Author Topic: Validity of Thuc Bishops questioned yet again..... (Read 14141 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** February 09, 2017, 08:18:43 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Of all the things I have read and heard about the Thuc consecrations there was one thing I have heard that made me have doubts about the validity of his consecrations. According to Hobson (cathinfo will not allow me to link to his website, which may not be trustworthy) Thuc admitted to pretending to consecrate people while secretly withholding the proper intention so that these people were not really made priests or Bishops even though the ceremony occured, and he admitted to doing this multiple times.

I don't believe that this is true. Anything Hobson says, you can be pretty much certain that the opposite is the truth. +Thuc admitted to consecrating most of the bishops he consecrated, and at one point apologized to Rome for it.

Also, there's a misunderstanding of "intention". Even most Traditional Catholics have this wrong. If you outwardly DO what the Church does in order to confect a Sacrament, you have the intention to do WHAT the Church does. Even if you sit there in your brain saying "I don't intend to consecrate", it doesn't change the fact that you are intending to DO the rite of consecration, which you know (the Church declares) creates priests. Same thing would apply to a priest offering Mass. He could not believe in transubstantiation and think, "I'm not really consecrating anything." or, if he believed, think, "I intend that transubstantiation not happen," but the Mass would still be valid if he PERFORMED the rite according to what is prescribed by the Church.

You see, the Sacraments are matters of the public form, as is the "intention". If some kind of "internal forum" considerations could invalidate the Sacraments, then one could NEVER be certain whether one was receiving the Sacraments.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** February 09, 2017, 08:23:39 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Well if Hobson is lying about Thuc admitting to withholding the intention, then the other accusations in my mind would not make his consecrations invalid. There are accusations that he did some questionable things, like the Palma de Troya consecrations or the consecrating of an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, but I do not think any of those things would make his consecrations invalid. I do not believe that he was so crazy or senile that he couldn't consecrate properly.

No, doing imprudent or weird things, doesn't render one incapable of having the mental capacity to validly confect the Sacraments. Really, the mental requirement for being able to validly confect is an extremely low bar. You basically have to not know where you are, who you are, or what you're doing ... in order for the Sacrament to be rendered invalid.

I personally know someone who was with Bishop Thuc when he was in the US ... and served Mass for him. He states that +Thuc was extremely reverent in his offering of Mass and also stated that +Thuc sat at table with a number of bishops and priests of his lineage who spoke different languages and easily switched back and forth between languages, without losing the thread of each conversation. That is not the mental state of a man who cannot validly confect the Sacraments. This occurred well AFTER the +des Lauriers and +Carmona consecrations.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 09, 2017, 08:24:48 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Well if Hobson is lying

How can you know when Hobson is lying?

Answer: his lips are moving.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 09, 2017, 08:28:32 AM »

Quote from: ranlare

I had lunch with a few priests who were discussing Thuc, before the main entrees were served at the Olive Garden, and one of the priests, who knew Thuc before he was kidnapped and died, commented specifically on the bogus Guérard des Lauriers "consecration". The priest said he directly asked several questions to Thuc, (whom he said was clearly not in his right mind) surrounding the event, and the impoverished Thuc confided he never new des Lauriers at all when he "consecrated" him, but was told he should by some Germans who, "were very generous to him..." (with money/simony)?

This is well known, that +Thuc did not personally know +des Lauriers but that +des Laurier was brought to him by the two Germans. Your suggestion of simony is calumny and slander. These Germans had been generous in taking care of poor +Thuc BEFORE the time of the consecrations, because they took pity on the poor BIshop who was reduced to living in poverty and squalor, despite having been an Archbishop. They did NOT pay +Thuc to do the consecration, but +Thuc was persuaded by them to do so because the bishop trusted the two due to their generosity.

You need to confess your calumny against +Thuc regarding the simony suggestion.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2017, 08:31:05 AM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede

The SSPV's case relies only on negative doubts not positive doubts, they should know better.

You are absolutely correct. And they DO know better.

TKGS · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2017, 08:34:38 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: ranlare
I had lunch with a few priests who were discussing Thuc, before the main entrees were served at the Olive Garden, and one of the priests, who knew Thuc before he was kidnapped and died, commented specifically on the bogus Guérard des Lauriers "consecration". The priest said he directly asked several questions to Thuc, (whom he said was clearly not in his right mind) surrounding the event, and the impoverished Thuc confided he never new des Lauriers at all when he "consecrated" him, but was told he should by some Germans who, "were very generous to him..." (with money/simony)?

This is well known, that +Thuc did not personally know +des Lauriers but that +des Laurier was brought to him by the two Germans. Your suggestion of simony is calumny and slander. These Germans had been generous in taking care of poor +Thuc BEFORE the time of the consecrations, because they took pity on the poor BIshop who was reduced to living in poverty and squalor, despite having been an Archbishop. They did NOT pay +Thuc to do the consecration, but +Thuc was persuaded by them to do so because the bishop trusted the two due to their generosity.

You need to confess your calumny against +Thuc regarding the simony suggestion.

And, pray tell, why are such calumnies always put forth anonymously? Who was the priest who claims that Archbishop Thuc was "clearly not in his right mind"? Bottom line: I don't believe you are telling the truth, or, if you are, you are protecting the identity of a priest who, deep down, you don't really believe either.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2017, 08:36:33 AM »

The devil can appear holy and intelligent. Beware of wolves in sheep clothing.
Worry about saving young souls and your own. We are all sinners. We need to not only know the faith but to live it too. Worrying about who is valid or not etc is a waste of time that could have been spent in prayer. And don't dwell on your parents sins and past mistakes. It hurts but you have to move and concentrate on your future. It isn't easy. Some of you young men need to be Catholic and marry a decent Catholic woman and have many children so you can teach them the true faith. Go to Mass then go home.

John Steven · « **Reply #37 on:** February 09, 2017, 09:39:09 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

There's a lot of cross reference docuмentation showing Cardinal Lienart was a freemasonic devotee (see one example below)..

+ABL publicly admitted it, cited on this forum in 2016.

If these accusations can be disproved... then good.

But until then, the validity of the +ABL line is still suspect.

A List of Masons in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church (Under "L") LINK

Wow, just wow.

Even if it could be proven Lienart was a Freemason, how does it follow the episcopal consecrations he performed were invalid?

snowball · « **Reply #38 on:** February 09, 2017, 10:05:46 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: snowball
None of these clowns are valid, they should all check in
to their local diocese and ask to submit to the authority
of their real bishops, who can decide what to do with them.

What on earth are you talking about?

The four made bishops (Fellay, de Galarreta, Tissier and Williamson)
whose excommunications were lifted by Benedict XVI in March, 2009
are priests, but they are not bishops.

snowball · « **Reply #39 on:** February 09, 2017, 10:10:13 AM »

Quote from: snowball

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: snowball
None of these clowns are valid, they should all check in
to their local diocese and ask to submit to the authority
of their real bishops, who can decide what to do with them.

What on earth are you talking about?

Every once in a while I make a brief post like this that receives
a massive number of thumbs-down here, this one got 9 so far.

Catholics believe that priests are ordained by bishops, and
bishops are elevated to their post by the Holy See. When
the Resistance has a Pope, then they will have bishops.
That is Canon Law. Cardinal Prefect Ratzinger tried to make an
exception in 1988, the March 5 agreement between Abp. Lefebvre,
so the SSPX could appoint their own valid bishops.
Pope John Paul II stopped it - and Operation Survival began.

The four made bishops (Fellay, de Galarreta, Tissier and Williamson)
whose excommunications were lifted by Benedict XVI in March, 2009
are priests, but they are not bishops. I do not even recognize Fellay
as a true bishop. This is why the SSPX needs to be reconciled to
the Holy See. The confusion evident in this thread and many others
is due to the fact that you have "bishops" from every splinter group,
and none of them can be bishops without a Pope.

So, give me more thumbs-down if you disagree, but my position
is the Catholic position. Fellay is a priest. Williamson is a priest.
This is why Francis is extending priveleges to SSPX priests, but
not recognizing their bishoprics yet. As a Roman Catholic, I applaud
these men and their calling, but they are not bishops, and neither
was Thuc, if he consecrated any of these men, they are all invalid.

Donato · « **Reply #40 on:** February 09, 2017, 10:32:42 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matto
Of all the things I have read and heard about the Thuc consecrations there was one thing I have heard that made me have doubts about the validity of his consecrations. According to Hobson (cathinfo will not allow me to link to his website, which may not be trustworthy) Thuc admitted to pretending to consecrate people while secretly withholding the proper intention so that these people were not really made priests or Bishops even though the ceremony occured, and he admitted to doing this multiple times.

I don't believe that this is true. Anything Hobson says, you can be pretty much certain that the opposite is the truth. +Thuc admitted to consecrating most of the bishops he consecrated, and at one point apologized to Rome for it.

Also, there's a misunderstanding of "intention". Even most Traditional Catholics have this wrong. If you outwardly DO what the Church does in order to confect a Sacrament, you have the intention to do WHAT the Church does. Even if you sit there in your brain saying "I don't intend to consecrate", it doesn't change the fact that you are intending to DO the rite of consecration, which you know (the Church declares) creates priests. Same thing would apply to a priest offering Mass. He could not believe in transubstantiation and think, "I'm not really consecrating anything." or, if he believed, think, "I intend that transubstantiation not happen," but the Mass would still be valid if he PERFORMED the rite according to what is prescribed by the Church.

You see, the Sacraments are matters of the public form, as is the "intention". If some kind of "internal forum" considerations could invalidate the Sacraments, then one could NEVER be certain whether one was receiving the Sacraments.

Great point Ladislaus: isn't a Eucharistic miracle (Laceno Italy) proof of what you stated above ? That priest did not believe in transubstantiation, according to the historical accounts of that event...

John Steven · « **Reply #41 on:** February 09, 2017, 10:36:19 AM »

Quote from: snowball

Quote from: snowball
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: snowball
None of these clowns are valid, they should all check in
to their local diocese and ask to submit to the authority
of their real bishops, who can decide what to do with them.

What on earth are you talking about?

Every once in a while I make a brief post like this that receives
a massive number of thumbs-down here, this one got 9 so far.

Catholics believe that priests are ordained by bishops, and
bishops are elevated to their post by the Holy See. When
the Resistance has a Pope, then they will have bishops.
That is Canon Law. Cardinal Prefect Ratzinger tried to make an
exception in 1988, the March 5 agreement between Abp. Lefebvre,
so the SSPX could appoint their own valid bishops.
Pope John Paul II stopped it - and Operation Survival began.

The four made bishops (Fellay, de Galarreta, Tissier and Williamson)
whose excommunications were lifted by Benedict XVI in March, 2009
are priests, but they are not bishops. I do not even recognize Fellay
as a true bishop. This is why the SSPX needs to be reconciled to
the Holy See. The confusion evident in this thread and many others
is due to the fact that you have "bishops" from every splinter group,
and none of them can be bishops without a Pope.

So, give me more thumbs-down if you disagree, but my position
is the Catholic position. Fellay is a priest. Williamson is a priest.
This is why Francis is extending priveleges to SSPX priests, but
not recognizing their bishoprics yet. As a Roman Catholic, I applaud
these men and their calling, but they are not bishops, and neither
was Thuc, if he consecrated any of these men, they are all invalid.

You do realize that no one doubts the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the four bishops, not even Rome itself? At best they were considered illicit (which I don't agree with) but not invalid.

snowball · « **Reply #42 on:** February 09, 2017, 11:01:48 AM »

Quote from: John Steven

[
You do realize that no one doubts the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the four bishops, not even Rome itself? At best they were considered illicit (which I don't agree with) but not invalid.

They are not bishops of the Roman Catholic Church,
they are priests.

John Steven · « **Reply #43 on:** February 09, 2017, 11:06:40 AM »

Quote from: snowball

Quote from: John Steven
[
You do realize that no one doubts the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the four bishops, not even Rome itself? At best they were considered illicit (which I don't agree with) but not invalid.

They are not bishops of the Roman Catholic Church,
they are priests.

Provide one piece of proof other than your uneducated opinion that they are not bishops.

John Steven · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2017, 11:23:51 AM »

Go back and read what you wrote above and see how little sense it makes.

If you don't believe the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are valid, none of the priests they have ordained would be valid. How could Francis extend privileges to the SSPX's priests if it doesn't consider them priests? The logical conclusion of your statement would leave only the priests ordained by Lefebvre to be valid.

Please spend some time researching and reading before posting anymore nonsense.