No, I don't think he ever admitted that. It's a lie that he admitted to simulating sacraments. He denied ever simulating sacraments. And his post-consecration actions would indicate that he didn't simulate nor ever admitted simulating the sacraments. Just because someone with an ax to grind says he admitted something doesn't mean it is true that he admitted doing something.
He says he did:“So after the questionable ordinations [Palmar de Troya], Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that
the ‘orders’ he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect.” (Angelus Magazine, June 1982 edition – emphasis supplied)
Did the Angelus Magazine in June 1982 make this up? If so, why did Thuc never rebuke the lie?
"If there was rebuttal evidence to be found, that would be one thing, but there is no rebuttal evidence to be found anywhere. This absence alone speaks volumes.In the normal course of events, if any bishop was falsely charged with such a serious crime as simulating the Sacraments of the Church, one would expect a very loud and vocal denial of the accusations, followed by immediate demands for correction and retraction. Perhaps a defamation suit might even be in order. But in the case of Bishop Thuc, the record is absolutely silent. The article in the Angelus magazine was published two and one-half years before his death, and yet there is not a peep of protest against it to be found anywhere."
Topic: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI (Read 24314 times)