Author Topic: Did Abp. Thuc knowingly consecrate Jean Laborie? (Read 8810 times)

PG · « **on:** July 28, 2014, 11:05:23 PM »

According to Fr. Jenkins, "as a matter of fact", the answer is yes. Starting at minute 2:50 in the video, you will hear that when Fr. Barbara visited Dr. coomariswamy in the usa, Fr. Jenkins was present, and this precise question was brought up. Fr. Barbara said that "yes", Abp. Thuc knew that "Jean Laborie was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a non catholic" because, he "told him".

I have posted this because there are members on this forum who posited this exact question a few months ago(asking for "proof" that Abp. Thuc "knowingly" consecrated jean laborie with this information). And, I present this as proof, and this should be sufficient.

PG · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2014, 11:11:50 PM »

I know there are 16 parts of this video series, but parts of it are really worth watching. I recommend listening to the parts where Fr. Jenkins is speaking throughout the series. He presents a lot of good information.

Ambrose · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2014, 03:40:54 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

According to Fr. Jenkins, "as a matter of fact", the answer is yes. Starting at minute 2:50 in the video, you will hear that when Fr. Barbara visited Dr. coomariswamy in the usa, Fr. Jenkins was present, and this precise question was brought up. Fr. Barbara said that "yes", Abp. Thuc knew that "Jean Laborie was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a non catholic" because, he "told him".

I have posted this because there are members on this forum who posited this exact question a few months ago(asking for "proof" that Abp. Thuc "knowingly" consecrated jean laborie with this information). And, I present this as proof, and this should be sufficient.

I would like to see a direct statement from Fr. Barbara rather than hearsay.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2014, 05:14:42 AM »

When someone charges an action that seems to run counter to everything we know about a man, one person's accusation is not sufficient evidence of the charge.

Right now we have one person saying that another person said that a third person said something. This has never been credible evidence whether for legal purposes or even for moral certainty. I'm sure Father Jenkins believes it, but I think his prejudice against the Thuc consecrations may have colored his judgment.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 29, 2014, 08:45:27 AM »

And there weren't many things that Bishop Alfred Mendez did that were, say, somewhat "scandalous"? Bishop Thuc certainly seemed to be easily manipulated by strong personalities, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the consecrations; all he would have need to validly confect the Sacraments was a basic understanding that he was doing what the Church does to pass on the episcopacy. Prudence and judgment and personal virtue have nothing to do with it. Bishop Mendez, on the other hand, had suffered a stroke not too long before the consecration of Bishop Kelly and reportedly did not recognize one of his close relatives. To me there are greater questions about the Mendez consecration / ordinations than about the ones performed by Bishop Thuc.

According to witnesses, every time Bishop Mendez got to the essential words for the ordination of Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger, he mysteriously sped up and garbled the words. Father Kelly had to ask him to repeat them several times. He had said everything quite clearly until the actual words of ordination. Father Kelly later said that he would never do that again. Bishop Mendez for the longest time publicly denied having ordained these men, and the consecration was never made public until after Bishop Mendez' death. Bishop Thuc, when later asked about the consecrations he had done, never denied them ... even if sometimes he regreted a few. I know a priest who sat at table with Bishop Thuc. There were priests who spoke different languages there, and Bishop Thuc could switch from one language to another without skipping a beat. He clearly was in sufficient possession of his mental faculties to validly confer episcopal consecration.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2014, 09:19:50 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

According to Fr. Jenkins, "as a matter of fact", the answer is yes. Starting at minute 2:50 in the video, you will hear that when Fr. Barbara visited Dr. coomariswamy in the usa, Fr. Jenkins was present, and this precise question was brought up. Fr. Barbara said that "yes", Abp. Thuc knew that "Jean Laborie was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a non catholic" because, he "told him".

I have posted this because there are members on this forum who posited this exact question a few months ago(asking for "proof" that Abp. Thuc "knowingly" consecrated jean laborie with this information). And, I present this as proof, and this should be sufficient.

"Doubt about the probity of others is sinful, when there are no sufficient reasons for it,; for example, it would be unreasonable to suspend judgment about a man of excellent reputation because a well-knwn calumniator had spoken against him.."
(Charles Callan, O.P.)

There has never been any Catholic group/society to have spent so much time and money attempting to destroy the reputation of a particular Archbishop. The sspv have many, many hours of sermons debates and publications devoted to attacking Abp. Thuc.

All that manpower, all those hours and days, all that money to justify abuse of one single man.

When dirty politicians do this, we wonder what skeletons they have in their own closet.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2014, 10:53:19 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: + PG +

According to Fr. Jenkins, "as a matter of fact", the answer is yes. Starting at minute 2:50 in the video, you will hear that when Fr. Barbara visited Dr. coomariswamy in the usa, Fr. Jenkins was present, and this precise question was brought up. Fr. Barbara said that "yes", Abp. Thuc knew that "Jean Laborie was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a non catholic" because, he "told him".

I have posted this because there are members on this forum who posited this exact question a few months ago(asking for "proof" that Abp. Thuc "knowingly" consecrated jean laborie with this information). And, I present this as proof, and this should be sufficient.

"Doubt about the probity of others is sinful, when there are no sufficient reasons for it,; for example, it would be unreasonable to suspend judgment about a man of excellent reputation because a well-knwn calumniator had spoken against him.."
(Charles Callan, O.P.)

There has never been any Catholic group/society to have spent so much time and money attempting to destroy the reputation of a particular Archbishop. The sspv have many, many hours of sermons debates and publications devoted to attacking Abp. Thuc.

All that manpower, all those hours and days, all that money to justify abuse of one single man.

When dirty politicians do this, we wonder what skeletons they have in their own closet.

Nice post. You gave your source and added your 2 cents which is worth a lot more. Very well done. :applause:

http://www.thucbishops.com/

PG · « **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2014, 12:33:01 PM »

TKGS - You could insist that there are three parties involved(thuc as third); but by doing so, you bring into question his mental state.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2014, 04:25:10 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

TKGS - You could insist that there are three parties involved(thuc as third); but by doing so, you bring into question his mental state.

What? Never mind. I need to stop biting at your poisonous bait.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2014, 06:10:23 PM »

The lesson from this is to never become a sedevacantist.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2014, 06:46:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

................Bishop Mendez for the longest time publicly denied having ordained these men, and the consecration was never made public until after Bishop Mendez' death. Bishop Thuc, when later asked about the consecrations he had done, never denied them ... even if sometimes he regreted a few. [./quote]

The hypocrisy is so sad.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2014, 06:57:30 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

The lesson from this is to never become a sedevacantist.

Hey Md. Trad,

They give SVs a bad name.

:alcohol:

Ambrose · « **Reply #12 on:** July 29, 2014, 07:57:47 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

The lesson from this is to never become a sedevacantist.

This has nothing to do with sedevacantism. It has to do with a group (SSPV), along with their lay supporters, that have a bizarre obsession with Archbishop Thuc.

The CMRI never talks like this. They are to busy caring about people's salvation, making endless sacrifices driving all across the country, flying to other countries, visiting the sick and dying, operating countless schools to educate future Catholics, etc, to worry about silly nonsense like the SSPV seems to do almost daily,

Maybe that's why the CMRI is a tree of great fruit, they are growing all over the U.S and the world, while SSPV remains stagnant in the mostly the same chapels they had when SSPV began.

PG · « **Reply #13 on:** July 29, 2014, 09:28:09 PM »

marylandtrad - If sedeplenism wasn't so far fetched, your comment would be useful. None the less, I am glad that you are viewing these topics.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2014, 05:20:30 AM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

The lesson from this is to never become a sedevacantist.

I know some bad and erroneous Catholics. The lesson from this is never to become a Catholic.