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.

Evidently the mental capacity to distinguish between validity and having jurisdiction is lacking in this one.

People can beat-up on this little Vietnamese bishop all they want, but know that, as in the past, Our Lord very likely uses such poor, countryless, "excommunicated" Bishops to confound the proud.

If anyone is interested in getting at the truth, please find and read +Thuc's autobiography.  It's extremely touching and reveals a man of deep piety and simple (yet strong) faith.  He suffered tremendously when the Communists butchered his immediate family members.

Did he do some imprudent things at times in his life?  Yes, certainly.  And he himself often admitted this in retrospect.  But in the face of as much suffering as this man endured, most of us would have completely cracked and lost the faith.

But the SSPV smear campaign against him is absolutely disgusting.

Quote from: John Steven

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?

I suggest you verify any comment I make with your own cross reference search, but Lienart's masonic career  promotions rivaled his clerical ascent.  
On his deathbed, he revealed his grievous intentions to sabotage the French priesthood.

The precedent here is Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla, who proved that ʝʊdɛօ-masons do have methodical game plans and goals.

+ABL admitted these masonic revelations, but insisted that his ordination was exempt from Lienart's ambush.  He never explained how this came to be?  
In fact, Bishop Thuc even offered to conditionally ordain +ABL, but it was refused or ignored.

Ask any SSPX priest this spoiled Lienart ordination question... and after they stop choking, listen for a cogent response?

I would also rebut a previous post that only SSPV (+ABL ordained) priests are beating-up on Bishop Thuc.

In recent SSPX priestly gatherings, they gloat that the Thuc ordinations and Consecrations are invalid.  
This view is held up the line, all the way to Menzingen.  

But notice, no one questions the validity of Bp. Thuc's own ordination or Consecration?

What does it mean?  It means the SSPX has no competition. "We are tradition!"
Only they have the paperwork, only they are legit.  All the other trad groups are sedes, schismatics or cults.

Of course, we see the massive implications here!

And now Msgr. Fellay is "buddy-buds" with Francis... the papal "destroyer" (St. Francis of Assisi).

But for everything... what is our consolation?

It is, despite the sell-out of the "retail trad Orders" like the SSPX, Christ the King and FSSP, at least there is an underground Church.
Made up of Holy religious and faithful who hold fast and wait for the Triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.



People can beat-up on this little Vietnamese bishop all they want, but know that, as in the past, Our Lord very likely uses such poor, countryless, "excommunicated" Bishops to confound the proud.

All of this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Are you really questioning Archbishop Lefebvre's own ordination and consecration? Seriously?

Here is what Bishop Williamson said in 1992:

“But again, fourthly, let us assume that Lienart was a Mason and let us assume that he deliberately invalidated the Orders he conferred on Marcel Lefebvre. The Anti-Lefebvrists have still not won their point, because, as Michael Davies quite correctly argues, Marcel Lefebvre would still have become bishop and priest in 1947 at the hands of either or both of the two bishops co-consecrating him then with Cardinal Lienart: he would have become bishop, because out of the three bishops performing the rite of his consecration, one alone needs to have had the correct intention for the sacrament to have been valid, and the odds against all three having secretly withheld their intention are simply astronomical; he would have become a priest because as the greater contains the lesser, so bishopric contains priesthood.”

Pope Pius XII stated:

“In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new bishop is always consecrated by THREE other bishops. The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three bishops impose hands on the bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration, Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining bishop would still validly consecrate the elect.” (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956.)

It is, then, ridiculous to argue that the Archbishop was not a valid priest. Again, even if, by some chance, Leinart withheld his intention to ordain Marcel Lefebvre in 1929 – which we cannot prove – then +Lefebvre would still have become a priest in 1947, for Consecration is the “fullness of orders”, and it is valid if only one of three Consecrators has the proper intention.

(Source: http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/the-validity-of-archbishop-lefebvre%E2%80%99s-ordination.2708/)

Here is what Bishop Williamson said in 1992:

“But again, fourthly, let us assume that Lienart was a Mason and let us assume that he deliberately invalidated the Orders he conferred on Marcel Lefebvre. The Anti-Lefebvrists have still not won their point, because, as Michael Davies quite correctly argues, Marcel Lefebvre would still have become bishop and priest in 1947 at the hands of either or both of the two bishops co-consecrating him then with Cardinal Lienart: he would have become bishop, because out of the three bishops performing the rite of his consecration, one alone needs to have had the correct intention for the sacrament to have been valid, and the odds against all three having secretly withheld their intention are simply astronomical; he would have become a priest because as the greater contains the lesser, so bishopric contains priesthood.”

This last sentence is disputed by theologians.

I have long disagreed with +Williamson's understanding of "intention".  You cannot invalidate a Sacrament based on some act performed in the internal forum.

That is why the theological principle is formulated that one must intend to DO what the Church DOES.

One need not INTEND what the Church INTENDS.

Crucial distinction.  You simply intend to DO WHAT the Church DOES.  I intend to PERFORM the Church's RITE of CONSECRATION.  Valid Sacrament.  Despite any secret inner thoughts about "I really don't intend what the Church intends with this Sacrament."

And this makes sense.  Otherwise, everything is thrown into chaos.  What if the priest who Baptized me didn't have the proper "intention"?  Yes, I can "PRESUME" that he did it but can never be more sure than that.

Nonsense.  If he did it, then it's valid ... unless he was basically not in his right mind and had no idea what he was DOing.

Quote from: obscurus

Here is what Bishop Williamson said in 1992:

“But again, fourthly, let us assume that Lienart was a Mason and let us assume that he deliberately invalidated the Orders he conferred on Marcel Lefebvre. The Anti-Lefebvrists have still not won their point, because, as Michael Davies quite correctly argues, Marcel Lefebvre would still have become bishop and priest in 1947 at the hands of either or both of the two bishops co-consecrating him then with Cardinal Lienart: he would have become bishop, because out of the three bishops performing the rite of his consecration, one alone needs to have had the correct intention for the sacrament to have been valid, and the odds against all three having secretly withheld their intention are simply astronomical; he would have become a priest because as the greater contains the lesser, so bishopric contains priesthood.”

This last sentence is disputed by theologians.

I have long disagreed with +Williamson's understanding of "intention".  You cannot invalidate a Sacrament based on some act performed in the internal forum.

That is why the theological principle is formulated that one must intend to DO what the Church DOES.

One need not INTEND what the Church INTENDS.

Crucial distinction.  You simply intend to DO WHAT the Church DOES.  I intend to PERFORM the Church's RITE of CONSECRATION.  Valid Sacrament.  Despite any secret inner thoughts about "I really don't intend what the Church intends with this Sacrament."

And this makes sense.  Otherwise, everything is thrown into chaos.  What if the priest who Baptized me didn't have the proper "intention"?  Yes, I can "PRESUME" that he did it but can never be more sure than that.

Nonsense.  If he did it, then it's valid ... unless he was basically not in his right mind and had no idea what he was DOing.

I think that you are correct Ladislaus. Hugh Ross Williamson, when addressing the question of the validity of the new rite, wrote that "The personal belief of the priest has no part in it [the intention]. If it had, the fact that Talleyrand was a professed atheist would have invalidated all his ordinations and there would be today no certain orders anywhere in France. What is asked of the priest is simply that he should intend what the Church intends.This principle explains, for example, why a Muslim woman could perform a valid Christian baptism, provided she says the appointed words, does the appointed actions and, though herself disbelieving, intends to do what the Church intends."

Quote from: Donato

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Incredulous

People can beat-up on this little Vietnamese bishop all they want, but know that, as in the past, Our Lord very likely uses such poor, countryless, "excommunicated" Bishops to confound the proud.

If anyone is interested in getting at the truth, please find and read +Thuc's autobiography.  It's extremely touching and reveals a man of deep piety and simple (yet strong) faith.  He suffered tremendously when the Communists butchered his immediate family members.

Did he do some imprudent things at times in his life?  Yes, certainly.  And he himself often admitted this in retrospect.  But in the face of as much suffering as this man endured, most of us would have completely cracked and lost the faith.

But the SSPV smear campaign against him is absolutely disgusting.

Well said

Yes, it's one thing if you wanted to make a rational theological argument calling into question the validity of the consecrations, but the degree to which they attack the person and the character of +Thuc is absolutely uncalled for; they vilify him as if he were some sort of blasphemer deliberately committing sacrilege and stark raving insane.  They should be ashamed.  Where is charity in all of this?

Agreed. It's totally not right....that said, I do appreciate the SSPV for their work with 'What Catholics Believe', but obviously not when they use that excellent show to attack the Thuc lineage...

 
This last sentence is disputed by theologians.

I have long disagreed with +Williamson's understanding of "intention".  You cannot invalidate a Sacrament based on some act performed in the internal forum.

That is why the theological principle is formulated that one must intend to DO what the Church DOES.

One need not INTEND what the Church INTENDS.

Crucial distinction.  You simply intend to DO WHAT the Church DOES.  I intend to PERFORM the Church's RITE of CONSECRATION.  Valid Sacrament.  Despite any secret inner thoughts about "I really don't intend what the Church intends with this Sacrament."

And this makes sense.  Otherwise, everything is thrown into chaos.  What if the priest who Baptized me didn't have the proper "intention"?  Yes, I can "PRESUME" that he did it but can never be more sure than that.

Nonsense.  If he did it, then it's valid ... unless he was basically not in his right mind and had no idea what he was DOing.

There is not certainty on this; but only theological opinions. There are some who say, that an internal intention is indeed necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. And some who disagree with this, maintaining that as long as the proper words and matter are used, (and the priest has the  habitual intention of doing what the Church does) the Sacrament is valid; even if the priest is distracted, lacking Faith, or somehow incapacitated at that moment.

Among the theologians who hold the first opinion, there is Ludwig Ott, who believed that a mere external manifestation on the part of who is conferring the Sacrament would not be sufficient for the validity thereof; but that an internal disposition would be also necessary.

According to the almost general opinion of current theologians, an inner intention (intentio interna) is necessary for the valid administration of the sacraments. By intentio interna is meant an intention that is directed not merely to the external execution of the sacramental rite, but also to its inner signification. The mere external intention (intentio mere externa) … which is directed toward merely performing the external action with earnestness and in the proper circuмstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient.

The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign, which is of itself capable of many interpretations, or with the declarations of the Church.

However, the Council of Trent speaks only about "at least" an intention of doing what the Church does. The "at least" part is important, but it is vague. It is hard to say with exactitude what really constitutes this intention and its necessity in the internal forum.  

“If anyone says that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.”

St. Thomas writes in the Summa that the minister’s “intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do. This means that the minister must truly intend to confer the Sacrament. He must use the appropriate matter and he must mean the words (form). If this minimal intention is lacking, then the Sacrament is not valid.