Of course, that's all distraction from the fact that Archbishop Thuc clearly had the intention to consecrate / ordain, and was clearly in full possesson of his faculties.
It's also clear that God will hold these slanderers accountable for their sins.
You are clearly highly emotional about this.
Most likely because you have or continue to receive Thuc Sacraments.
There is no comparison between the mental insanity of Thuc and the calm, rational holiness of Abp Lefebvre.
I suggest people read this article: https://www.infotradicion.com/2023/06/es-valida-la-sucesion-apostolica-del.html
TRANSLATION
Note of InfoTradition: Given the barrage of episcopal consecrations that have taken place in the last year between the various sedevacantist groups, —the result largely of the division between sedeprivationists (or formal sedevacantists, who support the Cassiciacuм Thesis) and the total sedevacantists (who do not support such Thesis)—, the number of sedevacantist bishops seems to be close to surpassing that of their priests.From this logbook we have defended the logic posed by the Sedevacantist conclusion to the ecclesial crisis and as a logical application of the dogmas of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church. We have also clearly positioned ourselves as defenders of the work and example of Archbishop Lefebvre, also demonstrating and disseminating the statements and statements of the Archbishop that others hide, without failing to admit that, in effect, he did not publicly and clearly affirm the loss of authority of the Petrine See, occupied by neomodernist heretics. We are, however, far from the dogmatization of Sedevacantism because, although this conclusion is clearly true, the reality is that it should not be a dividing dam to stop considering as Catholics those who, defending the doctrine and teaching of the Church of always, they have not reached the Sedevacantist conclusion. Another thing is that they reject some point of the doctrine of the Church as, unfortunately, often happens with regard to the Papacy, its authority and infallibility. The situation of the current division among Catholics is aggravated by the delicate and forgotten issue of Archbishop Thuc's succession lineage. The visible and worthy recent consecrations among the bishops of this lineage cannot make us forget their origin. The «facelift» that the Thuc consecrations have had, as well as the figure of the Archbishop himself, is a topic that, in many Catholics, has been accepted without the slightest criticism and investigation and, however, they themselves tear their clothes. with the ambiguities or indecisions of Archbishop Lefebvre. But given this it is worth asking... Was Archbishop Thuc really a traditionalist? Should we accept the validity of these consecrations if we do not even have reliable evidence that the form of traditional consecration had been fully observed? Was Thuc a puppet used by all those who sought to obtain apostolic succession from him? Was there simony in Thuc? Is Heller and Hiller's testimony valid?
Next, we will see the objections that this question presents to us and we ask for a justification or answer that goes beyond the hackneyed «the burden of proof of the supposed invalidity of some consecrations corresponds to those who doubt them», since this would be totally true if these were ordinary episcopal consecrations. (End of note InfoTradition).
THE CASE OF ARCHBISHOP THUC
Much of what we present below is an attempt to counter the factual misinformation that seems to prevail everywhere regarding Archbishop Thuc. On the part of some, there has been a considerable amount of «blanqueo» of the Archbishop's unedifying history, with the result that many people have formed opinions about him based on factual errors and omissions, especially the younger generations.
Victims of all this, in addition to the truth itself, are all those well-intentioned Catholics who have placed confidence in the validity of the sacramental orders that emanate from it. We believe this needs to be corrected.
1. BRIEF HISTORY OF ARCHBISHOP THUC
Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc was born in Hue, Vietnam, on October 6, 1897. He entered the seminary of the archdiocese of Hue, he was orborn a priest on December 20, 1925, he received his doctorate in Theology, Philosophy and Canon Law and on May 4, 1938 he was consecrated bishop by Antonin-Fernand Drapier and promoted to the dignity of archbishop in 1960 by John XXIII. Pan active participant in Vatican II and with a markedly progressive tendency, he signed all the docuмentsments of the same council, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, despite what some sedevacantists claim. His only two interventions in Vatican II leave no room for doubt in his thoughts (these quotes appear intentionally clipped and erroneously and self-interestedly interpreted in the docuмent An Open Letter to Bishop Clarence Kelly on the «Thuc Bishops» and the Errors in «The Sacred and the Profane», by Mario Derksen that can be found on the pagethucbishops.com and which tries to whitewash the image of Archbishop Thuc, presenting him as a traditionalist during Vatican II): «With great consolation I see present in these assemblies the delegates of the non-Catholic Christian Churches, to be witnesses of our fraternity, sincerity and freedom. But where are the delegates or observers of non-Christians? So don't you need this wonderful vision of the unity of the Catholic Church? Or do they not need an explanation of our Christian faith? That! Doesn't the people they represent form a third —or rather, most— of these scattered sheep that Christ eagerly desired to enter a fold? I exposed the scandal that reached the entire world due to the absence of invitations sent to the heads of non-Christian religions in the central commission, but to no avail. I strongly asked the council to correct the omission,so that this repugnant discrimination between some religions is no longer found. This absence of invitation to the leaders of non-Christian religions confirms in a certain way that prejudice that creeps through the Asian and African world: “The Catholic Church is a church for men of white and not for men of color”». (Acta Synodalia Vaticano II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359).
«... It seems extraordinary to me that in the scheme of God's people women are not expressly mentioned anywhere, so the Church appears totally masculine, while the reality is quite different. Don't women constitute the majority of the laity, even of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course, I know well that the Church had to behave this way so as not to offend the prejudices of those times. Thus, Saint Paul imposed the veil on women in the Church, so that they would not displease the angels. So why should men proudly enter the church with their heads uncovered, which is contrary to the custom of today's clerics in both the West and the East? In the same way,silence was imposed on the women while in this Basilica the walls recently resonated to the sound of the voices of the Fathers. So, nuns must obtain permission from churches to wash sacred clothes. And likewise this unjust discrimination appears here and now in this conciliar room... Why is it that in our atomic age, when in almost the entire world women have achieved legal equality with men, it is only in the Church of Christ who still suffer from them? Injurious discrimination... I eagerly seek... that these discriminations against the bravest sex be eradicated. Finally, I will be grateful to anyone who can present me with a simple and apodictic text of the Gospel that excludes the sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary from sacred functions». (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp.513). This scandalous intervention is clearly softened in the docuмent An Open Letter to Bishop Clarence Kelly on the «Thuc Bishops» and the Errors in «The Sacred and the Profane», by Mario Derksen, where he simply comments on page 25 in a footnote the following —without evidently citing Thuc's scandalous intervention—: «It is true that at another time during the Council, Bishop Thuc complained about some Church customs that he considered discriminatory towards women. If Your Excellency wishes to have a debate about whether the Vietnamese bishop pertinaciously exceeded the limits of orthodoxy in this particular respect, we certainly can; but such a debate will have to be based on Catholic principles and compelling evidence, not on exaggerated accusations».
His participation in Vatican II saved his life, since in 1963 the soldiers Duong Van Minh and Tran Van Donel overthrew his brother, the president of Vietnam Ngo Dinh Diem, and massacred him and his family, leaving him as the only survivor of his family. Paul VI did not allow him to return to Vietnam, so Archbishop Thuc began life as an exile in Rome. In 1968, Paul VI appointed him titular archbishop of Bulla Regia (a former see now vacant in Tunisia).
The massive «consecrations» begin
While living in Rome, Archbishop Thuc met the priest Maurice Revaz, who at the time was teaching at Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's seminary in Switzerland. In the mid-1970s, Revaz became involved with a group of «visionaries» in El Palmar de Troya, Spain, led by an insurance broker, Clemente Domínguez Gómez, who believed that the «real» Paul VI was a prisoner of the Vatican and that the visible Paul VI was a double of the one who was imprisoned. After the death of Paul VI in 1978, Dominguez claimed that Christ had mystically crowned him Pope and took the name Gregory XVII. He later founded his own «church» and declared Paul VI a holy martyr.
One day Revaz told Archbishop Thuc that «Our Lady had work for him in El Palmar de Troya», to which Thuc obeyed by stating that: «if Our Lady asks for it, I will run». On December 31, 1975, Archbishop Thuc ordained Clement and four other laymen to the priesthood, and just 12 days later he consecrated five bishops of El Palmar de Troya, two of whom he himself had ordained priests only 12 days before, among them the famous Clemente Domínguez. (As an aside, in less than two years Clement «consecrated» no less than 70 men to the episcopate). Then, we can affirm that Archbishop Thuc was the material author of the sect formed in the Sevillian municipality of El Palmar de Troya. Without a doubt, excellent precedents and awards that, however, will not be an impediment for the Sedevacantists to come to him in desperation a few years later for the consecration of bishops.
On September 17, 1976, Paul VI «excommunicated him» for his consecrations of El Palmar de Troya, after which the Vietnamese Archbishop immediately «repented» and renounced what he had done in Spain, a fact that caused Paul VI will lift his «excommunication». Thus, Ngo Dinh Thuc renounced his actions in a letter that said that the orders he had conferred were null and void, as he had withheld any intention of transmitting orders to the Palmar sect of Troy(1). It will not be the only time that Archbishop Thuc simulates the celebration of a sacrament. Let us not forget that the simulation of a sacrament is a very serious offense that the Church describes as sacrilege.
It is not mentioned in the decree ━perhaps because it was unknown at the time━ but between the consecrations of the Palmar and his reconciliation with Paul VI, Archbishop Thuc had made another episcopal consecration. According to Father Robert McKenna, it took place two months before Thuc's reconciliation with Paul VI. Thus it was that on July 10, 1976, Thuc had consecrated the priest Comte de Labat d'Arnoux. Who was Comte de Labat d'Arnoux? He was, according to the priest Noël Barbará, just one of the many apostates of the Catholic Church who became bishop thanks to Thuc.
On February 2, 1977, just six months after the Palmarian consecrations, Archbishop Thuc conditionally consecrated a veteran Catholic «bishop» named Jean Laborie (who, by the way, had previously been consecrated two other times and was a shameless sodomite). Over the next few years he will consecrate at least two more bishops to the Old Catholic sect. The episcopal consecration of people totally unworthy of office was punishable by excommunication.
On March 19, 1977, Thuc consecrated Claude Nanta de Torrini, another apostate from the Catholic Church.
On August 25, 1977, as recent docuмentary and photographic sources that appeared on the Internet have shown (and of which we will present two copies below), Thuc consecrated sub conditions to the Palmarian bishop Ricardo Subirón Ferrandis, famous for the priestly ordination and episcopal consecration of the extravagant Bishop Pablo de Rojas.
In 1978, Thuc moved to Toulon, France and settled with a Vietnamese Buddhist family. While there, he regularly attended Bishop (modernist) Gilles Barthe of Frejus, in his Toulon Cathedral.
On October 19, 1978, he consecrated Roger Kozik and Michel Fernández, founders of a non-Catholic sect.
On April 16, 1981, Holy Thursday, Archbishop Thuc was caught concelebrating the new mass with Bishop Barthe of Frejus. However, just three weeks after this event, Thuc had his first flirtation with traditional Catholicism and consecrated the eminent Dominican Father Guérard des Lauriers, on May 7, 1981. Heller and Hiller admitted that during the consecration of Father Guérard des Lauirers there were cats in the room and that Thuc himself ordered other assistants to leave, leaving only the Archbishop, the consecrated bishop and doctors Heller and Hiller.
Months later, on October 17, 1981, the Vietnamese archbishop consecrated bishops to two sacsmexican erdotes, Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora. In the image below we can see that a telephone was not removed from the table that served as an altar. Without a doubt the result of the improvisation of the supposed consecrations, so improvised that, in fact, Adolfo Zamora is not always cited as a consecrated bishop nor by the defenders of the Thuc lineage themselves. The truth is that, as we will see later, Zamora himself ended up being marginalized in the Priestly Union of Trent to which he belonged and doubting whether or not he was a bishop. It must also be said that the supposed consecration of Zamora was, apparently, an unexpected initiative of Archbishop Thuc himself at the same time that the consecration of Carmona took place.
On April 18, 1982 and then again on September 25, 1982, Thuc consecrated two more Old Catholic bishops, Luigi Boni and Christian Datessen. Keep in mind that he once again relapsed into the consecrations of Old Catholics, after having consecrated the Sedevacantist priests Guérard des Lauriers, Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora. That is to say, he did not redirect his frenetic and reckless attitude of consecrating indiscriminately, but rather he resumed contact with the Old Catholics (if he had lost it or intended to do so) and consecrated again bishops from a schismatic and heretical sect. As Fr. Anthony Cekada: «The story will not end here, it is likely that the sudden bishops will continue to multiply exponentially, as among the Old Catholics». Later, in 1982, Archbishop Thuc moved to New York to live with some Sedevacantist Franciscans led by a Bishop from his priestly line: Louis Vezelis (Vezelis had been consecrated by George Musey and this by Moisés Carmona). Vezelis and Musey, known for having divided the territory of the United States into two new ones «dioceses», demanding submission from the Sedevacantist clergy and arrogating to themselves an authority that they evidently did not have and could not have. Musey, by the way, after being ordained a priest and before his episcopal consecration, ran a German food restaurant called Hofbrau near Dickinson, Texas.
On March 12, 1983, Ratzinger, then cardinal and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a notice excommunicating Thuc and several bishops he had consecrated in 1981.
On January 8, 1984, Archbishop Thuc moved to Carthage, Missouri, to live in a Vietnamese conciliar seminary, and it is there that he died on December 13, 1984.
Over the course of six years, Thuc consecrated at least 16 men: 5 to the sect of El Palmar de Troya, 7 various heretics (of which at least 5, if not all, were Old Catholics) and 3 sedevacantists and 1 independent (Ricardo Subirón, which would be difficult to place in the previous categories, although he was bishop in El Palmar before being consecrated under condition). Was all this done in an effort by Archbishop Thuc to preserve traditional Catholicism, as some claim? The answer to this question can be clarified by examining the conduct of the Archbishop himself, aware of the fact that a man's actions really speak louder than his words.
2. THUC, WAS HE REALLY A TRADITIONALIST?
The fact that Ngo Dinh Thuc, at least at certain times in his life, adopted some traditional practices is indisputable and there is ample evidence of this. But it should be noted that the autobiography that he is said to have written himself, where he manifests his traditionalism, has not been authenticated to date.
It seems evident that Archbishop Thuc did not have just one face but had many and diverse ones, which only increases doubts about his capacity and mental lucidity.
Given that the central theme of this article is the validity of Archbishop Thuc's consecrations, all the errors contained in the two interventions he had during the second session of Vatican II are not entirely relevant to this, however it serves to refute the unfounded rumors that Thuc was a traditionalist, at least during that period. It is possible that she would have changed her religious line after the massacre of her family, since this happened just a month after her scandalous statements during Vatican II in favor of interreligious dialogue, equality or the so-called «women's rights». We have also been able to confirm Thuc's signing of one of the ten appeals presented by the Cœtus Internationalis Patrum, specifically, the one demanding the condemnation of communism. This, obviously,logical consequence of the massacre of his family during the communist revolution in Vietnam.
In reference to the consecrations of El Palmar de Troya, as noted above, Paul VI excommunicated Archbishop Thuc. Did Thuc ignore «excommunication» for legitimate reasons of the state of necessity, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, consecrating four bishops and calling it «operation survival»? No; Far from acting as Archbishop Lefebvre later did, he recognized the «excommunication» as valid:
«The prelate [Thuc], as soon as he realized the seriousness of the events, deplored and repudiated what he had done and tried to prevent further abuses. He then humbly placed himself at the disposal of ecclesiastical authority. To this end, he hastened to ask the Holy Father for absolution of the excommunication he had incurred and wrote to His Eminence Cardinal Bueno y Monreal, Archbishop of Seville, a letter in which, recognizing his own error, he asked for forgiveness for “the great scandal given to the faithful and for the immense damage caused to the Church by endangering its unity”». (L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, September 17, 1976).
Priest Claude Barthe, then priest of the HSSPX (not to be confused with the Bishop of Toulon, Gilles Barthe), writes about Thuc when he and priest Noël Barbará went to France to meet the Vietnamese Archbishop on January 7, 1981. We quote your article again Fortes in Fide, p. 12:
«He [Archbishop Thuc] is in the Cathedral. We went there and found him helping at the sinaxe [i.e. at the new mass] of one of the priests... With the authorization of the [modernist] bishop of Toulon, Thuc was assigned a confessional in the cathedral of the conciliar bishop and Until early 1982, Thuc served daily at new masses celebrated in this same cathedral... Father Barbará asked him what his relations were with the [modernist] bishop of the cathedral. He responded that the bishop of Toulon had entrusted him with the task of providing the Vietnamese with confession, and also the powers of confession for anyone who came to him. Once a year, on Holy Thursday, he invited the elderly Archbishop to concelebrate mass with him in the new rite...».
In a recorded debate between traditionalist priests William Jenkins and Anthony Cekada, Jenkins made this indisputable claim:
«It is a fact, we have it recorded, we have sworn testimony, that during the consecration of Guérard des Lauriers, Guérard des Lauriers himself had to continually intervene in the ceremony and tell Archbishop Thuc “you can't say that”. Because he continually invoked the name of John Paul II even though just two weeks earlier he said that he was not the Pope»(2). And this draws powerful attention, since Guérard des Lauriers himself totally rejected being consecrated bishop by someone who considered John Paul II Pope.
Archbishop Thuc died on December 13, 1984 at the Council Seminary of Our Lady of the Ozarks, Carthage, Missouri. Five days after his death the following was published as his last public statement:
«I, the undersigned, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia and Archbishop Emeritus of Hue, wish to publicly retract all my previous errors related to my illegitimate ordination to the episcopate, in 1981, to several priests, namely Revs. ML Guérard des Lauriers, OP, Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, as well as my denial of the Second Vatican Council, the new one Ordo Missae, especially the dignity of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, as truly legitimate successor of Saint Peter [...].
I sincerely wish to ask everyone to forgive me, pray for me and repair any scandal caused by such regrettable actions and statements of mine.
I would also like to exhort the aforementioned priests who had been illegitimately ordained to the episcopate by me in 1981, and all others who in turn have been ordained bishops and priests, as well as their followers, to recant their error, leaving its current false state and reconcile with the Church and the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II».
Thuc consecrated at least 16 men(3), why do you point to only three of them here? Did you not find any error in consecrating others? Why have these three and these three only taken one out of him mea culpa final?
His final statement clearly summarizes in words what had in fact been his conduct in the life that, with the exception of a period spanning less than three years, he had been implicitly or explicitly accepting the errors of Vatican II; That's how he lived, that's where he died and that's what he professed to believe when he died.
To this we must add that some defenders of Thuc's apostolic succession claim that the Archbishop was kidnapped by the modernists. Although this theory may be true, it is still somewhat forced, seeming much more credible that Thuc was a senile, tired and manageable old man who acted in one way or the opposite depending on who he was with. This and no other reasons explain his serious doctrinal ups and downs and confusions in the last years of his life, incomprehensible in a prelate who held three doctorates. In the following image we can see two photographs of the last years of his life in the modernist Vietnamese refugee seminary, where he died.
3. IRREGULARITIES IN THE GRANTING OF ORDERS
Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc was a well-educated man, having received doctorates in Philosophy, Theology and Canon Law, as well as a license to teach from the renowned Sorbonne University in Paris. So if he really didn't suffer from some kind of dementia, he would surely have known the seriousness of granting orders to non-Catholic, unworthy and seriously illicit candidates. However, this is exactly what he did; He ordained and consecrated people who were not Catholic or unsuitable for receiving orders and, at times, he did so against the law of the Church that governs such matters.
Once again, we turn to priests Noël Barbará and Claude Barthe as witnesses:
«Father Barbará reminded him that he had visited him during the previous year to ask for information about a certain García de Marseille that the Archbishop had ordained. Archbishop Thuc informed us that he regretted having done so, because he had come to know that the Father in question was mentally unbalanced ...».
«Then my father explained the reason for our visit. A Mexican friend, Father Marquette, had informed us that he had consecrated the priest of Acapulco, Father Moisés Carmona, and another Mexican, Father Zamora. The Archbishop admitted that was the case. I didn't know them: “There were two Germans, Heller and Hiller, who brought them to me and asked me to consecrate them. I had confidence in these two gentlemen because I knew Mr. Heller. He is a very good person”».
Dr. Hiller was asked about Archbishop Thuc's consecration of a self-styled member old Catholic Church:
«How could he [Thuc] think of continuing the Catholic Church through a schismatic and old Catholic heretic?’ Dr. Hiller responded: “He thought that when he was ordained a priest or consecrated, he would be Catholic, a Roman Catholic, and no longer an Old Catholic. He knew exactly that the ancient Catholic church is not the Roman Catholic Church”».
And this from a man who had three doctorates! We know that Thuc was aware that this man was not Catholic, since Barbarah had warned him about it.
There is also an interesting letter written by Adolfo Zamora in which he expresses doubts about the validity of his own consecration:
«Since my episcopal consecration two years ago, I have not been officially recognized as a bishop [by the organization to which I belonged: Priestly Society of Trent]. Now I don't know if I'm a bishop»(3). (The truth is that Zamora is often omitted as a consecrated bishop by Thuc, even among defenders of the validity of consecrations).
The connection Einsicht
A possible explanation for the statement of February 25, 1982 —referred to in Thucist circles as «The Munich Declaration»— can be found in Archbishop Thuc's association with the people of the magazine Einsicht. Below we will present fragments of the work of priest Anthony Cekada Two bishops in each garage which we will put in quotes.
«At one point... Bishop Thuc decided to share his fate with —or, perhaps, fell under the influence of— another organization that needed his episcopal ministry». [Cekada, Two bishops in each garage, op. cit., p. 8]. Einsicht it was the publication of the «organization» he met in Munich. «Einsicht he promoted the rather abstruse doctrines of Father Guérard in Germany through his publications. She took Thuc under her wings, and presumably provided him with some kind of material support». [Cekada, Two bishops in each garage, op. cit., p. 8].
Among the people of Einsicht dr. Kurt Hiller and Dr. Eberhard Heller stood out. They were the two witnesses(4) at the consecration of Father Guérard des Lauriers.
«When Father Sanborn, Jenkins and I traveled to Germany to interview them, we asked them about the consecration of Father Guérard des Lauriers. They were also present at the consecrations of Zamora and Carmona. We ask them about the matter and form of the sacrament. (The subject for an episcopal consecration is the laying on of both hands by the consecrating bishop. The form is a sixteen-word formula). None could testify that Archbishop Thuc laid his hands on the head of Father Guérard des Lauriers. Hiller was asked if Thuc put one or two hands on Guérard des Lauriers' head. I did not know. Heller, on the other hand, simply refused to answer any of those questions. Furious, she protested that they couldn't expect him to remember such details after six years».
«Father Sanborn concluded, at that time, that the validity of consecrations in the external forum could not be proven. He said Hiller and Heller's testimony was useless. He said that even if we could prove validity, we could have nothing to do with the Thucist bishops because they were very sordid». Dr. Hiller, who had no problem with the validity of Thuc's consecrations, doubted the ordinations made by Archbishop Lefebvre. He also defended the consecrations of El Palmar as a good thing. In the August 1982 edition of Einsicht (english edition), wrote: “There is no way you can reprimand him [to Archbishop Thuc] for the consecrations of Palmar”». [Quoted in Cekada, Two bishops in each garage, op. cit., p. 6).
When Sanborn, Kelly and Jenkins interviewed German witnesses, Sanborn said there was not enough evidence to be sure of this. He said that he fully trusted Guérard de Lauriers, but that this was a personal opinion, not enough.
4. WAS THERE DEMENTIA IN ARCHBISHOP THUC?
Archbishop Thuc's mental health is a frequently repeated topic, and it is for good reason. Much has been said elsewhere that Thuc allowed the Palmarians to found his sect by ordaining and consecrating the clergy for them. His gullibility in this case is truly astonishing, as he recorded in his own autobiography:
«Then a priest came to see me, whom I had met before in Ecône, Switzerland. He told me bluntly: “Your Excellency, the Blessed Virgin sends me to immediately send you to central Spain to provide you with a service. My car is ready for you at the door of the parsonage and we will leave immediately to be there at Christmas”».
«Stunned by this invitation, I said: “If it is a service that the Blessed Virgin required, I am willing to follow you to the end of the world, but I must inform the priest on the occasion of Christmas Mass and I must pack my bag”».
When Heller and Hiller were asked why Thuc had ordained priests and consecrated bishops at El Palmar de Troya, they said that «he had the mind of a child», meaning that «he was innocent and somewhat naive in dealing with others, a fact that explains why he made certain consecrations that he later regretted»(5).
According to a priest of the time who knew him, Thuc «entered and left the state of lucidity»(6).
Modernist Bishop Gilles Barthe, with whom Thuc publicly concelebrated the new mass and in whose diocese he eventually settled, said in the French bulletin The Docuмentation Catholique (February 21, 1982) his concerns regarding the activities of the elderly prelate. «He expressed the most express reservations about the value [validity] of these ordinations», he stated, and regarding Thuc's lucidity during the rites he said: «It is even less [clear] for the ordinations made in his house in Toulon. It is pertinent to ask to what extent he was aware of the acts he carried out and to what extent his freedom was...»(7).
Clarence Kelly in his work The sacred and the profane he summed up Thuc's activities quite well: «He seemed to do and say what those around him wanted him to do and say. He acted like he had no mind of his own. When he was under the influence of the Novus Ordo clergy, he did and said what they wanted. When the Vetero-Catholics came to him for episcopal consecration, he did what they wanted. When he was under the influence of Hiller and Heller, he accommodated his wishes. Then, when he returned to the influence of the Novus Ordo, he did what they wanted and repudiated what he had done and said under the influence of Hiller and Heller».
5. THE CREDIBILITY OF THUC
So far, we have produced a significant amount of evidence challenging the notion that Thuc was a traditionalist whose sole intention in conferring orders was to preserve true Catholicism. In opposition to all this evidence, there are some statements attributed to Archbishop Thuc himself. If Thuc had been a credible man, then his statements might carry some weight. But was it credible? Do we have good reasons to believe it?
According to his own autobiography, when he was forced to go to El Palmar de Troya to confer sacred orders, he found himself in a small bind, because it was Christmas Eve and he planned to offer the (new) Christmas mass in the modernist parish where he was. So, did he tell the priest, in whose parish he attended, the truth about why he couldn't offer Christmas mass? Or if he was not willing to tell her the truth, did he simply inform her that he could not offer the mass for personal or private reasons? No, he didn't do that, but chose to lie:
«I called the sexton [sacristan] and asked him to inform the priest about the Christmas mass. I told him that I would immediately go to France for urgent family matters and that I would return promptly in two weeks...».
But El Palmar's deceptions did not end there:
«When asked about the El Palmar de Troya fiasco, Dr. Hiller tried to excuse Thuc by saying that he did what he did because “he was a very simple believing man”. Regarding when Vatican authorities asked Thuc about this, Dr. Hiller said: “Thuc told Rome after this catastrophe that he thought Paul VI was in bilocation there in El Palmar”.
Hiller said that Thuc knew exactly what he was saying when he said this and that this allusion to Paul VI's bilocation, as his excuse for making the consecrations of El Palmar de Troya, was an exercise in diplomacy and that Thuc often gave such answers.
It has already been pointed out previously that after he was «excommunicated» by the consecrations of El Palmar, «he recognized his own error» and issued his mea culpa therefore. And yet, just six months later, we find Thuc laying hands on Jean Laborie to make him bishop of a schismatic and heretical sect. So were his apologies for the mistake and contrition he expressed real? Or was it done simply to trick the Vatican into lifting his «excommunication»? Another «diplomacy exercise» Dr. Hiller referred to?
Furthermore, in his 1982 statement, known in the visceral sedevacantist world as «The Munich Declaration», he states:
«We declare that the new mass is invalid... We declare that the introduction of this new mass also signals the promulgation of a new humanistic religion in which Almighty God is no longer worshiped as he wishes to be worshiped... Those who have accepted this new mass, in reality and without realizing it, apostatized from the true Faith; they have separated themselves from the true Church and are in danger of losing their souls...».
If Thuc believed all this, why did he concelebrate the new mass in France and why did he regularly serve it as an acolyte? In doing so, is he not, by his own definition, admitting to participating in a «new humanistic religion»?
And furthermore, doesn't concelebrating the new mass and serving it as an acolyte constitute that he has accepted this new mass? And consequently, is it not true that he, according to his own declaration, «apostatiated from the true faith» and «separated himself from the true Church»?
As anyone can guess, taking into account the aforementioned background, everything seems to indicate that this statement was the work of third parties —probably Drs. Heller and Hiller themselves— and signed by the elderly and probably senile Vietnamese archbishop.
6. SACRAMENT SIMULATION
A sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things. For example, a minister withholds intention when conferring a sacrament. This type of behavior is known as simulation (feigning) of a sacrament.
Since no one can be entirely sure that a given minister of a sacrament intends to «do what the Church does», that is why the integrity of ministers is obviously of utmost importance. If a valid minister confers a sacrament using the appropriate matter and form and gives no reason for one to suspect its intention, we accept the sacrament as valid since it is normal for the intention to be presumed in the correct application of the form. But what if the minister gives us reason to suspect him?
Archbishop Thuc admits to having committed the sin of simulation several times. When asked about concelebrating the new mass with the Bishop of Toulon of Vatican II, the following testimony was given:
«According to Drs. Hiller and Heller, who are his close collaborators and defenders, said they asked him how he could do this. And his response was, because the bishop of the diocese had been so kind to him, allowing him to hear confessions in the cathedral church, that he felt he should concelebrate the new mass with him. But, Archbishop Thuc told these men, and we have this on tape, with their own voices; They said, Archbishop Thuc told them, for what it's worth, that he retained his intention in the process of doing this, that is, he simulated the sacrament of consecration»(8).
Archbishop Thuc admits to having simulated a sacrament on another occasion; the episcopal consecrations of El Palmar de Troya: «Then, after the questionable ordinations [El Palmar de Troya], Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the orders he had conferred were null and void because he had retained all intention to transmit orders to the Palmar sect of Troy». (Magazine Angelus, June 1982 edition). This admission naturally raises a question: If you admitted to doing it once, did you do it more than once? When you laid your hands on these various men of dubious reputation, did you retain your intention to confer upon them the Sacrament of Orders?
But it doesn't matter from what angle you look at it; That is, if Thuc really nullified these acts by withholding his necessary sacramental intention, or if he only made those statements to get out of a bind, the end result is the same: his integrity as a reliable minister in conferring the sacraments of the Church was ruined. His conduct did not reach the minimum level of moral certainty required by the Church to accept the validity of the sacraments conferred by him, especially in the area of episcopal consecrations.
And although some now defenders of the legitimacy of Thuc's consecrations insist, even if the form had been correctly observed, the intention, precisely in these cases in which there is positive doubt, cannot be presumed only in the correct observance of form. It often happens that form and intention end up seeming synonymous for practical purposes, since the second is presumed in the right observation of the first... Under normal circuмstances. But these were not. Furthermore, form and intention are not the same, otherwise why does the Church always mention them separately, distinguishing them? Precisely and, although the intention is normally presumed, in the circuмstances surrounding all these events, withsecret consecrations, which did not meet the minimum requirements that the Church demands for the case, with an elderly and senile consecrator who during the last years of his life consecrated totally unworthy men belonging to schismatic and heretical sects and who, to make matters worse, exists the doubt as to whether there could have been simulation in the same consecrations just as he claimed to have done in those of El Palmar de Troya or in the concelebration of the new mass in Toulon.
There are, therefore, very strong reasons (positive doubt) to distrust Archbishop Thuc regarding the sacraments that he conferred all these years of his life.
7. HATRED AGAINST ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Before the priest Anthony Cekada was «pro-Thuc», he was «anti-Thuc» and published a very critical writing against the Archbishop titled Two bishops in each garage. In this article, published two years before the Archbishop's death, he states that Thuc «simulated the celebration of mass, the simulation of a sacrament». And once again, when he changed his position, no response or clarification to these accusations, just more and more silence.
It is a fact that the priests Barbará, Sanborn and Cekada, to name those who later changed their minds for convenience, questioned the mental state of Archbishop Thuc, and the reason why they changed seems to be, as Barbará himself said: «it is necessary to break the monopoly of the Lefebvrist bishops». Sanborn stated in turn to justify his new position by accepting the line coming from Thuc: «This need is so great that any circuмstantial evil can be tolerated in order at last». This is like admitting that the end justifies the means even if they are bad, so he does not hesitate to conclude by saying: «The main point is that whatever must be tolerated in any association, near or remote, with Mons. Thuc, is justifiable for the corresponding reason of having to survive».And this was said by the one who shortly before described everything related to Thuc as «sordid» and said that, even if his consecrations were valid, there could be nothing to do with the apostolic succession coming from his lineage.
In fact, it is said that Father Guérard des Lauriers himself doubted his own consecration and decided to consecrate bishops after Lefebvre announced that he would consecrate bishops for the Brotherhood of Saint Pius X. Also striking is the fact that Guérard had said that he would never He would allow himself to be consecrated by someone who thought that John Paul II was the Pope, since it would be a schismatic act. Thuc in theory recognized the vacant see, soon concelebrated the new mass, and during the consecration of Father Guérard he invoked the name of John Paul II on several occasions.
Although these scandals have been cleverly censored, much of the information has been leaked and even sedevacantists «thuchists» they are forced to admit that Archbishop Thuc was unreliable; In fact, today the credibility of this episcopal lineage is not based on the authority of the Vietnamese prelate, but on that of Father Guérard des Lauriers. It was he who rehabilitated the entire disaster caused by Archbishop Thuc in sacramental matters. In fact, for the followers of Father Guérard des Lauriers' Theses, his popularity and prestige are sufficient to support his consecration: they argue that, despite the ineptitude of the two German witnesses and the consecrating bishop himself, the testimony that is valid is that of des Lauriers himself. Therefore, we must conclude that, if it had not been for the reputation of Guérard des Lauriers, Ngo Dinh Thuc would have gone unnotic
Topic: Validity of +Thuc-Line Bishops -- a 30-Second Debunk of the Kelly-ite Position (Read 538028 times)