Author Topic: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc (Read 5384 times)

Persto · « **Reply #110 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:37:15 PM »

https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/episcopal-consecrations-conferred-by-archbishop-ngo-dinh-thuc/
The Episcopal Consecrations Conferred by His Excellency
Archbishop Peter-Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc
by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara
Originally published in The Reign of Mary, No. 134 (Spring 2009)
The following is taken from an article written by the well-known traditional French priest, Fr. Noel Barbara, in 1992. Although written so many years ago, we believe our readers, who likely had never read the article before, will benefit from the insight offered by Fr. Barbara to the life and character of Archbishop Ngô dinh Thuc.
An ancient proverb tells us that “the only people who never make a mistake are those who never do anything.” Engaged in the Catholic resistance as I have been since the very beginning, and before any of us were prepared for this task, mistakes were inevitable and, in fact, occurred. As Scripture advises, let those readers who have never sinned cast the first stone in my direction.
“Errare humanum est” says another proverb, but we should remember what quickly follows: “perseverare tantum diabolicuм.”1 Thanks to God’s grace, I have never been committed to error. Whenever I have found I was wrong, I have quickly escaped, despite the humiliation that making reparation entails. And so it is that I came to the question of the consecrations performed by Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc. Consequently, I would like to examine three facets of these consecrations: the consecrator, the rite used, and the individuals consecrated.

The Consecrator
In every problem, and above all in the present situation, there is no reason to fear the truth. Matters relating to the faith have nothing to fear from the truth. At the time of the consecrations I only knew one thing about Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc: that he had consecrated the visionaries of Palmar de Troya in Spain.
The adventure of Palmar de Troya Archbishop Lefebvre knew Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc quite well from the Second Vatican Council. He considered him to be a bishop with good doctrinal views. Like himself, this bishop belonged to the conservative group. It was because he considered him to be a Catholic bishop, committed to the faith, devoted to Mary, and having nothing to do, that he encouraged him to work with the emissaries of Palmar de Troya who had come to Econe in order to solicit his episcopal services. I heard these facts directly from Archbishop Lefebvre.
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.
I personally never knew the Vietnamese Archbishop before the time of my two visits to his residence at 22 rue Garibaldi, Toulon, in the district of Var, in France. The first time was in March of 1981 when I went to ask him about a Father Garcia who wished to work with me and claimed to have been ordained by Archbishop Ngô.
The second time was on January 7, 1982, at which time I was accompanied by Father Barthe, an elderly priest connected with the association Union pour la Fidélité. We had asked for a meeting because a Mexican priest friend had come and told us about the episcopal consecration of R. P. Guérard des Lauriers and Fathers Carmona and Zamora. We were desirous of having some information about their consecrations.
What follows is the summary of what happened at this visit, such as is available from notes in the archives of the Union pour la Fidélité.
“We arranged a meeting by telephone for Monday, the 5th of January. Arriving at Toulon, we presented ourselves at his home at 8 o’clock in the morning. The Archbishop lived in a very poor and dirty apartment on the first floor of an old tenement building. In appearance, it was a simple flat that was longer than wide, with a small side kitchen. On the right was a modest bed. In the corner was a table on which he celebrated the traditional rite as codified by Saint Pius V every morning. There were many pious images, a pile of ‘pocket books,’ two chairs and five cats that appeared to be everywhere. As he only had two chairs, the Archbishop sat on his bed and Father Barbara sat opposite him. The room was so small that Father Barthe had to place his chair behind the Archbishop.
“Archbishop Thuc informed us that he celebrated Mass in his apartment early every morning, and always in the traditional rite. Afterwards he would go to the Cathedral where the archpriest had provided him with a confessional. Father Barbara asked him what his relations with the Novus Ordo bishop of the cathedral were. He responded that the [Novus Ordo] Bishop of Toulon had given him the task of providing the Vietnamese with confession, and also the powers of confession for anyone who came to him.
“Father Barbara reminded him that he had visited him during the previous year to ask for information about a certain Garcia of Marseille whom the Archbishop had ordained. Archbishop Thuc informed us that he regretted having done so, because he had come to know that the Father in question was mentally unbalanced. ‘He wished me to consecrate him a bishop. I refused. But,’ he added, ‘why does everyone wish to be a bishop?’
“Father then explained to him the reason for our visit. A Mexican friend, Father Marquette, had informed us that he had consecrated the curé of Acapulco, Father Moises Carmona, and another Mexican, Father Zamora. The Archbishop admitted that such was the case. ‘There were two Germans, Heller and Hiller, who brought them to me and asked that I consecrate them. I had confidence in these two gentlemen because I knew Mr. Heller. He is a very fine person. I knew him because he asked me to confirm his little daughter and I had confirmed her. These Germans are very generous. The two Mexican priests were consecrated here. I was able to speak with them in Latin. Father Carmona spoke much better Latin than did Father Zamora. The two Germans assisted. They had brought along everything that was necessary for the consecration. During the ceremony, they held the candles.’
“Father Barbara then explained that we had also learned from Mexico that he had consecrated Father R.P. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.
— “The Dominican?”
— “Yes.”
— “It is true. I did indeed consecrate him. He is very knowledgeable.” He then went on to explain that it was Father des Lauriers who had himself come and asked to be consecrated. The Germans supported his request.
— “Did these gentlemen assist in his consecration?” asked Father Barbara. We do not remember what he replied. On the other hand the Archbishop told us that once the ceremony was finished Father Guérard left without saying anything; but that later he wrote a letter which he had great difficulty in reading “because his writing is very small.” Archbishop Ngô gave him an attestation such as he did every time he consecrated a person to be a bishop.
— “Have you consecrated other bishops?”
— “No!”
— “How about Arbinet?”
“The Archbishop took a moment to remember. He regretted having ordained this person as a priest, but he denied that he had consecrated him as a bishop. Since then he had learned that this individual had been disowned by his own family.
“Father Barbara then respectfully, but firmly, admonished the elderly bishop to completely sever himself from the Novus Ordo hierarchy. He reminded the archbishop of the need to be prepared for death — this at any age, but ‘how much more at yours!’ He invited him to come to Forges in order to follow a course of Spiritual Exercises during a retreat. He advised him to make a general confession in order to prepare himself for the judgment of God.
“Father Barbara told the Archbishop that he presumed to make this warning, not to place burdens on him, but in charity, for the love of God, the Church and himself. ‘Your Excellence,’ he said, ‘if I could, I would say all this on my knees.’
“Finally, Father Barbara warned him that he risked having difficulties with the official Church. His consecrations were becoming public knowledge. But there is nothing for you to be upset about. They have no authority since they do not belong to the true Church. On the other hand, you should be worried about the judgment of God.
“The Archbishop appeared very moved. He spontaneously thanked Father Barbara, telling him that he understood that his behavior was based on a good will and a great charity. He asked for Father Barbara’s address and told him he would get in touch with him if he decided to do the Spiritual Exercises. The Archbishop accompanied us to the front stairs of his house.

The Real Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc
The summary given above was written the day after our visit of January 7, 1982. Since then, I have given further thought to the matter and have discovered a different Archbishop Thuc, one that I had not previously known.
First of all, one should read his autobiography. This is important for those who only know the Archbishop because of his connection with Palmar de Troya, the essential details of which I have reported.
Archbishop Peter-Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc was born at Hué, on October 6, 1897, of profoundly Christian parents. His father had wished to be a priest, and had undertaken studies with this end in view. His mother, born of a petite bourgeoisie family in Quang-ngâi (south Vietnam) was considered to be a saint by her confessor. During a very prolonged illness from which she died, she inspired the admiration of all who knew her.
His father, Ngô Dinh Khâ, was an excellent Latinist and worked very hard to introduce French into Central Vietnam. After having been the preceptor to the young king Thant Thâi, and then Minister of the Imperial household, he fell into disgrace because he refused to vote against his sovereign. His elder brother, Ngô Dinh Khôi, was an excellent Christian. Because of his refusal to become a minister in the first communist government, he, along with his son, was buried alive.
The three other children of Ngô Dinh Khâ are Diem, the father of the Vietnamese Republic, Nhu and Cân, his close collaborators. They were αssαssιnαtҽd by the C.I.A. Ngô Dinh Cân was not with his older brothers at the time they were murdered. He was successful in hiding himself in a shelter provided by the Redemptorist Fathers in Hué. He was betrayed and delivered into the hands of rebellious generals by a shady scheme inaugurated by the American consul. Before executing him, the communists imprisoned him in a cage for over a year. He was, despite this, able to receive Holy Communion every day, thanks to the devotion of a Vietnamese Redemptorist Father. He died very courageously with the rosary in his hand.
Of all the children of Ngô Dinh Khâ, only two were able to escape annihilation: Ngô Dinh Luyén and Ngô Dinh Thuc. The first who had graduated from the Central School for Engineers in Paris was at the time ambassador in London. The other was in Rome where he was involved in the Second Vatican Council. As a young man Thuc had entered the junior seminary in Anninh at the age of 12. He spent 8 years there before going on to study philosophy at the major seminary in Hué. He was then selected to study theology in Rome and returned to his country in 1927 after being awarded three doctorates, one in philosophy, one in theology, and the third in canon law. In addition, he received a license to teach from the Sorbonne.
His bishop successively nominated him to the rank of professor at the College of Vietnamese Brothers in Hué, a professor at the Major Seminary in Hué, and Dean of the College of Providence.
In 1938, at the age of 41, he was chosen by Rome to direct the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinhlong. He was appointed titular bishop of Sesina on January 8, and was consecrated on May 4, 1938. He took as his episcopal motto “Miles Christi — Soldier of Christ.” He was the third Vietnamese priest raised to the episcopate.
The new pastor immediately dedicated himself to the organization of his Vicariate.
Given the reverses that Christianity was sustaining in this part of the world, Pope Pius XI, understood the urgency of opening a Catholic university in South Vietnam for the formation of Christians of the former French protectorate. The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith informed the local bishops of the Pontiff’s heartfelt desire and further informed them that the Holy Father wished that one of the official languages of this University should be French in order that the ancient proteges of France, the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians could all go there for their formation. The local bishops designated Bishop Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc as the person who could best accomplish the wishes of the Holy Father.
Where could the necessary funds for such an enterprise be found in a country engaged in a subversive war? Apart from the blessing of the Pope and the bishop of Vinhlong, all he had was a good will. This is hardly enough to establish a University, even in a mission country. Without being discouraged, the good bishop set to work. Thanks to the support he was able to count on, he was granted by the government of Diem, the authority to harvest the timber of an ancient forest. Thus, it was by his own industry, his efforts and his tenacity, that Bishop Ngô rapidly accuмulated all the necessary funds to bring the task he had undertaken to completion, thus fulfilling the desire of the Pope and providing his country with a Catholic university. One last detail worthy of being underlined: by means of his industry, disinterest and foresight he provided this university with sufficient income to guarantee its ability to persist as an independent enterprise.
On November 24, 1960, John XXIII who succeeded Pope Pius XII, transferred the Apostolic Vicarage of Vinhlong to the head of the Metropolitan See at Hué, the city where Bishop Ngô was born.
In 1962 the Second Vatican Council began. In October Bishop Ngô Dinh Thuc was in Rome. This absence so far away from his native land at the moment when his brothers were αssαssιnαtҽd, saved his life.
After the Council was finished, like bishops from every country, those from South Vietnam returned to their own dioceses. However the Archbishop of Hué was unable to obtain permission to return to his See. In his autobiography Archbishop Ngô informs us that “the Americans forced the government of South Vietnam to refuse me permission to return.”
He then approached Paul VI, thinking that he would in this way obtain the necessary authorization. Did Montini intervene? Once again, the Archbishop tells us in his autobiography: “Paul VI used my inability to return to my See to force me to resign and to name as my replacement one of his favorites, Bishop Dien.” From that time forward he led an uprooted life.
I who have written these lines and who am myself a “black sheep” well know what it means to a priest not belonging to a diocese and having to support himself. Consider the absence of eagerness with which new priests are welcomed by those who are supposed to welcome them. For him, there appeared to be no place in the vineyard of the Lord. Did the Master make a mistake when he stated that the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few?
The Archbishop was not the kind of person who could remain idle, and before concerning himself with his own needs, this man who spoke fluent Italian looked in Italy for some ministry. He wished to be useful and to support himself in a decent manner. But he who no longer belonged to any diocese was also a stranger in the House of his Mother.
Thanks to a prelate who had been apostolic delegate in Vietnam, Archbishop Ngô was able to find food and lodging in a reception center in Rome, but he had to pay a fee for this. In order to obtain the funds to do this, he offered his services to a curé in the parish. This priest was only too happy to accept his offer… and to exploit him.
Despite his priestly efforts he was unable to earn enough to pay his bill at the reception center. Archbishop Ngô asked the curé to provide him with an empty room at the vicarage, but the curé refused. He was jealous of the bishop who, because of his kindness and availability, ended up seeing his confessional besieged by all the penitents that formerly went to the curé. Despite everything he did, he could not help but antagonize the head of the parish who became increasingly unpleasant, and this to such a degree that the Archbishop finally had to leave.
As he had previously known Dom Nivardo Buttarazzi, the Reverend Abbot of the Monastery of Casamari in the center of Italy, the elderly Archbishop went and knocked at his door. He was received as a brother and given a room in the guest house. For about one-and-a-half years the Archbishop stayed there contentedly. He made himself useful by confessing the faithful of the parish which was dependent on the Abbey and the monks who came to him.
Unfortunately, one day, these religious decided to organize an exhibition of nudes in the library of the monastery. The bishop showed his disapproval with the greatest of discretion. But this was more than they could accept and they asked him to leave the place as soon as he could make other arrangements. Where could he go? The local bishop who had made his sympathies known to the Archbishop on several occasions, asked him to preside over certain ceremonies and to share his meals. The Archbishop then went to the bishop’s house. He begged his confrere to give him a small church that had no priest where he could serve, provided that it had a sacristy where he could place a bed and stay.
The Bishop was agreeable and appointed him to the village of Arpino which consisted of a dozen families. The titular priest was happy to accept the assistance which Providence had provided him through the bishop. “I was happy to stay there with the small flock over which I was the secondary shepherd,” he tells us in his biography, “and I thought that Arpino would be my last resting place in this world… At that time a priest came to me who I had formerly known in Econe, Switzerland. He said to me point-blank: ‘Your Excellency, the Holy Virgin has sent me to bring you at once to Spain in order to render her a service. My car is waiting for you at the door of the presbytery and we will leave immediately so as to reach there by Christmas.’ Thrilled by this invitation, I said to him: ‘If it is a service demanded by the Holy Virgin, I am ready to follow you to the end of the world.’”
And this is how the adventure of Palmar de Troya came about, an event which attracted the attention of all those who asked him for episcopal consecrations.
I have taken the trouble to describe the life of Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc in order to make it possible for my readers to know him better. It follows that he appears to us to have been a truly Catholic bishop, devoted to the Holy See and to the care of souls, a worthy successor to the Apostles in the mission lands, having well merited the designation which this title confers, from both the Roman Church and from his own nation.
In order not to be misled with regard to this important issue we should recall the teaching of the Church on the manner in which sacramental grace is produced. The person who confers the sacrament is only a minister, an instrument endowed with liberty. The state of his soul is only of concern to himself. He will be rewarded if he is in a state of grace, or chastised if he is not. But his personal condition has no influence on the sacramental grace conferred. St. Augustine summarized this teaching with what has become a classic statement: “Peter performs the act of Baptism, but it is Christ who baptizes. Judas performs the act of Baptism, but it is Christ who baptizes.” The grace of the Baptism conferred by Peter is no greater and no better than the grace of the Baptism conferred by Judas. If we replace the word Baptism with that of episcopal consecration, we can see that even under the circuмstances of the most unfavorable scenario outlined above with regard to Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc, the bishops consecrated by him are no less consecrated bishops than if the rite had been performed by St. Pius X.
To finish up our discussion of this issue, one last point should be made. Before asking Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc for consecration, Father R.P. Guérard des Lauriers explained the Thesis of Cassiciacuм to him. It was only after the Archbishop gave him the assurance that he held the Holy See to be vacant from the time of Paul VI, that the consecration of the Dominican Father was decided on. I obtained this information directly from Father Lucien, who in turn obtained it directly from Father Guérard des Lauriers.
Nor was Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc only willing to declare this vacancy of the Holy See privately. As much as he could he made his position clear in the public forum. And God, Who directs all things wished this fact to be as it were, juridically registered. In effect, in the official letter (Prot. N. 7/76) from Rome dated February 1, 1983, and addressed to His Excellency Archbishop Pierre-Martin Ngô Dinh Thuc, the titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is explicitly mentioned that: “A public declaration published in Munich on February 25, 1982, under your own signature affirms that according to you, ‘the See of the Roman Catholic Church is at this time vacant,’ and that it is necessary for you as a bishop to do everything you can in order that the Roman Catholic Church can continue to guide souls to their eternal salvation” (Review Einsicht, March 1982, p. 8).
This Declaration is of the greatest possible importance with regard to what we are discussing. It manifests the primary condition which would allow Archbishop Ngô to presume an Apostolic Mandate, a condition without which he could not use the principal of epikeia. The consecrations performed under such circuмstances are not only perfectly valid, but also perfectly licit.

The Rite Utilized
The rite used was that which existed before the reforms of Paul VI. As the rubrics require, the consecrations were conferred during a Mass celebrated according to the traditional form as codified by St. Pius V. The witnesses are very clear with regard to this matter. But apart from their witness, it suffices to know the interested parties to understand that none of the parties involved would have been agreeable to the consecration using any other than the traditional Catholic rite.3

The Individuals Consecrated
It is here that we must be most prudent.
1. Catholic priests that have asked for the episcopacy or have been willing to be consecrated in order to serve the Church and to preserve the Catholic priesthood which is the source of the sacramental life.
Those who were Catholic priests before their consecration have become Catholic bishops after their consecration to the same degree as have those bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.
2. Subsequent to the affair of Palmar de Troya, the only Catholic priests to my knowledge that were consecrated by Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc were R.P. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., and Fathers Carmona and Adolfo Zamora. Unfortunately the three have passed away, but they have passed on the episcopate:
— Bishop Guérard des Lauriers to Fathers Gunther Storck (now deceased) and Robert McKenna, O.P.
— Bishop Moises Carmona to Fathers George Musey (now deceased), Benigno Bravo (now deceased), Roberto Martinez (now deceased) and Mark Pivarunas.

General Conclusion
I would like to conclude this brief study about the orthodoxy of some of the consecrations conferred by Archbishop Ngô Dinh Thuc with one last point. Both of the two lines of Catholic bishops — those which derive from the founder of Econe and those which derive from the Vietnamese prelate — are valid. Can it be said that there is no difference between them?
No. In point of fact, there are several differences.
— The First point of difference is minor and favors the line of consecrations initiated by Archbishop Lefebvre.
While the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc were conferred in a secret manner, great publicity surrounded the consecrations at Econe. But I should also point out and we should not forget that after the consecrations of Guérard des Lauriers and the Mexican priests, the attacks on Archbishop Thuc because of them led to their losing their secret character. They became public and so rapidly so that Rome was immediately aware of them and intervened. This intervention on the part of Rome provided these consecrations with the notoriety which they formerly lacked.
— The Second difference favors the line established by Archbishop Thuc.
The consecrations at Econe were conferred after John Paul II refused permission, and despite the formal prohibition against them. And this while both consecrator and those consecrated recognized John Paul II as a legitimate pope. To act in this strange manner can only be described as schismatic behavior.
On the other hand, those performed by Archbishop Thuc were performed by someone who had recognized and publicly declared that the Holy See lacked a formaliter pope. Two fortunate things followed from this recognition of the absence of any authority. It allowed both consecrator and those consecrated to invoke the principle of epikeia in presuming an apostolic mandate and as a result rendered the consecrations conferred, not only valid, but also licit.
— The Third difference is the most important.
While not believing the bishops in the Lefebvre line to be formal heretics or schismatics, it is clear that they are behaving in a schismatic manner. Up to the last minute they persist in publicly ridiculing the authority of the individual who they continue to recognize as a true pope of the Catholic Church and the individual invested with the powers of Saint Peter. Such behavior is gravely scandalous. It is a scandal against the faith.
The bishops who derive their consecration from Archbishop Thuc have behaved in an openly Catholic manner. Believing John Paul II to be an antichrist, the principal destroyer of the Catholic Faith, they refuse to pay any attention to his decisions. They know very well that he cannot be the Vicar of Christ, that he possesses absolutely no authority, and they declare this openly so as to avoid giving scandal.

Footnotes
1 ”To err is human. What is diabolical is to persist in error once one is aware of it.” As for the reward of paying the price, Our Lord has told us “Veritas liberabit vos: the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).
2 This Patriarchate, while declaring itself to be in submission to the Pope, refused to obey him. In the encyclical Quae in Patriarchate (January 9, 1876), Pius IX addressed the clergy and the faithful of the Chaldean rite. The Pope explained, “What good does it do to proudly recognize the supremacy of Peter and his Successors? What benefit is it to frequently repeat declarations of the Catholic faith and obedience to the Apostolic See, when these fine words are contradicted by one’s actions?” (Cf. Solesmes, L’Egise, T. 1, No. 433-434).
3 Father R.P. Guérard des Lauriers was the principal editor of the Brief Critical Examination, otherwise incorrectly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. He was the first to establish that “the new rite [the Novus Ordo] deviates in an impressive manner, both in its entirety and in its details, from the Catholic Theology of the Mass such as was defined in the XXIIth session of the Council of Trent.”
Father Moises Carmona, the curé of Acapulco in Mexico, belonged to the P.E.R.C. (Cf. Open Letter to the Society of Pius X, note 37 p. 83). He had struggled along with us and Father R.P. Saenz y Arriaga from the beginning of the Catholic resistance, above all to preserve the rite of the Mass as codified by St. Pius V. Both of them had been excommunicated by the new Church for having translated and distributed in Spanish my study on The Heresy, Schism and Apostasy of Paul VI.

Persto · « **Reply #111 on:** **Yesterday** at 03:11:34 PM »

https://traditionalmass.org/articles/thuc-abp/the-validity-of-the-thuc-consecrations/
The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations by Rev. Anthony Cekada
During a conversation with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1980, I hinted about my worries over finding a bishop after his death who would ordain traditional Catholic priests and confirm our children.
The archbishop — at that time he hadn’t indicated whether he would one day consecrate bishops — tactfully replied that the question worried him, too, and that “Deus providebit” — God will provide. He added, with one of his trademark French chuckles, that each time he had a coughing or sneezing fit in the seminary chapel at Ecône, he could almost hear the 80 seminarians silently change their prayer to just one fervent petition: “God, let him live — at least till he ordains me!”
The amusing anecdote highlights a serious issue: As traditional Catholics, the sacraments are the center of our spiritual life and the key to our salvation. We know that if we want to hear Mass, receive Holy Communion, have our sins absolved and be fortified by the Last Rites, we need priests. And we know that only bishops can make priests.
Where, then, can we go to find bishops who will ordain traditional Catholic priests, and thus ensure that the traditional Latin Mass will continue to be celebrated at our altars?
The laity and clergy connected with the Society of St. Pius X (nervous seminarians in particular) need worry no longer. On 30 June 1988 Abp. Lefebvre and the retired bishop of Campos, Brazil, Antonio de Castro-Mayer, consecrated four bishops for the Society of St. Pius X. These bishops have since ordained more priests for the Society and recently consecrated a bishop to succeed Bp. Mayer in Campos.
The Lefebvre bishops limit their episcopal ministrations only to those chapels and clergy who accept unquestioningly all the Society’s theological opinions and who surrender legal control of their property to the Society. Likewise, these bishops will ordain to the priesthood only those seminarians who swear fealty to the Society’s positions.
Many traditional priests disagree with the Society’s positions and policies. We can hardly look to a Lefebvre bishop if we want children from our chapels to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. Still less could we found a seminary to train the clergy who will one day succeed us, and then imagine that the Lefebvre bishops would ordain to the priesthood the seminarians we would train.
But Lefebvre bishops are not the only option. In the U.S. at present there are six traditional Catholic clergymen who are commonly referred to as the “Thuc” bishops. Unlike the Lefebvre bishops, the Thuc bishops are not connected in a single organization. They operate independently of each other (like most traditional priests), though some of them do co-operate together in certain apostolic works.
Like traditional Catholic priests, too, the six Thuc bishops are a diverse lot. Five are older men who were trained and ordained to the priesthood before the disastrous post-Vatican II changes hit; one (a younger man) received a traditional formation and was ordained a priest in the old rite well after Vatican II. Three were diocesan priests; three were members of different religious orders. Four of the bishops graciously cooperate with traditional Catholic chapels and clergy outside their own particular milieu; two bishops are definitely off in separate orbits. Of the six bishops, one has a reputation as a notorious troublemaker, another is not particularly well known one way or the other, and the other four (two of them recently consecrated) are well regarded in the circles where they pursued their apostolate, either through their writings or their sacramental ministry.

The Thuc bishops in the U.S. all trace their episcopal consecrations to one of two men:
• Bishop M.L. Guérard des Lauriers OP, formerly a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome and at the Society of St. Pius X’s seminary in Ecône, Switzerland (he was one of my teachers), and the author of the famous Ottaviani Intervention.
• Bishop Moises Carmona Rivera, a diocesan priest from Acapulco who for years offered the traditional Mass for sizable groups of the faithful in various parts of Mexico.

In 1981 Bps. Guérard and Carmona were consecrated bishops by one man: Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc (†1984), former Archbishop of Hué, Vietnam.
Abp. Thuc, appointed by Pius XI and consecrated a bishop in 1938, founded the Diocese of Vinh-long and was named Archbishop of Hué in 1960. In 1963, while Abp. Thuc was in Rome for the Second Vatican Council, his brother, Ngô-dinh-Diem, President of South Vietnam, was overthrown and murdered in a coup. Unable to return to Vietnam and treated by the Vatican as an outcast, Abp. Thuc eked out a meager existence serving as a substitute Assistant Pastor in various parishes near Rome.
His interest in the traditional movement appears to have begun in early 1975 when he visited Abp. Lefebvre’s seminary in Ecône, Switzerland. The event would turn out to be a mixed blessing. There Abp. Thuc struck up an acquaintance with Father M. Revaz, former Chancellor of the Swiss Diocese of Sion and professor of Canon Law at the Ecône seminary. Later in 1975, Father Revaz convinced Abp. Thuc that the solution to the Church’s problems were to be found in alleged “Marian apparitions” at Palmar de Troya, Spain, and he urged the Archbishop to consecrate bishops for the Palmar supporters, who wished to preserve the traditional Mass. Abp. Thuc agreed and performed the consecrations in December. The next year, however, Abp. Thuc repudiated his connections with the Palmar group.[1]
Traditional Catholics who discuss Abp. Thuc’s subsequent activities in the traditional movement seem to fall into two opposing camps. The first group canonizes him by portraying him as a valiant hero who consistently rejected all the errors of the post-Conciliar Church. The second group insults him by painting him as an old fool who lacked enough presence of mind to confer a valid sacrament.
Both groups are wrong. On one hand, while Abp. Thuc did say the traditional Mass, he was hardly another Athanasius. His actions and his statements on the situation in the Church were, like Abp. Lefebvre’s, often contradictory and mystifying. And like Abp. Lefebvre, he too apparently accepted a deal with the Vatican and later changed his mind. On the other hand, theological zig-zagging and errors of practical judgement prove only that a given archbishop (take your pick) is human and fallible. They do not prove that he’s lost the tiny mental minimum which the Church says makes his sacraments valid.
But we’ve digressed a bit. Our purpose here is not to review the ins and outs of Abp. Thuc’s career. Rather, we want to determine whether or not the six Thuc bishops in the U.S. are validly-consecrated bishops — that is, whether or not they possess the sacramental power possessed by all Catholic bishops to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, to ordain priests who are real priests, and to consecrate other bishops who are real bishops.
This sacramental power, called the Apostolic Succession, passes from one Catholic bishop to all the bishops he consecrates. They in turn pass this sacramental power on to all the bishops they consecrate, and so on.
To pursue our inquiry, therefore, we must look to the episcopal consecrations of the two prelates to whom the six Thuc bishops in the U.S. trace their consecrations: Bps. Guérard and Carmona. If the episcopal consecrations of the latter two must be regarded as valid, then the line of orders which proceeds from them is likewise valid.
Now, as we shall demonstrate below, the pertinent facts and the pronouncements of popes, canonists (canon law experts) and Catholic moral theologians all lead to one unavoidable conclusion: we are obliged to regard as valid the episcopal consecrations Abp. P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc conferred on M.L. Guérard des Lauriers and Moises Carmona Rivera.
Since the consecrations of Bps. Guérard and Carmona were valid, we are likewise obliged to regard as valid the line of orders which proceeds from them, and thus to hold that the priests ordained in this line are truly priests and that the bishops consecrated in this line are truly bishops.

I. SOME NOTES ON THE INVESTIGATION
In 1982 two Americans made their debuts as Thuc bishops in the U.S. The circuмstances surrounding their appearance, put mildly, did not bode well for the future.
One of them was a priest then relatively new to the traditional movement, and the details of how or why he had been selected for episcopal consecration were never entirely clear. The other all but jumped through hoops pursuing his miter. As a priest in February 1982, he boasted of his support for John Paul II. Shortly thereafter, word of the Thuc bishops and their hard line against John Paul II began to spread. In June he embraced the sedevacantist position. In August the other American consecrated him a bishop.
Thereafter, the two bishops cranked out denunciations, split several chapels, issued “excommunications,” pretended to set up dioceses, and otherwise pursued the sort of follow-me-or-die program so endemic among traditional clergy.
In January 1983 I published a lengthy article exposing these goings-on, together with a warts-and-all portrait of Abp. Thuc. I did not examine the issue of whether the consecrations were valid, but noted that “further research would be needed to ascertain what theologians and canonists consider sufficient evidence for validity in such a case.”[2]
Absent such research, I was personally inclined to view the consecrations as doubtful. So too my fellow priests in the Northeast. Moreover, even after we had been expelled from the Society of St. Pius X in April 1983, the activities of the two American Thuc bishops rendered the idea of cooperating with them morally impossible. And there the matter rested for about two years.
In 1985 one of my confréres, the Rev. Donald J. Sanborn, suggested that our group approach Don Antonio de Castro-Mayer, the retired Bishop of Campos, Brazil, to see if he’d be willing to ordain priests for us, or at least offer some advice. This prelate had taken a strong stand against the New Mass, and his position on John Paul II was said to be much harder than Abp. Lefebvre’s.
Father Sanborn visited Campos in April 1985 and spoke at great length with Bp. Mayer. The bishop, it turned out, confined his apostolate to Brazil.
When Father Sanborn broached the topic of who could ordain priests for us, Bp. Mayer said: “Go to Guérard!”
Father Sanborn said that he doubted the validity of Bp. Guérard’s episcopal consecration. The bishop replied: “If it’s valid for Guérard, it’s valid for me.” Father Sanborn explained some of his hesitations. Bp. Mayer answered: “Guérard is the most qualified person in the world to determine if the consecration was valid.”
On his return, Father Sanborn suggested that some of us research the principles moral theologians employ to determine whether an episcopal consecration is valid. Since I was skeptical of the consecrations, I volunteered to work along with him.
The investigation turned out to be a formidable task. Since 1985 Father Sanborn and I have spent between us at least a thousand hours on research, much of it in the theology and canon law sections of Catholic university and seminary libraries throughout the U.S.[3]
The conclusion which began to emerge was, I admit, contrary to my initial expectation. There are no “special” or “extra” proofs which must be made before one can say that an episcopal consecration is valid. Canonists and theologians treat a consecration as they would any other sacrament. Once it’s been performed, it’s regarded as valid, and the “burden of proof” (if any) rests on those who attack its validity.
At a September 1988 priests’ meeting, Father Sanborn distributed a brief internal report to the priests on the theological principles to be applied. Father concluded that we had to regard the consecrations as valid.
Overall, I found the report convincing. In particular, Father’s comments corresponded with what I had uncovered in Pope Leo XIII’s Bull Apostolicae Curae.
A heated discussion ensued. Later that day, I spoke with the Rev. Clarence Kelly, the head of our organization. I mentioned that Leo XIII’s pronouncement seemed to demolish my objections to the validity of the consecrations — and his as well. He replied: “We can’t say that the consecrations [of the Thuc bishops] are valid — or some of our priests will want to get involved with them.”
At this point I concluded that the arguments against the validity of the consecrations might be based on something other than objective norms of sacramental theology.
After I left the Society of St. Pius V in July 1989, Father Sanborn and I continued to compare notes on our research. What follows is the product of our collaborative efforts. The lion’s share of credit belongs to Father Sanborn, who tracked down theological sources and papal decrees with fierce determination.

II. THE FACT OF THE CONSECRATIONS.
We begin our inquiry by asking two simple questions:
• On 7 May 1981 in Toulon, France, did Abp. Thuc perform the rite of episcopal consecration for Guérard des Lauriers using the traditional Catholic rite?
• On 17 October 1981 in Toulon, France, did Abp. Thuc perform the rite of episcopal consecration for Moises Carmona using the traditional Catholic rite?
The answer to both questions is yes.
But note that we’ve used a clumsy phrase. We’ve asked if Abp. Thuc performed the rite of episcopal consecration for two people, rather than asking if he consecrated them. Why?
To call attention to an important distinction between two things:
• The fact of a sacrament — i.e., did a ceremony take place? and
• The validity of a sacrament — i.e., did the ceremony work?
Catholic canonists and moralists such as Fathers Cappello,[4] Davis,[5] Noldin,[6] Wanenmacher,[7] and Ayrinhac[8] take such a distinction for granted. So, too, do Church tribunals convened to rule on the validity of a marriage[9] or an ordination.[10] Facts first, validity later.
In this section, therefore, we will not address the issue of validity (Did the consecrations work?), but merely the issue of fact (Did the ceremony take place; did Abp. Thuc perform the rite?)
Clearly, the Thuc consecrations took place. But since a few traditional priests have claimed that fact of the consecrations is not “proven” or “certain,” or can’t be “acknowledged,” we’ll take a few moments to prove the obvious.
A. Legal Limbo
When things were normal in the Church, it was easy to ascertain the fact that an episcopal consecration took place. You went to someone with authority. He looked up the particulars in an official register. If an authorized church official had duly recorded the consecration in the register, church law regarded it as a fact — “proven” in the eyes of church law. The same goes for baptisms, confirmations and priestly ordinations.
If these official registers were lost or accidentally destroyed, you took another route. You brought the evidence to someone with authority — a diocesan bishop or a judge in a Vatican tribunal, say. The official examined the evidence and issued a decree stating that so-and-so had received the sacrament.
These officials enjoyed a legal power called ordinary jurisdiction — authority, deriving ultimately from the pope, to command, make laws, punish and judge. Part of that authority consisted in the power to establish in the eyes of church law the fact that a given sacramental act took place — to function as a sacramental counterpart to the Registrar of Deeds.
In both cases — that of either official registers or hierarchical decrees — someone with ordinary jurisdiction was exercising his power. He judged he had sufficient legal evidence that, say, a particular ordination had been performed. He entered it into the official register, or issued a decree. The fact of the ordination was then established before the law.
In contrast to this, consider my own ordination. It’s a fact that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained me to the priesthood in Ecône, Switzerland on 29 June 1977. But that fact has not been legally established. It’s not recorded in the ordination register of the Diocese of Sion, as church law would require. Should normalcy return to the Church in my lifetime, I’d go to someone with ordinary jurisdiction. He would then rule on the evidence and issue a decree which would legally establish the fact of my ordination.
Where does this leave the fact of the Thuc consecrations? In the same place it leaves my ordination, the Lefebvre consecrations and all sacraments traditional Catholic clergy confer: in a sort of legal limbo. Since no one in the traditional movement possesses ordinary jurisdiction, no one has the power to rule on the legal evidence that a particular sacrament was performed and then establish it as a fact before church law. That’s a function of church officials who have received their authority from a pope.
Nevertheless, we traditional Catholics can and do establish the fact that we have conferred or received sacraments. The means we use is moral certitude, a simple concept we’ll apply to the Thuc consecrations, just as we do to any other sacrament.
B. Docuмentation
Unlike the Lefebvre consecrations in 1988, the Thuc consecrations received little or no publicity in the United States. Nevertheless, it’s easy to docuмent the fact that the ceremonies took place. Here are some sources:
• Published photographs of Bp. Guérard’s 7 May 1981 consecration.[11]
• Published photographs of Bp. Carmona’s and Bp. Adolfo Zamora’s 17 October 1981 consecration.[12]
• Accompanying captions stating that Abp. Thuc performed the consecrations according to The Roman Pontifical (1908 edition).[13]
• A February 1988 interview, conducted under oath, with Dr. Kurt Hiller, who was present at both consecrations and who held the ritual book (The Roman Pontifical) for Abp. Thuc as he performed the rite of consecration.[14]
• A sworn affidavit of Dr. Eberhard Heller, who was also present at both consecrations, attesting that Bps. Guérard, Carmona and Zamora were consecrated bishops by Abp. Thuc and that “The consecrations followed The Roman Pontifical (Rome: 1908).”[15]
• A letter from Josef Cardinal Ratzinger to Abp. Thuc, which speaks of the Vatican’s “well-founded inquiry” into the consecrations, and which specifically notes that Abp. Thuc consecrated Guérard, Carmona and Zamora.[16]
• A 1983 Vatican statement which mentions by name those who were consecrated, and (as one would expect) denounces the consecrations.[17]
• A published letter of Abp. Thuc, dated 11 July 1984, in which he acknowledges that he conferred the episcopate in 1981 on “several priests, namely Revs. M.L. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., Moses Carmona, and Adolfo Zamora.”[18]
• A published interview with Bp. Guérard in which he attests that Abp. Thuc consecrated him on 7 May 1981, that “the consecration was valid,” that “the traditional rite was followed integrally (except for the reading of a Roman mandate),” and that “Abp. Thuc and I had the intention to do what the Church does.”[19]
• An interview with Bp. Guérard where he again affirmed he had been consecrated on 7 May 1981, and that the rite was followed integrally.[20]
• An interview with the Rev. Noël Barbara, conducted under oath, in which Father Barbara stated that he visited Abp. Thuc in 1982, and that Abp. Thuc then acknowledged that he did, in fact, consecrate Bps. Guérard and Carmona.[21]
All these sources, of course, agree on the key issue: the fact that Abp. Thuc performed the rite of episcopal consecration for M.L. Guérard des Lauriers on 7 May 1981, and again for Moises Carmona and Adolpho Zamora on 17 October 1981.
The statements of Dr. Heller, Dr. Hiller, Bp. Guérard and the photo captions (written by Dr. Heller), moreover, are in accord on another key issue: the fact that Abp. Thuc used the traditional rite to perform the consecrations.
C. An Established Fact
Faced with this docuмentation, the reader sensibly concludes that it is a fact that Abp. Thuc performed these consecrations and a fact that he used the traditional Catholic rite. Why? The docuмentation all points to the same basic facts. The parties involved never changed their stories on these facts. It “rings true.”
The “sound of truth” we hear, when considering facts about this or any other matter, results from moral certitude, a common-sense standard we employ all the time.
Catholic moral theologians say that moral certitude occurs when we realize it’s impossible for us to be wrong about a particular fact, since the opposite of that fact is so unlikely that we know it would be imprudent to believe it.[22] It therefore involves considering the opposite of something to see how likely it is.
An example* will help here: I didn’t see Elvis Presley die. But his wife, the doctor, the sheriff and the undertaker all say he died. I then consider the opposite: that Elvis lives and stalks the aisles of my supermarket. But that would mean that the four people who saw his dead body and who say he’s dead are all liars, involved in a massive conspiracy. This is all so unlikely that I couldn’t possibly believe it. I’ve therefore arrived at moral certitude about a fact: Elvis — “The King”— is indeed dead.
To arrive at moral certitude about the Thuc consecrations, therefore, we consider whether the opposite of the evidence we have is likely enough to be believable: i.e., that Abp. Thuc did not perform either Bp. Guérard’s or Bp. Carmona’s consecration, or that, if he did, he did not use the traditional rite.
This presupposes scenarios like the following: (1) That Abp. Thuc, Bp. Guérard, Bp. Carmona, Bishop Zamora (now deceased), and two arch-sedevacantist laymen lied, faked photos on two occasions, committed perjury in two instances, and engaged in a complex and well-orchestrated conspiracy. (2) That the six different people most directly involved were completely mistaken about the fact that two episcopal consecrations took place. (3) That Guérard, Carmona and Zamora subsequently conferred ordinations and episcopal consecrations they knew were null and void. (4) That Guérard, Carmona and Zamora, aided and abetted by Drs. Hiller and Heller, allowed Abp. Thuc to consecrate them bishops with some rite other than the traditional Catholic rite. (5) That the persons involved with the consecrations also deceived Vatican officials about the event, or got the Vatican to participate in the conspiracy.
These scenarios, obviously, are preposterous and absurd, and no evidence whatsoever exists to support them. But they’re the only kind of theories someone can put forward if he wants to say that we have no moral certitude about the fact of the Thuc consecrations. And if someone finds these alternatives believable or likely, all I can tell him is: Keep your eyes open in the supermarket.
This leaves us with moral certitude about the fact of the Thuc consecrations, certitude “which excludes all fear of error and every serious or prudent doubt.”[23] This is all that theologians require for any sacrament. Since we have no serious or prudent ground to doubt that the consecrations took place and that the old rite was used, we must regard both occurrences as established facts.

III. THE VALIDITY OF THE CONSECRATIONS
We now turn to the question which occasioned this study:
• Are we obliged to regard the Thuc consecrations as valid — i.e, as having worked?
Based on the principles church law and moral theology apply to all the sacraments, we are obliged to answer yes.
To understand why, we have but to recall how little is required to perform a valid episcopal consecration, and how church law and moral theologians consider those requirements as met in a given case, unless there is positive evidence to the contrary.
A. A Recipe for Validity
Among the many beautiful ceremonies of the Catholic Church, the Rite of Episcopal Consecration is surely the most splendid and the most complex. It takes place on the feast of an Apostle, usually before a large gathering of the faithful. In its most solemn form, the bishop who performs the rite is assisted by two other bishops (called “Co-Consecrators”), 11 priests, 20 servers and 3 Masters of Ceremonies.[24] To perform an episcopal consecration observing all the elaborate ceremonial directions takes about four hours.
On the other hand, to perform an episcopal consecration validly takes about 15 seconds.
This is about the length of time it takes a bishop to impose his hands on a priest’s head and recite the 16-word formula the Church requires for validity.
The foregoing may startle the lay reader. But the case is akin to something we all learned in catechism class. All you need to baptize someone validly is ordinary water and the short formula (I baptize thee, etc.). It was so simple that even a Moslem or a Jew could get it right if someone really wanted to be baptized. And once the water was poured and the short formula was recited, you’d be just as validly baptized, and just as much a Christian as if the pope himself had done it in St. Peter’s Basilica.
The recipe the Church lays down for a valid episcopal consecration is equally simple. Other than a validly-consecrated bishop to perform the rite and a validly-ordained priest who intends to receive consecration, there are just three ingredients essential for validity:
(1) The imposition of hands by the consecrating bishop (technically called the matter of the sacrament).
(2) The essential 16-word formula recited by the consecrating bishop (technically called the form of the sacrament).[25]
(3) A minimal intention on the consecrating bishop’s part “to do what the Church does” (called ministerial intention).
Though all the ceremonies prescribed in the rite should be observed, the three foregoing elements are all that is required for an episcopal consecration to be valid.
B. Burden of Disproof
Once you’re certain of the fact that a real bishop performed a consecration using a Catholic rite, is it then necessary to prove positively that the bishop did not omit one of these essential elements during the ceremony?
No. The mere fact that a bishop used a Catholic rite is of itself sufficient evidence for validity, which thereafter requires no further proof. Validity becomes a “given,” which can only be disproved. And this can only be achieved by demonstrating that one of the ingredients essential to validity was either absent (or probably absent) when the ceremony was performed.
This applies to all the sacraments and is evident from:
1. Ordinary Pastoral Practice. Day-to-day sacramental record-keeping takes for granted that the minister of a sacrament fulfilled the essential requirements for validity. Official baptismal and ordination registers say nothing whatsoever about technical terms such as “matter,” “form” or “ministerial intention.” And sacramental certificates merely state that so-and-so received a sacrament “with all necessary and fitting ceremonies and solemnities,” or simply “according to the rite of the Holy Roman Church.” They say nothing more, because church law requires nothing more. Such sacraments are regarded as valid without further proof.
2. Canonists. Canonists speak of “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.”[26] It is applied to the sacraments in the following way: If someone goes before a church court to challenge the validity of a Catholic baptism,[27] marriage[28] or ordination,[29] the burden of proof is on him. He must show that something essential was lacking when the sacrament was conferred.
3. Church Law and Moral Theology. These sources forbid readministering a sacrament conditionally unless there is a “prudent” or “positive” doubt about validity. (See IV.A below.) As an example of a doubt which would not fall into this category, the Dominican moral theologian Fanfani speaks of a priest who does not recall whether he recited the essential sacramental formula. “He should repeat nothing,” says Fanfani. “Indeed, he sins if he does so — for everything that is done must be supposed to have been done correctly, unless the contrary is positively established.”[30] That the essential parts of the rite were performed is once again simply taken for granted.
The canonist Gasparri (later a cardinal and compiler of the 1917 Code of Canon Law) offers a general principle: “…an act, especially one as solemn as an ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated.”[31]
4. Even Unusual Cases. Canonists and moralists even extend these principles to cases where someone other than the usual Catholic minister employs a Catholic rite to confer a sacrament. If a midwife who says she performed an emergency baptism is serious, trustworthy and instructed in how to perform baptisms, says the theologian Merkelbach, “there is no reason to doubt seriously the validity of a baptism.”[32]
Finally, so strongly does the Church hold for the validity of a sacrament administered according to a Catholic rite, that she extends the principle not only to Catholic clergymen, but also even to schismatics. Thus ordinations and episcopal consecrations received from Orthodox bishops, and from Old Catholic bishops in Holland, Germany and Switzerland “are to be regarded as valid, unless in a particular case an essential defect were to be admitted.”[33]
The foregoing, of course, reflects the Church’s reasonableness. She doesn’t ask us to disprove convoluted negative accusations — “Prove positively to me that you did not omit to do what you were supposed to do to make the sacrament valid.” Otherwise, hordes of specially-qualified witnesses would have to be trained to do an independent validity check each time a priest conferred a sacrament.
It is easy to see, therefore, why a sacrament administered with a Catholic rite must be regarded as valid till the contrary is positively established.
C. Validity
The requirements for a valid episcopal consecration, then, are minimal. And when a Catholic rite is employed for this or any other sacrament, ordinary pastoral practice, canonists, church law and moral theologians require no further proof for a sacrament’s validity — even when it is administered by a midwife or a schismatic. Validity, rather must be disproved.
When we turn to consider the consecrations of Bp. Guérard and Bp. Carmona, three key facts are absolutely certain:
(1) Abp. Thuc was a validly-consecrated bishop.
(2) He performed the rite of episcopal consecration for Bp. Guérard on 7 May 1981 and for Bp. Carmona on 17 October 1981.
(3) Abp. Thuc employed a Catholic rite for both consecrations.
We have a validly-consecrated bishop. He performed the rite of episcopal consecration. He used a Catholic rite. No further proof is needed. Therefore:
We are obliged to regard the episcopal consecrations Abp. P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc conferred on M.L. Guérard des Lauriers and Moises Carmona Rivera as valid.
IV. DUBIOUS OBJECTIONS
As noted above, Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer accepted the validity of Bp. Guérard’s consecration. Likewise the Papal Nuncio to the U.S., Archbishop Pio Laghi. While condemning Guérard’s consecration as “illicit,” he too acknowledged that it was “valid.”[34] A query to either prelate about Bp. Carmona’s consecration presumably would have prompted similar responses.
Although churchmen as far apart theologically as the traditionalist prelate of Campos and John Paul II’s official representative in the U.S. can agree on the validity of the consecrations, a few traditional Catholic priests remained wary. Some honestly found certain issues puzzling. Others aggressively denounced the validity of the consecrations as “doubtful.”
We’ll deal with the latter group here. Each of their objections has been based on one of two things: (A) A gratuitous assertion which theologians would characterize as a “negative doubt,” which as such cannot be employed to impugn the validity of a sacrament. (B) A supposed “requirement” of church law or moral theology which turned out to have been invented by the objectors.
A. “Negative” Doubts
The only way a sacrament can truly be said to be doubtful is if you establish a positive (or prudent) doubt about its validity. A doubt is positive when it possesses a basis which is clearly objective and firmly rooted in reality. In the case of a sacrament, it must be founded on solid evidence that something essential to validity was probably omitted.
To establish a positive doubt about the validity of the Thuc consecrations, therefore, you’d have to prove that, when the rite was performed, a substantial defect either did occur or probably occurred in one of the following essential elements:
• The imposition of hands.
• The essential 16-word formula.
• The minimal intention of the bishop “to do what the Church does.”
Now no one who was present at the Thuc consecrations has ever said one of these defects occurred.
Absent any evidence whatsoever for such a defect, the objectors raise personal speculations, musings, conjectures, hypotheses and — a favorite device — rhetorical questions about what may or may not, or possibly could or could not, have occurred during the “essential 15 seconds” of the consecration.
The chief characteristic of such objections, however, is that they are subjective — i.e., rooted not in a knowledge of what occurred during the rite, but in the objector’s lack of personal knowledge of what occurred. Such objections are what moral theologians call negative (or imprudent) doubts. And negative doubts don’t render a sacrament “doubtful.”
We’ll limit ourselves to a few of the more frequently-repeated negative doubts.
Objection 1. What if something essential were omitted and we don’t know about it? Wouldn’t it be terrible? Shouldn’t we want to be really sure? Isn’t it prudent to wonder? Isn’t it prudent to doubt? Don’t we need more proof? etc.
Here we see a whole herd of negative doubts thundering along at full gallop. Observe how the procedure works: Lots of questions. Oodles of dark hints. But no pertinent and verifiable facts. And no underlying principle drawn from canon law or moral theology.
The response is simple: Catholic canonists, moral theologians and popes have told us what makes the validity of a sacrament morally certain. These are the prescriptions we must follow. We are engaged in making up our own religion when we pretend we can ask for more.
Objection 2. I question whether Abp. Thuc “intended to do what the Church does,” so the consecrations must be considered doubtful.
• A priest or bishop who confers a sacrament doesn’t have to “prove” that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means. This is certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church. And to deny it is “theologically rash.”[35] Leo XIII specifically confirmed the principle with regard to Holy Orders when he said that someone who seriously and correctly uses the matter and form “is for that very reason deemed to have intended to do what the Church does.”[36]
We quoted above the canonist Gasparri’s statement that an ordination must be regarded as valid till invalidity is demonstrated. He also says that a bishop who confers Holy Orders is never presumed to have the intention of not ordaining someone as long as the contrary is not proved. For no one should be presumed to be evil, he adds, unless he is proven as such.[37]
Attacking Abp. Thuc’s ministerial intention, therefore, is impermissible.
• The mere attempt to do so, moreover, betrays an epic spirit of presumption. Investigating and trying cases where ordinations are impugned for lack of intention was the job of a Vatican court called the Holy Office. The pope himself then specifically confirmed the court’s decision.
Floating traditional clergy, therefore, have neither the right nor the authority to attack the ministerial intention of a validly-consecrated Catholic archbishop. The very idea is silly.
Objection 3. I think Abp. Thuc was insane or senile, so the consecrations must be considered doubtful.
This is a variant of Objection 2, since it attacks Abp. Thuc’s ministerial intention. From what we’ve said above, it’s likewise impermissible.
The objectors, please note, produced not even one witness or docuмent to support their charge that Abp. Thuc was “insane” or “senile” when the consecrations took place. Merely by raising this issue, of course, they hint that there might be a factual basis for it: Prove he was not insane or senile. It’s like saying: Prove you don’t beat your wife.
• The minimum “level” of intention required to confer a sacrament validly is virtual intention. A lengthy discussion of this technical concept isn’t possible here. All we need say is that virtual intention guarantees that a sacrament is valid, even if the priest or bishop is internally distracted before and during the whole sacramental rite.
Virtual intention, says the theologian Coronata, “is certainly present in someone who regularly performs sacramental actions.”[38] The mere act of putting on vestments and going to the altar is considered sufficient evidence for virtual intention.
Abp. Thuc celebrated the traditional Mass regularly before and after the consecrations — and very devoutly, said one of my lay friends who once witnessed him do so. It’s ridiculous to imply that, when he vested and performed the three-hour-long episcopal consecrations, Abp. Thuc suddenly couldn’t manage the bare minimum of a virtual intention.
• Those who actually knew him dismiss these accusations anyway. Dr. Eberhard Heller, who was present at both consecrations, attested under oath that Abp. Thuc “conferred the consecrations in full possession of his intellectual powers.”[39] Bp. Guérard likewise stated Abp. Thuc was of “sound mind,” “perfectly lucid,”[40] and “had the intention to do what the Church does.”[41] The Rev. Thomas Fouhy, a traditional priest from New Zealand, spent two days in Toulon, France with Abp. Thuc in 1983. The archbishop, Father Fouhy related, was “nobody’s fool,” and discussed with competence various issues in theology and canon law. He even regaled Father Fouhy with details about his trip to New Zealand in 1963. Father Fouhy added that there was no doubt that Abp. Thuc was competent.[42]
So too, even the Archbishop’s enemies in the traditional movement. The Revs. Noël Barbara and Gustave Dalmasure visited Abp. Thuc separately in January 1982. Both opposed the consecrations and are still critical of Abp. Thuc. But both still attest that he was in perfect possession of his faculties.
Father Barbara says that the validity of the consecrations is beyond question. He believes the Conciliar Church started the rumor attacking Abp. Thuc’s sanity.[43]
• I received photocopies of four docuмents written in Abp. Thuc’s own hand. All originated after the consecrations. His handwriting is clear, firm and more legible than my own. The docuмents are clearly the work of a man who is coherent and whose competency to confer a valid sacrament is unassailable.
One docuмent is a 30 July 1982 letter to Bp. Guérard forwarding some correspondence. Two are declarations: one, that he broke off connections with the Palmar de Troya group,[44] the other, declaring his position on the vacancy of the Holy See.[45]
The last docuмent is a 1982 letter (in Latin) responding to an inquiry from Bp. Guérard. Several months after his consecration, Bp. Guérard heard that Abp. Thuc had once previously concelebrated the Novus Ordo on Holy Thursday, 1981 with the Bishop of Toulon. The Archbishop admits it was true — but closes with this touching phrase: “I hope that God has not judged me so cruelly, for I erred in good faith.”[46]
A man who could write such a statement clearly had all his wits about him.
• We therefore draw the appropriate conclusion: Catholic teaching forbids assaults on Abp. Thuc’s sacramental intention. And, in light of statements from the Archbishop and those who knew him, Catholic moral principles dictate that one cease repeating the baseless calumny that he was incapable of conferring a valid sacrament.
B. Non-Existent “Requirements”
Time and again as we pursued our research, those who objected to the Thuc consecrations told Father Sanborn and me that “the Church requires” X or Y for an episcopal consecration to be considered valid, that the consecrations didn’t meet the requirement, and that they were therefore “doubtful.”
Most of these objections were somehow linked to the fact that, apart from Abp. Thuc and the bishops-to-be, only two laymen were present at the ceremonies.
Each time we’d eventually discover that the supposed “requirement” originated not with the Church, but merely with the objectors. Here is a sampler:
Objection 1.Without a signed certificate, an episcopal consecration is doubtful.
• There is no church law which says that failure to issue a certificate automatically renders an episcopal consecration doubtful. Moral certitude about the fact a sacrament took place is all that’s required to regard it as valid. (See II.A,C above.)
• In any case, the diocesan ordination register, and not the certificate from the consecrating bishop, is the official record of an episcopal consecration.
Objection 2. The consecrations were a “secret” fact, rather than a “notorious” fact. The burden of proof for a secret fact rests on those who assert it, and since that burden of proof has not been met, the consecrations are doubtful.
This objection is pure mumbo-jumbo.
• Nowhere does church law say that an episcopal consecration performed with only two laymen present is a “secret” fact or that such a consecration is doubtful. The objectors made the rule up.
• Two witnesses suffice to make an act legally “public” under church law anyway. Marriage by its nature, for instance, is always considered a public sacrament. But it can be contracted behind closed doors (to avoid embarrassment, say) in front of two witnesses. Their presence makes it legally “public,” even though the fact that the sacrament took place is not broadcast far and wide.
• The references to “secret” and “notorious” facts are drawn from rules of evidence in canon law which apply only when two adverse parties are fighting out a lawsuit, Perry Mason-style, before an ecclesiastical judge in a church trial.
Obviously, the court’s not in session. It won’t be in session till the hierarchy of the Church is restored. The court’s power to rule on evidence, meanwhile, hasn’t passed by default to the objectors.
And even if the court were in session, the objectors would be thrown out of the courtroom: Under church law, only three classes of people can challenge the validity of an ordination or consecration.[47] All other persons, says the canonist Cappello, lack the right to accuse.[48]
Objection 3. Without “qualified witnesses” an episcopal consecration is doubtful.
• No church law prescribes that witnesses, qualified or otherwise, must be present at an episcopal consecration — still less, that a consecration is doubtful without them. Again, the objectors fabricated a requirement out of thin air.
Objection 4. Without at least two priests present to attest that it was performed validly, an episcopal consecration is doubtful.
This “requirement” doesn’t exist, and is directly contradicted by acts authorized by the Holy See.
• The function of the priest-assistants is not, as the objectors seem to think, to attest to the validity of a consecration. Pope Benedict XIV says clearly that the reason for the priest-assistants is to add solemnity to the liturgical act and to carry out the prescriptions of the rites.[49]
• In mission countries, episcopal consecrations were often performed without priest-assistants.[50] The practice was sanctioned by Pope Alexander VII,[51] Pope Clement X[52] and Pope Pius VI.[53] Pius VI’s brief, in fact, was addressed to bishops in what was then called Tonkin and Cochin China — the part of Vietnam where Abp. Thuc’s dioceses were located.
• The Church did not merely allow episcopal consecrations to be performed without two priest-assistants, but in some cases specifically ordered it. In one case, Rome ordered that an episcopal consecration not only be performed secretly and without assistants, but even under the seal of confession.[54]
In a more recent case, Pope Pius XI in 1926 ordered that the Papal Nuncio to Germany perform a secret episcopal consecration without anyone present. The Nuncio was Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, later, of course, Pope Pius XII. Pacelli petitioned Rome that he be allowed to have at least one priest present — not, please note, to serve as a “witness,” but merely so the Cardinal could have someone to hold the Missal on the new bishop’s shoulders as prescribed while the Preface was recited.[55]
• Pius XI sent the bishop whom Pacelli consecrated, Mgr. d’Herbigny, into Russia in order to consecrate bishops secretly. He conducted the first such consecration on 21 April 1926 for a certain Father Neveu. The consecration took place without priest-assistants and in the presence of two laymen — circuмstances identical to those of the Thuc consecrations. Mgr. d’Herbigny issued no certificate.[56]
The Church, obviously, would not allow — still less command — a bishop to perform an episcopal consecration without priest-assistants if such were “doubtful.” It is impossible, therefore, to maintain that the Thuc consecrations are “doubtful” on such grounds.
Objection 5. Without a papal dispensation, an episcopal consecration performed without two priest-assistants is doubtful.
• Once again, no law or canonist supports this.
• The teachings of the canonists directly contradict it. Bouix says flatly: “Even if there should be a consecration without any assistants and without obtaining a pontifical dispensation, it would still be valid.”[57] Regatillo, writing in a 1953 work, goes even further. He says that a consecration performed without a dispensation would be valid even if the bishop “is the only one who is present at the consecration.”[58]
• Pope Alexander VII,[59] Pope Clement XI and Pope Benedict XIV declared that consecrations performed without such a dispensation are valid.[60]
conclusions
Traditional Catholics, long accustomed to controversies where the virtue or wickedness of persons or organizations stands at center stage, may find all the foregoing dry and bland. We’ve spent no time at all arguing over the personal qualities of the parties involved — whether or not Thuc, Guérard or Carmona were virtuous, wise, prudent, logical, consistent or theologically perspicacious.
Such discussions have no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether or not a sacrament is valid. They concern what theologians call the probity of the minister. And it is a truth of the Catholic faith that the valid administration of a sacrament does not depend on a priest or bishop’s probity.[61]
The issue of whether the Thuc consecrations were valid, therefore, boils down to a few dry principles and a handful of facts:
(1) All that is required to perform an episcopal consecration validly is an imposition of hands, a 16-word formula and the minimal intention “to do what the Church does.”
(2) Once you establish the fact that a validly-consecrated bishop performed an episcopal consecration using a Catholic rite, the essential elements are taken for granted. The validity of the consecration requires no further proof; rather, it can only be disproved — and the burden of disproof is on the accuser. This is evident from ordinary pastoral practice, canonists, church law and moral theology. The principle is extended even to episcopal consecrations performed by schismatics.
(3) Three essential facts are beyond dispute: (a) Abp. Thuc was a validly-consecrated bishop. (b) He performed the rite of episcopal consecration for Bp. Guérard on 7 May 1981 and for Bp. Carmona on 17 October 1981. (c) Abp. Thuc employed a Catholic rite for both consecrations.
We have a validly-consecrated bishop. He performed episcopal consecrations. He used a Catholic rite. We are obliged, therefore, to regard the episcopal consecrations Abp. P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc conferred on M.L. Guérard des Lauriers and Moises Carmona Rivera as valid.
Since these consecrations were valid, we are likewise obliged to regard the Thuc bishops in the U.S. as validly-consecrated bishops who possess the sacramental power to confirm, to ordain, and to consecrate bishops.
(Sacerdotium 3, Spring 1992)

Bibliography
Acta Apostolicae Sedis.Periodical. Rome.
Alexander VII Pope. Brief Alias, 27 February 1660.
Alexander VII, Pope. Brief Onerosa, 4 February 1663.
Ayrinhac, H.A. Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law. New York: Longmans 1928.
Benedict XIV, Pope. De Synodo Diocesana. In Operum Editio Novissima. Prado: Aldina 1844. Volume 10.
Beste, Udalricus OSB. Introductio In Codicem. Collegeville: St. John’s 1946.
Bouix, D. Tractatus de Episcopo. Paris: Ruffet 1873.
Cappello, Felix M. SJ. Tractatus Canonico-Moralis De Sacramentis. Rome: Marietti 1961.
Clement X Pope. Brief Decet Romanum, 23 December 1673.
Code of Canon Law.Vatican: 1917.
Collectanea de Propaganda Fide. Periodical. Rome.
Conte a Coronata, Mathaeus OMC. De Sacramentis: Tractatus Canonicus. Turin: Marietti 1943.
Davis, Henry SJ. Moral and Pastoral Theology. New York: Sheed and Ward 1943.
Einsicht. Periodical. Munich.
Fanfani, Ludovicus OP. Manuale Theorico-practicuм Theologiae Moralis. Rome: Ferrari 1949.
Fortes dans la Foi. Periodical. Tours (France).
Gasparri, Petro. Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione. Paris: Delhomme 1893.
Leemi

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc (Read 5384 times)

Persto

Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc

Persto

Re: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc