CathInfo.com

People's signature changes over time anyway. This is ridiculous. No one doubts he did this anyway. We have photos of him at the Novus Ordo.

Stop trying to divide all the evidence against him.

He was not well.
You are not well.

Archbishop Lefevbre was the one chosen to hold the Church up.

Not a mentally ill Bishop.

http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf
pg 78,APPENDIX B
Did Bp. Thuc Simulate a Sacrament?
A word ought to be said about Your Excellency’s accusation that Bp. Thuc simulated a sacrament, i.e., pretended to confer a sacrament while withholding his intention, thus rendering the sacrament invalid. This regards an incident on Holy Thursday, April 16, 1981, when Bp. Thuc concelebrated the New Mass with the Most Rev. Gilles-Henri-Alexis Barthe, the Novus Ordo bishop of Frejus-Toulon, France.

Your Excellency writes:
According to Fr. Cekada, Archbishop Thuc excused himself for concelebrating the New Mass by claiming, among other things, that he only pretended to say Mass; that is to say, that he simulated saying Mass. Simulating a Sacrament “consists in performing the sacramental action without the intention of conferring a Sacrament, although others think a Sacrament is being administered” [quoting Jone, Moral Theology, p. 318]. To simulate a Sacrament is to go through the motions while withholding one’s intention. Simulation invalidates the Sacrament. It is also a mortal sin of sacrilege. 306 Consulting Fr. Cekada’s essay to which Your Excellency makes reference here reveals that neither Fr. Cekada, nor the source Fr. Cekada quotes, claims that Bp. Thuc said he withheld his intention. Instead, the explanation given, which appears in your very own book, is as follows:

“[Bp. Thuc] said it was because on that day [Holy Thursday] he could not celebrate alone. . . It happens that it was a false concelebration, because he said he didn’t receive communion. For, when a priest does not communicate, there is not a Mass.”307

Thus, it turns out that the charge of simulating a sacrament goes back to the fact that Bp. Thuc claimed that even though he “concelebrated” the New Mass that day, he did not receive “communion” at that “Mass.” Whatever one may think of this “explanation,” there is absolutely nothing here allowing one to claim that Bp. Thuc withheld his intention or otherwise simulated a sacrament. While a priest is certainly under grave obligation to consume the Host and Chalice he himself has consecrated, it is absolutely gratuitous and inexcusable to suggest that failure to do so means he simulated the sacrament. 308 Fr. Davis, so often quoted by Your Excellency, is quite clear on this: “None of these parts [offertory, consecration, communion] may in any wise be omitted without grave sin, though the omission of the Oblation [offertory] and the Communion would not affect the actual Sacrifice itself.”309

So, not only would a refusal to receive Holy Communion at one’s own Mass not be “simulating a sacrament,” it would not even affect the Sacrifice itself, even though, of course, it would be entirely impermissible. Simulation of a sacrament, instead, consists in withholding one’s intention in the employing of the correct matter and form, or by secretly employing invalid matter, or by secretly using an invalid form. 310

But this leaves out another all-important consideration: Bp. Thuc’s abstention from “communion” occurred at the “New Mass,” the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, which he merely “concelebrated.” Traditional Catholics, especially sedevacantists, typically believe that the New Mass is invalid and not a sacrament at all; there is no true Holy Communion at the New Mass. Therefore, even if the charge of simulation were correct, the absolute worst that Bp. Thuc could be accused of here (besides being accused of participating in the New Mass itself, of course) is “simulating a non-sacrament,” which, of course, is an absurdity because the very notion of simulation is tied to a sacrament. Besides, considering that Bp. Thuc was merely a “concelebrant” of that “Mass,” nothing he did or omitted to do had any effect on the “sacrament” anyway, since, it being Holy Thursday, there were numerous other concelebrants in addition to the main celebrant, the local Novus Ordo bishop. 311 So, regardless of which way we look at it, Bp. Thuc is not guilty of simulating a sacrament. We can sum up the truth of the matter by stating that not only did he not simulate a sacrament, he did not even “simulate a non-sacrament”—if there were such a thing.

All of this goes to show that to accuse Bp. Thuc of having simulated a sacrament is calumny. Your Excellency, however, uses this accusation against Bp. Thuc to cast further doubt upon the validity of his 1981 consecrations of Bps. Carmona, Zamora, and des Lauriers: “If he simulated an episcopal consecration, as Fr. Cekada accuses him of simulating saying Mass, it would be an invalid consecration.”312 Just like the other doubt you have attempted to produce, this one, too, turns out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.