Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc  (Read 5320 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #105 on: Yesterday at 11:09:58 PM »
I encourage you, with all due respect, to probably quit whatever you're doing.
At this rate, this probably has to be a billboard on the interstate.

Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #106 on: Today at 06:44:39 AM »

There is a certain point where going to Thuc Sacraments will definitely bring you to hell.

Because you have been warned of how sinful it is to receive possibly invalid Sacraments all because you are too attached to your sedevacantism.

Pride is the worst of sins and you are clearly guilty of it.
You are literally una cuм with satanists and freemasons, claiming that Leo XIV is a Pope and at the same time claiming you should disobey the Pope.

If someone is at the risk of going to hell because of pride, that would be you. Every single "sacrament" you would go to is tainted by being una cuм with satanists.

Yet, you are here lecturing others claiming they go to hell for going to valid sacraments that are not una cuм Bergoglio. :jester:

This is a complete joke. You're literally reversing good and evil. 

Isaiah 5:20:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”


Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #107 on: Today at 07:30:28 AM »
You are literally una cuм with satanists and freemasons, claiming that Leo XIV is a Pope and at the same time claiming you should disobey the Pope.

If someone is at the risk of going to hell because of pride, that would be you. Every single "sacrament" you would go to is tainted by being una cuм with satanists.

Yet, you are here lecturing others claiming they go to hell for going to valid sacraments that are not una cuм Bergoglio. :jester:

This is a complete joke. You're literally reversing good and evil.

Isaiah 5:20:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
He is in union with men who have devoted their lives to desecrating and destroying the liturgy, doctrines, reputation, and very mission of the one true Church. I'll take a Thuc bishop or priest ANY day over a novus ordo one.

Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #108 on: Today at 02:05:01 PM »
https://www.fathercekada.com/2014/03/08/abp-thuc-recollections-by-one-who-knew-him/
Abp. Thuc offering Pontifical High Mass in Munich, 1982, a few months after the consecrations
Abp. Thuc offering Pontifical High Mass in Munich, 1982, a few months after the consecrations.
A priest who lived with the archbishop as a seminarian in 1982–3 offers insights into the prelate’s personality and character.

By Rev. Anthony Cekada
IN A PREVIOUS post, I presented a video I had made on the validity of the episcopal consecration conferred by Archbishop Pierre-Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc in 1981. The video deals mainly with various theological and factual issues I had researched, but in passing, I mention the testimony of Fr. Francis Miller OFM of Lafayette LA as to the piety, the virtue and the mental acuity of the archbishop when Fr. Francis was a seminarian and lived in the same house with him in 1982-3. This, I noted, was another nail in the coffin for the slanderous accusation that the good archbishop did not possess the requisite “mental state” to confer a sacrament validly.
The end of Abp. Thuc’s stay in Rochester came more than a year later when he was spirited off to New York City by Novus Ordo Vietnamese priests. He was eventually taken to a Vietnamese community in Carthage MO, where he died in 1984.
Last month, a priest in Europe wrote to Fr. Miller for details of his recollections. Father sent the priest a copy of a lengthy affidavit he had sworn to in late 2005 for a book on the Thuc consecrations. I have reproduced the text of the affidavit below, followed by some additional comments from Fr. Francis.
I highlighted a few particularly interesting passages. The account of the remark’s of the archbishop’s doctor about his complete competency are extremely significant. Even more interesting, Mgr. Thuc taught himself Spanish during his time at Rochester, so he could teach Latin in Spanish to the Mexican seminarians. Moreover, with the arrival of the archbishop, the friars instituted speaking conversational Latin for one day a week:

Quote
On that day the Archbishop’s voice would ring through the house. Latin was as easy for him as his mother language, Vietnamese. His fluency overwhelmed our untrained ears, and the days offered an opportunity for him to exercise and direct his students in their lessons.
I can assure readers that none of the clergy I know who have attacked Abp. Thuc could pull off either one of these feats. And if you doubt that, you might want to ask one of them!
For those who are truly objective and interested in the facts, Fr. Francis’ words should once and for all dispel their unreasonable prejudices against this devout and edifying prelate.

———————————
Affidavit of Francis Miller OFM

Abp. Thuc in Rochester, 1982, Fr. Miller 3rd from right.

Abp. Thuc in Rochester, 1982. Fr. Miller, 3rd from right.
My name is Francis, a solemnly professed religious of the Order of Friars Minor, O.F.M.: Franciscans. My entrance into Religion was August of 1980, in Rochester, New York, at the Shrine of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, 3376 Mt. Read Blvd., Rochester NY 14616. I was ordained to the priesthood in 1985 by Bishop Louis Vezelis. Currently I dwell in Lafayette, LA and serve at the Church of Christ the King, where the traditional Mass, and faith, of the Roman Catholic Church is offered. I write this short testimonial to review my memories of Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc, and to give a first-hand witness in order that others may know more of His Excellency.
About the middle of October, 1982, it was announced that Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc would join our life in the Friary at Rochester, New York. Preparations were made to receive him, and an escort was sent to smooth the way for his coming. Upon his arrival, His Excellency joined immediately into the rhythm of our religious life and schedule: midnight Office, meditation and community meals. For every Divine Office he joined us in chapel. His Mass was offered where the public might and did attend. On Sundays he would occasionally offer Holy Mass both in Rochester and in Buffalo, New York at Sacred Heart Church. The year and almost four months that I knew and lived with His Excellency ran much like this.

Dinner with Bp. Musey, Fr. Vida, Fr. McKenna, Bp. Vezelis.

Dinner in Louisiana with Bp. Musey, Fr. Vida, Fr. McKenna, Bp. Vezelis.
Other Activities
His Excellency looked after all his personal needs by himself. These included care for needs of daily living such as bathing, dressing, etc. Often he would go into the yard and walk though the grass, sometimes with a seminarian, for fifteen to twenty minutes almost every day. Winter was more difficult as New York weather must be considered. The house staircases within the Friary, two of which he negotiated several times a day, were never a major barrier to him. But for the most part he walked unassisted outside of ice, stairs new to him or without a banister. He used no walker but we encouraged the cane, which he used sometimes. His posture was only a little stooped, his gait short and occasionally studied, especially on the stairs. This may be because he was not both limber and strong. However, his sense of duty gave him determination when he had an end in view with much to do physically. At Holy Mass he was willing to sing the Mass and did a beautiful job. There was as well as singing the Divine office with the community. I never knew the Archbishop to drive a car.
His Excellency desired to be useful and help as best he was able. His energy was not that of his youth, but it allowed him to offer himself in several ways. At that time, the house had seven seminarians in their first year of Latin. He taught them regularly in a classroom setting using Latin and Spanish to speak with them.
When an occasion arose for His Excellency and Bishop Louis to travel to Mexico I accompanied them as an aide. His Excellency was most insistent on greeting the parents of the seminarians whom he had instructed in Rochester. Small exchanges were made, which were tokens of respect and gratitude for their parental sacrifices for Holy Mother Church, and His Excellency delighted to have greeted these good families. He was able to speak with them, with his newly learned Spanish, of their sons. Acapulco, Guadalajara and Colima were the locations of these homes and travel between the last of these two cities is no small feat on such highways. This is an example of His Excellency’s determination of purpose of meeting with the family in Colima, Mexico.
It was very often the case that I would accompany His Excellency to the doctor’s office for his regular visits. He particularly enjoyed these visits, as the good doctor spoke excellent French. It was the doctor’s opinion that his health was good, except for some difficulties he had with sweets affecting the good Bishop’s blood sugar levels. This was the only concern of the good and respected Doctor. In all of my conversations the Doctor never was expressed concern for Archbishop’s mental condition. He stated, rather, that I need not worry at all, that His Excellency was quite competent. He holds this position to this day. To my knowledge the doctor, though a Catholic, has never regularly attended the Tridentine Mass.

Offering Mass, Rochester, 1982.

Offering Mass, Louisiana, 1982.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
Of all the memories of my life, among the sweetest and most edifying were to watch His Excellency offer Holy Mass. His observance of the rubrics was impeccable. His poise, prayerfulness and attention were keen. He truly prayed the Mass. Many times he required help to rise from a genuflection and for this reason the older cleric friars stood by his side to assist Him. Many times his example caused me to aspire to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well as did the Archbishop. Anyone who attended His Mass could not miss his keen attention and devotion at the Altar. Here he was at his finest and edified us all.
Other Memories
On a winter’s day we walked to the chapel, a distance perhaps of 100 feet, over pavement. The ground was frozen, and the Archbishop lost his footing. Slipping, he fell upon his back. Immediately fear and shame came upon me for not taking better care of him for a broken hip could be too much for a man of his age. Rocking to an upright position he began to laugh Ça ne fait rien de tou. Un peu souffrance pour le purgatoire, which means “it does not matter at all. A little more suffering for purgatory.” While on the ground, he offered his hands, and we pulled him to his feet. We then went into the chapel for Prime, Holy Mass and meditation. He never complained of the incident.
Consecration of Bp. Guérard, 1981

Consecration of Bp. Guérard, 1981
Another often repeated saying of His Excellency was: Une petite croix pour le bon Dieu: A small cross (to offer to) for the good God.
To return for a moment to the Mexican seminarians, it was for their sake that he began to practice and perfect his Spanish. His mastery of languages permitted him to make quick progress with that language over the months he was in Rochester.
Among the young seminarians who joined the house that year, two Mexicans drew the Archbishop’s attention in particular. They were quick of mind, cordial and focused. Had he been able to patronize them, they might have enjoyed great favors, if I dare speculate. His encouragement and interest made a difference in their enthusiasm for the studies and work before them.
Among the practices taken up at the Friary with the coming of the Archbishop was the speaking of Latin, exclusively, one day a week. On that day the Archbishop’s voice would ring through the house. Latin was as easy for him as his mother language, Vietnamese. His fluency overwhelmed our untrained ears, and the days offered an opportunity for him to exercise and direct his students in their lessons. The Archbishop enjoyed these days, even though he saw us struggle in our Latin.

Consecration of Bps. Carmora and Zamora, 1981.

Consecration of Bps. Carmora and Zamora, 1981.
Overall Impressions
As a young man, I did not always understand His Excellency’s opinions and judgments. His wisdom often surprised and still surprises me even as I’ve grown older. The western mind must appreciate that he was of the mandarin culture and was certainly not egalitarian. From those who belonged to his household he expected reverence and obedience. He was careful to be charitable and fulfill the duties towards those who had a claim upon him, but, again in charity, he himself would not be a burden or overreach. He trusted others, and that was clearly a habit with him.
His Excellency was attentive to the world around him. He took interest in his students, their progress and their interest. His health was good, except for some the concern about sugar. His sense of humor was good, and he was long suffering. He was proud of his healthful appearance, but not absorbed by such things. He kept the religious schedule exactly, and his prayerful offering of the Holy Mass was a thing to be admired. In short, I never witnessed any loss of the faculties of reason and memory. Even in his interests in the world around him he was lucid. Above all, He loved Our Lord and Holy Mother Church and this was obvious to me and I believe to all who witnessed him in action.
Signed this December 7th and I declare it to be true to the best of my memory.
/s/ Fr. Francis Miller O.F.M.
Witnesses: /s/ Bruce Billeaud /s/ Miles Duthile [followed by attestation Donna M. Thibodeaux, Notary, Id # 23574]
——————————–

Abp. Thuc's coat-of-arms

Abp. Thuc’s coat-of-arms
Subsequent Comment from Fr. Miller
This [affidavit] is straight from my files and contains what was used [in the book] I believe.
I would be glad to add a few points that have always weighed heavily and recently been brought to my attention again:
Archbishop Ngo was not one to speak to freely when needled (agitated by others). He generally would go silent and suffer abuse. Knowing him so well taught me to listen and wait for a better disposed moment to approach a subject. He knew what he was up to, clearly. Again, he had his favorites some may fault him for that — but this choice seemed based on the good will of the person, intelligence, and sometime generosity toward himself. He did go out of his way to make himself lovable to the youngest of the Mexican seminarians, 13 years old at that time, and that is generosity on his part. No one who ever was known to attend the Archbishop’s Mass ever accused him of not being attentive, devout and exact in his rubrics of the Mass. He is renowned for his beautiful Masses. Never did I see him defect in the Mass’s action, his only clear weakness being occasional difficulty in genuflecting at the altar, for which reason I stood beside him to steady and lift him throughout the moments of the Mass this might occur. In fact you will find many praise his rubrics and piety throughout his life.
With such experience as this if is impossible to concede that he did not know what he was about when conferring sacraments as I never witness reason to doubt the clarity of the mind. As a much older and experienced man that impression only grows stronger.
As His doctor told me over and over again on 3 separate (by over 20 years time) “only someone who never knew Archbishop Ngo would make such an accusation”.
Further, I heard in a debate between Bishop Donald Sanborn and Dr. Robert Fastiggi that a claim was made that the good archbishop reconciled before his death. This point I could not concede as:

  • No signed docuмent was ever brought forward, though they show [the archbishop] smiling in a picture, pen in hand suggesting he had done so.
  • Among His last words to me as he was being abused in New York [City, where the Novus Ordo Vietnamese clergy had taken him — ed.] during the terrible events that lead to the loss of our shared household, he said: “They want me to sign a reconciliation and renounce all that I have done. [Laughing now, he continued:] Why would I do this? [Then very serious:] This would destroy the work God gave me to do of preserving the sacraments for the future. I cannot do that!“
  • There is no written evidence to my knowledge that that last statement of a change of mind was ever given privately or publicly, only assertions have been offered.
  • I know that he was very lonely, and wanted more companionship which he may have privately thought a change of residence may have brought. It may be that he, as I could tell that his mind was not clear in New York [City] due to the severe change of diet and reflected by lack of interest in doing anything but sleeping at that time, would have induced him to be silent and wait till a better time to act, to decide how to proceed. A time that never came for him, and he was never permitted [by the Novus Ordo clergy who had taken him away] to see me again, nor to see any of his sons in the Faith to my knowledge.
These last statements of mine have never been offered in the public forum, but Restoration Radio has asked for an interview and there would be a place to examine many other points perhaps.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Francis Miller OFM
February 26, 2014
 

This was written by Rev. Anthony Cekada. Posted on Saturday, March 8, 2014, at 6:02 pm. Filed under Abp Thuc, Sacraments, Trad Controversies.


Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc
« Reply #109 on: Today at 02:30:32 PM »
Abp. Thuc: A Brief Defense by Most. Rev. Daniel L. Dolan
NOTE: The following comments are excerpts from a conference Bishop Dolan originally delivered in French at the École Saint-Joseph, Serre-Nerpol, Isère (France), October 17, 1999.
        The bishop addressed various false accusations the Society of St. Pius X had spread against him in France, including the accusation that his episcopal consecration was “invalid,” since it derived from Archbishop P.M. Ngo-dinh-Thuc, former Archbishop of Hué, Vietnam.
*   *   *
The second point: The accusation that my orders are not valid comes from those who never knew Abp. Thuc, but take it upon themselves to judge his mental state nonetheless. They imagine that, because he did some imprudent things, he could not have been in his right mind. But this is not true.
      The proper response to this is to prove by eyewitness testimony that Abp. Thuc was in his right mind at the time of the consecrations of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers, and a little later of Bp. Zamora and Bp. Carmona, from whom I derive my episcopal consecration.
      There is overwhelming evidence both from eyewitnesses who knew him at the time, and from the actions that he himself performed, that Archbishop Thuc was perfectly lucid when he did the consecrations of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers in May of 1981, and of Bishops Zamora and Carmona in October of 1981.
      It is true that Archbishop Thuc ordained and consecrated some unworthy persons. It is true that he exercised poor judgment with regard to his selection of priestly and episcopal candidates. This fact, however, does not prove or even suggest lack of lucidity; it only shows poor judgement.
      We might also point out that Abp. Lefebvre made some very poor judgments about whom to ordain.
      Furthermore, it does not follow that, because someone acts inconsistently or erratically, he is therefore senile or incapable of valid sacraments.
      Archbishop Lefebvre acted very erratically in 1987 and 1988. In August of 1987, he referred to John Paul II as an antichrist, but in May of 1988 signed the protocol in which he submitted to him as Vicar of Christ. The very next day, he went back on the protocol which he had just signed. One of the reasons he offered to the Vatican for proceeding with the consecrations without their permission was that “the tents had been rented.” On June 15th, 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre gave a press conference in which he said that John Paul II was not Catholic, was excommunicated, was outside of the Church, but was the head of the Church. On June 16th, he told a reporter that he would change his mind if John Paul II – who the day before was not even a Catholic – would approve of his four bishops. Yet he was completely in his right mind.
      To claim that inconsistency or erratic behavior invalidate a sacrament is to manifest a profound ignorance of the fundamental principles of sacramental theology.
      The only type of mental state that is invalidating is one in which the minister does not know what he is doing. For example, if, through senility, a priest does not know where he is or what sacrament he is performing, it would be invalid.
      Such is not the case with Archbishop Thuc, as there are both eyewitnesses and facts which attest unquestionably to his lucidity.
A. Evidence of Eyewitnesses
      What is the evidence of the eyewitnesses who knew Archbishop Thuc?
      1.   Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller. These are the two German eyewitnesses of both these consecrations. They knew Archbishop Thuc intimately, having seen him regularly when the Archbishop resided in Munich for a number of months. They have both testified under oath, one in writing, the other orally, with God as their witness, that Archbishop Thuc was in full command of his faculties when he performed the above mentioned consecrations. These laymen are well-educated, intelligent, and alert; there is absolutely no reason to doubt their veracity or their ability to judge the Archbishop’s state of mind.
      2.   Fr. Noël Barbara. Fr. Barbara went to see Archbishop Thuc in the Spring of 1981 and then again in January 1982. He thus saw him both before and after the consecrations. Fr. Barbara has sworn, in writing, with God as his witness, that both times he found Archbishop Thuc to be in full use of his mental faculties, and that he answered the questions put to him about the consecrations clearly. Fr. Barbara also wrote, immediately after the January visit, notes concerning his conversation with Archbishop Thuc. These notes reflect the clear mind of the Archbishop, as he answered questions with clarity and distinct memory.
      3.   Fr. Gustave Delmasure. This priest, who was a well-respected traditional priest in France, former pastor of a parish in Cannes, went to see Archbishop Thuc in March of 1982. He has given sworn testimony, with God as his witness, that he found Archbishop Thuc to be in his right mind, and that he responded to his questions with swiftness and clarity.
      4.   Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. In a personal interview with Fr. Joseph Collins, Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, who himself had been consecrated in May, 1981 by Archbishop Thuc, attested to the fact that the Archbishop was in his right mind. He said that the rite of consecration was followed integrally by Archbishop Thuc, and that he (Thuc) was of sound mind throughout the ceremony. (Bishop Guérard des Lauriers was a well-known Dominican theologian who taught at the Lateran University in Rome, and who advised Pope Pius XII on the definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950).
      5.   Fr. Philippe Guépin. Fr. Guépin is a traditional priest who says Mass for a large group in Nantes. He was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1977, and was asked to leave the Society of St. Pius X in 1980 because he refused to recognize John Paul II as pope. He knew Archbishop Thuc at Ecône, and had prolonged conversations with him. He has attested that Archbishop Thuc was in his right mind.
      6.   Fr. Bruno Schaeffer, who was ordained by Abp. Thuc in 1982 (after the episcopal consecrations) told Fr. Guépin that Abp. Thuc was completely in his right mind, and that he observed the rite of ordination perfectly.
      7.   Eyewitnesses who saw him and knew him in Rochester, New York, where Abp. Thuc stayed in 1983 and 1984, also attested to the fact that even at that time, shortly before his death in 1984, Abp. Thuc was in his right mind, and offered daily Mass.
      Now we must ask ourselves: are all these people liars? All of these eyewitnesses say the same thing, even though they knew Abp Thuc at different times and in different circuмstances. Are they all lying? It would be ridiculous to say such a thing.
      Those who would have us believe, for whatever reason, that Archbishop Thuc was not lucid are telling us to conclude that all the eyewitnesses cited above are bold-faced liars.
      That would mean that faithful Roman Catholic priests, some of them ordained for fifty years or more, and who have labored for the salvation of souls their whole lives, are liars, calling down the authority of God to witness to their wicked lies. This they would do shortly before they go to God for judgement, and in such important a matter as an episcopal consecration.
      This supposition is absurd and very uncharitable. There is no better testimony than that of sworn eyewitnesses. No one can reasonably fault someone for taking the word of reliable sworn eyewitnesses.
      I remind you that the classic, time-tested, and universal way in which to establish a fact is the sworn eyewitness testimony of reliable witnesses. It is the way in which every court of law determines the fact of crime or innocence. Based on such testimony, human beings are either exonerated or condemned, sometimes to death.
      The law courts of the Catholic Church operate on the sworn testimony of reliable witnesses.
      Most importantly, our Blessed Lord sanctioned the practice with divine approval: And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. (Matthew 18:16) And in the Gospel of Saint Mark, Our Lord upbraids the disciples for not having believed the witnesses of his resurrection. (Mark 16:14).
B. Evidence of Facts.
      What is the evidence of the facts which attest to Archbishop Thuc’s lucidity?
      1.   The fact that Archbishop Thuc functioned publicly in his right mind at the time of the consecrations. This is attested to by the German witnesses, Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller. The Archbishop spent a few months in Munich where he said Sunday Masses, and was able to be observed by all. It was noted by them that he said the traditional Mass very carefully with close attention to the rubrics. He also gave public lectures in Mexico after the consecration of the Mexican bishops.
      2.   The fact that Archbishop Thuc wrote in his own hand, with strong, forceful handwriting, a consecration certificate , letters, and other declarations both in Latin and in French. One who is not in his right mind could not sit down and write in a coherent manner, particularly in Latin.
      3.   The fact that Archbishop Thuc had a clear and vivid memory of the consecrations in his conversations with Fr. Barbara. One of these conversations is related in notes which Fr. Barbara took just after the interview. In it the Archbishop remembered not only having consecrated the two Mexican priests, Frs. Zamora and Carmona, but even commented that Fr. Carmona spoke much better Latin than Fr. Zamora. He also testified to his having consecrated Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, and included details about him. Such clear memory about specific events and names is proof that the Archbishop was in his right mind at the time of the consecrations, and at the time of his speaking to Fr. Barbara.
      4.   The fact that the Vatican excommunicated Archbishop Thuc. Everyone knows that if someone is not in his right mind, he is incapable of committing a crime, and therefore incapable of being censured. The fact that the Vatican, after a thorough investigation, excommunicated Archbishop Thuc for having done these consecrations is a sign that they considered him to be in his right mind. If they had found him in an impaired mental state, they would have made this fact public, and repudiated the consecrations as invalid. Indeed, the very fact that that they excommunicated him is an admission, legally, that the consecrations were valid. For it is a principle of law that censures are not incurred if the act is invalid. “Besides,” says the canonist Augustine, “it is generally held that the order must have been received validly, and therefore the penalty would not follow if, for instance, a Protestant bishop would confer an order.” [A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Volume VIII, p. 449].
      The Vatican clearly concedes the validity of the consecrations in the very docuмent of excommunication. In stating that it will not give the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc the legal status of bishops, adds “quidquid est de ordinum validitate,” which properly translated means, “however valid the orders may be.” The phrase concedes the validity, since the indicative mood is used in Latin, which always indicates a statement of fact, and not of doubt.
      This recognition of validity is further attested to by the fact that two Apostolic Delegates, one in Mexico in 1983 and one in the United States in 1988, called the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc “valid but illicit.” They would never have said such a thing if the Vatican did not have that position.
      Even Bishop Richard Williamson, the Rector of the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in the United States, has told members of the laity that he regards my episcopal consecration as valid. (Letter 10/21/93.)
C. Some Objections
      1.   Scandal. But some have objected that even if these consecrations are valid, we should avoid them because of the scandals of Archbishop Thuc. But this is not true.
      In the first place, Archbishop Thuc is dead, and his sins have died with him. His sins, whatever they may have been, are not transferred to those whom he consecrated. Each bishop must be judged on his own merits, and not on the virtues or vices of him who consecrated him. The saintly Cardinal Merry del Val, the Secretary of State of St. Pius X, was consecrated by Cardinal Rampolla, who was a freemason. Does that mean that Cardinal Merry del Val was scandalous? Of course not.
      In any case Canon Law permits the faithful to approach even the excommunicated clergy, in case of necessity, for sacraments. (Canon 2261 § 2). What interests us about Archbishop Thuc, then, is not his sins or poor judgement, but (1) the fact that he performed these consecrations, (2) the fact that he used the traditional rite, (3) the fact that he was in his right mind. But all these things are attested to by docuмent and reliable and even sworn eyewitness testimony.
      2.   Bad Bishops. But they further object that the fruits of Archbishop Thuc are bad, alleging that he gave birth to a whole set of bad bishops.
      I respond that the mere fact of tracing your orders to Archbishop Thuc does not mean that you participate in his sins or shortcomings. It is not like you belong to some organization of “Thuc Bishops.” Anyone who traces his orders to Archbishop Thuc is not automatically associated with all those whom Archbishop Thuc ordained or consecrated – any more than a bishop consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre would participate in the sins of Cardinal Liénart, who consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre, but who was one of the worst modernists at Vatican II.
      There is a single thing that matters here, and that is that Archbishop Thuc performed episcopal consecrations which are valid. From these valid consecrations, valid and responsible Catholic bishops are available to us in order to give us priests.
D. Why Turn to Archbishop Thuc?
      I would like to add that Abp. Thuc had many virtues which should not be neglected. He was the only bishop who had the courage to denounce publicly John Paul II as a false pope. He also said Mass very devoutly, and was known to hear confessions for many hours at a time, even in very old age.
      But the only reason why we have had to turn to Thuc in any case was that he was willing to consecrate bishops who would preserve the true Catholic position with regard to Vatican II and the modernist “popes.” If the Society of St. Pius X had stayed on the right path, my consecration would not have been necessary, and we would be working side by side with them.
      But it has been unfortunately necessary to break from the Society of St. Pius X, because their positions are inconsistent and therefore erroneous. Furthermore, they espouse doctrines and attitudes towards the authority of the Church and the magisterium which are not compatible with the Catholic Faith.

traditionalmass.org