Author Topic: The Papal Mandate (Read 3950 times)

PG · « **Reply #45 on:** May 09, 2014, 05:59:30 PM »

There has also been mention about a papal mandate for Abp. Thuc to consecrate bishops. If that were true, then why did Thuc defend his actions in palmar by claiming that Paul VI bilocated there to approve? Why wouldn't he just say that he has a papal mandate? When "reinstating the hierarchy", why did he not mention it?

To sum it up, steer clear of Abp. Thuc.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #46 on:** May 09, 2014, 06:53:07 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

LOT - Before you go any further, make sure that your fantasy/dream of a conclave driving your reasoning is at least accurate. The sspv and sspx bishops would not be participating. I don't even think it is a given that Fr. Dolan and Fr. Sanborn would participate. I would be nothing more than a thuc bishops conclave.

Perhaps the die hard SV's can stomach that, but if I may place a number to them, I was say they are very much in the minority.

Now, do you still have an appetite?

I don't see it happening. I'm just saying it could (meaning the possibility exists even though it won't happen). They could if they wanted to. They don't want to and won't but they have the capacity IMO.

I don't really have an appetite either way because I don't see it happening or being accepted through naturalistic means. It either won't happen at all or God will have to do it Himself.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #47 on:** May 09, 2014, 06:55:34 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

There has also been mention about a papal mandate for Abp. Thuc to consecrate bishops. If that were true, then why did Thuc defend his actions in palmar by claiming that Paul VI bilocated there to approve? Why wouldn't he just say that he has a papal mandate? When "reinstating the hierarchy", why did he not mention it?

To sum it up, steer clear of Abp. Thuc.

I haven't heard any of this but regardless the debate on whether his consecrations and ordinations are valid have been settled. He was a Catholic Bishop with the best of intentions.

PG · « **Reply #48 on:** May 09, 2014, 08:41:04 PM »

Lot - From the Sacred and the profane pg 75 and 76

It was Clemente Dominguez who asked Archbishop Thuc
to do the ordinations. Fr. Cekada says that Dominguez assured
Archbishop Thuc that Paul VI and the Blessed Virgin Mary
approved. Of this Fr. Cekada wrote: " . . . Mr. Dominguez was
saying: both the Blessed Virgin and Paul VI (by 'bilocation') were
telling a Catholic bishop that he should ordain laymen to the
priesthood (whom he had just met, and who had done no
ecclesiastical studies) and then consecrate them bishops - all in
three weeks time." Archbishop Thuc "agreed." 14

According to a published pamphlet put out by the sect of
Palmar and entitled "Palmar de Troya, Light of the World,"
Archbishop Thuc defended the consecrations on January 13, 1976,
with the words:
"We are returned to Apostolic times in that the first
Apostles went about preaching and ordaining
without referring back to the first Pope, Saint
Peter." 17
Commenting on the above statement, Fr. Cekada said that
"it is possible he had forgotten about Paul VI's miraculous
'bilocation.'" 18

And, the debate is settled if you believe that you can arrive at a notorious fact as easily as Derkson does. Given the circuмstances, I do not believe that you can. But, who am I to judge. We need to have a pope settle this. In the meantime, I don't recommend the gamble, or holding your breath, because the only way Thucs/vacantists will ever get a pope is by electing one them self(they are sedevacantists - there is no other option).

Also, it looks as though Thuc disagrees with what Nishant has posted about mission/office as well.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #49 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:36:33 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Lot - From the Sacred and the profane pg 75 and 76

It was Clemente Dominguez who asked Archbishop Thuc
to do the ordinations. Fr. Cekada says that Dominguez assured
Archbishop Thuc that Paul VI and the Blessed Virgin Mary
approved. Of this Fr. Cekada wrote: " . . . Mr. Dominguez was
saying: both the Blessed Virgin and Paul VI (by 'bilocation') were
telling a Catholic bishop that he should ordain laymen to the
priesthood (whom he had just met, and who had done no
ecclesiastical studies) and then consecrate them bishops - all in
three weeks time." Archbishop Thuc "agreed." 14

According to a published pamphlet put out by the sect of
Palmar and entitled "Palmar de Troya, Light of the World,"
Archbishop Thuc defended the consecrations on January 13, 1976,
with the words:
"We are returned to Apostolic times in that the first
Apostles went about preaching and ordaining
without referring back to the first Pope, Saint
Peter." 17
Commenting on the above statement, Fr. Cekada said that
"it is possible he had forgotten about Paul VI's miraculous
'bilocation.'" 18

And, the debate is settled if you believe that you can arrive at a notorious fact as easily as Derkson does. Given the circuмstances, I do not believe that you can. But, who am I to judge. We need to have a pope settle this. In the meantime, I don't recommend the gamble, or holding your breath, because the only way Thucs/vacantists will ever get a pope is by electing one them self(they are sedevacantists - there is no other option).

Also, it looks as though Thuc disagrees with what Nishant has posted about mission/office as well.

The above has nothing to do with the fact that Bishop Thuc validly ordained Priests and consecrated Bishops. That is indisputable.

Someone other than us, like a valid Pope, has to settle who the true hierarchy was during these times.

PG · « **Reply #50 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:46:59 PM »

Lot - No hard feelings, because I have enjoyed reading this thread. But, you were the one that brought up validity, so you are barking up the wrong tree. I just said steer clear of him.

What I quoted above is aimed at ending a rumor about a thuc papal mandate playing some divinely inspired role in this crisis.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #51 on:** May 12, 2014, 05:49:18 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

Lot - No hard feelings, because I have enjoyed reading this thread. But, you were the one that brought up validity, so you are barking up the wrong tree. I just said steer clear of him.

What I quoted above is aimed at ending a rumor about a thuc papal mandate playing some divinely inspired role in this crisis.

Thuc has played a very important role in the crisis. He is easy to stay clear of as he has been dead for some time. Do you mean we should stay clear of the CMRI?