CathInfo.com

Yes, in The Angelus June 1982



+Thuc is *alleged* to have published the letter in the article above..but no evidence of its existence has ever been produced. The Angelus seems to be the original source for this allegation, with all references to the *alleged* letter using only The Angelus as a source

If this is the famed letter which proves +Thuc is insane, then the calumnies against +Thuc are even more serious and grave.  The above is ridiculous.  Let's put +ABL's words into context.

1.  +ABL was saying that +Thuc's consecrations were wrong because it was an action against the Church, against Rome.  This was in 1982.
a.  In 1982, +ABL was still hopeful that the sspx could re-join Rome and that JP2 and Ratzinger were conservatives.
b.  In 1982, +ABL hadn't done his own consecrations yet.
c.  In 1982, +ABL was naive and not aware of the depths of the Modernist infiltration, nor the heretical leanings of both JP2 and Ratzinger.
d.  In 1982, +ABL thought +Thuc was wrong because +ABL believed that rejoining rome was possible and that +Thuc's actions were against this rejoining spirit.
e.  In hindsight, +ABL was wrong.


2.  +Thuc made a mistake and was tricked by the Palmar.  He wrote a letter explicitly stating the withholding of his intention.
a.  There's no debate that he withheld his intention because he made it clear.
b.  No investigation needed.  It's in the letter.


3.  Let's remember that +Thuc was made a secret bishop PRECISELY because of communism and Modernism. 
a.  He was more aware of it, had lived through it, than +ABL.  +Thuc was in "church crisis mode" long before +ABL was (who didn't "wake up" to Modernism until 1988).
b.  Once +ABL woke up, he did the same actions as +Thuc....consecrated bishops and ordained priests. 

4.  +ABL said that +Thuc "seems to have" lost his mind, because +ABL didn't understand new-rome and the dangers to the Faith.  He wasn't in "crisis mode" yet.
b.  "Seems to have" is hardly any proof that someone is insane.
c.  Novus Ordo catholics thought that ALL TRADS WERE INSANE in the 70s and 80s for leaving dioceses and hearing masses by banished priests in hotel rooms.
d.  As St Paul said, we must be fools for Christ.  +Thuc was spreading Traditionalism long before +ABL figured out new-rome was rotten to the core.  That doesn't make +ABL wrong, it just means he didn't have the same perspective as +Thuc.


This whole letter is a nothingburger.

p.s.  +Thuc never published any letter or said he withheld his intention except...for the Palmars.  All other consecrations MUST be presumed valid, per canon law.

You can't take 1 sin/mistake of a man and then presume that all other actions which he does are also sinful, with no proof.  THAT...is insane.

Where did Thuc claim to have withheld his intention at Palmar?

p.s.  +Thuc never published any letter or said he withheld his intention except...for the Palmars.  All other consecrations MUST be presumed valid, per canon law.

You can't take 1 sin/mistake of a man and then presume that all other actions which he does are also sinful, with no proof.  THAT...is insane.

You don't understand the issue, and I can tell you did not read my long post. I will repeat here what is proved there:

A consecration is presumed to have taken place, only when the fact of it occurring can be established. Archbishop Lefebvre's ordinations and consecrations took place in public, with many eyewitnesses, and with proper priests assisting, or a co-consecrator.

+Thuc's consecrations were done in secret, with two laymen assisting, the latter of whom could not even tell Fr. Kelly, Fr. Sanborn, and Fr. Jenkins, what the matter and form are, and if the matter and form were done properly. They claim to have studied the Pontifical Romanum, and they both had "Dr." next to their names, indicating high education. I can say what the matter and form is for an episcopal consecration, this is silly.

What I wonder is, why was it done in secret? Has anyone ever answered this? Why did the main consecrations occur in +Thuc's poor apartment? Drs. Hiller and Heller were from Germany, and could obviously afford to travel to the tiny flat in France where Archbishop Thuc was. Why did not anyone propose to bring Archbishop Thuc, who was poor, to a more dignified place to perform the dignified ceremony of consecrating a Bishop? There is something off, here.

The argument is not that we are making a judgement on what occurred, but are withholding our own judgement, subordinating it to the Church's future assessment and judgement on the matter, because there are many factors which cast prudent doubts on the issue, and I have already shown what the Church regards as a prudent doubt, and how this relates to the reception of the sacraments.

You and others, on the other hand, are making a definitive judgement on it, which is simply not possible for anyone to do. Fr. Cekada conducted a personal investigation, and oversimplifies the matter. He is not the Holy Office. One may be the most talented theologian, it is still not the judgement of the Church, and no one in Church history with a Catholic mindset has ever held so dearly to the opinion of a theologian, or even a group of priests who seem intelligent and pious, over the judgement of the Church.

Our Lord founded a Church for a reason.