Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Bataar on September 19, 2019, 09:14:16 PM
-
I understand there is some confusion over the validity of the Thuc bishops. I'm trying to understand the situation myself so I'm looking for some information on the subject. Why wouldn't they be valid? If the bishops ordained by Lefebvre are valid, why wouldn't the ones ordained by Thuc?
-
I do not agree with this assessment, but this is Bishop Kelly's argument:
http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf (http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf)
... and
Here's the refutation:
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf (http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf)
In my opinion, the Refutation wins.
-
The consecration at Econe were conferred after John Paul II refused permission and despite the formal prohibition against them. And this while both consecrator and those consecrated recognized John Paul II as a legitimate pope. To act in this manner could be? schismatic behavior? On the other hand, those performed by Archbishop Thus were performed by someone? who had recognized and publicly declared that the Holy See lacked a formalitur pope. Two fortunate things followed from this recognition of the absence of any authority. It allowed both consecrator and those consecrated to invoke the principle of epikeia in presuming an apostolic mandate and as a result rendered the consecrations conferred, not only valid, but also licit.
Then, while the consecrations of Archbishop Thus were conferred in a secret manner, great publicity surrounded the consecrations at Econe. But after the consecrations of Guerard des Lauriers and the Mexican priests, the attacks on Archbishop Thuc led to their losing their secret character. They became public and so rapidly so that Rome was immediately aware of them and intervened. This, on the part of Rome provided these consecrations with the notoriety which they formerly lacked.
So, I can not say where the above info came from. I wish. But for what it is worth, it was something I cut out years ago. I was to understand that Bishop Camona was correct in his consecrations, not being secret, but speaking of epikeia.
Now I understand a little more about what Pope Pius XII wrote about the next elections for pope, whether they be layman, excommunicated.... they may hold office (?) but they have not authority. I remember the pope being referred to as a "cardboard pope".
-
... Pope Pius XII wrote about the next elections for pope, whether they be layman, excommunicated.... they may hold office (?) but they have not authority. I remember the pope being referred to as a "cardboard pope".
Do you have a citation for this?
-
Do you have a citation for this?
Yeah, this is news to me. Something seems off about it, but would be happy to see a source.
-
I do not agree with this assessment, but this is Bishop Kelly's argument:
http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf (http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf)
... and
Here's the refutation:
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf (http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf)
In my opinion, the Refutation wins.
Did Bp. Kelly respond to Mr. Derksen's letter?
-
Then, while the consecrations of Archbishop Thus were conferred in a secret manner, great publicity surrounded the consecrations at Econe.
While there was not great publicity surrounding the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc, they were not conferred in secret.
-
Do you have a citation for this?
Is this what she is talking about?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/does-1917-canon-law-abolish-papal-bull-pope-paul-4/
34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)
-
Did Bp. Kelly respond to Mr. Derksen's letter?
No, and none of the SSPV/CSPV members ever will. Do you want to know why? Because they are wrong and will never admit their mistake. Also, it’s a rallying point or a cohesive factor that keeps their “group” (I’m being charitable here) together.
-
Is this what she is talking about?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/does-1917-canon-law-abolish-papal-bull-pope-paul-4/
Might be what she was thinking but it doesn't apply. The plain words of the legislation does not allow that a non-Catholic may be elected or be a part of the conclave. Only ecclesiastical penalties are lifted.
-
Is this what she is talking about?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/does-1917-canon-law-abolish-papal-bull-pope-paul-4/
I'm not sure. I'm curious about the part where she says they hold office but lack authority ... since that would in fact be an endorsement of sedeprivationism. But I see nothing like that in this quote.
-
Might be what she was thinking but it doesn't apply. The plain words of the legislation does not allow that a non-Catholic may be elected or be a part of the conclave. Only ecclesiastical penalties are lifted.
Absolutely.
-
No, and none of the SSPV/CSPV members ever will. Do you want to know why? Because they are wrong and will never admit their mistake. Also, it’s a rallying point or a cohesive factor that keeps their “group” (I’m being charitable here) together.
Once they created the initial FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) about the consecrations, the average lay person was scared enough of even the POSSIBILITY that their Sacraments might be invalid that even the most solid refutation could not offset that. SSPV preyed on people's scruples and started by articulating the tutiorist principles in such a way as to fan the flames of negative doubt. What they did there was very serious. Bishop Sanborn quoted Father Kelly as once having said, "We can't say the Thuc bishops are valid, since people might go to them." So from that moment on, it was suspect whether Father Kelly was approaching this matter in the interests of ascertaining the truth. In fact, Dierksen cites cases where Father Kelly so badly distorted and misrepresented his sources (in out-of-context quotations) that it's difficult to believe those were simple mistakes and not done deliberately.
-
I was myself initially troubled about the validity of the Thuc line, and at the the time I did not have the hours of time to devote to the research that would have been required to debunk the SSPV allegations. But once I did sit down and look at the arguments, the SSPV case against the Thuc line holds NO WATER whatsoever, and it was extremely irresponsible. Father Kelly quite literally pulled these made-up principles out of thin air and then found some out-of-context quotes to back them up.
This requirement that "competent" witnesses are required who can attest specifically to whether the matter and form were correctly applied simply does not exist. As long as the minister has been properly trained, e.g. a bishop like Thuc who had been a seminary professor and who had personally consecrated a number of men before Vatican II, the competence of the minister is presumed. During the Cold War, bishops were clandestinely consecrated with no witnesses present (to minimize the risk), and their validity was never doubted by the Church. In fact, +Thuc himself had one of these commissions to consecrate bishops clandestinely ... since he was operating in Communist territory. One could argue, even, that, if there were no legit popes since Pius XII, his permission to consecrate endured ... and one could even make a case that they were done with all necessary jurisdiction.
I mean, what if the priest had botched the Baptism Rite of a man who was being consecrated? Then he wouldn't be a valid bishop. Was there anyone present who could swear that the priest poured water correctly on the infant's head and said the proper Latin formula? Such testimony was never demanded by the Church. Even though it's theoretically possible that it was botched, the Church leaves it to God's providence to take care of such matters.
What if I'm assisting at Mass? Could I please get an altar boy trained in Latin to sign off that the priest got the words of consecration right before I go to receive Holy Communion? According to Father Kelly, I can never receive Holy Communion, then, since I would have to hold the consecration to be doubtful due to lack of sufficient witnesses.
It's utter nonsense.
-
Once they created the initial FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) about the consecrations, the average lay person was scared enough of even the POSSIBILITY that their Sacraments might be invalid that even the most solid refutation could not offset that. SSPV preyed on people's scruples and started by articulating the tutiorist principles in such a way as to fan the flames of negative doubt. What they did there was very serious. Bishop Sanborn quoted Father Kelly as once having said, "We can't say the Thuc bishops are valid, since people might go to them." So from that moment on, it was suspect whether Father Kelly was approaching this matter in the interests of ascertaining the truth. In fact, Dierksen cites cases where Father Kelly so badly distorted and misrepresented his sources (in out-of-context quotations) that it's difficult to believe those were simple mistakes and not done deliberately.
You are absolutely right about the issue with scruples and negative doubt. Sadly, several years ago I had to instruct one of the younger priests on the difference between positive and negative doubt. One thing in their favor is the fact that everyone of the seminarians and priests are upstanding individuals. Even with their serious flaw regarding the Thuc issue, I like all of them.
-
I was myself initially troubled about the validity of the Thuc line, and at the the time I did not have the hours of time to devote to the research that would have been required to debunk the SSPV allegations. But once I did sit down and look at the arguments, the SSPV case against the Thuc line holds NO WATER whatsoever, and it was extremely irresponsible. Father Kelly quite literally pulled these made-up principles out of thin air and then found some out-of-context quotes to back them up.
This requirement that "competent" witnesses are required who can attest specifically to whether the matter and form were correctly applied simply does not exist. As long as the minister has been properly trained, e.g. a bishop like Thuc who had been a seminary professor and who had personally consecrated a number of men before Vatican II, the competence of the minister is presumed. During the Cold War, bishops were clandestinely consecrated with no witnesses present (to minimize the risk), and their validity was never doubted by the Church. In fact, +Thuc himself had one of these commissions to consecrate bishops clandestinely ... since he was operating in Communist territory. One could argue, even, that, if there were no legit popes since Pius XII, his permission to consecrate endured ... and one could even make a case that they were done with all necessary jurisdiction.
I mean, what if the priest had botched the Baptism Rite of a man who was being consecrated? Then he wouldn't be a valid bishop. Was there anyone present who could swear that the priest poured water correctly on the infant's head and said the proper Latin formula? Such testimony was never demanded by the Church. Even though it's theoretically possible that it was botched, the Church leaves it to God's providence to take care of such matters.
What if I'm assisting at Mass? Could I please get an altar boy trained in Latin to sign off that the priest got the words of consecration right before I go to receive Holy Communion? According to Father Kelly, I can never receive Holy Communion, then, since I would have to hold the consecration to be doubtful due to lack of sufficient witnesses.
It's utter nonsense.
Frankly, if someone showed me all the facts concerning both the Thuc and Mendez lines and said that just one of the lines was valid, using Bishop Kelly’s criteria, I would have to choose the Thuc line as the valid one.
-
Songbird said:
".... Then, while the consecrations of Archbishop Thus were conferred in a secret manner, great publicity surrounded the consecrations at Econe".
You inadvertently nailed it.
The "great publicity" was the sign of the SSPX being chosen as the traditional controlled opposition.
With Princess's Pallavacini's "black nobility" endorsement and all.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cyJSKKdttng/Tcm3aGCeBgI/AAAAAAAAYbs/vArCNI6grHs/s1600/pala.jpg)
-
Help me with this citation of Pope Pius XII. I read it online but where? It was a paragraph long adding to a code of law 1917? I can't be sure. But the paragraph was the listing of all different ways that a "man", be he layman, (there was a layman elected pope at one time), suspended, excomunicated, heretical, and etc.could be elected, but that person would have no authority.
To me, when I first read it, it was like, "why would Pius XII say this?" It was supposed to be an addition to another code/citation written before.
I thought about it. Pope Pius XII knew how bad things were. He knew what could be expected after his death. No authority makes sense but wasn't that always understood?
Could the next pope show publicly that he was Mason, or heretical? If so, than the "games" would begin, of no authority. Then how would we keep sacraments going?
I hope we get answers to our questions.
-
Could it be Canon 1099, motu proprio? Pope Pius XII added to the 1917 code and it went into effect jan. 1949. I can't find the reading at this time, but I do think that is where I read about no authority, even if a stray takes the Seat. The Stray would be in mortal sin, that is showing fruits of not following Christ.
So, Pius XII added or revised a paragraph. I thought, now that is clever. Pius XII knew the Church of Christ was taken on and so, whoever is elected in such a "state", no authority.
If you find this, correct me if I am wrong.
-
To me, when I first read it, it was like, "why would Pius XII say this?" It was supposed to be an addition to another code/citation written before.
Probably because he didn't. If he did, it would be front and center every single time this issue was discussed.
-
Help me with this citation of Pope Pius XII. I read it online but where? It was a paragraph long adding to a code of law 1917? I can't be sure. But the paragraph was the listing of all different ways that a "man", be he layman, (there was a layman elected pope at one time), suspended, excomunicated, heretical, and etc.could be elected, but that person would have no authority.
To me, when I first read it, it was like, "why would Pius XII say this?" It was supposed to be an addition to another code/citation written before.
I thought about it. Pope Pius XII knew how bad things were. He knew what could be expected after his death. No authority makes sense but wasn't that always understood?
Could the next pope show publicly that he was Mason, or heretical? If so, than the "games" would begin, of no authority. Then how would we keep sacraments going?
I hope we get answers to our questions.
Hard to tell the scenario that Pope Pius XII was anticipating?
Could it have been the usurping of his immediate successor, a validly elected Pope?
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftargetfreedomusa.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FSiri_Pius_XII.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ourladyisgod.com%2Fimages%2Fimg-Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ-in-your-church%2Ffreemason-john-xxiii-smoking-pope-cigarette.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
OOPS.
-
Frankly, if someone showed me all the facts concerning both the Thuc and Mendez lines and said that just one of the lines was valid, using Bishop Kelly’s criteria, I would have to choose the Thuc line as the valid one.
ditto. Bishop Sanborn laid out very nicely how Bishop Kelly's own criteria apply even more to the Mendez consecration than to the Thuc ones.
As I said, I have no "skin in this game". I do not attend Mass at the chapel of a priest whose orders come through the Thuc line.
-
You are absolutely right about the issue with scruples and negative doubt. Sadly, several years ago I had to instruct one of the younger priests on the difference between positive and negative doubt. One thing in their favor is the fact that everyone of the seminarians and priests are upstanding individuals. Even with their serious flaw regarding the Thuc issue, I like all of them.
Yes, I like them too. Father Jenkins is one of my all-time favorite priests.
-
Is this what you're looking for from Pius XII?
No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)
-
ditto. Bishop Sanborn laid out very nicely how Bishop Kelly's own criteria apply even more to the Mendez consecration than to the Thuc ones.
Can you tell us where he did so? While I agree with that premise after reading the SSPV book and the Dirksen reply, I'd like to see Bishop Sanborn's arguments.
-
Can you tell us where he did so? While I agree with that premise after reading the SSPV book and the Dirksen reply, I'd like to see Bishop Sanborn's arguments.
This is the only place I can find this online.
http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html (http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html)
It's mostly an ad hominem showing how the principles applied by Bishop Kelly to +Thuc apply even moreso to the +Mendez situation.
-
I understand the argument surrounding the validity of the Thuc bishops, but can we still really say they are safe? I mean even if they are valid, what about the fact that Archbishop Thuc consecrated and ordained non-Catholics prior to his sedevacantist consecrations? There's no doubt that even if his consecrations were valid they were most certainly NOT licit. He not only consecrated the Palmarians, but even the Old Catholic schismatics. Some assert he was supposedly swindled into consecrating and ordaining the Palmarians, but even if that were the case, it is simply a fact he consecrated five Old Catholic schismatics. Let's also add the fact that the Church gravely condemns such actions. Any bishop to abuse his powers in such a way is ipso facto excommunicated, according to canon law, and he could not exercise his orders. Only with a dispensation that is reserved to the Holy See. If, as Mr Derksen asserts, approaching such a schismatic for episcopal orders is justified by epikeya, then in that case we might as well throw the laws of the Church out the window. If that were the case then who's to say it isn't wrong to receive episcopal orders from the Russian schismatics? Holy Mother Church has declared their orders valid, but they are not licit, and therefore, no Catholic could ever approach them for orders.
-
(http://www.prayforthepope.net/FlowChart.jpg)
I don't agree with everything on this website, but looking at that chart I definitely would not want to touch the Thuc lineage with a 10ft pole.
-
Check the lineage of Bishop Carmona (Thuc)
-
We need a real investigation from Rome to settle all of this. Meanwhile at least we can know that the orders of Lefebvre are certain along with the Eastern Catholic bishops.
-
In the discussion over Thuc clergy validity, there is a lot of equivocation that goes on. I think when most people say 'Thuc clergy' they have in mind only a very small subset of Thuc clergy: really, just the lines that proceed from Carmona and Guerard des Lauriers-- since, after all, the majority of 'respectable' traditionalist clergy in the US who have Thuc orders have their orders through those two men (all 'Thuc orders' from the CMRI, SGG, and MHT can be traced to those two consecrations quite easily and discretely). And the fact of their consecrations is just indisputable, as is the fact of the consecrations those men then later carried out.
.
Now, if by 'Thuc clergy,' one has in mind some obscure cleric whose orders go through three or four Palmarian schismatics, involve various figures who doubted the orders they received at some point in that line, are poorly docuмented if not docuмented at all (ahem, Neal Webster), then I would of course agree. In fact, I don't even think we need a proper 'decision' from (restored) Rome on those orders because typically the men who claim to have such orders are of very poor judgment anyways, and are unfit to even act as a vagus. But again, the average traditionalist's interaction with those Thuc clergy is marginal. Few people are put in situations where they have to make decisions about such clergy, and it really isn't that big of practical deal.