I'm sure i don't need to point out Scuмmage's gaslighting, calling me a "crybaby" for ... denouncing his slander campaign against Archbishop Thuc. Of course, earlier the fool accused me of being dependent on Thuc-line Sacraments, since, yeah, that's the ONLY reason that one could argue that their Sacraments on valid. It's only effeminite emoting fools like Scuмmage who cling to their various opinions for emotional reasons, and you can quickly tell their type, where, if you soundly refute one or another of their slanderous allegations, they simply fall back to another reason, and then another ... so that, eventually, after they've run out of reasons for slandering Archbishop Thuc, they simply go back to the beginning and reassert the one that had been refuted earlier in the cycle. That's how these scuм operate. Those who are truly interested in the truth will look at a sound argument and think, "hmmm. OK, there's a point here. Let's see what its implications are." Apart from his wicked slander here, the secondary reason I've stopped participating here is precisely due to this kind of crap, where people pretend that they're arguing, but they've already pre-determined their conclusions and have no interest in actually engaging intellectually with any of those who hold differing opinions. So they deploy all manner of "chaff", distractions, and then keep slipping and sliding around to avoid being "pinned" in the debate. They're not interested in the truth, care nothing about the truth, but have some agenda that they cling to like some kind of security blanket or pacifier that they can't stand to part with since it will cause too much disturbance to that mental fortress of solitude they've built up in their own minds.
That's true, BTW of the dogmatic sedevacantists also, who oversimplify arguments, attempting to force false dichotomies because they "sound good" to the average person. So, for instance, you find the Totalists attacking the sedeprivationists with "either he is the Pope or he isn't", attempting to force a binary, being ingnorant of or deliberately ignoring the fact that it's practically of the essence for the scholastic method to avoid such black-and-white binaries by applying the scalpel of distinctions. So the question ... is he the pope? ... for which they demand a yes-OR-no answer, it actually has a yes-AND-no answer, since the answer is yes IN ONE RESPECT but no in ANOTHER respect. That's taught in the first week of that intro class into scholastic logic, and yet so many of the Totalist SVs are completely blinded to it, forgetting that one can DISTINGUISH a proposition, "DISTINGUO", where "SECUNDUM QUID" (in one aspect) "condedo" or "affirmo", and "SECUNDUM QUID" (in another aspect) "nego". So you don't have to answer the question "SIMPLICITER" by being forced into a false dichotomy by your interlocutor.
In any case, this fool persists in claiming that support for Archbishop Thuc is pushed by "dogmatic sedevacantists" (another gaslight, similar to when Trumptards should "TDS" when they have no argument against very legitimate criticism of t) ... despite the fact that I myself have long DENOUNCED dogmatic sedevacantism. I actually have no horse in this race, since, despite Scuмmage's false accusation that I depend on +Thuc-line Sacraments (I went to Confession and Communion exactly once to a +Thuc-line priest in the 37 years now that I have been a Traditional Catholic), and have many other options. In fact, I seriously dislike the CMRI. But I will not therefore claim that CMRI's Holy Orders are invalid just because I don't like them. I also dislike many of the other dogmatic SV leaders precisely since I find that there's too much bitter zeal there. Yet that doesn't make Archbishop Thuc "insane", as this slanderous scuм keeps alleging.
Did Archbishop Thuc make some mistakes throughout his life? Was he sometimes confused? Did he sometimes act imprudently? Of course. But, then ... we could go on for a very long time about Archbishop Lefebvre's mistakes, his confusion (going back and forth on issues depending on whether he liked the current Pope ... where he did in fact have the same attitude that +Fellay does now in the early 1980s), and about his poor judgement of character. I could also go on for a long time about Bishop Williamson's mistakes. Notably, to take just one example ... +Thuc has been attacked for conditionally consecrating a "known" ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Welp ... Archbishop Lefebvre is known for telling STAS to accept Urrutigoity, and Williamson defended U for years despite obviously suspicious behavior the entire time, and then later we had Williamson taking in that Father Abraham, etc. ... so neither of them is particularly "squeaky clean" in that regard either. People make mistakes. People get confused. We live in an extreme diabolically-engineered confusion that, were these days not shortened, even the elect would be lost. These mistakes that +Lefebvre and +Williamson made do not lessen my respect for them, since ... they're only human. +Williamson also believed in Garabandal and also this one other crank of a "mystic", as well as Valtorta. Does that make him insane ... so that all his ordinations are invalid? Obviously not. But of course because +Thuc believed in the "Palmar" private revelations, oh, well, it's OK to declare him insane for that poor judgment and declare his Sacraments invalid.
OBJECTIVE REALITY: Archbishop Thuc was a good and extremely humble (as in exhibiting an almost heroic humility) man, who deeply love souls; he was happiest when he was relegated to being an assistant pastor, where he taught catechism to little children, and where he was sincerely grateful for the dirty little apartmant they gave him and tiny amount of money they give him to live on, despite being a Prince of the Church, a many with multiple advanced degrees, who had been charged with founding seminaries. Yet, he was sometimes easily manipulated, since he had this tendency to assume the best in everyone, which led to being a little naive sometimes, and like all of us he was confused at times about the nature of this crisis afflcting the Church. He was NOT "insane", was perfectly capable of validly administering the Sacraments, was extremely fluent not only in Latin, but in several modern languages as well. I was close friends with someone who for some time served daily Mass for the Archbishop, and he remarked about how extremely devout he was when he offered Mass. In order not to be able to validly confect the Sacraments, you have to be so far gone that you basically don't know who you are and what you're doing. And there's absolutely ZERO evidence of anything even remotely approaching that.
Topic: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc (Read 2028 times)