Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: mobius on October 26, 2013, 10:42:41 AM
-
Funny, there is a photo of Thuc with two other priests. Odd that these priests were supposedly made Bishops by Thuc in a tiny dirty apartment in France. No decorum here....however, Thuc was the same man that consecrated so-called Pope Gregory XVII [Spain] ...no training in Theological Studies or Latin, and, along with 3 other men to be Bishops, after this, he runs back to Paul VI and is reconciled. After that he goes out and does it several more times with other supposed Bishops. Again, runs back to John Paul II and is reconciled and dies in a V2 Monastery.
Now, if Thuc was an out an out SEDE would he not defect by 1. Being in communion with Vatican ...during Vatican II and his reconciliation after the consecration of Pope(?) Gregory XVII? 2. That he defected "again" by going to a Monastery and retiring and dying there....it seems this man was not well at all.
Furthermore, those that received "any" orders "validly" received them in Schism because he went to and fro the Vatican II sect (according to Sedes' that believe V2 was schismatic).
Thuc had many issues and problems....
Who really knew the state of this man's mind?
Only God will know.
-
That he defected "again" by going to a Monastery and retiring and dying there....it seems this man was not well at all.
I have read and heard a few things about the Bishop, and by all accounts the reason he went to the V2 Monastery at the end of his life was because he was kidnapped and not because he went there willingly, so it is wrong to hold that against him.
-
Matto, with respect, does that not sound silly? He was Kidnapped? I mean, come on, he had a mind (or not)....two things become clear now, good point you make:
1. If he was kidnapped (he did not have all is faculties and his so-called consecrations raise even higher doubts now)
2. If he was kidnapped why not go to the Police or rebel (if he had his faculties)
In reality, none of us know, or may ever really know.
One thing is clear, he went to and fro with Paul VI and V2.
-
Mobius what is your solution, I'd like to hear it? Anybody can point out problems we all have them, but what to do about them, whats the resolution? I'm going out now, I'll read your reply later.
-
Möbius wrote:
Funny, there is a photo of Thuc with two other priests. Odd that these priests were supposedly made Bishops by Thuc in a tiny dirty apartment in France. No decorum here....however, Thuc was the same man that consecrated so-called Pope Gregory XVII [Spain] ...no training in Theological Studies or Latin, and, along with 3 other men to be Bishops, after this, he runs back to Paul VI and is reconciled. After that he goes out and does it several more times with other supposed Bishops. Again, runs back to John Paul II and is reconciled and dies in a V2 Monastery.
Why bring up his apartment? Is that to create an emotional stir in the readers of this forum?
You must know that Archbishop Thuc did not consecrate antipope Gregory XVII. He consecrated Clemente Domínguez y Gómez,who later, after the fact, declared himself to be pope. The way you presented this would erroneously give the reader the impression that Thuc knowingly consecrated a man who was an antipope. Was your mistake sloppiness or are you deliberately trying to deceive?
You are also leaving out other important facts. Archbishop Thuc at the time believed in the alleged visions received by Clemente. The Church was in crisis, heresy was everywhere, Catholics were abandoning the Faith in droves. The time was ripe for a false visionary to step in with an apparent and possibly believable solution.
You may argue that that the Archbishop was gullible, but being gullible is a long way from being insane.
I asked you on the other thread what evidence you had that Thuc died in communion with John Paul II. Where one lives is not proof of anything. Life is full of illogic, and you may argue that it doesn't seem logical or consistent that Thuc lived in a place operated by those in communion with the antipope, but that does not prove he was in communion with the antipope.
From my reading of the evidence, Archbishop Thuc remained unsure and therefore inconsistent about the status of Paul VI and John Paul II. After his 1982 statement, there is no evidence that he recognized John Paul II's claim of being pope. It appears that he never wavered from his public declaration of sede vacante as he never publicly retracted it.
-
Now, if Thuc was an out an out SEDE would he not defect by 1. Being in communion with Vatican ...during Vatican II and his reconciliation after the consecration of Pope(?) Gregory XVII? 2. That he defected "again" by going to a Monastery and retiring and dying there....it seems this man was not well at all.
Considering that he was kidnapped at the end of his life and placed in that monastery against his will, it seems manifestly unfair to accuse him of "defection."
Furthermore, those that received "any" orders "validly" received them in Schism because he went to and fro the Vatican II sect (according to Sedes' that believe V2 was schismatic).
That position would only be held by dogmatic sedevacantists who do not understand the difficulty and confusion of the present crisis in the Church. Besides, as shown above, you exaggerate his going "to and fro."
Who really knew the state of this man's mind?
He wasn't mentally incapable of consecrating bishops and ordaining priests, if that is what you are insinuating. One would need the testimony of a doctor or other expert in order to declare him canonically unfit to consecrate bishops. But he clearly intended to consecrate bishops; so he did.
-
1. If he was kidnapped (he did not have all is faculties and his so-called consecrations raise even higher doubts now)
He was kidnapped. I have heard so myself from his assistant who was present during the kidnapping. He and another priest had been drugged through their food and Archbiship Ngo was then taken into a van and driven to Missouri, where he died shortly afterward. The monastery that housed him then announced that he had "repented" and accepted "John Paul II" as Pope.
2. If he was kidnapped why not go to the Police or rebel (if he had his faculties)
He was a very old and frail man who was recently kidnapped and taken to a place he had never been before in an unfamiliar country. Meanwhile, he was also confined to a monastery against his will. How exactly was this old man supposed to rebel or contact the police when he was near the end of his life ?
In reality, none of us know, or may ever really know.
Nonsense. This shouldn't be difficult to understand. As he aged, he became less capable of moving and expressing himself. Meanwhile, he was confused by the crisis and was overly credulous to the point of being rather gullible. Late in life he was kidnapped. He died shortly afterward. From these facts, one cannot conclude with any moral confidence that he was mentally incapable of consecrating bishops.
One thing is clear, he went to and fro with Paul VI and V2.
He was unsure about the nature of the crisis but was following his conscience as best he could. There is no mystery here. Your post is disingenuous and you seem to have some ulterior motive. You could not prove that he was mentally incapable of consecrating bishops in a court of law; therefore, you seem only to be sowing doubt and casting aspersions. This is not an honest way to proceed publicly; it is shameful.
-
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/audio/07_06_05Thuc_Webster.mp3
Mobius == mo' B.S.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLJIqLd5Gh8
Mario Derksen on Thuc
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_SUMMARY.pdf
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf
-
Why bring up his apartment? Is that to create an emotional stir in the readers of this forum?
The guy's a troll, a militant home-aloner of sorts.
It is best to heed the advice cited by Rev. Fr. Cornelius à Lapide (supra S. Matth. cap. xxii. 18):
Prima, ait S. Hieronymus, vitus respondentis est cognoscere interrogantis mentem, illimque responsionem accomodare. - "The first virtue," says St. Jerome, "in one giving an answer is to know the mind of the one asking the question" and to render unto him a fitting response.
-
With regard to Bishop Thuc's state of mind, people routinely (and IMO deliberately) get this wrong ... in order for a Sacrament to be invalid, Bishop Thuc would have to have been so far gone mentally that he basically didn't know what he was doing or understand what a consecration was. Bishop Thuc was a psychologically and emotionally broken man who, as a result, was easily manipulated by people around him. But he was quite lucid. I knew someone who sat at table with him. In the room were multiple priests who spoke several different languages, and Bishop Thuc could switch from one language to another and remain entirely coherent. There's absolutely zero credibility to the claims that Bishop Thuc couldn't validly confect a Sacrament just because he had issues with prudence at the end.
One could just as easily argue that Bishop Mendez was incoherent in performing the consecration of Bishop Kelly shortly after suffering a stroke, and one could just as easily say that Archbishop Lefebvre went back and forth on the Vatican.
-
Bishop Thuc was a good man, and many people today can thank him for having the Sacraments.
-
Why bring up his apartment? Is that to create an emotional stir in the readers of this forum?
The guy's a troll, a militant home-aloner of sorts.
It is best to heed the advice cited by Rev. Fr. Cornelius à Lapide (supra S. Matth. cap. xxii. 18):
Prima, ait S. Hieronymus, vitus respondentis est cognoscere interrogantis mentem, illimque responsionem accomodare. - "The first virtue," says St. Jerome, "in one giving an answer is to know the mind of the one asking the question" and to render unto him a fitting response.
Hobbledehoy,
I agree with you, but a factor to consider on this public forum is that if we who see the truth do not stand united against error it will only infect and spread to more Catholics. This forum is by far the largest and most active, at least that I am aware of, where we can do the most good, and where others can do the most harm.
There are many on here that can very easily be spiritually harmed by some of these errors. I have witnessed the rotten fruits of Dimondism and Ibranyism in my life. I have watched as good Catholics that I respected and considered friends become twisted into deranged rabid sectarians.
I have to hope that I can do something, to at least try anyway, to help my brother Catholics from falling into heresy, grave errors or schism.
So, it is not just the questioner I am responding to, it is the other hundred or so people that are lurking and reading, who could easily be confused by this fallacious junk if we do not correct it point by point and expose it to the light of truth.
You are in my prayers Hobbledehoy. God bless.
-
I think that the fall of Saigon was too much for him.
-
Bishop Thuc was a good man, and many people today can thank him for having the Sacraments.
I think that those who demonize Bishop Thuc would do well to read his memoirs; they're very touching.
Bishop (then-Father) Sanborn told me that Father Kelly said, "We can't say that the Thuc consecrations are valid, because people might go to [the CMRI]."
-
I think that the fall of Saigon was too much for him.
Yes, he was scarred by murders of 4 brothers by the Communists, including one who was buried alive.
-
Why bring up his apartment? Is that to create an emotional stir in the readers of this forum?
The guy's a troll, a militant home-aloner of sorts.
It is best to heed the advice cited by Rev. Fr. Cornelius à Lapide (supra S. Matth. cap. xxii. 18):
Prima, ait S. Hieronymus, vitus respondentis est cognoscere interrogantis mentem, illimque responsionem accomodare. - "The first virtue," says St. Jerome, "in one giving an answer is to know the mind of the one asking the question" and to render unto him a fitting response.
Hobbledehoy,
I agree with you, but a factor to consider on this public forum is that if we who see the truth do not stand united against error it will only infect and spread to more Catholics. This forum is by far the largest and most active, at least that I am aware of, where we can do the most good, and where others can do the most harm.
There are many on here that can very easily be spiritually harmed by some of these errors. I have witnessed the rotten fruits of Dimondism and Ibranyism in my life. I have watched as good Catholics that I respected and considered friends become twisted into deranged rabid sectarians.
I have to hope that I can do something, to at least try anyway, to help my brother Catholics from falling into heresy, grave errors or schism.
So, it is not just the questioner I am responding to, it is the other hundred or so people that are lurking and reading, who could easily be confused by this fallacious junk if we do not correct it point by point and expose it to the light of truth.
You are in my prayers Hobbledehoy. God bless.
Thank you so much for the prayers. Please be assured of mine.
What I meant to say that it is indeed his goal to cause an emotional stir and to create discord and strife, because he is a troll who continues to defame the CMRI and the memory of Archbishop Thuc.
You have done well in heeding St. Jerome's advice, for that is what you have done with these sorts of people in your writings.
-
The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations - Rev. Anthony Cekada (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catname=13)
-
Why bring up his apartment? Is that to create an emotional stir in the readers of this forum?
The guy's a troll, a militant home-aloner of sorts.
It is best to heed the advice cited by Rev. Fr. Cornelius à Lapide (supra S. Matth. cap. xxii. 18):
Prima, ait S. Hieronymus, vitus respondentis est cognoscere interrogantis mentem, illimque responsionem accomodare. - "The first virtue," says St. Jerome, "in one giving an answer is to know the mind of the one asking the question" and to render unto him a fitting response.
Mobius are you a home aloner, yes or no.
Simple question, whatever you answer justify your position. Enough with these people that have a clear agenda...
My issue with Thuc is something completely different, but not enough to say that "his ordinations might not be valid." If you have doubts, then read all the good links that people have given you. It seems the SSPV are neo-Novatianist. They certainly use the same tactics that he used, like denying communion to those who would go to St. Cornelius hierarchy for sacraments. Interesting company of men to be with...
-
Another point to consider is that the SSPV bind the consciences of the laypeople to their non-authoritative conclusions about the validity of the Thuc line bishops.
Regardless of what they think, their act of binding Catholics to their view under pain of denial of Holy Communion is a usurpation of the authority of the Church. They are making a binding judgment, imposing that judgment on Catholics, and by that acting with jurisdiction that they lack.
The SSPV are usurpers. They have no power over any Catholic, and not any authority whatsoever in the Church.