Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Thuc-line priests?  (Read 3704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stanley N

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1208
  • Reputation: +530/-484
  • Gender: Male
Thuc-line priests?
« on: November 19, 2021, 11:53:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#thucline

    Are the Masses of Thuc-line priests valid, and can we attend them?

    [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

    I do not believe that there is a strong reason to doubt the validity of the episcopal consecrations performed by the exiled Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. However, there are several lesser reasons, that might be considered sufficient to establish some kind of positive doubt in the matter. These include the absence of correct witnesses during the original ceremony of consecration, which was done in private, and in the middle of the night.

    Also relevant is Thuc’s confused mental state, as evidenced by his public concelebration of the New Mass with the local Novus Ordo bishop of the diocese of Toulon, just one month before these consecrations in 1981. Also, the lack of conviction can be seen in the fact that twice he consecrated bishops illicitly and twice he requested absolution from the canonical punishment of excommunication. These frequent changes indicate that he was a man who, to say the least, lacked conviction about what he was doing. This is further confirmed by his failure to join the Coetus internationalis patrum, the traditional group of bishops at Vatican II, and by a certain liberal tendency that he showed during the Council, speaking out against discrimination directed towards women and in favor of ecuмenism.. Consequently, although the logical thing would be to presume that he did have the intention of confecting the sacrament of Holy Orders, the absence of co-consecrators, and of a clear purpose, does open the door to some astonishment and doubt. Any doubt concerning the first bishops that he consecrated would clearly be passed on to any other bishops and priests ordained as a consequence.

    The moral theologians say that we must hold to the pars tutior, or safer position, when it concerns the sacraments. Consequently, in case of doubt, it would not be permissible to go to these priests for the sacraments, unless there was no other priest available, and in danger of death.

    However, even were there no doubt at all as to validity, it would still not be permissible to assist at the Masses and receive the sacraments from priests of the Thuc line. For they all hold to the radical sedevacantist position that there is no pope, and that if anybody says that there is a pope, or that he is in communion with the Holy Father, then he is in communion with a heretic and a heretic himself. By maintaining such a position, which makes no distinctions, and takes no account of the confusion in the Church due to the breakdown of authority, they not only condemn every other Catholic to hell fire, but effectively separate themselves off from all other Catholics, and make themselves into a church of their own. They are truly schismatic. It is consequently entirely illicit to have any kind of association with them. As a consequence of their loss of the sense of the Church, they abandon all sense of hierarchy and structure in the Church. Any bishop can consecrate any other bishop at any time, without authority between them. These bishops constantly ordain to the priesthood men who have no preparation or training, who belong to no religious community, and who are consequently entirely independent of one another and all Church authority. Throwing all canonical norms out of the window, they effectively become just as protestant as the modernists they pretend to defend the Church against.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]


    Offline Todd The Trad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 594
    • Reputation: +192/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #1 on: November 19, 2021, 12:16:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've read this before. This priest says there is no strong reason to doubt validity then seems to go on to strongly doubt it. Anyways, I just put this on another post. Maybe someone could verify this;

    Lefebvre took Fr. Bruno Schaefer, a Thuc ordained priest into the SSPX without ever conditionally ordaining him.

    Plus, I don't get the mental incomitance thing. Wouldn't you have to be basically a zombie to consecrate someone without any intention of doing so? How could someone go through a complex ceremony in latin and not know what he was doing? Also, do you think men like des Lauriers and Carmona wouldn't know the situation and details of the consecrations a lot better than us? I'm no expert on this situation or canon law at all. I'm just using common sense. This subject is very near and dear to me because my mother is suppose to be confirmed by Bp. Dolan in May and I'm supposed to be conditionally confirmed. Here's an interview with Carmona defending his consecration, although I don't agree with his attitude toward Lefebvre;


    Bishop Carmona’s Defense of His Acceptance of Episcopal Consecration 


    In Defense of My Episcopal Consecration

    (A Letter of Bishop Moises Carmona)

    My dear and true friend,

    In answering your letter of —, I ought to tell you the following.

    It is clear that in normal circuмstances, no bishop can consecrate licitly another bishop, but we are presently living in circuмstances that are not at all normal, since they constitute a most unusual case for which nothing is clearly legislated. Three things characterize our present situation:

    1) Since the death of Pius XII, we have had but imposters, which means that for over twenty years the Holy See has been vacant.


    2) Almost the entire episcopacy has embarked upon a new religion, and has therefore apostasized from the true Faith, renouncing the eternal Church.

    3) The true faithful hunger for the word of God that is no longer being preached to them, and they are asking of us the administration of the Catholic sacraments.

    At first, we placed our hopes on Archbishop Lefebvre, in whom we saw a true Catholic bishop, a defender of the true Faith, with whom the legitimate apostolic succession would continue; but we have been deceived. Lefebvre has not been unaffected; we have felt betrayed seeing him making deals with the Vatican from where all the blows against the true Church have come.

    Although men fail, God cannot fail, nor can He abandon His Church. It is for this reason that, providentially and in its proper time, the very illustrious and humble Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam, with his valiant declarations, has presented to all men the disastrous state in which the Church finds herself in God’s eyes. He declared the vacancy of the Holy See and the invalidity of the “New Mass,” binding himself as a Catholic archbishop to do for the Church all that he can and ought to do.

    The episcopacy was offered to me. I had to think much about it before I could decide. In the end, I accepted it for the sole reason of assisting in the rescue and triumph of the Church.

    On October 17, Father Zamora and I were consecrated by Archbishop Thuc in a virtual catacomb, with only two distinguished doctors as witnesses. Both of us were conscious of the furious storms of protest that would come, but the words of our Divine Master encouraged us: “You shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; and you shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy” (John 16:20).

    On our return to Mexico, the attacks began. Some said, without any foundation, that our consecrations were invalid because we were consecrated with the new rite; others, more serious, said that, based on Canons 953 and 2370, the consecrations were valid but illicit, and that consequently we were suspended. [Ed. note: Archbishop Thuc used the traditional rite of episcopal consecration — not the new rite — when he consecrated Bishop Carmona.]


    As can be seen, our detractors were ignoring the axiom Qui cuм regula ambulat, tuto ambulat — “He who walks with the rule, walks safely.” They should remember, if they had forgotten, that Pope Gregory IX left eleven rules and Boniface VIII eighty-eight for the true interpretation of the law. These rules, according to Canon 20, can supply the defect of the rule in a particular case, as in the case we presently find ourselves. Consequently, the fourth rule of Gregory IX expressly states: Propter necessitatem, illicitum efficitur licitum — “Necessity makes licit what is illicit.”

    The necessity of having Catholic bishops and priests and the lack of true sacraments can easily be seen; therefore, we were validly and licitly consecrated.

    Rule 88 of Boniface VIII also expressly states Certum est quod is committit in legem qui legem verbum complectens contra legis nititur — “It is certain that one sins against the rule who adheres to the letter and leaves aside the spirit.” Therefore, it is unjust to impute to the legislator a desire to greatly harm the Church during a vacancy of the Holy See by forbidding the ordination of bishops and priests and the administering of the sacraments to the faithful who ask for them.

    Therefore, in accepting episcopal consecration from Archbishop Thuc, we have relied on these rules, conscious and certain that, given the circuмstances in which we live, the consecrations are both valid and licit. We are also conscious and certain that we would have sinned, if by relying on the letter [of the law] we had rejected the consecrations, there being only one Catholic bishop who can now be found to transmit the episcopal succession.

    [Brief paragraph that has little relevance omitted here.]
    Please accept my most sincere affection. I beg God to continue to illuminate you so that you may continue in the battle, defending the rights of Christ and of His Church, now so shamelessly offended by those who have the duty of defending them, even if it be at the cost of their lives.

    Sincerely yours,
    Moises Carmona R.
    May 18, 1982

    * Archbishop Thuc used the traditional rite of episcopal consecration, not the new rite, when he consecrated Bishop Carmona.
    Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us!


    Offline Todd The Trad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 594
    • Reputation: +192/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #2 on: November 19, 2021, 12:39:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •                
    Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us!

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1514
    • Reputation: +803/-159
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #3 on: November 19, 2021, 12:39:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#thucline

    Are the Masses of Thuc-line priests valid, and can we attend them?

    [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

    I do not believe that there is a strong reason to doubt the validity of the episcopal consecrations performed by the exiled Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. However, there are several lesser reasons, that might be considered sufficient to establish some kind of positive doubt in the matter. These include the absence of correct witnesses during the original ceremony of consecration, which was done in private, and in the middle of the night.

    Also relevant is Thuc’s confused mental state, as evidenced by his public concelebration of the New Mass with the local Novus Ordo bishop of the diocese of Toulon, just one month before these consecrations in 1981. Also, the lack of conviction can be seen in the fact that twice he consecrated bishops illicitly and twice he requested absolution from the canonical punishment of excommunication. These frequent changes indicate that he was a man who, to say the least, lacked conviction about what he was doing. This is further confirmed by his failure to join the Coetus internationalis patrum, the traditional group of bishops at Vatican II, and by a certain liberal tendency that he showed during the Council, speaking out against discrimination directed towards women and in favor of ecuмenism.. Consequently, although the logical thing would be to presume that he did have the intention of confecting the sacrament of Holy Orders, the absence of co-consecrators, and of a clear purpose, does open the door to some astonishment and doubt. Any doubt concerning the first bishops that he consecrated would clearly be passed on to any other bishops and priests ordained as a consequence.

    The moral theologians say that we must hold to the pars tutior, or safer position, when it concerns the sacraments. Consequently, in case of doubt, it would not be permissible to go to these priests for the sacraments, unless there was no other priest available, and in danger of death.

    However, even were there no doubt at all as to validity, it would still not be permissible to assist at the Masses and receive the sacraments from priests of the Thuc line. For they all hold to the radical sedevacantist position that there is no pope, and that if anybody says that there is a pope, or that he is in communion with the Holy Father, then he is in communion with a heretic and a heretic himself. By maintaining such a position, which makes no distinctions, and takes no account of the confusion in the Church due to the breakdown of authority, they not only condemn every other Catholic to hell fire, but effectively separate themselves off from all other Catholics, and make themselves into a church of their own. They are truly schismatic. It is consequently entirely illicit to have any kind of association with them. As a consequence of their loss of the sense of the Church, they abandon all sense of hierarchy and structure in the Church. Any bishop can consecrate any other bishop at any time, without authority between them. These bishops constantly ordain to the priesthood men who have no preparation or training, who belong to no religious community, and who are consequently entirely independent of one another and all Church authority. Throwing all canonical norms out of the window, they effectively become just as protestant as the modernists they pretend to defend the Church against.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
    :sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:
    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.

    Offline Todd The Trad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 594
    • Reputation: +192/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #4 on: November 19, 2021, 12:49:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's something else I found interesting. Again, I can't verify the authenticity of this. Maybe someone else can;

    Father Sanborn visited Campos in April 1985 and spoke at great length with Bp. Mayer. The bishop, it turned out, confined his apostolate to Brazil.

    When Father Sanborn broached the topic of who could ordain priests for us, Bp. Mayer said: “Go to Guérard!”

    Father Sanborn said that he doubted the validity of Bp. Guérard’s episcopal consecration. The bishop replied: “If it’s valid for Guérard, it’s valid for me.” Father Sanborn explained some of his hesitations. Bp. Mayer answered: “Guérard is the most qualified person in the world to determine if the consecration was valid.”


    Here the full article which treats this subject fully;

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60
    Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us!


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #5 on: November 19, 2021, 12:51:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • :sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

    I love how Father Scott says there's no "strong reason" to doubt, but there are doubts.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #6 on: November 19, 2021, 12:51:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This priest says there is no strong reason to doubt validity then seems to go on to strongly doubt it.
    Fr. Peter Scott identifies "lesser reasons". Doubts can vary in strength.

    That FAQ page is very old and Fr. Peter Scott is generally viewed as "old school".

    Quote
    Also, do you think men like des Lauriers and Carmona wouldn't know the situation and details of the consecrations a lot better than us?
    I believe bishop de Castro Mayer said much the same thing - who would have known better than des Lauriers. [I see you posted this already]

    Still, it would appear the old SSPX viewed the Thuc-line clergy as questionable.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #7 on: November 19, 2021, 12:54:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bp. Mayer answered: “Guérard is the most qualified person in the world to determine if the consecration was valid.”

    Generally the reason episcopal consecrations are presumed valid is that the bishops are assumed to be properly trained.  Bishop Thuc had performed prior consecrations, was highly competent (having received advanced degrees from Rome and being a seminary professor).  But then in this case the credentials of the consecrand are unimpeachable.  Bishop Kelly does nothing but spew negative doubt.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #8 on: November 19, 2021, 12:55:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Peter Scott identifies "lesser reasons". Doubts can vary in strength.

    Only one type of doubt matters, positive.  "Greater" and "Lesser" doubts aren't a valid theological distinction.  That by itself shows how sloppy this is.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #9 on: November 19, 2021, 12:58:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wouldn't you have to be basically a zombie to consecrate someone without any intention of doing so?

    Yes.  Basically the consecration has to be properly performed and it has to be a human act (the consecrator knows what he's doing).  It does not require that Bishop Thuc have had a spotless trackrecord in the prudence department, which is being confused with "mental state".  I'm sure we've all done some stupid and irrational things in our lives; that doesn't mean we couldn't have validly confected a Sacrament (had we the necessary Orders).

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #10 on: November 19, 2021, 12:59:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Peter Scott identifies "lesser reasons". Doubts can vary in strength.

    That FAQ page is very old and Fr. Peter Scott is generally viewed as "old school".
    I believe bishop de Castro Mayer said much the same thing - who would have known better than des Lauriers. [I see you posted this already]

    Still, it would appear the old SSPX viewed the Thuc-line clergy as questionable.

    If Father Scott is being used as the measuring-stick, for the record he also held the +Mendez ordinations / consecrations to be doubtful.  Father Scott wrote Bishop Mendez about the ordinations, and Bishop "Gonzales" denied having performed them.  In a fit of hypocrisy, Father Kelly would attack Bishop Thuc over Thuc's fraternization with the Novus Ordo, whereas Mendez did nothing but and was full-blown Novus Ordo.

    then-Father Sanborn here exposes the hypocrisy:
    http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html


    Offline Todd The Trad

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 594
    • Reputation: +192/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #11 on: November 19, 2021, 01:02:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't know if I put this on this thread or a different one but apparently Fr. Bruno Schaefer, a Thuc ordained priest in 1981 (ordained after the consecrations) joined the SSPX without ever being conditionally ordained. i read that he was at one time the pastor at the largest SSPX parish in Paris. 
    Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us!

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #12 on: November 19, 2021, 03:35:45 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1247
    • Reputation: +786/-271
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #13 on: November 19, 2021, 03:46:40 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not that they matter much, but even the hierarchy don't question the Thuc line. 

    https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bngo.html

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8316
    • Reputation: +4706/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Thuc-line priests?
    « Reply #14 on: November 19, 2021, 03:55:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh look, this stupid discussion again. :popcorn:
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]