https://pelagiusasturiensis.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/ricossa-do-tc/#more-4879400+ Bishops?Some Remarks on the Accusations Against Bishop Thucby Pelagius AsturiensisEpiscopalis_consecratio_dominicani_guerard_des_lauriers_in_domo_thucBishop Thuc Conferring Episcopal Consecration on One of the Most Eminent Theologians of the 20th Century, Father Guerard des LauriersThe following text is a translation of the last two footnotes of a fascinating article from the journal "Sodalitium," which constitutes a response by Father Francis Ricossa, superior of the Institute of Our Lady of Good Counsel and editor-in-chief of the aforementioned journal, to the dossier of "La Tradizione Cattolica" (FSSPX) against sedevacantism (hence the abbreviation for "TC" in the text, which stands for the name of the journal with which the author disputes). The article responds to various false accusations and hypocrisies of the Lefebvrist journal and elaborates on some of the more important themes. The footnotes I am presenting to the readers of this blog concern only the figure of His Excellency Bishop Piotr Marcin Ngo Dinh Thuc, whose death anniversary we commemorate today.Requiescat in pace.And let this text serve the cause of justice in mutual polemics.Pelagius of Asturias90) Although this goes beyond the topic, it seems appropriate to provide some response, at least as a footnote, to what TC writes about the ordinances performed by Bishop Thuc without a Roman mandate. On pp. 44-45, TC publishes a non-exhaustive list of ordinances that trace their origin (sometimes even distant) to Bishop Thuc; this list contains approximately 43 names, 10 of which are direct episcopal ordinances of Bishop Thuc. In this matter, I believe that the consecrations attributable to Bishop Thuc concern only three acts performed by him: the consecration of January 12, 1976, in Palmar de Troya (five bishops), that in Toulon on May 7, 1981 (Bishop Guérard des Lauriers), and that in Toulon on October 17, 1981 (Bishop Zamora and Bishop Carmona). However, we must exclude the presumed and by no means fully proven consecrations of Laborie and Datessen (identified, but erroneously, by TC on p. 47 as the leader of the Union of Small Churches); Bishop Thuc never officially recognized the aforementioned consecrations, which, in any case, were only "conditional" consecrations of previously consecrated persons, who therefore did not actually receive the episcopate from him. If this is the case, then 21 "bishops" must be removed from the list published by the Catholic Theological Society, who in reality have nothing to do with Bishop Thuc. Next, the five bishops of Palmar, along with their questionable succession, must be removed, as they have nothing to do with sedevacantism: in Palmar, as in Ecône, people believed in the legitimacy of Paul VI (and it was the professor from Ecône, Canon Rivaz, who convinced Bishop Thuc to go to Palmar). However, the consecrations of Guérard des Lauriers, Zamora, and Carmona were made on the basis of the vacancy (at least formally) of the Holy See, as was publicly announced in 1982, and which John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger understood perfectly well, since in official docuмents they linked the episcopal consecrations in question to the declaration of the vacancy of the See. 91) The Sodalitium does not deny the faults of Bishop Thuc and shares, in part, the judgment of the TC concerning him. However, we remind our opponents of the Gospel parable of the splinter and the beam. The TC reproaches Bishop Thuc with, among other things: a) the consecration in Palmar de Troya; b) the consecration of two "Old Catholics"; c) the fact that among the bishops descended from them there are even Gnostics; d) "the lack of continuity in Thuc's positions"; e) "the diversity of those consecrated"; f) and cites the doubts of some regarding the validity of the consecrations he performed. We respond: medice cura te ipsum. Let us briefly examine the highlighted points. A) For example, the episcopal consecration in Palmar de Troya (in the traditional rite and for the traditional Mass) took place in an "aparitionist" context that can only discredit Bishop Thuc: how could he have believed false visionaries? And yet it happened to Archbishop Lefebvre and even Bishop de Castro Mayer. I do not wish, of course, to deny the faith and authority of these two eminent bishops, but they too had their weaknesses. Bishop de Castro Mayer, for example, followed for many years Professor Pliny Correa de Oliveira, founder of the T.F.P., a man of great culture and profound doctrinal formation, but also an idolatrous guru of his disciples, in an atmosphere of a veritable "sect," which the same bishop later condemned. Archbishop Lefebvre, although skeptical about "apparitions," did not hesitate to believe in the visionaries, even in very important choices: the influence of Clara Ferchaud, Marta Robin, and the "apparitions" in San Damiano – see Tissier, his biographer, who wrote about it (pp. 455, 433, 478). A group of the "most faithful" inhabitants of Valais, the owners of Ecône, believed in the apparitions in San Damiano and the visionary from Fribourg, Eliana Gaille (recently, the Italian district received funds from San Damiano). In Italy, and TC and the author of the article should know perfectly well what happened in Rimini, where the priory of the Brotherhood (SSPX) was founded in agreement with the faithful „Mammy Elvira”, a false visionary, who, however, Archbishop Lefebvre gave his full support. In this case, can it be said that the good done by the priory in Rimini (including several priestly vocations) cannot come from God, because Mamma Elvira was not „the Woman of Providence”? The Brotherhood's aparitionism is not just about the beginnings: Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Brotherhood of St. Pius X, recognized in the work of a certain visionary, a certain Germaine Rossinière (pseudonym) „gift from heaven” and „treasure trove of graces”, a work he officially presented in the Brotherhood's internal bulletin, Cor unum (supplement to No. 60, June 1998). These are just a few examples, among many others, that could be cited…B) Bishop Thuc is accused of having contacts with „Old Catholics”; I myself saw in Ecône a „Old Catholic” bishop readmitted to the Church by Archbishop Lefebvre (which Bishop Thuc did for his part); a priest and monk who abandoned the apostolate (because of French Action), who married, became a Greek schismatic priest, and then returned to the lay state and taught in Ecône, etc.…C) Bishop Thuc is certainly not responsible for the consecrations of certain Guénonians (disciples of the French Gnostic René Guénon – note trans.) who received the episcopate (?) from the bishops (?), claiming that they received their episcopate from him [Bishop Thuc]. And yet Archbishop Lefebvre is undoubtedly responsible for the ordination of many a Guénonean (and therefore Gnostic) priest directly ordained by him, after being warned, before ordination, about a given matter. I am convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre had nothing to do with these doctrines: but he was certainly imprudent in these ordinations.
D) Regarding „the lack of continuity in Thuc's” positions (hesitating between sedevacantism and reconciliation with the Vatican) (TC, p. 47), Archbishop Lefebvre's hesitation between possible sedevacantism, traditionalism and reconciliation with the Vatican is forgotten: it even came to the point that he signed and then withdrew the agreement protocol.
E) Let us move on to „the diversity of the consecrated” (TC, p. 47). Archbishop Lefebvre ordained great priests and, unfortunately, also scandalous priests; in some cases he knew, unfortunately, of the moral shortcomings that determined not to ordain such candidates. However, it was impossible to predict the sad case of a priest who first took the life of John Paul II and then abandoned the priesthood (for more details, please refer to his autobiography). If this poor priest had been ordained by Bishop Thuc, what would not the priests of the Brotherhood have written (and, worse, said)? Wouldn't that be proof of Bishop Thuc's madness? Unfortunately, the bishop who ordained this unfortunate man was Archbishop Lefebvre (and I do not attribute responsibility to him for this, as he could not have predicted the future).
F) Finally, TC insinuates doubts about Bishop Thuc's mental health and the validity of his consecrations. „Reasonable doubt” (p. 47) is based on Bishop Thuc's hesitation, on „the diversity of” his consecrations, on doubts raised by third parties… We saw that the same accusations (although in a different way) could be made against Archbishop Lefebvre, and indeed there were people who denied the validity of his ordination and consecrations. In Sodalitium I rejected this incoherent thesis absolutely. TC should in the same way reject the inconsistent thesis that casts doubt on the validity of the consecrations and ordinations of Bishop Thuc, if only to be consistent with what the Brotherhood itself did in accepting the validity of the priesthood x. Shaeffer, ordained by Bishop Thuc in 1981. When it comes to having an additional priest, Bishop Thuc's ordination is valid; when it comes to discouraging the faithful from receiving confirmation from a bishop who has received the episcopate from Bishop Thuc, then these ordinations and consecrations are invalid or questionable… Where is the coherence and good faith?
Finishing. I do not claim to be better than others, nor that our Institute is error-free and cannot be accused of anything. I do not even wish to compare Archbishop Lefebvre to Bishop Thuc; the predominant role, the highest importance of the French bishop, is obvious; however, the Brotherhood cannot emphasize only what gives honor to its founder and systematically conceal what may constitute a disgrace to honor and could harm his figure „the Man of Providence”. We invite TC to be more honest, or to abandon basing their arguments on the supposed holiness of their members and the supposed or true unworthiness of their adversaries…
Translated from French by Pelagius of Asturias. Source: letter „Sodalitium”, No. 55 of November 2003 (French-language version), pp.71-72. X. Rafał Trytek provided a very concise summary of this article, which I have posted here. The entire article is being translated and will one day be published on the blog.
Topic: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc (Read 260492 times)