Reposted from Laidslaus... maybe you can read this time. Ladislaus has posted something along these ground many times before.

No evidence has ever been produced of these allegations of his having withheld his intention.

So this false allegation appears to have originated ironically with Father Cekada's smear job against Archbishop Thuc entitled "Two Bishops in Every Garage".

Here's a screenshot of the actual article ... you can find copies of this online.




So this appears to be quoting (with ample ellipses) from some "French newsletter", in which there's partial quotation from his statement to Bishop des Lauriers about how he could not celebrate alone that day (Holy Thursday).

But the following appears to be a commentary from the author of the news letter, staring with "It happens that it was a false concelebration ..."

But why does the article say this?  Because +Thuc had not receive COMMUNION.  Cekada then idiotically butchers this into a simulation of the Sacrament, which then it appears to be the author of the newsletter's opinion that +Thuc had not actually PARTICIPATED in the Mass because he did not RECEIVE COMMUNION, not that +Thuc somehow withheld his intention to consecrat the host.

So, basically, then, by way of the "telephone game", Cekada's claim that he had "simulated" because of the "false concelebration" got twisted into the typical way to simulate a Sacrament, namely, by withholding intention to consecrate.

Then an 1982 article by The Angelus, twisted this yet again into Thuc having withheld his intention for the Palmar consecrations ... but that has never been alleged by anyone.  +Thuc in fact admitted having done those ordinations / consecrations but then repudicated them after Clemente claimed to become Pope.  So ... Cekada also lies in this defamatory article when he claims that +Thuc consecrated Clemente after the latter told him that Paul VI had appeared to designate him the Pope. Uhm ... Clemente only LATER declared himself pope, well after the ordination / consecration by +Thuc, and that was what caused +Thuc to denounce him and express regret.

So ironically this original smear-job by Cekada became twisted into multiple forms down the road.

Do you have any idea many Bishops Thuc has spawned??? Probably hundreds when you do the maths. Someone should do up a list. I know Father Chazal has a great chart in his book. Its total insanity.

For all their faults, the SSPX did not do what the Thucists did and there are only a few resistance Bishops.

So the fruits of the SSPX are far less toxic than the Thuc line.

And for all the moral faults of the SSPX and even our own bishops, there is just no comparision between them and all the garage bishops from the Thuc line. I'll be putting more up on this site as time goes on so people can truly see their fruits.

He simulated nothing ... that was a telephone game from where +Thuc, trying to defend his participation at a NOM said he didn't really offer the Mass because ... he didn't receive Communion, and not because he withheld some "internal intention".  In pre-Vatican II theology, the Communion of the Priest was integral to there being a Mass.  While there might be valid consecration even without the priest's Communion, there's not said to have been a Mass.  Some casuists wrote about how if a priest dropped dead before his Holy Communion, another priest was supposed to finish the Mass.

Ironically it was Fr. Cekada who first made this distortion, referring to it incorrectly as a "simulation" of a Sacrament.  The Angelus then conflated that into their bogus statement the following year.  +Thuc has never said that he withheld his intention to consecrate.  He's made some statements about how he did not consecrate this or that individual, denying that it took place.

And, no, you're not even correct about withholding intention regarding the Sacramental effect, that it would invalidate a Sacrament.  It's the intention to do what the Church does, to perform the Rite which suffices to have the Church then supply the intention for the Sacramental effect, i.e. for what the Rite is intended by the Church to do.

Not sure why you're giving any ground to this lying slanderous piece of shit.

I'm honestly coming to the conclusion that some of you Thucists are genuinely simple minded people.

Pure, mindless rage that Lefebvre wouldn't go along with sedevacantism.

It actually makes you people stupid. My goodness. I feel like I lost brain cells reading that nonsense.

Taken from Fideliter 66, November-December 1988

(Notice how in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre does not call Fr. Guérard Deslauriers “Bishop” even though he was “consecrated” in1981. He also says about Munari, “the one who is called Monsignor Munari.” Munari was “consecrated”a bishop in 1987 by Guérard des Lauriers. The Archbishop does not acknowledge them as bishops.)

Archbishop Lefebvre: “I think that it is maybe necessary to take care to avoid anything that could show, by expressions a little too hard, our disapproval of those who leave us. Do not label them with epithets which can be taken a little injuriously, it is useless, it is the other way around. You see, personally, I've always had this attitude among those who have left us, and God knows how many in the course of the history of the Society have left us; the history of the Society is almost a history of separations, isn’t it? I always believed, as a principle: No more relations. It's over. They are leaving us, they are going towards other pastors, other shepherds. No more relations. They tried, just as well I would say, those who left as sedevacantists, like those who left because we were not papists enough etc. All have tried to lead us into a polemic. I received letters from Father Guérard des Lauriers with lawsuit threats, didn’t they, if I did not answer? I threw it in the garbage - never replied. I never replied one word. Neither Monsignor, I mean the one who is called "Monsignor Munari"and the others, northe fourteen (or thirteen) of America, nor Cantoni who left us, nor the other Italians who left us. I never replied.

This is what I said to Dom Gerard: "Dom Gérard you will never hear from me anynore, I will not set foot at your place. I will not write to you anymore and when you will write to me, I will not answer you. You will not hear a word from me. It is over. I consider you like those who have left us, like Fr. Bisig, like Dom Augustin, like the others who have left us. That’s it. I pray for you but it's over. We will not have contact anymore." This way they can’t ever pull out, none of them, from their sleeve, I would say, a letter [saying]; This is how the Archbishop treated me. This is what he told me. Because if one writes, the sole fact of writing, and it is false to claim: “See, I agree with the Archbishop. He wrote to me again 8 days ago.” So then, we would have almost had to denounce it right away. But I wrote, I didn’t say that I agree, and we write another letter, and we begin another polemic. It is over. We cannot. We cannot play that game. We have to leave them behind. I think there is nothing better to make them reflect and then bring them back to us eventually, if there are some, and there are not many who came back. But at least for eventually and in any case, they cannot say that we were unpleasant towards them or that we did them wrong. No. I think it's the best method, you know, except of course, when there are statements that are absolutely false. Then we must publish a communique to rectify them like the superior general for the declaration of Dom Gerard. It is normal but it is necessary to say for correspondence that is established, we could do it indefinitely, and then we come, in fact,easily and unfortunately to say things that we regret a little to have said, which are not charitable. That’s it. Thank you.

Archbishop Lefebvre published in part in Fideliter 66 November-December 1988, p. 27-31.

We have to assume that that Angelus article gets its information from Fr. Cekada through a bastardization of what he actually claimed. 

We don't have to make that assumption at all. Bishop Thuc proved himself to be unreliable in so many other ways. I posted primary source docuмents to show that.
And just disagreeing with the SSPX and their theological position on sedevacantism is not grounds enough to discredit their factual reporting.