So, one can take some known facts (and of course stir in some slanders) and create a narrative around it that Archbishop Thuc was a devious, insane, "profaner" (per +Kelly et al), or one can try to take the facts and whitewash all his mistakes. It's like when people take a picture of something totally out of context in a split second of time and then weave a narrative around it. Look, here's a certain person taking a picture with Jeffrey Epstein. By itself that could mean anything, where they barely knew each other but just happened to be at the same place at the same time. More, much more, is needed.
Or ... as charity requires, since charity is truth ... we take only the known facts and put the best possible construction on them, without covering up the facts or stretching the interpretation to the point of incredulity.
If any of his slanderers took a bit of time to read his Autobiography, they'd get a completely different picture of the man than the caricature created by his slanderers.
With regard to the primary point that affects Traditional Catholics today, the evidence is overwhelming that Archbishop Thuc was not insane, that he knew what he was doing and intended to do it with regard to the consecrations he performed, those at Palmar and then of +Guerard des Lauriers and +Carmona. That's all that is required for a valid Sacrament that he basically know that he's a bishop and that he's performing this Rite that the Catholic Church uses to make a priest into a bishop. There isn't a shred of evidence that +Thuc lacked the mental acuity to perform these consecrations, for which the bar is incredibly low. You could do all kinds of imprudent things that people might coloquially call "crazy", but that doesn't mean that you're clinically and theologically insane to the point that you don't know what you're doing and can't validly confect a Sacrament.
Before Scuмmage here jumps onto the +Kelly bandwagon about not having sufficient qualified witnesses, several of the +Williamson consecrations were even more clandestine than the +Thuc ones, no witnesses, not revealed until months later, no pictures, nothing. At least with +Guerard des Lauriers and +Carmona/+Zamora, you had Drs. Hiller and Heller there, and then of course the consecrands themselves had advanced degrees and were paying attention. +Guerard caught parts of the Rite that were not relevant due to "sedevacante" and asked +Thuc to omit them. +Thuc conversed in Latin with +Carmona (since +Thuc didn't know Spanish) and corrected +Carmona regarding some mistakes. There was a famous dinner after these consecrations where +Thuc was at table with priests who spoke different languages, and +Thuc was able to switch languages from separate conversation to separate conversation and keep track of it all. I knew someone personally who attended to and served Mass for Archbishop Thuch in his last years before the kidnapping and he remarked about how +Thuc liked to keep the seminarians there sharp by conversing with them in Latin, and told me that he had never seen a priest offer Mass more devoutly than the Archbishop.
So the last thing Scuмmage has attempted has been to claim +Thuc witheld his intention, but not only is there not a shred of evidence for it ... and I've researched the matter thoroughly ... I can actually trace the origins to a combination of Fr. Cekada's blunder where he misunderstood what +Thuc said about not actually having celebrated a Novus Ordo Mass because he had not received Communion as being "simulation". +Thuc was just relying on the theologically-accurate principle that if a priest does not receive Communion, there is no Mass. He also repudiated the Palmar group after Clemente declared himself Pope. So then his detractors and slanderers conflated this "simulation" with a repudication of the Palmar group to make up this false allegation that he had ever withheld his intention during a consecration. Then there were also about a half dozen charlatans who falsely claimed ordination / consecration by +Thuc in the mix, causing some confusion, and when asked in those cases +Thuc would answer that he had not performed the consecration. But whenever he had been asked, even by those hostile to him, he always affirmed +Guerards / +Carmona / +Zamora ... and (much to his chagrin) Palmar.
But that doesn't stop Scuмmage here, just like +Kelly and others, from throwing buckets of excrement at the wall hoping that some of it will stick, where if you throw dozens of different accusations at him, then people will start to wonder. Archbishop Thuc couldn't pass gass without +Kelly using that as proof of his intention to "profane". Of course, we have it reported by his own SSPV colleagues that at one point he said that "we can't say they're valid, since people might go there."
Someone else asked the question about how many bishops +Thuc HIMSELF had consecrated, vs. the "line", since it speaks direclty to the Archbishop himself.
Answer is that he consecrated somewhere between 8 and 10. 5 at Palmar. What's not widely known is that 3 of the 5 were in fact just Traditional Catholic priests ordained prior to Vatican II, who had left their various groups due to the changes, and 2 of the 3 left Palmar themselves after Clemente declare himself Pope. Yes, there were two unqualified layment, Dominguez and Corral, but the first round or two of consecrations included at least one or two of the pre-Vatican II priests serving as co-consecrators, so those were likely valid regardless of whether one might legitimately question Dominguez's qualifications to validly confect the Sacrament. Of course, Latin is rather easier to Spanish speakers. In any case, that's speaking to validity more that whether it was prudent to do it.
Yes, this was highly imprudent ... but, again, you need to look at the entire context. Confusion reigned everywhere due to the Vatican II apostasy, and give this extreme crisis, people latched on to this private revelation too easily, in the hope that Our Lady would provide clarity, perhaps as a continuation of Fatima or a Fatima 2.0 ... and the reported revelations there condemned Vatican II. There were in fact various undoubtedly preternatural phenomena that accompanies the purported revelations, including Dominguez getting the stigmata, and then later being able to see without physical eyes (which he lost in a car accident), and he also would regularly levitate while offering Mass. Finally, a priest at Econe, Father Revaz, was the one who went to +Thuc and told him simply that Our Lady was calling him, and +Thuc, being naive and devoted to Our Lady, was drawn in believing he could be of some service to her. Fr. Revaz had asked +Lefebvre to go first, but +Lefebvre said he was too busy and told him to go see +Thuc. +Lefebvre didn't dismiss the thing out of hand either.
And then let's call to mind that the Resistance hero, Bishop Williamson, accept the reality of Garabandal, Akita, Valtorta, and some others. Bishop Fellay was taken in by that one woman who was later exposed, and even took some actions based on some of her "revelations". Does that mean that the validity of Sacraments conferred by +Williamson and +Fellay are now doubtful?
So just because someone might be "taken in" by some preternatural phenomena, some purported private revelation ... during the greatest crisis in the history of the Church, one without anything even remotely serving as a precedent ... this does not render the person insane, or even crazy in a colloquial sense.
If +Kelly wanted to attack +Williamson for insanity, he could make the same charges regarding Garabandal and Valtorta, his clandestine consecrations, the fact that +Williamson had been ordained by only one hand (yes, they used that against +Williamson also since he had been in the same ordination class as Bishop "One-Hand" Dan Dolan), find various episodes in +Williamson's life, take his Eleeison Comments out of context where he says things that many would construe as "crazy", and then talk about some of the bad decisions he made in ordaining people ... and you could write the equivalent of Bishop Kelly's "The Sacred and the Profane" against Bishop Williamson.
So, I mentioned the 5 consecrated at Palmar, and then 3 later (+Guerard and +Carmona/+Zamora), but said there were 8-10. So the other two were "conditional" consecrations, the most controversial of which was that of a Jean Laborie. Now the smear from +Kelly here is that +Laborie was an Old Catholic and a "known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ". So, with regard to the Old Catholic thing, not a few Traditional Catholic turned to the Old Catholic for Orders on account of Vatican II, exactly as +Shuckhart did when he found no alternative. Contrary to the lies of the Kelly-ites, receiving Orders from an Old Catholic does not make you an Old Catholic. By Canon Law, you'd be suspended ... not considered an Old Catholic. But given the Crisis, I doubt that would apply, since very few Traditional priests had authorization to do what they're doing other than if the faithful requested it for just cause, and that would apply just as much to suspended priest as to a "vagus". That's to say nothing of the fact that Daniel Q Brown was not an actual Old Catholic of the heretical (denying Vatican I) variety, but an Old ROMAN Catholic, who are basically pure schismatics but otherwise accept the teaching of the Church. As for Laborie being a known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, I seriously doubt that +Thuc knew that ... and of course we have Bishop Williamson having ordained Urrutigoity despite multiple credible reports of his being a sodomite predator, along with a couple others in his group, having been told to watch for Urrutigoity maintaining "particular friendships" (aka a levender group), which Urrutigoity openly did there at STAS, where we talked about the Urrutigoity "cult" .. .and where Bishop Williamson often delegated various leadership roles to Urritigoity there even before he had been ordained.
If you read Archbishop Thuc's autobiorgraphy, you find there an extremely humble man, very simple and devout ... despite also having obtained THREE advanced degrees from Rome, given a mandate from Pius XI (never revoked) to consecrate without seeking permission from Rome (often given to those in Communist countries), to consecrate even clandestinely (where they were not only permitted but ordered to do it clandestinely), who started a seminary there from scratch ... but, despite all his accomplishments, was an extremely humble and simple man, to the point of constituting a heroic example thereof once you get into the examples. Also in his autobiography you'll find an exceptional recall of dates, names, places of thing that had occurred decades before, where he could list the name of the cook at his rectory and his children ... not something a senile insane man could do, and this autobiography was written after the +Guerard / +Carmona / +Zamora consecrations. While he was at Vatican II, aligned there with the conservative fathers group and friends with +Lefebvre, his family were slaughtered by the Communists (with help from the US). So he became an instant exile, and instead of being treated with dignity, he was practically left homeless. He ended up serving as an assistant to the pastor of a small parish in France, for which he was given a tiny stipend and an tiny little dirty hole-in-the-wall apartment. Yet NOT ONCE WAS HE EVER KNOWN OR REPORTED TO HAVE UTTERED A SINGLE WORD OF COMPLAINT for this indignity. He was actually genuinely grateful to the pastor for this opportunity to "earn his keep". He heard Confessions there, and enjoyed providing catechsim for children. Children loved him, and he loved them and he was very happy to do that work. Eventually, when the line to his confessional went out the door of the Church, while almost nobody went to the pastor, the pastor became jealous and kicked him out. But the humility that he displayed there was nothing short of heroic. Also in his autobiography you find a devout and very simple soul, despite his learning and his advanced degrees .. and the tone, style, and content of the work remind me of St. Therese's "Story of a Soul".
On the downside of simplicity, Archbishop Thuc could be somewhat naive, easiliy manipulated, and taken advantage of ... since he just always assumed the best in everyone, and never suspected duplicity, and perhaps he had been emotionally beaten up due to the trauma of his family's (cruel) slaughter, his exile, his ill treatment by the Vatican, etc. ... so that he did make some imprudent decisions. When Fr. Revaz came to him and said, "Our Lady needs a service from you." ... you can just sense that he was so excited to be called by Our Lady and to perform some service for her, and that exuberance, and simply trusting Fr. Revaz and then the people at Palmar, led him to make some poor judgments.
But there's absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any profanation, sacrilege, blasphemy, or any ill intention whatsoever. In fat, it's quite clear that he always had the best of intentions even if he made some poor judgments, where people said he was a "poor judge of character". But ... people have said the same thing about Archbishop Lefebvre, that because of his simplicity and always thinking the best of everyone, he made some mistakes, whether in ordaining The Nine, or putting various priests into positions of leadership, whether +Fellay or +Galaretta or Schmidberger, or Laisney, or many other of the ones who have caused problems down the road.
Archbishop Thuc was a simple, kind, and IMO holy man ... who was just doing what he thought he could or should in this unprecedented crisis, after having suffered tremendously ... and sometimes this combination of kindness, simplicity, and emotional trauma, they led to some poor decisions. Nevertheless, there are so many souls who have the Sacraments now who would not have had them, even if there were some rogues that got through as well. I do believe that the Archbishop will be canonized one day, since there's nothing about having made honest well-intentioned mistakes that militates against a judgment regarding one's personal holiness ... as many saints had made mistakes, sometimes very serious ones.
That is the truth, not Scuмmage's slanders because he hates the sedevacantists (while also hating SSPX) and deciding that "The Resistance" IS the Remannt Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Topic: Thuc 400 Bishops Madness (Read 7153 times)