Author Topic: Debate Ended on Thuc-line Consecrations (Read 2114 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** January 26, 2010, 05:44:33 AM »

http://www.olgpress.com

008 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2010, 09:58:49 AM »

Hutton Gibson says it should indeed be clearer since Thuc, knowing better (having taught the Faith all his priesthood and episcopacy) acted to destroy the Catholic Church by signing the docuмents of Vatican II which is an act in the external forum.

By the same canon law which Thucites apply to Paul VI, Thuc falls from the Catholic Faith, ipso facto vanishes into his heresies for so attacking the Faith with Paul VI by signing the heretical docuмents of Vatican II.

No amount of whining can restore him as a Catholic bishop. Only a true Pope could restore him but Thuc said (at times anyway) that there was no true Pope anymore.

In canon law in this grave instance what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Fr. V proves Thuc was not crazy, but in doing so cannot get around the above. Thuc also ran back to the Novus Ordo at times, "consecrated" Old Catholic schismatics and wild visionaries and immoral reprobates...

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2010, 10:28:25 AM »

Quote from: 008

By the same canon law which Thucites apply to Paul VI, Thuc falls from the Catholic Faith, ipso facto vanishes into his heresies for so attacking the Faith with Paul VI by signing the heretical docuмents of Vatican II.

How so? Nobody has looked at these individuals and said that with a certain act they disappeared into heresy. The pope CANNOT lead the Church into error and the Church is infallible and indefectable. That is the basis for SV.

008 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2010, 10:31:57 AM »

Quote

That is the basis for SV

Precisely my point. I am not one in any purist sense (rather agnostic about it, believing the Church will judge the Council and its popes) but I think Gibson's Catholic logic is airtight.

trad123 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2010, 12:03:36 PM »

trad123 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2010, 12:16:49 PM »

And one more question, by condemning Archbishop Thuc saying he

Quote

acted to destroy the Catholic Church

...by signing the Vatican II docuмents, are you confessing that V2 did indeed contain error? Otherwise, you could only condemn for declaring that Paul VI was no pope, unless not everything is hunky-dory with the Vatican 2 docuмents.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2010, 02:17:12 PM »

Quote from: 008

Quote
That is the basis for SV

Precisely my point. I am not one in any purist sense (rather agnostic about it, believing the Church will judge the Council and its popes) but I think Gibson's Catholic logic is airtight.

It hard to tell what you are saying here. What "logic" is "airtight"?

The Church cannot depose a true pope. If JPII wasn't a true pope, then never was a true pope.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2010, 03:12:31 PM »

Gibson's logic is far from airtight. What Thuc did would be more like what Pope Liberius did when he persecuted Athanasius under duress.

Even if he was a heretic, and he very possibly was, considering almost everyone at that time believed in NFP and that you could be saved in false religions, his Holy Orders are still valid.

The Thuc line is actually more compromised by certain Thucites' association with Old Catholics who trace their Holy Orders back to a man excommunicated BY NAME by Pius X. This is the case for all those at CMRI who served under Francis Schuckardt, who had Old Catholic Holy Orders. He may have excommunicated himself by having himself consecrated that way, and all who went along with him may have done the same. But perhaps not, due to epikeia. When they abolished Schuckardt, the affected clergy of CMRI also had themselves conditionally re-consecrated or re-ordained.

I think the Thuc line is fine in terms of their validity and even liciety, due to the aforementioned epikeia, as is the Lefebvre line. The problem is that both the sedevacantist Thuc clergy, and the SSPX clergy, are drowning in heresies. This is what most people do not want to face.

pax · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2010, 03:19:26 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

The Thuc line is actually more compromised by certain Thucites' association with Old Catholics who trace their Holy Orders back to a man excommunicated BY NAME by Pius X.

That is easily rectified by just declaring Pius X to be a heretic.

There. No more problem for the Thucites.

008 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2010, 10:40:13 AM »

Quote

Are you also going to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer who also signed the Vatican II docuмents?

Yes, Gibson says the same for them. Exactly the same. There was no duress at Vatican II, there was years of reflection and discussion and debate. All were free to vote their consciences. The "conservatives" who joined the Modernists, Gibson says, go down in flames with them for helping to destroy the Catholic Faith. Only a true Pope could restore them. Thuc sometimes (!) said (and died saying we think) there was no true Pope so he's caught in some heresy whichever way you look at it.

008 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2010, 10:50:07 AM »

Quote

even is a heretic...his Holy Orders are still valid....

He lost office and jurisdiction. Valid is not sufficient. To attend his Mass or any of his illictly consecrated priests is a mortal sin according to canon law 1917. Again, Gibson is consistent. It would be like attend Old Catholic or Eastern Orthodox liturgies.

Epikeia cannot relieve a heretic bishop anymore than a heretic Pope he says. It cannot restore. One cannot go to Eastern Orthodox liturgies (1917 canon law) claiming epikea. Gibson spends much time on Epikea.

They cannot beg for themselves what they refuse Benedict and summorum potificuм or even the new mass for the sake of Christ's starving sheep. Nor do sedevacantists agree on what Tradition is and what binds all priests. They are as confused as Benedict about theology and warn others to stay away from each other.

SJB · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2010, 11:37:11 PM »

Quote from: 008

Quote
Are you also going to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer who also signed the Vatican II docuмents?

Yes, Gibson says the same for them. Exactly the same. There was no duress at Vatican II, there was years of reflection and discussion and debate. All were free to vote their consciences. The "conservatives" who joined the Modernists, Gibson says, go down in flames with them for helping to destroy the Catholic Faith. Only a true Pope could restore them. Thuc sometimes (!) said (and died saying we think) there was no true Pope so he's caught in some heresy whichever way you look at it.

Vatican II is not that simple. I suspect you know that but you play this little game nonetheless.

CM · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2010, 12:58:54 AM »

What's simple is this: External, manifest, public and objective APOSTASY.

Publicly repent of signing those apostate docuмents, and you are Catholic. Otherwise, no, and no Catholic is bound to recognize you as one, in fact it is unlawful.

trad123 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2010, 02:52:27 AM »

trad123 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2010, 03:13:27 AM »

008, why in the world are you condemning, Archbishops Thuc and Levebvre, and Bishop Castro Mayer, when you said:

Talking about Vatican II:

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=10129

Quote from: 008

Therefore it could not be received and be heresy at the same time since Pope and bishops acted together as guarantee, not apart.

This does not mean the Council was not dangerously lax and capable of easy distortion. Only that its being received guaranteed the (negative) protection of the Holy Ghost to prevent a formal crossing of the line into heresy. Even Thuc and Lefebvre signed the docuмents and then the whole Church received it... but for an insignificant few and only after the fact.

Many however are convinced the council came too dangerously close for comfort to error to be useful, as the fruits also showed, and so it should be corrected or allowed to fade away or be precipitously rejected by a future Pope whom most Sedevacantists will not be able to account for.

It seems you don't believe Vatican II contains any heresy or error. How then can you say that these men vanished into heresy (besides you saying for Thuc, he rejected the pope....)?