Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 2162 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #105 on:** **Today** at 11:26:12 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 10:35:05 AM

This is a "he said, she said" situation. Nothing is proven. Some people say +Thuc "must have been insane" only because...they can't understand his actions (and really, it's because they disagree with him).

Meanwhile, Fr Cekada's interviews WITH PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE, say that +Thuc was sane, stable and acted normally.

You can't make a determination based on "he said, she said". THIS IS CALLED A RUMOR. Nothing is proven. You are a bad-willed, calumnous, moron. I will pray for you.

Yes it is a he said she said thing. But if the allegations are not spurious, then they must be taken seriously.

It's how all investigations begin.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #106 on:** **Today** at 11:29:47 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 11:22:48 AM

Nice try, but no, I am talking strictly about the early trads.

No trying. You were talking about trads who were clearly very weak and didn't understand their Church history.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #107 on:** **Today** at 11:34:41 AM »

Quote from: Mr G on Today at 10:51:23 AM

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Chazal say Thuc's consecration are valid, so find two other Resistance clergy that have evidence showing they are not. So far, all you give is your interpretations of Sacramental Theology. If your conclusions are obviously correct, then you should have no issues finding many Traditional priests backing up your claim.

Don't be retarded. Present the argument fairly to them and see what they say.

Can you steel man my argument for me?

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #108 on:** **Today** at 11:36:36 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on Today at 10:43:39 AM

I would be interested to see your sources saying that Episcopal Consecration supplying for an invalid Ordination is the majority opinion (you have said the same in the past)

At the very least, why do you not apply the same "safer course" standard to this as you do to +Thuc? The fact that the issue is at the very least disputed does your position no favor

Well it seems that the overall opinion of theologians developed in the 19th and 20th century on the issue. This really is a separate thread.

But the point though is that even if it is the case, it is nowhere near as comparable to Thuc. Like it was said, the Freemason allegations seem genuinely spurious, whereas with Thuc he was clearly off his rocker.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #109 on:** **Today** at 11:40:43 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on Today at 10:54:38 AM

"Probably utter nonsense"? Do you think that is the right way to approach the subject? How can you say it is "very different in quality" if you seemingly have not even investigated the +Liénart accusation? (see: "Probably")

Have you looked into +Lefebvre *allegedly* stating that he knew +Liénart to have been a Freemason?

These are the relevant excerpts from the *alleged* speeches:

http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html

Does anyone know if the full speeches can be found anywhere?

Except there is a second layer here involved.

It MAY be the case that priesthood is not conferred on an invalid priest, ON TOP of the allegation of the freemasonic membership.

Whereas Thuc was MANIFESTLY not well, who repented of his traditionalism (aka catholicism), and for whom therefore the allegation is credible.

On the balance of probablities people are far safer with the Lefebvre line than with Thuc.

You sedes are truly, utterly stupid people.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 2162 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?