Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: mobius on October 26, 2013, 12:10:35 AM
-
Thuc consecrated and open gαy...don't forget.
Open gαy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemente_Dom%C3%ADnguez_y_G%C3%B3mez)
In addition, he "reconciled" with Pope Paul VI reconciled with Vatican II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Thuc_Pierre_Martin)
Also, he died in communion with Vatican II in a Monastery.
Lastly, funny that Bishop(?) Pivarunas was in communion with Bishop(?) Francis. Odd Pivarunas said the following:
“He didn’t touch me [Pivanrunas says], but he was definitely sɛҳuąƖly
abusing seminarians [adults (?)], usually at his private residence in Spokane,
and he was also taking a lot of drugs. His immorality was scandalous, but I
continued to regard him as my legitimate bishop [Editor’s: Bold and Italics].”
Pivarunas and Francis (http://www.lulu.com/shop/william-detucci/communicatio-in-sacris/paperback/product-18959071.html)
-
You are troll who has consistently defamed the CMRI and has promoted the garbage of the militant home-aloners Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock.
You should be banned.
-
It may be true that the CMRI has this in their past. However it would be unfair to accuse everybody of malevolence because of the actions of one or a few of their members.
-
The problem is that while many sins plague the Church members the Church is the Church. Francis is reigning supreme and in a sinful way. However no one can judge the Heart. Many Sede's are cultists and Outside the Church because they refuse to be charitable and have lines from Open gαys, this line, that line....look none of your groups are in Communion with one another. CMRI, SSPV, INDEPENDENT, etc. Get a grip!
-
To say that Thuc was a traditionalist bishop is pure fantasy. His sede comments were more than likely drafted by his minders at the time.
At best, he provided the sedevacantists (and others) with episcopal orders - that's it. As did Méndez.
Quite odd when you think about it - there would be no sede bishops if it wasn't for two Conciliar bishops! Not including any Old Catholic, Orthodox or Duarte Costa sede lines.
Do you have any proof that Archbishop Thuc defected from the Catholic Faith? Do you have any evidence to support your statement that "His sede comments were more than likely drafted by his minders at the time."
there would be no sede bishops if it wasn't for two Conciliar bishops! Not including any Old Catholic, Orthodox or Duarte Costa sede lines.
Did Archbishop Thuc become a member of the Conciliar sect and by that leave the Catholic Church? What proof do you have that he knowingly left the Church and joined this sect?
-
Hermenegild
To say that Thuc was a traditionalist bishop is pure fantasy. His sede comments were more than likely drafted by his minders at the time.
At best, he provided the sedevacantists (and others) with episcopal orders - that's it. As did Méndez.
Quite odd when you think about it - there would be no sede bishops if it wasn't for two Conciliar bishops! Not including any Old Catholic, Orthodox or Duarte Costa sede lines.
Have you met Thuc?
Where do you get your knowledge of him?
What do you know of his "minders"?
Why was he held against his will and kidnapped?
Do you think even if it were ONE bishop that it would make it worse or better?
-
Ambrose
Did Archbishop Thuc become a member of the Conciliar sect and by that leave the Catholic Church? What proof do you have that he knowingly left the Church and joined this sect?
Precise and to the point!!!!
-
Thuc consecrated and open gαy...don't forget.
Open gαy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemente_Dom%C3%ADnguez_y_G%C3%B3mez)
In addition, he "reconciled" with Pope Paul VI reconciled with Vatican II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Thuc_Pierre_Martin)
Also, he died in communion with Vatican II in a Monastery.
Lastly, funny that Bishop(?) Pivarunas was in communion with Bishop(?) Francis. Odd Pivarunas said the following:
“He didn’t touch me [Pivanrunas says], but he was definitely sɛҳuąƖly
abusing seminarians [adults (?)], usually at his private residence in Spokane,
and he was also taking a lot of drugs. His immorality was scandalous, but I
continued to regard him as my legitimate bishop [Editor’s: Bold and Italics].”
Pivarunas and Francis (http://www.lulu.com/shop/william-detucci/communicatio-in-sacris/paperback/product-18959071.html)
What proof do you have that Archbishop Thuc knowingly consecrated a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ man? Did the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ man declare this fact to Thuc?
Also, he died in communion with Vatican II in a Monastery
Do you have any proof, other than where he resided, that Archbishop Thuc was in communion with John Paul II when he died?
Lastly, funny that Bishop(?) Pivarunas was in communion with Bishop(?) Francis. Odd Pivarunas said the following:
“He didn’t touch me [Pivanrunas says], but he was definitely sɛҳuąƖly
abusing seminarians [adults (?)], usually at his private residence in Spokane,
and he was also taking a lot of drugs. His immorality was scandalous, but I
continued to regard him as my legitimate bishop [Editor’s: Bold and Italics].”
Why does it seem strange to you that Bp. Pivarunas was in communion with Francis Schuckardt at that time? Do Catholics sever communion with other Catholics due to mortal sin?
Was Bp. Pivarunas speaking from hindsight in this statement, or did he have evidence at the time of Schuckdart's alleged crimes? It is not clear from you quote, and it is pertinent. You did not mention, how old was Bp. Pivarunas at this time? What formation did he have in have at that time in knowing how to judge evidence, report crimes, and react to this situation correctly?
Schuckdardt deserved to be denounced and he was expelled for his apparent misdeeds. The real question about this incident is this: When did Bo. Pivarunas have moral certainty about Schuckdart's crimes, did Bp. Pivarunas at his young age understand how to react to this, and lastly, what reaction did he take when he did have moral certainty and was clear about how to react?
As you are the one who is smearing him, the onus is on you to provide these answers.
-
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/audio/07_06_05Thuc_Webster.mp3
Reply to Mo' B.S.
-
Kidnapped by who?
-
You are troll who has consistently defamed the CMRI and has promoted the garbage of the militant home-aloners Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock.
You should be banned.
Isn't Metatics are former colleague of Scott Hahn's?
-
To say that Thuc was a traditionalist bishop is pure fantasy. His sede comments were more than likely drafted by his minders at the time.
At best, he provided the sedevacantists (and others) with episcopal orders - that's it. As did Méndez.
Quite odd when you think about it - there would be no sede bishops if it wasn't for two Conciliar bishops! Not including any Old Catholic, Orthodox or Duarte Costa sede lines.
Do you have any proof that Archbishop Thuc defected from the Catholic Faith? Do you have any evidence to support your statement that "His sede comments were more than likely drafted by his minders at the time."
there would be no sede bishops if it wasn't for two Conciliar bishops! Not including any Old Catholic, Orthodox or Duarte Costa sede lines.
Did Archbishop Thuc become a member of the Conciliar sect and by that leave the Catholic Church? What proof do you have that he knowingly left the Church and joined this sect?
If you are going to let Thuc off the hook then you are going to have to let hundreds if not thousands of Conciliar bishops off the hook. My point was that Thuc was not some rock solid anti-modernist bishop that some people make him out to be. He was retired Vatican II bishop whose claim to fame in the post Vatican II era was unauthorized and irregular consecrations. Three of the men he consecrated just happen to be sedevacantists.
Name another bishop who claimed at that time that John Paul II was a false pope!
And who are these "hundreds if not thousands of bishops"? "Off the hook" for what?
Hundreds or thousands of bishops were kidnapped? wow
-
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/audio/07_06_05Thuc_Webster.mp3
Listen to this interview! Learn!
I wish Archbishop Lefebvre had the guts to say that and stick with it! A lot of the issues we have today would have been avoided and things would be much clearer for a lot of people if he didn't waver back and forth!
-
Do you deny he was an Archbishop? :confused1:
Name one bishop! Put up or shut up!
-
THUC ISSUE NO LONGER CONTROVERSIAL
by Father Martin Stepanich
Dear Traditional Catholic (7-25-03)
It should be very revealing, as well as understandably quite shocking, for many traditional Catholics to realize that they have been deceived and misled regarding the true facts of the Thuc issue by certain highly-placed anti-Thuc agitators.
In your letter of July 7, you tell of your own experience and you express the conviction that none of the questioning of the legitimate status of Thuc-line bishops and priests would ever have happened if the whole dispute had not been created by anti-Thuc agitators among the clergy, who then spread their false story among their parishioners by way of their anti-Thuc writings and actions.
Appropriately enough, you conclude your comments by saying that the priests who stirred up all the controversy about the Thuc consecrations of bishops “really shot themselves in the foot.”
If any of the anti-Thuc bishops would realize how much they have discredited themselves by misinforming and misleading their unsuspecting followers!
There is no sound reason why the anti-Thuc controversy should continue. The Thuc issue ceased to be objectively controversial when all the facts became known and understood and then accepted by those of good will.
The first fact that we need to recognize and understand clearly in regard to the Thuc issue is the power of consecrating bishops, as well as of ordaining priests, which Archbishop Thuc possessed as a Catholic bishop, a power which he never lost, nor could lose, neither on account of signing the questionable Vatican II docuмents, nor for at first consecrating unworthy men as bishops. No bishop can lose his power of consecrating bishops for any kind of reason, such as, for example, losing the faith or joining the freemasons or other anti-Catholic subversives.
This should be no surprise for properly instructed traditional Catholics who learned probably already in their catechism days, that a man ordained as a Catholic priest becomes a priest forever. The pertinent Scriptural passage about the eternal priesthood that true Catholic should have no trouble remembering is the well-known; “Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech” (Psalm 109,5).
In dealing with the Catholic priesthood, we are dealing with something divinely established, not with something established by man. The everlasting power given to priests is given to them by God, not by man. The indelible mark, or character, of the priesthood, received at ordination, belongs to the Catholic priest by the will of God, not by the will of man, and it belongs to the priest forever. Just as the indelible mark received at Baptism belongs to the Baptized Catholic forever.
We are speaking here of matters clearly pertaining to the Catholic Faith and which cannot be doubted, nor questioned, nor denied without the risk of incurring the guilt of heresy.
When a priest becomes a bishop, he retains the indelible mark of the priesthood as well as the powers that go with the priesthood. But, as a bishop, he now has additional powers, the powers that go with the fullness of the priesthood. With these additional powers, he can no consecrate bishops and ordain priests, as well as confer the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Those traditional Catholics who have at their disposal some reliable traditional Catholic religion book, or maybe an advanced Catholic catechism, or even a reliable theology book, would do well to turn to the pages that deal with the sacrament of Holy orders and re-educate themselves as to the nature and powers of the Catholic priesthood.
Just to take one example of a good traditional advanced catechism, we can recommend Deharbe’s Catechism, first published in German long ago by Father Joseph Deharbe, S. J., and then translated into English early in the 20th Century.
The fortunate thing about the English edition of Deharbe’s Catechism is that it was reissued in 1998 by Omni-Christian Book Club of America (P/O/ Box 900566, Palmdale California 93590-0566 – Phone (661) 274-2240).
On page 303 of the 1998 edition of Deharbe’s Catechism, the question is asked: “Can a Priest be deprived of his ordination?” The correct answer given is this: “No, he can as little be deprived of Ordination as of Baptism, because it imprints an indelible character upon the soul.”
And then Father Deharbe continues: “A Priest therefore, or a Bishop, cannot be deprived of the powers which he received in his Ordination or Consecration, to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and to offer up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to administer Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders.”
Knowing the everlasting nature and power of the Priesthood, no genuine Catholic of good will could honestly persist in holding that Archbishop Thuc’s Consecrations of Bishops were doubtful, or even outright invalid. Because the power of the fullness of the Priesthood is everlasting, there can be no argument, no questioning, no controversy about the undoubted validity of the Thuc consecrations of Bishops.
You would think that the anti-Thuc militants saw that they had no other choice but to go silent and stop their anti-Thuc campaign. Yet, believe it or not, they did not stop trying to discredit Archbishop Thuc and the Thuc-line Bishops and Priests. Being the “geniuses” that they are, they had a dream. The dreamt that they could finish off the Archbishop by spreading around the made-up story that he was feeble-minded and therefore incapable of using his power of Consecrating Bishops validly.
But that didn’t work. Thinking Catholics could at once object that neither Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, nor Bishop Carmona, nor Bishop Zamora complained that Archbishop Thuc was feeble-minded when he consecrated them. They saw that the Archbishop what the Pontifical Ritual required as to matter and form and intention. When the Consecration ceremonies were completed, these three men knew that they were validly consecrated Catholic Bishops. So in due time they proceeded to do what Catholic Bishops are empowered to do. That is, they consecrated other Bishops, and it was from them that the American line of Thuc Bishops developed.
Where were the anti-Thuc dreamers when Archbishop Thuc was consecrating Bishops Guerard and Carmona and Zamora? They were in faraway anti-Thuc dreamland. That’s where they were.
While anti-Thuc agitators are unable honestly to deny the validity of the Thuc consecrations of Bishops, they imagine they have a legitimate argument against the Archbishop when they declare that his consecrations were unlawful, or illicit, since he had no papal mandate or permit to consecrate Bishops.
But the anti-Thucs made a big mistake, in regard to the supposed unlawfulness of the Thuc consecrations, in failing to stress the fact that Archbishop Thuc did not do his consecrations before the Vatican II disaster, when things were still in proper order at the Vatican and the Church in general. He, on the contrary, did the consecrations without a papal mandate after the Vatican II apostasy from the traditional Catholic faith and practice had set in and after disorder and confusion prevailed everywhere, having had its beginning at the very top of the Church hierarchy.
What the anti-Thuc need to realize is that when a human law, or decree, like the papal mandate for the consecration of Bishops, can no longer be enforced and the one who would normally issue the papal mandate has himself deserted the True Faith, the Divine Law nevertheless still remains in force and always will remain in force.
The Divine Law about which we are speaking is the law that demands that the work of saving souls must by all means continue, despite the Vatican II apostasy. For that, Bishops and Priests are needed to make available the means of grace for the faithful. That is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, which are the principal means of grace, must be made available to the faithful, while at the same time the True Catholic Faith must by all means be taught whole and entire, and kept alive among the faithful.
As the anti-Thucs can plainly see, it was because of the Vatican II apostasy from the True Catholic Faith that Archbishop Thuc saw that he could not go by the human law demanding a papal mandate for consecrating Bishops. But he could, and he did, obey the Divine Law demanding the continued work of saving souls. He was fully justified before God in obeying His Law, and he had he necessary jurisdiction to do so by virtue of Divine Law.
Traditional Bishops and Priests who have proceeded from Archbishop Thuc are likewise fully justified before God in preserving the True Faith among traditional Catholics, and providing for them the necessary means of grace. The traditional “emergency jurisdiction” long granted by the Church in cases of urgent need is based upon the Divine Law that demands that the necessary care of souls continue.
A much-needed article, dealing with the issue of traditional priests conferring the Sacraments legitimately in these confused times, has recently been issued by Father Anthony Cekada ( The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations). In the article, Father Cekada puts forth his main theme in these words: “Divine Law obliges rather than forbids us to confer Sacraments.” Traditional Catholics would do well to obtain a copy of the article from father Cekada, and then read it carefully and accept Father’s unquestionable conclusions.
For all anti-Thuc agitators who have kept stirring up the storm of controversy over the Thuc consecrations, and against the Thuc Bishops and Priests, the message has long been loud and clear: “Peace! Be still!”
Pax et Bonum!
Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
-
Because I asked you to? I don't know. Who are these hundreds and thousands of bishops? and what did they do?
-
? Then you BLIND yourself to the FACTS of the kidnapping, etc. of Archbishop Thuc despite what eyewitnesses have reported? That is irresponsible and slanderous!!
And it is extremely uncharitable and irresponsible for you to peddle this lie around on a public forum when you refuse to learn the truth!
I :pray: for you!
-
He was the ONLY bishop at that time to claim that JPII was a false pope. His consecrations were validly done in the Traditional rite and was sedevacantist until the time he was kidnapped!!!!!
Define traditionalist for those of us who are less knowledgeable than yourself.
-
Hermenegild,
Are you by chance with Bishop Joseph Marie and the excommunicated/schismatic Old Catholics? Your phrasing reminds me a lot of him.
-
Another question: Do you doubt Archbishop Lefebvre was validly ordained? Because of the intention of Leinart?
-
Was Shuckardt valid?
-
Hermenegild,
Do you believe Bishop Daniel Brown was valid?
-
To say that Thuc was a traditionalist bishop is pure fantasy. His sede comments were more than likely drafted by his minders at the time.
At best, he provided the sedevacantists (and others) with episcopal orders - that's it. As did Méndez.
Quite odd when you think about it - there would be no sede bishops if it wasn't for two Conciliar bishops! Not including any Old Catholic, Orthodox or Duarte Costa sede lines.
Do you have any proof that Archbishop Thuc defected from the Catholic Faith? Do you have any evidence to support your statement that "His sede comments were more than likely drafted by his minders at the time."
there would be no sede bishops if it wasn't for two Conciliar bishops! Not including any Old Catholic, Orthodox or Duarte Costa sede lines.
Did Archbishop Thuc become a member of the Conciliar sect and by that leave the Catholic Church? What proof do you have that he knowingly left the Church and joined this sect?
If you are going to let Thuc off the hook then you are going to have to let hundreds if not thousands of Conciliar bishops off the hook. My point was that Thuc was not some rock solid anti-modernist bishop that some people make him out to be. He was retired Vatican II bishop whose claim to fame in the post Vatican II era was unauthorized and irregular consecrations. Three of the men he consecrated just happen to be sedevacantists.
It is not our duty to indict every bishop. Sedevacantism is defensive not offensive. Judgments about others should not be made unless they are absolutely necessary, or part of the function of our state in life.
It may very well be possible and I think likely that many bishops at the time of Vatican II were not heretics. The signing of the Vatican II docuмents in and of itself is not enough to be certain that they were heretics. There are reasonable explanations which can justify their signing without concluding that they defected.
If you want to examine every bishop alive who still has a legitimate mission and examine them for their orthodoxy, I think you may be shocked when you find more than you expected have not defected from the Faith. The same goes for priests and laity who live under the structure of the Conciliar church.
In order to be a public heretic, one must publicly profess heresy, and know that their proposition is in conflict with the teaching of the Church. In order to join a sect, one must know that he is in fact leaving the Catholic Church to adhere to a sect outside of Her.
Now, regarding Archbishop Thuc, what heresy do you believe he held and what evidence do you have to support that? If you believed he left the Church, and knowingly adhered to Conciliar sect, with the knowledge that he was leaving the Church to join this sect, then show your evidence of this fact.
I am not Archbishop Thuc's post mortem defense attorney. I am interested only in the truth.
-
That's all Hermenefraud has because that's as far as his Bishop Joseph's "Old Catholic" article went.
http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/wolvesamongthesheep.html
Hermimicgeld, why didn't you share this with all of us?
-
Another question: Do you doubt Archbishop Lefebvre was validly ordained? Because of the intention of Leinart?
There's another misunderstanding of Catholic theology, the notion of "intention" when confecting the Sacraments.
Intention means only the intent to do WHAT the Church does. Even if Lienart were a Mason and Lienart actually in his head thought, "I don't really intend to ordain these people," the simple fact that he pronounced the essential words and laid hands on means that he intended to do what the Church does, i.e. perform the Church's rite of ordination. This intention thing essentially rules out a priest, for instance, being half asleep and pronouncing the words of consecration over a loaf of bread in his kitchen. Or if a priest were to stand in front of a bakery and "consecrate" all the bread inside. Neither of those would be valid because he's not intending to do what the Church does (within the context of a Catholic liturgy). As long as the bishop would be aware that he's doing what the Church does and follows the Catholic rite, the ordination would be valid. Even if you have a priest who doesn't believe in Transubstantiation, for instance, as long as he performs the rite prescribed by the Church, the Mass he offers would be valid.
-
Hermenegild wrote:
Well, we could go back and forth saying he did this or he said that but that's really not the point. The point is that he was no traditionalist defender of faith and the "sede" consecrations were not the actions of a man who was "saving the Church".
i do not see that we need to go back and forth. I gave you very clear questions which need to be answered by any who wish to accuse Archbishop Thuc of either falling into heresy or joining a sect.
The onus is always on the accuser. This is a basic principle of the natural law. If you wish to accuse him, you must first provide your evidence, then, and only then is it up to me or others who wish to respond to your accusations to answer you charges.
Whether or not he was a "traditionalist" in the modern concept of the term is really not relevant. Every Catholic is by definition a traditionalist.
Hermenegild wrote:
Why do we need "sede" bishops and priests anyway?
We don't. But they are here, so now we have to deal with this reality. Decisions were made early on in this crisis, and in my opinion, they were not informed and educated decisions, they were decisions that affect us.
Catholics have a right to the sacraments from these priests. They do not have an obligation in law to partake of the sacraments of these clergy, but they have the right to ask for and partake of the sacraments from them. (Can. 2261)
-
Why do we need "sede" bishops and priests anyway?
We don't. But they are here, so now we have to deal with this reality. Decisions were made early on in this crisis, and in my opinion, they were not informed and educated decisions, they were decisions that affect us.
This is right. We don't need sedevacantist priests; we need valid priests.
The greatest source of valid priests is from the sedevacantists bishops and the SSPX. Virtually all Novus Ordo priests have, at best, doubtful orders and there are very, very few non-sedevacantist or non-SSPX bishops who are certainly validly ordained and consecrated.
-
we need valid priests.
A priest with valid orders is not enough.
What do you need them for?
???
There are these things called sacraments.
Most of them can only be performed by a priest.
-
Hermenegild wrote:
Ambrose, if you read back through the post you will see that I said Thuc was a Vatican II bishop - I didn't make accusations of heresy. He was an exiled bishop residing in Toulon, France operating within the Vatican II Church.
Yes, I understand that, but my point was that if he was a bishop of the Catholic Church who possessed his mission and office, then why worry about his confusion on the status of the Vatican II church? He operated in the sect, but there is no evidence that he knowingly left the Church to join this sect, as he believed the sect was the Church.
My point was that he was hardly some rock solid anti-modernist that many make him out to be.
True, but it certainly seems that he was beginning to grasp the issues, as he was the only member of the hierarchy to declare John Paul II a heretic and antipope.
Bp. de Castro Mayer also declared John Paul II an antipope, but not in the solemn manner as Thuc, and Thuc even signed a public declaration as well.
-
we need valid priests.
A priest with valid orders is not enough.
What do you need them for?
???
There are these things called sacraments.
Most of them can only be performed by a priest.
Yes - but not just a valid priest. There are thousands of them around the world who were not "minted" by the Catholic Church.
Have you read canon 2261?
-
Mobius and Hermenegild should be banned for home-alonism.
Too many of these crazy trolls, who are not clear about their principles. You speak with a double tongue, if you were honest upfront. Then people would respect you more, but you just troll away.
:pray: for these sectarian souls.