So, in Derksen's book, which I have not read completely ... I see a section on the "simulation" allegation, which I had not seen until now, and Derksen arrives at the exact same conclusion that I made when I researched the matter independently. In fact, I found the original source of the allegation ... in Father Cekada's mistaken analysis, and where he in turn was citing some other source in French. But they're all referring to the "Con-Celebration" incident, which the dimwits at The Angelus conflated with +Thuc's repudiation of the Palmar group. I know where of I speak regarding The Angelus and their editors at the time. They printed an informal letter I had written to a friend as an "article". This letter didn't even have my name on it, so the editors added my name ... and spelled it wrong. They also were responsible for the edits and mistranslations of the Latin quotes in the "article". Father Cekada attacked me for being pretentious for peppering the paper with Latin quotes ... which may perhaps been the case if this hadn't in fact been just something I wrote up for a friend and had never intended for publication. I whipped it out in a couple hours on a Sunday afternoon, and didn't have time, nor the inclination, given my audience, to translate the Latin quotes.
In any case, here's Derksen's section "Simulation". Of course, we've refuted Cabbage her on this point, but he keeps reassering the same thing, without a shred of evidence other than The Angelus' ignorant statement.
APPENDIX B
Did Bp. Thuc Simulate a Sacrament?
A word ought to be said about Your Excellency’s accusation that Bp. Thuc simulated a sacrament, i.e.,
pretended to confer a sacrament while withholding his intention, thus rendering the sacrament invalid.
This regards an incident on Holy Thursday, April 16, 1981, when Bp. Thuc concelebrated the New Mass
with the Most Rev. Gilles-Henri-Alexis Barthe, the Novus Ordo bishop of Frejus-Toulon, France. Your
Excellency writes:
According to Fr. Cekada, Archbishop Thuc excused himself for concelebrating the New
Mass by claiming, among other things, that he only pretended to say Mass; that is to say,
that he simulated saying Mass. Simulating a Sacrament “consists in performing the
sacramental action without the intention of conferring a Sacrament, although others think
a Sacrament is being administered” [quoting Jone, Moral Theology, p. 318]. To simulate
a Sacrament is to go through the motions while withholding one’s intention. Simulation
invalidates the Sacrament. It is also a mortal sin of sacrilege.
Consulting Fr. Cekada’s essay to which Your Excellency makes reference here reveals that neither Fr.
Cekada, nor the source Fr. Cekada quotes, claims that Bp. Thuc said he withheld his intention. Instead,
the explanation given, which appears in your very own book, is as follows: “[Bp. Thuc] said it was
because on that day [Holy Thursday] he could not celebrate alone. . . It happens that it was a false
concelebration, because he said he didn’t receive communion. For, when a priest does not communicate,
there is not a Mass."
Thus, it turns out that the charge of simulating a sacrament goes back to the fact that Bp. Thuc claimed
that even though he “concelebrated” the New Mass that day, he did not receive “communion” at that
“Mass.” Whatever one may think of this “explanation,” there is absolutely nothing here allowing one to
claim that Bp. Thuc withheld his intention or otherwise simulated a sacrament. While a priest is
certainly under grave obligation to consume the Host and Chalice he himself has consecrated, it is
absolutely gratuitous and inexcusable to suggest that failure to do so means he simulated the
sacrament.
Fr. Davis, so often quoted by Your Excellency, is quite clear on this: “None of these parts
[offertory, consecration, communion] may in any wise be omitted without grave sin, though the
omission of the Oblation [offertory] and the Communion would not affect the actual Sacrifice itself.”
So, not only would a refusal to receive Holy Communion at one’s own Mass not be “simulating a
sacrament,” it would not even affect the Sacrifice itself, even though, of course, it would be entirely
impermissible. Simulation of a sacrament, instead, consists in withholding one’s intention in the
employing of the correct matter and form, or by secretly employing invalid matter, or by secretly using
an invalid form.
But this leaves out another all-important consideration: Bp. Thuc’s abstention from “communion”
occurred at the “New Mass,” the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, which he merely “concelebrated.”
Traditional Catholics, especially sedevacantists, typically believe that the New Mass is invalid and not a
sacrament at all; there is no true Holy Communion at the New Mass. Therefore, even if the charge of
simulation were correct, the absolute worst that Bp. Thuc could be accused of here (besides being
accused of participating in the New Mass itself, of course) is “simulating a non-sacrament,” which, of
course, is an absurdity because the very notion of simulation is tied to a sacrament. Besides, considering
that Bp. Thuc was merely a “concelebrant” of that “Mass,” nothing he did or omitted to do had any
effect on the “sacrament” anyway, since, it being Holy Thursday, there were numerous other concelebrants
in addition to the main celebrant, the local Novus Ordo bishop.
So, regardless of which way we look at it, Bp. Thuc is not guilty of simulating a sacrament. We can sum up
the truth of the matter by stating that not only did he not simulate a sacrament, he did not even “simulate a
non-sacrament” — if there were such a thing.
All of this goes to show that to accuse Bp. Thuc of having simulated a sacrament is calumny. Your
Excellency, however, uses this accusation against Bp. Thuc to cast further doubt upon the validity of his
1981 consecrations of Bps. Carmona, Zamora, and des Lauriers: “If he simulated an episcopal consecration,
as Fr. Cekada accuses him of simulating saying Mass, it would be an invalid consecration.”
Just like the other doubt you have attempted to produce, this one, too, turns out to be nothing but smoke
and mirrors.
Topic: Autobiography of Archbishop Thuc (Read 269953 times)