Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 2124 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #95 on:** **Today** at 10:28:52 AM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Today at 09:09:12 AM

That is not a majority opinion.

So I just did some research on this.

It turns out this debate which is called the "per saltum" debate has been going on for hundreds of years.

The sedes are certainly right to have concerns. The Popes however stayed out of it.

In our case though, as one poster pointed out, the accusation the Lienart was a Mason are probably utter nonsense. Very different in quality to the evident mental instability of Thuc.

We know all too well that trads are well able to accuse people of being "Masons" when they just dont like what they are saying.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #96 on:** **Today** at 10:29:00 AM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Today at 09:06:33 AM

Some reasons it is absurd to make this comparison are: The accusation was not a spurious one because it was Angelus Press publicly stating this, unlike one seminarian.

The Angelus press isn't a real media outlet, nor is it run by journalists. Their "proof" was a supposed letter. Did they ever publish the letter? No. Did you ever read the letter yourself? Probably not. HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW THE LETTER EXISTS?

A LETTER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IS A RUMOR. It sounds like the Angelus is playing a child's game of "telephone" where "they heard x" and then they publish it based on a rumor, which they never verified. They are also guilty of calumny.

Quote

Even less spurious because Thucs clear mental instability makes the possibility of habitual simulation quite possible.

"Clear mental instability"....based on what? Did you read the quotes provided by Fr Cekada's study? All of the witnesses say that +Thuc was acting normally and knew what he was doing.

You are either the lowest IQ person i've ever come across...or you are guilty of SERIOUSLY GRAVE SINS of calumny....or you're insane. No honest person can make a judgement upon a letter which has never been published and which they've never read. That is the height of stupidity or insanity.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #97 on:** **Today** at 10:30:30 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 10:29:00 AM

The Angelus press isn't a real media outlet, nor is it run by journalists. Their "proof" was a supposed letter. Did they ever publish the letter? No. Did you ever read the letter yourself? Probably not. HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW THE LETTER EXISTS?

A LETTER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IS A RUMOR. It sounds like the Angelus is playing a child's game of "telephone" where "they heard x" and then they publish it based on a rumor, which they never verified. They are also guilty of calumny.
"Clear mental instability"....based on what? Did you read the quotes provided by Fr Cekada's study? All of the witnesses say that +Thuc was acting normally and knew what he was doing.

You are either the lowest IQ person i've ever come across...or you are guilty of SERIOUSLY GRAVE SINS of calumny....or you're insane. No honest person can make a judgement upon a letter which has never been published and which they've never read. That is the height of stupidity or insanity.

The reason I posted all the evidence in previous threads of Thucs manifest INSANITY, is because it is a very believable thing that Thuc would have withheld intention.

It is objectively grave which is why the good Catholic conscience would not want to believe a Bishop would do such a thing. But it should be investigated.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #98 on:** **Today** at 10:35:05 AM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Today at 10:30:30 AM

The reason I posted all the evidence in previous threads of Thucs manifest INSANITY, is because it is a very believable thing that Thuc would have withheld intention.

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.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #99 on:** **Today** at 10:43:39 AM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on Today at 09:09:12 AM

That is not a majority opinion.

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)

Quote

Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Treatise IX, Holy Orders, Nature of Holy Orders Art. 1, 806. Three Controversial Points...

3. Is the episcopate received validly by one whose priesthood was invalid?

The negative opinion seems preferable and is the one to be followed in practice

Quote

Theologians and canonists hold ex communi sententia that episcopal consecration is not valid if it has not been preceded by priestly ordination. This is notably the opinion of St. Thomas.

Les théologiens et canonistes tiennent ex communi sententia que la consécration épiscopale n'est pas valide si elle n'a été précédée de l'ordination presbytérale. C'est notamment l'opinion de saint Thomas (p. 233).

J. Tixeront, L' Ordre et Les Ordinations (Holy Orders and Ordination) 1925, Translation: PistrinaLiturgica

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

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 2124 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage

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

Pax Vobis

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

TomGubbinsKimmage

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

Pax Vobis

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

WorldsAway

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