Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?  (Read 2622 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?
« Reply #135 on: Today at 11:52:39 AM »
:facepalm:  You're not making any sense.

1.  Fr Cekada's article quotes people/eyewitnesses who say that +Thuc was fine and knew what he was doing.  There's nothing in Fr Cekada's article which "brings a lot of doubt" except...I doubt your reading comprehension skills.

2.  Duh....it's logical that +Thuc would simulate a new mass, because....he just converted to Traditionalism.  He was conflicted, morally.  Has nothing to do with sanity.  Duh.
:facepalm: A man was conflicted about Tradition vs New rites, therefore he is insane??  If that is the case, then every person who attends the indult regularly is insane.  Your definition of insanity is quite large and unverifiable.  I'm glad you're not a judge who decides such things.  Good grief.

I could easily claim you're insane because you read Fr Cekada's pro-Thuc article and claim that it's anti-Thuc. :facepalm:
Your resorting to ad hominem only reinforces the stupidity of what you argue, and is evidence that you did not read my long post. 

Fr. Cekada wrote two separate articles on the +Thuc consecrations, many years apart. Are you deliberately trying to fool me? I challenge you to try harder, if you wish to expose yourself more.

Again, I can tell you did not read his article "Two Bishops in Every Garage". He was clearly apprehensive of trusting the +Thuc consecrations, and admitted this during life. He reversed his position later, everyone knows this.

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?
« Reply #136 on: Today at 11:54:21 AM »


:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:


I'm just sitting back and watch all the Thucists getting annihilated by a woman. A woman!

For shame lads.
Shows how silly you are.
"But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.” — 1 Corinthians 1:27


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?
« Reply #137 on: Today at 12:24:26 PM »
Your resorting to ad hominem only reinforces the stupidity of what you argue, and is evidence that you did not read my long post.

Fr. Cekada wrote two separate articles on the +Thuc consecrations, many years apart. Are you deliberately trying to fool me? I challenge you to try harder, if you wish to expose yourself more.

Again, I can tell you did not read his article "Two Bishops in Every Garage". He was clearly apprehensive of trusting the +Thuc consecrations, and admitted this during life. He reversed his position later, everyone knows this.
I posted the article I am referring to.  

Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?
« Reply #138 on: Today at 12:31:21 PM »
For those that argue from the standpoint of: I would rather trust this or that clergyman/clergymen because they were not idiots, they were educated, prudent, etc. etc. etc. ...

Please, do not be intellectually lazy, or subjective. I am not accusing, do not misunderstand me. I am simply reminding, that you have to answer to God for your actions.

As I said above, this is not about making a definitive judgement, we all ought to have the humility to admit that the things Archbishop Thuc did, objectively, bring about many real and relevant uncertainties, to the point that the Church desires us to treat the entire thing as doubtful. Prudent doubt, according to the mind of the Church, is important, and must be taken into account when approaching the sacraments. Probability is not sufficient certitude when it comes to the validity of the sacraments. 

Do you want to do what the Church desires, or what you desire? Are we all covert modernists, where we do what we feel, thinking the truth comes from within, instead of searching for the truth without, as Our Lord ordained it to be? Humility means to conform our minds to reality, and not to create our own reality. Do not be ashamed for admitting you are wrong, or at least unsure. I will not humiliate nor hate you for it, and neither will anyone else, I am sure of it. Even if anyone would do that, we should not be afraid of enduring a little something for the love of our dear Jesus.

Please consider this: would you honestly be this defensive of a Novus Ordo Bishop, as you are of Archbishop Thuc? Or do you defend Archbishop Thuc, because you have something to lose in admitting doubt with his consecrations? Loss of friends, Mass centres, a spiritual director, the obligation to make a general confession due to confessing with a doubtfully-ordained priest, no more "peace" at home with family members, the obligation to do reparation, the simple admission of being wrong for many years? Is the cross of Our Lord truly the portion that you desire? If it is not, you will never see the truth clearly, or love it for the right reasons.



Those who defend +Thuc obstinately, as a rule, do not seem at peace, and appear to be more like those disquieted souls who thirst impetuously for their conscience to be appeased. I do not pretend, nor claim that this is automatically evidence that they are wrong, but it is something to note, for they themselves to consider. 

We can only see the truth when we are at peace, and this peace is only attained when we are willing to suffer for Our Lord, whether it be in the form of keeping His commandments, or rightly perceiving the inconvenient, uncomfortable truth.

Bishop Williamson, in a conference in Post Falls, Idaho in 2013 brings to mind essential, timeless principles we must use in assessing the truth of a situation. He was teaching the faithful how they must approach choosing whether to stay with the SSPX, or join the Resistance. This is the conference, and he says these things within the first 15 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uRCseOnWOw

I transcribed some of what he said, because the principles apply to any circuмstances where we are forced to make a choice, between two opposing parties.

The blame for division lies with those who are in error, and not with those who are in truth. And when the crowd listened to our Lord, they had to make up their own minds. Here were the Pharisees saying that our Lord was a liar, that he was a servant of the devil, and I know not what; and here was our Lord saying that the Pharisees were children of satan, they weren't children of Abraham, they were children of satan. Satan is the father of lies; a direct clash. How could the people know, how could the people tell? The people had to judge for themselves. And many in the crowd went one way, many in the crowd went the other; exactly the same with Vatican II. A large number of the people went with the mainstream church, because they didn't stop and think, and listen, like you yourselves most probably did 10 years ago, 12 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when the Archbishop was standing up to the lies and the errors of the Conciliar Church. You listened, and you thought, you thunk...and because you thunk, you were not sunk; because you thought, and you listened, you examined, you tested, and that is what our Lord requires.

All of you should know this quote. "I came to bring the sword"... there is going to be father against daughter, mother against son, wife against husband, uncles against aunts, there's going to be all kinds of division, because of Me. But I have to say what My Father tells Me to say, and you have to listen to what God the Father is telling you through Me, and you have to follow what I say. You must trust Me, says our Divine Lord.

I don't say, trust me, trust me, trust me. I do say: look at the evidence. Weigh it for yourselves. We have here got a problem.



Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid?
« Reply #139 on: Today at 12:40:03 PM »
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.
Again, consider the times. If you can imagine the covid scamdemic panic x 10000, you will begin to grasp how things were in those days for trads trying to avoid public persecution.

The standard cliche back then was "we're in the catacombs" was really true. It is very easy for me to believe that his consecrations happened like that because  +Thuc was most likely avoiding public notoriety/scrutiny/persecution/etc. Back then, "the less people knew, the better off you were" was often the rule, and it was a good rule too - for those times. 

Ever been to a TLM in the 70s when dozens of protesters were screaming loudly outside of the banquet hall where you're at  Mass. The crazies were right outside of the only door, protesting against you for being schismatic heretics? The reigning bishop, Gumbleton, was among them when they crashed through the door in the middle of the consecration right as the priest raised the host? and the cops had to intervene? The times matter as regards this issue with +Thuc.

Heck, back then, very many (most?) trads thought the "3 days of darkness was at the door," or that world was going to end at any time - because of the crisis, which for many, was still very much in it's infancy back then. I don't know but IMO, +Thuc likely felt that the situation was critical and that the need for bishops was immediate. That's just a guess, but it fits.

All I am saying is that today, some odd 50 years later, even for those who were around back then it is easy to forget, to not take into account, and to even completely disregard what was going on back then as a main reason for some of the things that happened back then. 

And I'm no sede and do not care about +Thuc or the +Thuc line one way or the other, but as a bishop, he does not deserve to be calumniated for this ridiculous allegation, particularly without 100% reliable, solid evidence. I guarantee whether he was right or wrong, he received more than his share of being calumniated while he lived, and not only by the Church's enemies.