Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 4286 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #80 on:** March 12, 2026, 03:18:32 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 11, 2026, 07:50:56 PM

Not so fast. If you're going to hold this uncatholic, rigorist position for +Thuc, then you'd also have to hold it for +ABL, who would be doubtful because Liénart who consecrated him was a freemason heretic.

If you hold that +Thuc, who was Traditional, had a mental lapse and his intention was invalid, then...
you have to hold that Liénart, who was a heretic mason, had an anti-catholic intention which was surely invalid.

You have to be consistent.

double consecration. therefore even if he was a mason, its still valid.

Stubborn · « **Reply #81 on:** March 12, 2026, 05:42:38 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on March 11, 2026, 02:38:24 PM

The whole story about "withheld intention" is a distortion of something Bp. Thuc said that does seem to be true, where he expressed regret for having consecrated the Palmarians due to their fall from the Church later on.

But someone who thinks "I should not have done that" and "I did not do that" are two equivalent statements is a bit dense in the head, obviously.

Yes, this.

What tom is missing is "the times."

To have trad bishops ordaining trad priests outside of the conciliar church was one thing, but to be consecrating bishops, well, for trads of those days, that was something that was confusing, believed to be gravely wrong - and it was essentially unheard of in the mid 1970s and 80s. Among most trads that heard of +Thuc doing such a thing, he was thought to be crazy, scandalous, senile, or whatever. Rumors abounded, many rumors were ridiculous, often they were wild and all over the place.

Those who believe +Thuc withheld proper intention simply and wrongfully believe one of those old, wild, ridiculous rumors, but apparently there's no correcting them.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #82 on:** March 12, 2026, 06:30:10 AM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on March 12, 2026, 03:18:32 AM

double consecration. therefore even if he was a mason, its still valid.

That argument does not work as +Liénart alone ordained +Lefebvre. Majority of theologians held that one can not be consecrated a bishop without first having been ordained a priest.

I would look into the allegations of +Liénart being a freemason. From what I understand they are at best questionable, having appeared (without a source(?) shades of The Angelus??) in a later edition of the list of Freemasons in the Church hierarchy...although +Lefebvre *allegedly* stated that he believed +Liénart to have been a Freemason (*allegedly* in speeches on May 11, 1976 in Minneapolis, MN and May 27, 1976 in Montreal, Québec) and +Williamson did in EC No. 450 "Bishops Valid? -II" Feb. 27, 2016: "The Cardinal [Liénart] was a leading neo-modernist at Vatican II, and surely a Freemason himself."

Mr G · « **Reply #83 on:** March 12, 2026, 06:35:21 AM »

Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on March 11, 2026, 06:39:04 PM

I have never heard this one before. When and where did he say that and what is he basing that on? That sounds really (like, really) left field.

As you watch, you will find out who else was ordained the same day, which might explain why Fr. Jenkins holds to this theory.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #84 on:** March 12, 2026, 07:51:59 AM »

Quote

Because i explained that where the minister has explicitly denied going against the intention of the Sacrament, then it must be invalid.

+Thuc has never said he withheld his intention. Unless you’re going to base this on “the letter” which I’m not sure even exists. Have you read the letter? Do you know anyone that has?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 4286 times)

TomGubbinsKimmage

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

Stubborn

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

WorldsAway

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

Mr G

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

Pax Vobis

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