CathInfo.com

Thanks for the comment Meg.

This is what fascinates me about Archbishop Thuc. 

He was from one of the humblest Asian countries, and descended from the highest ranks of Catholic society there. He was formed by French Catholics and achieved their highest academic ratings and no one seems to take him seriously?

He's an Archbishop caught in the middle of a communist uprising and the world was either openly or cryptically against a Catholic Vietnam.

It seems to fit the tradition of Our Lord confounding the rich & powerful with the humble and weak.

So, the reason he's not taken seriously stems almost exclusively from "we can't say they're valid because people might go there" (Bishop Clarence Kelly, as reported by another of The Nine who was there when he said it).  Unfortunately, he was tainted by the Palmar fiasco, which was in fact a case of poor judgment, but even then they're deliberately being excessively hard on him.

We have +Fellay believing in this pseudo-seer "Dawn Marie", and we have +Williamson believing in Garabandal, Valtorta, and Bogus Ordo "Eucharistic" "miracles".  If Bishop Williamson had a weakness, it was excessive credulity for preternatural phenomena, and I'm 100% convinced that if +Williamson had been a bishop around that time, he would have consecrate Dominguez also.

AND, it's easy to look with the 20/20 of hindsight, but people need to recall that Dominguez did not declare himself pope (appointed by Paul VI in mystical bilocation) until well after the consecration.  Before then, what was going on at Palmar?  Palmar's message was precisely a denunciation of Vatican II and of Modernism, and the message was highly credible AND it was in fact accompanied by preternatural phenomena.  Dominguez was reported to levitate, appear to have the stigmata, etc.  Finally, add to the fact that Fr. Revaz had gone to +Thuc after being directed to him by none other than +Lefebvre himself.  Father Noel Barbara reported that +Lefebvre admitted this to him directly, face to face, at a meal they shared.  I would be stunned if Fr. Revaz had not gone to +Thuc saying something like, "Archbishiop Lefebvre sent me to get you and take you to Palmar by request of Our Lady."  That implicitly added the endorsement of +Lefebvre to the entire affair.  It's like when my kids come to me and say, "Can we get ice cream?  Mom said it was OK." (when Mom just said, "Go ask dad.")  So, dad says, "Well if Mom said it was OK, then it's OK."

But, Archbishop Thuc was consecrated a bishop at the age of 40, had received THREE doctorate from Rome, was sent back to start a seminary (and did so), and had been given a "mandatum" by Pius XII to consecrate without explicity papal permission, given that he was in Commie territory.  This was, as you point out, Incred, a HIGHLY RESPECTED CATHOLIC PRELATE, and he's looked down upon as if he were a Bishop(?) Joe Pfeiffer or some other guy who barely passed seminary.

In addition, he was a man of extreme humility, and general virtue, was well loved by the faithful, including the children whom he loved to teach simple catechism to (despite having credentials to teach in Rome), and where the faithful lined up out the door behind his confessional (causing the pastor to get jealous).  He was treated so incredibly disgracefully that he would have had every right to complain, but no one has ever recorded the tiniest complaint over his ignominious treatment.  He was like the other prelates from Communist countries that Montini shafted ... and nearly all the other complained abou the shafting, Mindszenty, Slipyj, and numerous others.  But +Thuc accepted it all as God's will, and didn't think himself "too good" to teach little children catechism and was genuinely grateful to have been given his tiny and dirty apartment, to be able to "earn his keep".  That's extraordinary humility.

Those who knew him after the +des Lauriers and +Carmona consecrations all spoke highly of his virute and his intellect.  I had been friends with Bishop Neal Webster, who was with +Vezelis at the time +Thuc was there and served Mass for him at time, and he told me that +Thuc offered one of the most devout Masses he had ever served, and that he was sharp as a whip.  Others reported that he was always challenging the seminarians / brothers to speak in Latin, and there are reports that he could switch between the several languages he spoke when at table with priests who spoke different ones, and would be able to keep track of the separte conversations.

But we had +Kelly and the like make a career out of smearing his memory, and of course Cabbage took up that baton, despite his hatred for sedevacantists.  Then you amplify the Palmar fiasco, without giving it the proper context, and you make up some crap ... and, finally, you have about 15 or so bogus claims of people having been consecrated by the Archbishop, and you have many handfuls of crap to throw at the wall to smear his good name and to create FUD (negative doubts) about the validity of the Sacraments he conferred.  BTW, Cabbage, know that +Kelly also considers +Williamson to be doubtful, not merely a doubtful bishop, but also a doubtful priests ... before you hitch your wagon to him.

Bishop Kelly made up this nonsense about having to have co-consecrators and competent witnesses.  Well, bishops who received papal mandates from Pius XII behind the Iron Curtain were not only permitted but were even commanded to consecrate without anyone else there, to minimize risk, and those were all accepted later without question.  Plus, +Williamson has done a few secret ones also, i.e. without "competent" witnesses, since with the +des Lauriers / +Carmona / +Zamora ones, you did in fact have witnesses, Drs. Hiller and Heller, who were in fact no dummies.  Bishop de Castro Mayer considered them valid, "If it was valid for Guerard, it's valid for me." ... as if one of the top pre-V2 theologians, the consecrand, wouldn't be a competent witness.  Fr. Guerard probably dreamed in Latin (having taught classes in Latin).  +Thuc reportedly spoke with +Carmona in Latin, since they didn't speak the same vernacular languages.

And, the final kicker for the +Kelly nonsense is that +Kelly claims that there need to be two COMPETENT witnesses (as if +Thuc and +Guerard des Lauriers weren't competent).  Well, if that's the case, then ... we need to find out whether competent witnesses can attest to Clarence Kelly's baptism having been correctly performed.  See, for as much as he blusters about two co-consecrators being a guarantee of validity, you can have 500 co-consecrators and 50 witnesses who's native tongue is Latin, but if the priest who baptized Clarence Kelly was having a bad day and botched the Baptism, it's utterly meaningless.  That just puts the lie to his fabricated claim about competent witnesses.

But when there's so much effort to smear someone like +Thuc, especially when it's a pack of lies on top of a pack of lies, that to me has the smell of sulfur all over it, that it's the work of the devil ... since so many Traditional faithful today owe their access to the Sacraments to Archbishop Thuc.