Author Topic: The Abp. Thuc Excommunications: Orders Invalid Until They Repent? (Read 1637 times)

Geremia · « **on:** January 14, 2013, 01:11:55 AM »

I finally read Card. Šeper's 1976 decree of the Abp. Thuc excommunications (uses 1917 canons) and Card. Ratzinger's 1983 Notification (still uses 1917 canons, despite the '83 Code being promulgated 25 January 1983). Card. Šeper's decree contains this interesting part:

Quote

3) Finally, as regards those who have been ordained in this unlawful manner, or who may in the future be ordained by them, whatever about the validity of their orders, the Church does not recognize their ordination nor shall it do so, and she considers them, as regards all legal effects, in the state which each one had beforehand and subject to the above-mentioned penal sanctions until they repent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary.

After Abp. Thuc requested absolution from the excommunication, Card. Ratzinger wrote virtually the same thing in his 1983 notification:

Quote

3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.

Card. Šeper and Card. Ratzinger totally override the concept of validity of the orders. Essentially, they're saying: "Their valid orders are invalid until they repent." Doesn't this completely contradict what it means for a sacrament to be validly administered?

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2013, 06:18:57 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Card. Šeper and Card. Ratzinger totally override the concept of validity of the orders. Essentially, they're saying: "Their valid orders are invalid until they repent." Doesn't this completely contradict what it means for a sacrament to be validly administered?

Yes, of course they are trying to over ride the concept and stamp out all things traditionally Catholic - that is what modernists do.

chrstnoel1 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2013, 07:29:17 AM »

Geremia, what is the purpose of this post? What has it got to do with the Crisis in the Church? Was Abp Thuc a Traditionalist? :scratchchin:

SJB · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2013, 07:53:30 AM »

Source of this discussion

This seems correct, that they are making only a legal point, not a doctrinal one.

Marlelar · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2013, 03:14:50 PM »

Quote from: chrstnoel1

Geremia, what is the purpose of this post? What has it got to do with the Crisis in the Church? Was Abp Thuc a Traditionalist? :scratchchin:

Yes, the CMRI are from this branch.

history of CMRI

Marsha

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 14, 2013, 07:31:25 PM »

CMRI have valid orders through their bishop , Bp Pivarunas, and from Archbishop Thuc.

Case closed.

If you really want to debate the point that they are invalid, go read Bp. Kelly's expose "The Sacred and the Profane" where he attempted to elucidate more on this issue, but then be sure to read the rebuttal made on www.thucbishops.com that shows his work to be an utter farce.

You do know who Bp. Kelly is right? Yes, the head of another sedevacantist group the SSPV.

Geremia · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2013, 06:12:04 PM »

Quote from: chrstnoel1

Geremia, what is the purpose of this post? What has it got to do with the Crisis in the Church? Was Abp Thuc a Traditionalist? :scratchchin:

This post is not about Abp. Thuc; he was a very confused man, unlike saintly Abp. Lefebvre. It has to do with whether the Church can really refuse to recognize valid orders and why Šeper's decree says: "the Church does not recognize their ordination nor shall it do so" ("Ecclesia ipsorum ordinationem neque agnoscit neque agnitura est").

Marlelar · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2013, 11:42:31 AM »

Quote

This post is not about Abp. Thuc; he was a very confused man, unlike saintly Abp. Lefebvre. It has to do with whether the Church can really refuse to recognize valid orders and why Šeper's decree says: "the Church does not recognize their ordination nor shall it do so."

I think the Modernists will do anything and everything in order to suppress tradition, up to and including casting doubt on any ordinations other than their own.

Marsha

Sigismund · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2013, 09:30:43 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

I finally read Card. Šeper's 1976 decree of the Abp. Thuc excommunications (uses 1917 canons) and Card. Ratzinger's 1983 Notification (still uses 1917 canons, despite the '83 Code being promulgated 25 January 1983). Card. Šeper's decree contains this interesting part:
Quote
3) Finally, as regards those who have been ordained in this unlawful manner, or who may in the future be ordained by them, whatever about the validity of their orders, the Church does not recognize their ordination nor shall it do so, and she considers them, as regards all legal effects, in the state which each one had beforehand and subject to the above-mentioned penal sanctions until they repent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary.
After Abp. Thuc requested absolution from the excommunication, Card. Ratzinger wrote virtually the same thing in his 1983 notification:
Quote
3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.
Card. Šeper and Card. Ratzinger totally override the concept of validity of the orders. Essentially, they're saying: "Their valid orders are invalid until they repent." Doesn't this completely contradict what it means for a sacrament to be validly administered?

I think they were saying something like, "possible validity notwithstanding, we won't canonically recognize or regulate them" One can be validly ordained, and not allowed to exercise the order one is ordained to.