Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Infirmus on August 09, 2024, 08:07:48 AM
-
Found this-
If Bishop Thuc had been a true traditional Catholic bishop, he would have been faithful to the great responsibility God had placed on his shoulders as a successor of the Apostles, i.e., to recognize that all his “efforts must aim at preserving the truth faith.” (Cath. Ency., Bishops, Obligations) When Vatican Council II was threatening to shipwreck the spiritual welfare of his flock, his obligation to take a firm stand with orthodoxy was greater than ever, for “if it is dangerous for the helmsman to leave the ship when the sea is calm, how much more so when it is stormy.” (Pope Nicholas I, cf. VII, qu. i, can. Sciscitaris). His solemn responsibility, as a chosen vessel of God, was “not to personally desert his flock, neither on account of any temporal convenience nor on account of any imminent personal danger, as the good shepherd ought to lay down his life for his sheep.” (St. Thomas, Summa, 2nd of 2nd, 185, 5) Such is the role of a bishop in relation to his flock when spiritual danger lurks.
So when it became obvious that Vatican Council II was attempting to destroy Catholicism, and do not to preserve it, where was Bishop Thuc? Where is to be found the record of him “preserving the true faith” at Vatican Council II? The answer is that there is no record of him doing this. He was silent while Catholicism was being assaulted. Was the reason that Bishop Thuc didn’t speak out at the Council in defense of true Catholicism due to the fact that he was simply a timid old man, too cowardly to speak out, as some have suggested? The record shows that he was not afraid to speak out, and speak out as he indeed did so but never against the errors of Vatican Council II though; on the contrary, shockingly, he railed against the Council because it wasn’t liberal enough! Below are two quotes from Bishop Thuc given at Vatican Council II:
Much of the quoted material given below in this section on Bishop Thuc is grammatically ungainly, but in an effort to preserve accuracy, it is presented without modification, unless otherwise noted.
“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 liberty. But where are the delegates or observers of the non-Christians? Do they then not need this wondrous sight of the unity of the Catholic Church? Or do they not need an explanation of our Christian faith? What! do the people whom they represent not form a third part—or rather more truly the greater part— of these scattered sheep that Christ eagerly desired to enter into one sheepfold? The scandal coming to the whole world from the absence of any invitations sent to the chiefs of the non-Christian religions I expounded in the central commission—but in vain. I earnestly begged the council to make good the omission, so that this most loathsome discrimination between some religions and religions may not longer be found. This absence of an invitation to the heads of the Christian religions confirms in a certain manner that prejudice creeping through the Asiatic and African world: ‘The Catholic Church is a church for men of white color and not for colored men.’” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359)
“…it seems to me an extraordinary thing that in the schema concerning the people of God, express mention is nowhere made of women, so that the Church appears totally masculine, whereas the reality is quite different. Do not women constitute the greater part of the laity—even of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course I well know the Church had to behave like this in order not to offend the prejudices of those ages. Thus, St. Paul imposed the veil on women in Church, lest they displease the angels. So why must men proudly enter the church bareheaded which is contrary to the custom of clerics today both in the West and the East? In the same way, silence was imposed on women whereas in this Basilica the walls recently resounded to the voices of the Fathers. So to, nuns must obtain the permission of churches to wash the sacred linens. And likewise this unjust discrimination appears here and now in this conciliar hall… Why is it that in our atomic age, when almost everywhere in the world women have obtained juridical equality with men, it is only in the Church of Christ that they still suffer these injurious discriminations… I eagerly seek… these discriminations against the most valiant sex be eradicated. Last of all I shall be grateful to him who can present me with a plain apodictic text of the Gospel which excludes the sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the sacred functions.” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp. 513)
-
May he rest in peace. You need to think about your own faith. Read your Bible , pray your rosary etc.
-
Found this-
If Bishop Thuc had been a true traditional Catholic bishop, he would have been faithful to the great responsibility God had placed on his shoulders as a successor of the Apostles, i.e., to recognize that all his “efforts must aim at preserving the truth faith.” (Cath. Ency., Bishops, Obligations) When Vatican Council II was threatening to shipwreck the spiritual welfare of his flock, his obligation to take a firm stand with orthodoxy was greater than ever, for “if it is dangerous for the helmsman to leave the ship when the sea is calm, how much more so when it is stormy.” (Pope Nicholas I, cf. VII, qu. i, can. Sciscitaris). His solemn responsibility, as a chosen vessel of God, was “not to personally desert his flock, neither on account of any temporal convenience nor on account of any imminent personal danger, as the good shepherd ought to lay down his life for his sheep.” (St. Thomas, Summa, 2nd of 2nd, 185, 5) Such is the role of a bishop in relation to his flock when spiritual danger lurks.
So when it became obvious that Vatican Council II was attempting to destroy Catholicism, and do not to preserve it, where was Bishop Thuc? Where is to be found the record of him “preserving the true faith” at Vatican Council II? The answer is that there is no record of him doing this. He was silent while Catholicism was being assaulted. Was the reason that Bishop Thuc didn’t speak out at the Council in defense of true Catholicism due to the fact that he was simply a timid old man, too cowardly to speak out, as some have suggested? The record shows that he was not afraid to speak out, and speak out as he indeed did so but never against the errors of Vatican Council II though; on the contrary, shockingly, he railed against the Council because it wasn’t liberal enough! Below are two quotes from Bishop Thuc given at Vatican Council II:
Much of the quoted material given below in this section on Bishop Thuc is grammatically ungainly, but in an effort to preserve accuracy, it is presented without modification, unless otherwise noted.
“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 liberty. But where are the delegates or observers of the non-Christians? Do they then not need this wondrous sight of the unity of the Catholic Church? Or do they not need an explanation of our Christian faith? What! do the people whom they represent not form a third part—or rather more truly the greater part— of these scattered sheep that Christ eagerly desired to enter into one sheepfold? The scandal coming to the whole world from the absence of any invitations sent to the chiefs of the non-Christian religions I expounded in the central commission—but in vain. I earnestly begged the council to make good the omission, so that this most loathsome discrimination between some religions and religions may not longer be found. This absence of an invitation to the heads of the Christian religions confirms in a certain manner that prejudice creeping through the Asiatic and African world: ‘The Catholic Church is a church for men of white color and not for colored men.’” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359)
“…it seems to me an extraordinary thing that in the schema concerning the people of God, express mention is nowhere made of women, so that the Church appears totally masculine, whereas the reality is quite different. Do not women constitute the greater part of the laity—even of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course I well know the Church had to behave like this in order not to offend the prejudices of those ages. Thus, St. Paul imposed the veil on women in Church, lest they displease the angels. So why must men proudly enter the church bareheaded which is contrary to the custom of clerics today both in the West and the East? In the same way, silence was imposed on women whereas in this Basilica the walls recently resounded to the voices of the Fathers. So to, nuns must obtain the permission of churches to wash the sacred linens. And likewise this unjust discrimination appears here and now in this conciliar hall… Why is it that in our atomic age, when almost everywhere in the world women have obtained juridical equality with men, it is only in the Church of Christ that they still suffer these injurious discriminations… I eagerly seek… these discriminations against the most valiant sex be eradicated. Last of all I shall be grateful to him who can present me with a plain apodictic text of the Gospel which excludes the sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the sacred functions.” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp. 513)
Please be considerate enough to give a link for your citations: The ministry and validity of Mons. Thuc – Monasterio Benedictino San José (https://benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/)
-
Were there any bishops who didn't sign all the docuмents of Vatican II?
Thuc is saying, basically, if you're going to open the floodgates, then open the floodgates. If you're going to invite some heretical religions, why not invite all of them? Aren't they all lost sheep?
Abp. Lefebvre signed all the docs too. Did he ever retract his signature? (I do not know.) Is there a limit of time that one has to question Vatican II?
-
I don't know whether it's true or not, but Si iniquitàtes observàveris, Dòmine, Dòmine, quis sustinèbit? If true, we don't know the circuмstances. Better focus on what he did towards the end of his life. Consider St. Dismas, the best example of a last minute Saint despite of what he did during his lifetime.
-
Infirmus, what is your purpose for these posts? Are you truly trying to understand the actions of +Thuc or are you just trying to ruffle feathers?
And why are you yelling your questions? That is what all caps implies.
-
Infirmus, what is your purpose for these posts? Are you truly trying to understand the actions of +Thuc or are you just trying to ruffle feathers?
And why are you yelling your questions? That is what all caps implies.
Truly!
And the corollary questions…
Who the hell is Infirmus to sit as Judge on Abp. Thuc???
What the hell has Infirmus done that qualifies him to pass sentence on the worth of Abp. Thuc???
Infirmus's proud arrogance and usurpation is astounding.
-
Infirmus actually has a a very adequate username.
He is probably not a stupid twelve-year-old boy, since he seems to be somewhat cunning.
I would say that he is a deliberate troll and that his username is meant to make fun of us.
In my opinion, he's done enough to deserve a ban.
-
OOPS SORRY Gray2023 I mean oops sorry.
If this is true that he said this at V2 it is quite the game changer. I will look into it.
-
OOPS SORRY Gray2023 I mean oops sorry.
If this is true that he said this at V2 it is quite the game changer. I will look into it.
How is it a game changer? A game changer for what? I still don't know what you are trying to figure out.
-
Well, at least he wasn't brash. :laugh1::popcorn:
-
Infirmus actually has a a very adequate username.
He is probably not a stupid twelve-year-old boy, since he seems to be somewhat cunning.
I would say that he is a deliberate troll and that his username is meant to make fun of us.
In my opinion, he's done enough to deserve a ban.
After looking at what some sede priests and bishops say about Archbishop Lefebvre I would be inclined to suggest the contrary about who and what should be banned.
-
After looking at what some sede priests and bishops say about Archbishop Lefebvre I would be inclined to suggest the contrary about who and what should be banned.
So, who and what do you think should be banned here?
-
How is it a game changer? A game changer for what? I still don't know what you are trying to figure out.
If it is true then he was very liberal which would explain Troya and allegations of other consecrations. Actions can be explained by digging at the roots.
-
So, who and what do you think should be banned here?
I am thinking it is the same old argument. If sedes didn't exist then everything would be peachy king.
Why do people get so hyper-focused on the past? We can't change it.
-
So, who and what do you think should be banned here?
All the sede garbage about Archbishop Lefebvre. I listened to Paverinus last night about Thuc and I was eating my supper, almost started puking with his fables about Archbishop Lefebvre’s interaction with Thuc. Like did P graduate from an online course to be a sede bishop.
-
All the sede garbage about Archbishop Lefebvre.
Matthew allows posts about sedevacantism even if he disagrees (what you call "sede garbage"). Are you challenging what he allows here?
-
All the sede garbage about Archbishop Lefebvre. I listened to Paverinus last night about Thuc and I was eating my supper, almost started puking with his fables about Archbishop Lefebvre’s interaction with Thuc. Like did P graduate from an online course to be a sede bishop.
A few priest and bishops stood up in there way to try to save what was happening with Holy Mother Church. Please just show a little charity and just share posts of how awesome you think +Lefebve was.
We didn't live during that time. We were not in the inner circles of these conversations. We can't recreate history, no matter how hard we try. Why go to such links on this forum to belittle someone who has passed? God knows the truth and what he asks of us is to show His love to the world. When did vinegar ever convert people?
-
We didn't live during that time.
I did. Wasn't fortunate enough to meet him.
Archbishop Lefebvre warned the faithful to stay away from Thuc, he was a scandal.
You can be happy now, this is not worth the effort, I'm done, too old for this.
-
Truly!
And the corollary questions…
Who the hell is Infirmus to sit as Judge on Abp. Thuc???
What the hell has Infirmus done that qualifies him to pass sentence on the worth of Abp. Thuc???
Infirmus's proud arrogance and usurpation is astounding.
These questions are still on the table.
-
I do not object to sedes and I don't object to R&R. I was "on the fence" as an "agnostic" on the matter of sedevacantism for decades. before I finally decided for myself what I believed. Because it took me so long to make a decision, I am well aware that there are arguments and theologians in favor of and opposed to sedevacantism.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg and Infirmus included, who have no jurisdiction and no competence to have a binding and/or dogmatic opinion on sedevacantism, yet rage (Meg) or slither about (Infirmus) as though they have a dispositive opinion.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg especially, who act as though they have access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real reason" of others feigns access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real life" or "bravery" of others feigns remote viewing access to the lives of others.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus nor anyone else here has a papal commission to investigate Abp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.
An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.
The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.
Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to judge Abp. Thuc without recognizing that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete. Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of being a wicked and arrogant fool.
-
I do not object to sedes and I don't object to R&R. I was "on the fence" as an "agnostic" on the matter of sedevacantism for decades. before I finally decided for myself what I believed. Because it took me so long to make a decision, I am well aware that there are arguments and theologians in favor of and opposed to sedevacantism.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg and Infirmus included, who have no jurisdiction and no competence to have a binding opinion on sedevacantism, yet rage (meg) or slither about (Infirmus) as though they have a dispositive opinion.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg especially, who act as though they have access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real reason" of others feigns access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real life" or "barvery" of others feigns remote viewing access to the lives of others.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus nor anyone else here has a papal commission to investigate ABp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.
An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.
The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.
Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to judge Abp. Thuc without recognizing that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete. Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of being a wicked and arrogant fool.
No one on this forum sits in judgment of others more than you do. And you continually make judgment of the "interior forum" of those who do not share your opinion, and sometimes in a nasty and vicious manner. As if sedevacantism is beyond criticism.
It has been mentioned that Matthew allows sedevacantist posts here. Well yes, he does. But it goes beyond that. IMO, it's a sedevacantist forum that allows or is sometimes tolerant of R&R. Only tolerant. Nothing more. And that tolerance depends on whether or not sedevacantism is criticized. Most of the active forum members are sedevacantist, and several of them (especially you) will harass anyone who goes against the sedevacantist narrative.
Maybe I'll be totally banned for writing the above. It would make your life here easier. You can then harass others without too much opposition. Maybe a bit.
-
No one on this forum sits in judgment of others more than you do. And you continually make judgment of the "interior forum" of those who do not share your opinion, and sometimes in a nasty and vicious manner. As if sedevacantism is beyond criticism.
It has been mentioned that Matthew allows sedevacantist posts here. Well yes, he does. But it goes beyond that. IMO, it's a sedevacantist forum that allows or is sometimes tolerant of R&R. Only tolerant. Nothing more. And that tolerance depends on whether or not sedevacantism is criticized. Most of the active forum members are sedevacantist, and several of them (especially you) will harass anyone who goes against the sedevacantist narrative.
Maybe I'll be totally banned for writing the above. It would make your life here easier. You can then harass others without too much opposition. Maybe a bit.
Your post is non-responsive. I gave examples of your laughable arrogation of charisms. You attempt to accuse me, but give no specific quotes or examples. On occasions I have judged statements, but unlike you, I have never here or elsewhere judged the "real reason" interior forum of others. Unlike you I have never claimed I know about "the real life" or "bravery" of anyone here.
Neither have you responded to your actions anathematizing sedes when you have no competence or jurisdiction.
Worse, you have played along with your anti-sede accomplice in judging Abp. Thuc.
Since you tried to divert from the objective matters into yet another baseless subjective attack, I restate this:
I do not object to sedes and I don't object to R&R. I was "on the fence" as an "agnostic" on the matter of sedevacantism for decades. before I finally decided for myself what I believed. Because it took me so long to make a decision, I am well aware that there are arguments and theologians in favor of and opposed to sedevacantism.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg and Infirmus included, who have no jurisdiction and no competence to have a binding and/or dogmatic opinion on sedevacantism, yet rage (Meg) or slither about (Infirmus) as though they have a dispositive opinion.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg especially, who act as though they have access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real reason" of others feigns access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real life" or "bravery" of others feigns remote viewing access to the lives of others.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus nor anyone else here has a papal commission to investigate Abp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.
An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.
The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.
Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to judge Abp. Thuc without recognizing that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete. Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of being a wicked and arrogant fool.
-
Your post is non-responsive. I gave examples of your laughable arrogation of charisms. You attempt to accuse me, but give no specific quotes or examples. On occasions I have judged statements, but unlike you, I have never here or elsewhere judged the "real reason" interior forum of others. Unlike you I have never claimed I know about "the real life" or "bravery" of anyone here.
You had said that forum members needed to behave more like the Crusaders. I assumed that you meant that they should behave more like Crusaders on this forum. Is that what you meant?
I have seen no Crusader-like behavior from you on this forum. I've seen a lot of bullying and harassment of other forum members, but bullies tend to really be cowards. I never said anything about your "Real life." You are lying about that. As you frequently do. Like other members of your tribe.
-
I won't play along with your typical attempt to divert into baseless subjective hysterical attacks.
Bottom line: You (plural) have no authority and you (plural) have no competence to anathematize sedevacantists or any other practicing Catholic. You (plural) have no access to the private life and anonymous Catholic Action of Abp. Thuc. It is objectively sinful for you (plural) to engage in a sham inquiry and/or judgement of Abp. Thuc.
I do not object to sedes and I don't object to R&R. I was "on the fence" as an "agnostic" on the matter of sedevacantism for decades. before I finally decided for myself what I believed. Because it took me so long to make a decision, I am well aware that there are arguments and theologians in favor of and opposed to sedevacantism.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg and Infirmus included, who have no jurisdiction and no competence to have a binding and/or dogmatic opinion on sedevacantism, yet rage (Meg) or slither about (Infirmus) as though they have a dispositive opinion.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg especially, who act as though they have access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real reason" of others feigns access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real life" or "bravery" of others feigns remote viewing access to the lives of others.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus nor anyone else here has a papal commission to investigate Abp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.
An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.
The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.
Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to judge Abp. Thuc without recognizing that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete. Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of being a wicked and arrogant fool.
-
I won't play along with your typical attempt to divert into baseless subjective hysterical attacks.
Bottom line: You (plural) have no authority and you (plural) have no competence to anathematize sedevacantists or any other practicing Catholic. You (plural) have no access to the private life and anonymous Catholic Action of Abp. Thuc. It is objectively sinful for you (plural) to engage in a sham inquiry and/or judgement of Abp. Thuc.
I do not object to sedes and I don't object to R&R. I was "on the fence" as an "agnostic" on the matter of sedevacantism for decades. before I finally decided for myself what I believed. Because it took me so long to make a decision, I am well aware that there are arguments and theologians in favor of and opposed to sedevacantism.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg and Infirmus included, who have no jurisdiction and no competence to have a binding and/or dogmatic opinion on sedevacantism, yet rage (Meg) or slither about (Infirmus) as though they have a dispositive opinion.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Meg especially, who act as though they have access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real reason" of others feigns access to the interior forum of others. Comments claiming knowledge of "the real life" or "bravery" of others feigns remote viewing access to the lives of others.
I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus nor anyone else here has a papal commission to investigate Abp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.
An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.
The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.
Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to judge Abp. Thuc without recognizing that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete. Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of being a wicked and arrogant fool.
When someone strongly disagrees with your opinion, you make the accusation of judging the interior forum. And then you mention it in almost every post. You are dishonest. Expressing an opinion is not judging an interior forum. But if you keep on making that claim, maybe some here will believe it. That's what the Tribe does. They repeat things over and over and over, in order to brainwash others.
And.....since when have I claimed any authority over others here? That's another lie, which you seem to hope will stick in the minds of others.
-
When someone strongly disagrees with your opinion, you make the accusation of judging the interior forum. And then you mention it in almost every post. You are dishonest. Expressing an opinion is not judging an interior forum. But if you keep on making that claim, maybe some here will believe it. That's what the Tribe does. They repeat things over and over and over, in order to brainwash others.
And.....since when have I claimed any authority over others here? That's another lie, which you seem to hope will stick in the minds of others.
Rubbish. Plenty of people, even friends, disagree with me on a wide variety of subjects, subjects ranging from which shotguns I like to Trump's incident. I have never claimed or believed that mere disagreement is reading another's forum. You are lying.
To the best of my recollection the only "someone" I have accused of claiming to read another's interior forum (claiming to know people's "real reason") is YOU. If you can quote me for accusing another "someone" of reading another's interior forum do so—or you confirm yourself as a raging lying hysteric.
You have raved and raged obsessively against sedes as if you have authority or competence to have a dispositive opinion. Then, like a Jєω, you accuse others of what you do, namely "bullying those who disagree with you."
-
Predictably you (Meg, singular) avoid addressing the CENTRAL ISSUES, as you have consistently done, veering off in a tangent with your baseless subjective hysterics. You (Meg, singular) only demonstrate that you (plural) need to evade the CENTRAL ISSUES here. You (plural) have no authority and no competence to be dogmatic in your anti-sede pogrom. You (Meg) have piled on with your new-found accomplice in raging against sedes. You behave like R&R gangbangers.
Bottom line: You (plural) have no authority and you (plural) have no competence to anathematize sedevacantists or any other practicing Catholic. You (plural) have no access to the private life and anonymous Catholic Action of Abp. Thuc. It is objectively sinful for you (plural) to engage in a sham inquiry and/or judgement of Abp. Thuc.
…
I do object to anyone and everyone, Infirmus especially, who sets themselves up as judges of heroic Catholics and "white martyrs" such as Abp. Thuc. Neither Infirmus, nor Meg, nor anyone else here has a papal commission or Church office to investigate Abp. Thuc. After his initial trolling was outed, Infirmus has feigned a facade of dispassionate scholarly investigation—but that is a fraud.
An honest curiosity would have started with a stated recognition that the public record cannot be complete, cannot account for private prayer, cannot account for private works of mercy, cannot account for age and illness, and cannot account for Catholic Action that of necessity required anonymity.
The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.
Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to investigate Abp. Thuc without recognizing and acknowledging that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete. Worse, Infirmus insinuates his judgement of Abp. Thuc. Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of objectively being a wicked and arrogant fool.
I do not judge the interior forum of Infirmus; I only castigate what is externally manifest, namely his posts here.
-
The Vietnamese who suffered greatly in both bloody and "white" martyrdom fully understand that making a public record of such works of mercy would have doomed the earthly lives of the Vietnamese Abp. Thuc helped. One need not be Vietnamese, one need not have been white martyred themselves, to recognize that making a public record of Catholic Action would have imperiled those who lived and still live under the bloody thumb of Vietnamese (and other) Communism. As recently as a year ago, Vietnamese friends reported to me that Catholics were being pulled from Mass and killed by having boiling water poured down their throats.
Only a wicked and arrogant fool would attempt to investigate Abp. Thuc without recognizing and acknowledging that the public record is, of necessity, incomplete. Worse, Infirmus insinuates his judgement of Abp. Thuc. Yes, that is an accusation. I accuse Infirmus of objectively being a wicked and arrogant fool.
I do not judge the interior forum of Infirmus; I only castigate what is externally manifest, namely his posts here.
Exactly!
-
I'm not sure of the intentions behind this post, but I believe it's important to highlight and address the errors of Bishop Thuc. The prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette speaks of a prelate whose characteristics closely match those of Archbishop Lefebvre. Thuc has been a great divider and distraction from his prophetic mission in many ways.
-
I'm not sure of the intentions behind this post, but I believe it's important to highlight and address the errors of Bishop Thuc. The prophecy of Our Lady of La Salette speaks of a prelate whose characteristics closely match those of Archbishop Lefebvre. Thuc has been a great divider and distraction from his prophetic mission in many ways.
I did not live in the 70s and 80s, but it seems to me that Abp. Thuc was not really a "great divider and distraction". How many people even knew of his existence? He was not a leader of any group, he did not publish books or gave big speeches and sermons. Had he not done the consecrations, I doubt that many people would remember him by now.
The most significant part of his legacy is the bishops that he consecrated, and there are many people that should be very thankful for it, because they probably would have no access to the sacraments otherwise.
The Palmar sect seems to have relatively few followers, and they apparently have invented a (probably invalid) new rite of mass. So, his imprudence in consecrating those men has not brought that much evil.
-
I did not live in the 70s and 80s, but it seems to me that Abp. Thuc was not really a "great divider and distraction".
Any division or distraction regarding Archbishop Thuc comes from those who choose to cause division and distraction regarding him.
-
Any division or distraction regarding Archbishop Thuc comes from those who choose to cause division and distraction regarding him.
Perfect! Like Jews, the trolls here do precisely what they accuse of others.
-
I did not live in the 70s and 80s, but it seems to me that Abp. Thuc was not really a "great divider and distraction". How many people even knew of his existence? He was not a leader of any group, he did not publish books or gave big speeches and sermons. Had he not done the consecrations, I doubt that many people would remember him by now.
The most significant part of his legacy is the bishops that he consecrated, and there are many people that should be very thankful for it, because they probably would have no access to the sacraments otherwise.
The Palmar sect seems to have relatively few followers, and they apparently have invented a (probably invalid) new rite of mass. So, his imprudence in consecrating those men has not brought that much evil.
He became a great divider and distraction in our time. Just look at the division it's caused in traditional circles, with dubious and doubtful ordinations, among other issues. Read this forum for another example. His divisiveness and those fruits occurred after his death.
-
Perfect! Like Jєωs, the trolls here do precisely what they accuse of others.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not accusing me of engaging in kikery.
-
You can’t blame Thuc if some of his lineage went off the rails.
-
You can’t blame Thuc if some of his lineage went off the rails.
I would like to clarify that I am not blaming him, as I am a much worse sinner than Archbishop Thuc. I am merely acknowledging the reality of what he did and the evident fruits since then.
-
He became a great divider and distraction in our time. Just look at the division it's caused in traditional circles, with dubious and doubtful ordinations, among other issues. Read this forum for another example. His divisiveness and those fruits occurred after his death.
You could say that same about Abp. Lefebvre.
His lineage is causing division (Bp. Williamson vs. Bp. Fellay) and doubtful sacraments (neo-SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests without conditional ordination because Bp. Fellay signed a deal with the Modernists).
-
You could say that same about Abp. Lefebvre.
His lineage is causing division (Bp. Williamson vs. Bp. Fellay) and doubtful sacraments (neo-SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests without conditional ordination because Bp. Fellay signed a deal with the Modernists).
Solid! You are one of the most perceptive, logical, and fact-based posters on CathInfo.
-
You could say that same about Abp. Lefebvre.
His lineage is causing division (Bp. Williamson vs. Bp. Fellay) and doubtful sacraments (neo-SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests without conditional ordination because Bp. Fellay signed a deal with the Modernists).
The comparison between Archbishop Thuc and Archbishop Lefebvre is misplaced. While both were involved in controversial episcopal consecrations, their intentions, actions, and legacies are fundamentally different.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecrations were a direct response to the crisis in the Church following Vatican II, focused on preserving the traditional Mass and sacraments. His actions, though controversial, were driven by a clear theological vision and a commitment to safeguarding the Catholic faith as he understood it. Despite some internal disagreements within his lineage, such as those between Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay, Lefebvre’s legacy is marked by a cohesive defense of Tradition and the establishment of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which continues to serve many faithful Catholics.
In contrast, Archbishop Thuc’s actions were characterized by a lack of prudence and coherence. His consecrations were often performed without clear criteria or discernment, leading to a proliferation of independent bishops, questionable ordinations, and the spread of sedevacantism. These actions have caused significant confusion and division within traditional circles, undermining the very Tradition Thuc claimed to uphold.
A more fitting comparison would be between Archbishop Thuc and Bishop Fellay, as both have, in different ways, departed from the principles of Tradition, resulting in substantial controversies and divisions. Archbishop Thuc’s erratic consecrations led to isolated confusion, while Bishop Fellay’s efforts to reconcile with Rome—particularly through the 2012 doctrinal preamble—have caused deep rifts within the SSPX. His willingness to accept priests ordained in the Novus Ordo without conditional ordination has introduced doubts and further divided the faithful.
Both Thuc and Fellay have contributed to a weakening of the traditional Catholic position—Thuc through his imprudent and isolated actions, and Fellay through a more systemic shift that risks compromising the very principles on which the traditionalist movement was built. However, the nature and impact of their actions differ, with Thuc’s causing scattered disruption and Fellay’s representing a broader challenge to Tradition.