Well glad to have got you to move out of the echo chamber brain rot for just a minute (Laddy is another story)

So to answer your question, yes and no. If he was still alive, he could be interrogated more rigorously as to whether the withholding intention was down to mental incapacity or just malice.

Ironically, if it was just malice, it would weigh more in his favor, as it would show it was more targeted against that group. There are indeed, I'm not going to lie, some signs which give strength to that argument. Simulating a Sacrament is still a very, very grave sin by a member of the clergy, and public repentance would be required, but that's not to do with validity. However it could be to do with validity if there was at least one other instance of him doing it. That would certainly erode trust and cast doubt in that way.

Now if it turns out he was mentally ill and this was the reason for withholding, then that's a whole other ball game. Because then a mans entire reason is called in question, and therefore the veracity of ANYTHING he says. Since it concerns important things, we can no longer make the assumption of right general intention. What if he made the broad general intention at some point that all his Sacraments from now on would be simulated? Or did it once off in another instance, but this time NEVER revealed it? We have to ask those questions, and deserve answers. But we can't get them now.

On the flip side of this you might say his mental illness excused him in one instance, and that we can argue general right intention overall. This would be also a valid argument.


But you see now, I hope, how we just can't speculate on this. We need to talk to the man himself. There are too many variables to know for certain. A policeman, or judge would never carry on with such limited information and neither should we.

In Church terms,  a negative doubt would be saying "its invalid because he looked the wrong way! and said he didnt like the priest". Of course we should presume validity in that case. A positive doubt however is totally different, whether it concerns the rites themselves or the intention.

The whole thing turns around when the minister says he withheld intention. Because coupled with mental illness and instability we are not acting on certain ground anymore. If he was alive we could get back onto certain ground. But we just don't know now if he did the same for the other Sacraments. We can't just "take his word for it" anymore like we would a normal Bishop, that's the problem.

There is a deep, deep uneasiness there that can only be resolved by conditional ordination and consecration.

Do you know of any situation where one of the +Williamson bishops conditionally ordained or consecrated a +Thuc line priest or bishop?  Your chart was a bit confusing.

Why do you continue to refuse to support your argument with any textual evidence that Thuc said he "withheld his intention" when he Consecrated any bishop? You have posted many other things, but the one element that you keep harping on has no evidence from Thuc himself.

Yes, Thuc said he "illicitly" ordained/consecrated bishops and priests. That is obvious. But neither he nor the Vatican said that his ordinations/consecrations were "invalid."

And to "illicitly" consecrate bishops is what got Thuc excommunicated by the Vatican, which was the exact same act that got Lefebvre excommunicated. There is no difference between Thuc and Lefebvre on that point.

He withheld intention for Palmarians. He admitted that. We have the Angelus Magazine which refers to that.

I'm sorry that's not good enough for you. But it is for reasonable minded people.

No they never did that.

"Never" is a LONG word...
If memory serves, they sure did...

The Angelus is biased against +Thuc line stuff, so why would we consider that "good enough." If you think that having a bias is reasonable, well I'm not sure much more can be said.

The resources for all Tradition is very limited.  Why limit it even more?

You are right, because it was +Archbishop Lefebvre who was biased against "+Thuc Line Stuff." So I stand with +Archbishop Lefebvre.

As Gray2023 said, the Angelus Magazine article was written by the SSPX. The SSPX did not have evidence of any kind that Thuc "withheld intention" in the Episcopal Consecrations.

The Vatican, on the other hand, investigated the matter and had firm evidence that Thuc validly performed the Consecrations and excommunicated him because of that.

You will not produce the Angelus Magazine facisimile (or even the quote from it) because you know it will not support your accusation.

Since the liar would not produce the 1983 Angelus Magazine article, I dug it up myself. Note this part especially:

I testify that I performed the ordinations of Palmar de Troya in full lucidity, (sic) I do not have any relation with Palmar de Troya since its chief imparted himself a pope ... etc. Imparted, December 19, 1981, in Toulon in full possession of my faculties, (sic) Pierre Martin Ngo Dhin-Thuc, Archbishop Tit. of Bulla Regis."

So the Angelus Magazine article that TomGubbinsKimmage bases his argument for Thuc "withholding intention" contains a statement from Thuc confirming that he "performed the ordinations of Palmar de Troya in full lucidity."


https://web.archive.org/web/20200924013227/https://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=745


April 1983Print


WHO IS MSGR. PIERRE MARTIN NGO-DHIN-THUC?

by Father P. Cornelio Byman

The following comment on the sedevacantist "bishops" is by Father P. Cornelio Byman, a missionary priest working in Mexico. One of the sedevacantist bishops has termed the comment a "diatribe" and described it as a "poorly prepared and unjust vilification of a noble man, a great Archbishop." Our readers will note that, on the contrary, Father Byman writes of Archbishop Ngo Dhin-Thuc with kindness and respect. It provides a useful follow-up to the article by Michael Davies in our February issue. We must warn our readers once more that, even if the consecrations of these "bishops" are valid they have placed themselves outside the Church and now constitute no more than one more schismatic sect. The only course for a faithful Catholic is to shun them absolutely, just as we must shun the proliferation of Old Roman Catholic bishops, even though many of them say the Tridentine Mass. The position of Archbishop Lefebvre is absolutely unequivocal—Pope John Paul II is the lawfully reigning Pontiff. We must accept this, we must pray for him, but we are not bound to follow him in measures which are ruinous for the Church. This commentary is printed with the kind permission of Father Byman.

O ALMIGHTY AND EVERLASTING GOD, Who hast compassion on all, and wouldst not that any should perish: favorably look down upon all those who are seduced by the deceit of Satan; that, all heretical impiety being removed, the hearts of such as err may repent and return to the unity of Thy truth.

In a letter dated October 21,1993 by Bishop Williamson - His excellency seems to hold/share Fr. Cekada's position on Validity, but he does refer to it as a "doubtfully Catholic occasion."

Here is the letter:





Thank you for this letter, as [well as] for the booklet by Fr. Cekada on the Thuc Consecrations, which I had seen.

I think that Fr. Cekada’s arguments are good, such that I agree with him and not with Fr. Kelly or Fr. Jenkins as to the VALIDITY of the up-coming consecration.

However, one must distinguish validity from liceity or lawfulness. A consecration can be valid, but unlawful, like eating a stolen apple. The eating is valid; it satisfies my hunger, but if the apple was stolen, then the eating is unlawful.

Is the up-coming consecration lawful? Answer: if (a) the Cincinnati operation of these priests is lawful, and if (b) they need a bishop imperatively, then the consecration would be lawful.

But as to (a), these Cincinnati priests are not ordinary traditional priests; they were Society of St. Pius X priests who broke with Society of St. Pius X positions to take up harsh and un-Catholic positions, out of line at any rate with Archbishop Lefebvre’s thinking. Yet the future bishop on the flyer advertising his consecration leads one to think that there was no such split with the Archbishop. Conclusion: the Cincinnati priests’ operation is doubtfully lawful.

As to (b), if their operation is doubtfully lawful, then a consecration is at best doubtfully necessary.

Conclusion: however much it would interest you to attend a consecration, you would best stay away from a doubtfully Catholic occasion.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ Richard Williamson

Why do you continue to refuse to support your argument with any textual evidence that Thuc said he "withheld his intention" when he Consecrated any bishop? You have posted many other things, but the one element that you keep harping on has no evidence from Thuc himself.

Yes, Thuc said he "illicitly" ordained/consecrated bishops and priests. That is obvious. But neither he nor the Vatican said that his ordinations/consecrations were "invalid."

And to "illicitly" consecrate bishops is what got Thuc excommunicated by the Vatican, which was the exact same act that got Lefebvre excommunicated. There is no difference between Thuc and Lefebvre on that point.

From the CDF Notification of 12 March 1983, there is this peculiar line which was applied to the Thuc consecrations not seen in the Lefebvre consecrations:

3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.

I recall reading about one Thuc-line bishop or priest reconciling with the Vatican but couldn't recall his name nor if he functioned as a layman or as a cleric (with or without conditional ordination?) after reconciling with the Vatican.

Thuc's Autobiography written between approximately 1978 and 1980 can be found here:

http://www.einsicht-aktuell.de/index.php?svar=2&ausgabe_id=180&artikel_id=1923

Here are his comments on Vatican II:

***

    The second Vatican Council was due to John XXIII's initiative. His epithet was "the good", but in my insignificant opinion, this very devout, very saintly Pope was a weakling. He admitted this fault. One could apply this saying to him: "Video meliora, deteriora sequor." "I wanted the best but did the worse."

    John XXIII wanted a renaissance of the church and had a wonderful plan for it. But oh, he could not withstand the pressure of the men of the Church.  These men wanted to modernize Christ's Church with the help of the modern world, "in malo positus", which has turned evil. Because we are the generation at the "end of time ", where Satan's last battle against God will occur: the decisive battle, which after some turns of fate, ends with Lucifer's defeat and Christ’s final triumph and the Final Judgement.

    Satan had the atheistic communism as an army. On the surface, the Jew Marx’s communism is tempting. He desires the welfare of the people and wants a greater justice in distribution.  He wants to destroy capitalism without God.  The single goal of capitalism is the profit of the individual through the exploitation of the worker.  The goal of Marxism may be worthy of praise, happiness and a paradise on earth, but his goal does not go further. For him, religion is only opium for the people to become numb.  The people that the capitalists let work to fill their vaults are like hunting dogs that are kept in order to obtain game. Marx, therefore, is the direct descendant of the philosophers of the enlightenment with Voltaire at the forefront….

    The Church of Christ certainly, as personified in some of its leaders, in some Popes, depended on the mighty and rich in faith to find help for the triumph of the Church.  Vatican II should have begun by remembering this principle: To triumph through the cross is to triumph through martyrdom.

    The consequence is that Communism rises up without God or rather, against God! The paradise of Communism is the same as that of Capitalism: an earthly paradise.  The effort that God the Creator imposed on man is to develop, to perfect his intellectual, supernatural and physical abilities and not the single goal of filling his belly. Vatican II seems to have the same goal as Communism: temporal human bliss. The following scandal therefore occurred: Prohibition of the least attack against Communism.  Therefore the dogma:  "the natural goodness of all types of beliefs". Therefore the triumph of the Protestant axiom:  Freedom of thought and the equality of all religious opinions.  Therefore the effort to make the Catholic religion easier, in that "not guilty" is issued for the one who does not pray the Breviary or meditate any longer and the writing of a patent Mass acceptable for Catholics and Protestants.  The first (Catholics) may be supporters of the teachings of transubstantiation, but the second ones (Protestants) do not believe it. They claim that Mass is only in memory of the Last Supper and not a "Mysterium fidei".

    Vatican II did not dare to forbid Mass in Latin, Christianity's common language, particularly in the central part of Mass, the canon, but allowed the use of vernacular for the other parts; supposedly, so that the faithful could hear and understand Mass better.  On that occasion they forgot that the faithful could very well follow Mass read by the ministrants in Latin with a bilingual missal.  In the "New Bugnini-Mass", in agreement with the Protestants, especially the Protestant monks of Taize, the fathers of the modern church, Latin has been abolished as the official language of the Latin-Catholic Church, which is also the language of diplomacy in Europe. (Translator’s comment: French was the language of Diplomacy after the Westphalian Peace of 1648).

    One believed that this approach of Vatican II toward our separated brothers would lead the Protestants to us. Now, no return to Catholicism takes place, but rather has resulted in the shortening of the prayers and meditative spirit of the Mass. The preference of this action has led to many priests resigning from the priesthood. How many marriages of priests and people from the Religious Orders? How many nuns leaving the convents! No more vocations! Neither for the seminary nor for the Religious Orders. Only the strict Orders that have remained loyal to their regimen have new entrants.

    The churches are empty. The new Mass, where the priest is only the chairperson of the meeting—and no longer the only one who sacrifices, always has less and less visitors. Each country has its own Mass which is suited to the mentality of its people: The Japanese sit on their heels around a mat as altar. Instead of the monumental crucifix that dominates our old churches, a little cross lies on a small table that serves as an altar, - without altar stone. The Mass is bungled through in twenty minutes. The rare communion recipients communes standing and no longer kneels.  They receive the wafer in the hand and chew on it like candy instead of receiving it on the tongue.  The oral confession is no longer fashionable; one is content with the Confiteor of Mass despite the reminder from the Holy Congregation for the Defence of the Faith. The priest reads Mass with his back to the tabernacle!

    One now comprehends Mgr. Lefebvre’s rebellion, the success of his Ecône seminaries and the increase of his priories in France and elsewhere; and the uneasiness in all Christian countries of Europe and America.  The future of the church is threatened by the lack of vocations. Marxism triumphs everywhere. Africa is attacked by Castro’s Cubans.  South America, where the Catholic religion formerly prevailed without dispute, is divided by the struggle between traditionalists and supporters of the Vatican II. Soviet Russia is active everywhere, its fleet is the strongest in the world and its military budget exceeds that of the United States.  It interferes in Africa, in South America, everywhere—even in the Vatican, where Paul VI, despite so many disappointments with his politics, insists on offering Communism a hand.

    The former statements allow one to understand my role on the council: My few interventions had the goal of defending Christ’s church against the modernistic attacks, against the disparagement of the church by a well organized modernistic party under the leadership of Suenens and other prelates like Marty, the current Cardinal Archbishop of Paris.  I must also add that the majority of the council fathers, particularly those from North America, did not understand Latin well, the official and binding language of the council. They spent the bulk of the council debates in both cafes set up in St. Peter, where they drank coffee or Coca Cola. They only returned at the time of the vote in the council auditorium without properly knowing what they were voting about.

    They voted randomly, once with YES, once with NO (for a change they said), and these votes were officially "inspired by the Holy Spirit" and were counted up to make up the "majority." I saw other Fathers—very few—, that did the call on the Holy Spirit—not in the cafes but rather prayed the rosary at their seats and asked their neighbours for advice about the vote! 

    The innovation of simultaneous interpretations had to be introduced at the Council, especially into English or French.  This was done so that everyone knew what was going on and could vote according to his conscience and knowledgeably fulfil a Council Father's role.  Everyone saw how an American Cardinal left the council after a few sessions and went back to America. He said that his presence at the council is less useful for the Holy See’s Council than his return to the home of the almighty Dollar to collect more money.  It was very expensive due to having to rent facilities near St. Peter’s Basilica for the entire duration of the council and eating at the well frequented taverns!

    One saw many changes of opinion at the council; Prelates, who were initially confirmed traditionalists, turned into modernists after some sessions when they noticed that Paul VI was for the modernists. (He was not present at the council, supposedly to demonstrate that he did not want to influence the opinions of the Fathers; but he followed the debates on a radio).  Therefore they changed their opinion as not to mess up receiving their high church offices and above all the red hat of the Cardinal's dignity. This is what the secretary of the Holy Congregation of the Index, the Congregation for the Defence of the Faith today. He betrayed his superior, the admired Cardinal Ottaviani, in order to follow Suenens.

    An examination of the votes and interventions of the Council Fathers that are stored in the archives of the Vatican, would confirm my claims. We should be surprised about this situation. The following Councils displayed the same phenomena.  An Athanasius fought almost alone for the righteous belief and he had to exert immense energy and patience in order to get a majority. At his time there were a few hundred council Fathers.  Vatican II had more than 2.000 participants.  The Bishops are selected less because of their theological knowledge but rather because of their skill and their good relationships to the Nuncios and Apostolic Delegates, who suggest the successors for vacant Bishoprics to the Roman die casters.