want to see the OTHER side of the argument, read this letter:

http://www.thucbishops.com/

There is no other side to the argument.

Thuc himself says he withheld consent.

Discussing the matter further is frivolous.

Where did Bp. Thuc say he withheld consent?

Please read the post that began this thread.

Ah, so we have merely a claim that Bp. Thuc admitted to withholding intent. Can someone actually produce or at least quote this alleged letter? Why wasn't it quoted in the article?