Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Infirmus on November 18, 2024, 09:24:24 PM
-
List of recorded achievements of Archbishop Thuc during V2 and up to 1982.
1962 – 1965 Gave 2 speeches of his liberal opinions….. 1966…..1967…..1968…..1969…..1970…..1971…..1972…..1973….1974….
1975- ordained laymen to the priesthood for Palmar De Troya cult
1976- consecrated newly ordained priests as bishops for Palmar De Troya cult
1977…..1978…..1979…..1980…..
1981…. Consecrated 3 bishops of sedevcantist belief
1982…. A docuмent surfaces which is said to be from ++Thuc stating he declares the Seat of Peter vacant. (personally I would wait to see the actual signed docuмent before I believe he wrote it)
Also there is no actual statement from ++Thuc stating what sedevacante stance he held, if he was sedevacante.
-
I am very ignorant about ++Thuc. Sometime near the end he remarked that he " had withheld his intention" ...during a consecration of a bishop, (?) somewhere in the spaghetti bowl of consecrations / ordinations. This is the Month of the Poor Souls, let's pray for ++THUC. R.I.P.
-
I am very ignorant about ++Thuc. Sometime near the end he remarked that he " had withheld his intention" ...during a consecration of a bishop, (?) somewhere in the spaghetti bowl of consecrations / ordinations. This is the Month of the Poor Souls, let's pray for ++THUC. R.I.P.
This reminds me of the joke about the farmer who had a field of watermelons, and someone kept stealing them. He injected one of them with cyanide and put a sign in his field saying “one watermelon in this field has been injected with cyanide”. He returned the next day to find a note taped to the sign saying “now you have two”.
Do we know which (putative) bishop this was supposed to have been?
-
Still harping on Archbishop Thuc, I see.
A few people gave you answers in your previous thread:
WHAT DID HIS EXCELLENCY THUC DO BETWEEN - page 1 - SSPX Resistance News - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/what-did-his-excellency-thuc-do-between/msg947239/#msg947239)
The only thing missing in this most recent thread is one of these:
:popcorn:
-
I am very ignorant about ++Thuc. Sometime near the end he remarked that he " had withheld his intention" ...during a consecration of a bishop, (?) somewhere in the spaghetti bowl of consecrations / ordinations. This is the Month of the Poor Souls, let's pray for ++THUC. R.I.P.
How does withdrawing intention render a consecration invalid? Where is this stipulated in canon law?
Without the Catholic priest believing in the real presence, there have been eucharistic miracles.
And with the best intention in a world, an Anglican cannot consecrate a host, because he is not a valid minister.
-
Sometime near the end he remarked that he " had withheld his intention" ...during a consecration of a bishop
.
No, he didn't. This story is false.
-
Aren't the requirements to confect a sacrament form matter and intent? ( and valid minister?)
-
No, he didn't. This story is false.
Correct. This guy has been on here with no other purpose than to slander +Thuc bishops and SVs in general.
So the origin of this false rumor is that at one point Archbishop Thuc did, under pressure, participate in some concelebration (on orders from the bishop where he was at), but he said that he was in the ceremony but withheld his intention to participate and to "consecrate" during that concelebrated Mass.
At no time did he state that he withheld intention to consecrate anyone. Now, there were some who falsely claimed that they were consecrated by +Thuc that +Thuc denied having consecrated, but he always affirmed and re-affirmed having consecrated the major episcopal lines active in the US currently.
There are some shady lines out there that need to be avoided where there's no proof that the originator of the line was actually consecrated, but the line through DesLauriers and Carmona are certainly valid.
-
How does withdrawing intention render a consecration invalid? Where is this stipulated in canon law?
Without the Catholic priest believing in the real presence, there have been eucharistic miracles.
And with the best intention in a world, an Anglican cannot consecrate a host, because he is not a valid minister.
Good question. I actually was in the minority on this question in many long heated-argument threads. I agree with you. Internally withholding intention does not invalidate the Sacrament if there's no outward manifestation that you're not intending to do WHAT the Church does (such as if you're goofing around or play-acting).
I always make this analogy. I hold a loaded gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger, but in my mind say, "I don't mean to kill this man." No, you intended to kill him, because in intending the cause you intend the effect. Church stipulates that you have to intend to DO what the Church DOES, not intend what the Church intends by the action. But that's a digression here I'd rather not reopen.
+Thuc did not ever say he withheld intention for any episcopal consecrations.
-
Aren't the requirements to confect a sacrament form matter and intent? ( and valid minister?)
Yes, but there's some disagreement regarding the nature of said "intent".
-
Good question. I actually was in the minority on this question in many long heated-argument threads. I agree with you. Internally withholding intention does not invalidate the Sacrament if there's no outward manifestation that you're not intending to do WHAT the Church does (such as if you're goofing around or play-acting).
I always make this analogy. I hold a loaded gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger, but in my mind say, "I don't mean to kill this man." No, you intended to kill him, because in intending the cause you intend the effect. Church stipulates that you have to intend to DO what the Church DOES, not intend what the Church intends by the action. But that's a digression here I'd rather not reopen.
+Thuc did not ever say he withheld intention for any episcopal consecrations.
I was kind of hoping that you had a game, set and match answer that I could use when discussing this with other Catholics.
Is there any canonical requirement for there to be intent? I thought that validity was simply a question of matter, form and minister.
-
How does withdrawing intention render a consecration invalid? Where is this stipulated in canon law?
Without the Catholic priest believing in the real presence, there have been eucharistic miracles.
And with the best intention in a world, an Anglican cannot consecrate a host, because he is not a valid minister.
My understanding has been that the use of a Catholic rite shows that the minister has the proper intention: he intends to do what the Church intends.
-
I was kind of hoping that you had a game, set and match answer that I could use when discussing this with other Catholics.
Is there any canonical requirement for there to be intent? I thought that validity was simply a question of matter, form and minister.
I have to think that a priest (or bishop) could withhold intent and thus render the sacrament invalid. For instance, if a priest were demonstrating to seminarians how to offer Mass, and were very clear that this is not actually a Mass, but rather just a class in how to offer it, he could recite the Canon, perform all the rubrics, use a host and a chalice of wine, yet not confect the sacrifice or the sacrament. Ditto in demonstrating how baptism, confirmation, or any other sacrament were administered.
-
Yes, but there's some disagreement regarding the nature of said "intent".
I thought the stock answer is: "to do as the Church intends."
-
I was kind of hoping that you had a game, set and match answer that I could use when discussing this with other Catholics.
Is there any canonical requirement for there to be intent? I thought that validity was simply a question of matter, form and minister.
Yes, there has to be intent, but the argument is over what that means. There clearly has to be some intent because it has to constitue a human act. There's actually a papal condemnation somewhere of the proposition that an "internal intention" is not required for the validity of the Sacrament. But my argument is that this does not mean what a lot of people are trying to turn it into, which is that you have to internally intend what the Church intends. No, you have to internally intend to DO what the Church does. Basically, this is mean to exclude situations where it is evident in the external forum that you don't intend to do what the Church does, so, for instance, if some kids are playing and in the context of that play go administer Baptism to someone (with the current matter and form), or if someone were to do that as part of a movie performance or a play. They're not intending to do what the Church DOES but merely to imitate the ceremony.
Similarly, if you had a priest who was on some pain meds and got up in a mindless/incoherent state said a Mass, it would not be valid, since he didn't intend to do anything and wasn't even performing a human act.
But if I'm a priest and I go into the sacristy and put on my vestments, and then go out there at the time schedule for Mass in the bulletin, and peform the Rite of the Church ... which I intend to DO "internally" ... I could think in my head all I want that "I don't intend to consecrate. I don't intend to transubstantiate." and it matters nothing. You still intended to DO what the Church does, i.e. to PERFORM the Rite that the Church prescibes, wherein the CHURCH intends to consecrate. Valid Mass regardless of any such schizophrenic mindgames. It's very similar to the loaded gun above. If you pull the trigger on the loaded gun, you absolutely intended to DO what it takes to KILL the man, even if in your head you keep reiterating the mantra "I do not wish to kill him. I do not wish to kill him." No, you intended to DO that which WOULD almost inevitably kill him, so you intended to kill him. Of course, even if, say, the gun jams, you're still formally guilty of attempted murder ... but that's a separate issue.
-
I thought the stock answer is: "to do as the Church intends."
It's actuallly to DO what the Church DOES. That's why an atheist can validly baptize. Otherwise, it would be absurd to think he could do so. So, the atheist could intend, "Well, I'm going to do this thing, pouring water on the head and saying these words [mumbo jumbo that they are], just because this guy's dying and asked me to do it." but as an atheist invariably would, think the entire time what a bunch of nonsense it was and that it was doing nothing but making the guy feel better. But as long as he intends, yes, internally, "I'm doing this thing that these Christians do, saying words, pouring water." .... it would be valid.
-
But if I'm a priest and I go into the sacristy and put on my vestments, and then go out there at the time schedule for Mass in the bulletin, and peform the Rite of the Church ... which I intend to DO "internally" ... I could think in my head all I want that "I don't intend to consecrate. I don't intend to transubstantiate." and it matters nothing. You still intended to DO what the Church does, i.e. to PERFORM the Rite that the Church prescibes, wherein the CHURCH intends to consecrate. Valid Mass regardless of any such schizophrenic mindgames. It's very similar to the loaded gun above. If you pull the trigger on the loaded gun, you absolutely intended to DO what it takes to KILL the man, even if in your head you keep reiterating the mantra "I do not wish to kill him. I do not wish to kill him." No, you intended to DO that which WOULD almost inevitably kill him, so you intended to kill him. Of course, even if, say, the gun jams, you're still formally guilty of attempted murder ... but that's a separate issue.
OK. So in a Novus Ordo ordination, the intent is probably there, it's the invalid form, matter and minister which makes the ceremony doubtful?
-
OK. So in a Novus Ordo ordination, the intent is probably there, it's the invalid form, matter and minister which makes the ceremony doubtful?
Yes, the form/prayer is doubtful, because it does not follow Pius XII's strict rules. Also, it's illicit because it violates Pius XII's strict rules.
Many pro-V2/indult people argue that the form/prayer is valid because...it's similar to other rites (i.e. orthodox). Ok, but that's still a guess. It's not certain. Pius XII gave us the "certain" form for the Latin church. Without any other pope officially changing the form (not even sure if that's possible) then the form is the form. And any deviation from the form is, by definition, doubtful.
-
OK. So in a Novus Ordo ordination, the intent is probably there, it's the invalid form, matter and minister which makes the ceremony doubtful?
Ah, you're definitely opening up cans of worms. So the question about intent in the NO (and there is a question of intent there also) has to do with the fact that normally when you intend to DO what the Church DOES, that which the Church does, aka the Rite, sufficiently expresses (at least outwardly) the intention of the Church.
When Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Ordination invalid, he stated that the intention of the Rite was defective, and that the intention of the minister (their bishops) could not override the defective intention of their Rite, and that this was not changed by a correction they made to the essential form part, where they fixed the essential form but the entire Missal and the entire context for it and rationale behind it was so defective that it remained invalid even with this correction of the essential form.
Sounds a lot like the NOM, where initially they vitiated the essential form ("for you and for all") ... strangely, in every vernacular translation ... as if it were a coordinated effort (which of course it was). Then they "fixed" the essential form, but the rest of it and the context were still dubious, especially in their destruction of the Catholic Offertory, the chief part of the Mass that indicates what the intent of the upcoming Canon is. By itself, you could simply view the Canon as a re-enactment of the Last Supper, an "Institution Narrative" as the NO like to call it, vs. a sacrifice. With the original Catholic Offertory, that was absolutely clear. Not so much in the NO.
Similarly for the NO Ordination, there's hardly ANYthing in the NO Rite that has any mention of the Catholic notion of priesthood (whereas the Traditional Rite was filled with it).
In any case, I hold that the NO Rites, including Ordination and the Mass, are so vitiated in the intention expressed by the Rite that the minister's intention to do what the Church does cannot override it.
Now, the SSPX line has been that the intention of the Rite is ambiguous and there's no Catholic intention unambiguously expressed anywhere in it, and so the validity depends upon the intention of the minister being correct and his correct understanding of what the Rite SHOULD intend (even though it doesn't do so by itself). I disagree and find that this contradicts Pope Leo XIII on the Anglican Orders, because the Pope taught that an internal intention of the minister to do what the Church INTENDS to do in Ordinations does not somehow supply for or override the defective intention of the Rite. He didn't say that, well, we should investigate each bishop to see if he believes correctly about the nature of Ordination to determine on a case-by-case basis whether it's valid or not.
But, yes, the NO changed essential form of Ordination to Priesthood and Episcopal Consecration to the point that the essential forms are also dubious.
-
Ah, you're definitely opening up cans of worms. So the question about intent in the NO (and there is a question of intent there also) has to do with the fact that normally when you intend to DO what the Church DOES, that which the Church does, aka the Rite, sufficiently expresses (at least outwardly) the intention of the Church.
The bottomline is this: In the True/Traditional rites, the (True) Church, by way of the Holy Ghost, worded the form so that it perfectly and essentially translated the proper, complete and valid intention which Christ gave to the Apostles. If a valid priest, prayed the form/prayer as worded, then validity is presumed. Because the form/prayer = the Church's intention.
In the new rites, the form/prayer DOES NOT contain the Church's intention in whole (only parts of it, written ambiguously). Therefore, the new rites REQUIRE the priest to provide HIS OWN INTENTION to make up for ambiguous language. If the priest has doubtful orders himself, and/or had faulty/protestant/V2 seminary training where he thinks things contrary to orthodoxy, then HIS INTENTIONS are flawed and the rite is invalid.
To sum up:
1. Tradition rites -- simple. The form/prayer contains everything needed for validity, if said by a valid cleric.
2. New rites -- complicated. The form/prayer is ambiguous and requires a (doubtful) cleric to supply a personal intention to the missing parts of the form. And even if the cleric is valid and even if he DOES SUPPLY the missing intentions, it's debatable whether or not the form is valid because such a sacramental form is unique in all of Church history. It would definitely be a schismatic rite, as it is contrary to every major sacramental law of Trent.
-
Yes, the form/prayer is doubtful, because it does not follow Pius XII's strict rules. Also, it's illicit because it violates Pius XII's strict rules.
Many pro-V2/indult people argue that the form/prayer is valid because...it's similar to other rites (i.e. orthodox). Ok, but that's still a guess. It's not certain. Pius XII gave us the "certain" form for the Latin church. Without any other pope officially changing the form (not even sure if that's possible) then the form is the form. And any deviation from the form is, by definition, doubtful.
Yeah, so the argument about episcopal consecration from the no-doubter crowd is that it resembles an ancient Maronite Rite. Problem, as Fr. Cekada found, is that the Rite in question was actually the installation of a Patriarch, which already assumed that the one being elevated was a valid bishop ... and was not their actual consecration Rite, and so it's expressing a conferral of jurisdiction or authority rather than Holy Orders. We see in the NO Rite that it's vaguely talking about the "authority" of the Apostles. But not all bishops who are consecrated actually receive the authority or jurisdiction, and most are in fact auxiliary bishops before they then get appointed to specific Sees and endowed with authority and jurisdiction. So that exposes this fraud right there.
But, as you said, it's a substantial change and CERTAINLY rises to at least the level of establishing positive doubt. There's something concrete you can point to that changed, ergo "positive" not negative. Until the Church intervenes like Leo XIII did for Anglican Orders, we can't be certain of invalidity, but for all practical intents and purposes, positive doubt requires us to avoid the priest as if the invalidity were certain, with the single exception that in danger of death if a doubtful priests is the only one available to you, you may attempt to receive the Sacraments from him.
-
Because the form/prayer = the Church's intention.
Yes, that's what Pope Leo XIII said about the Anglican Orders. If you look at the Anglican Rite (corrected for the essential form problem), it really didn't express anything actively contrary to Catholic theology about Holy Orders ... just failed to actively express it. Pope Leo XIII gave no indication that it COULD be valid on account of ambiguity that could then be supplied by the "interior intention" of a particular minister, where each ordination had to be investigated on a case by case basis depending on what the Ordaining Bishop believed. He just stated flat-out invalid. I believe that'll be the ultimate verdict from the Church on NO Orders also ... but in the meantime there's plenty to establish positive doubt, despite the wishful-thinking deniers. Basically all their argument do is to content that it COULD BE valid, but do not prove that it IS. Not good enough.
-
we can't be certain of invalidity, but for all practical intents and purposes, positive doubt requires us to avoid the priest as if the invalidity were certain
THIS IS THE KEY. If only this were preached from the pulpits from every Trad priest. This is the true answer, based on canon law. It's not an opinion; it's not a guess; it's canon law.
-
THIS IS THE KEY. If only this were preached from the pulpits from every Trad priest. This is the true answer, based on canon law. It's not an opinion; it's not a guess; it's canon law.
Right, and I believe it's based on some very authoritative papal teaching.
As I said, the only practical difference between certain invalidity and positive doubt is in danger of death situations, where in the latter you can attempt to receive Sacraments from a doubtful priest if that's your only option, whereas with certain invalidity you can't. If I were dying and there was no other chance to have a priest do anything, I'd go ahead and avail myself of an NO priest ... just in case. Who knows, even?, maybe they were transfers from an Eastern Rite, or something. I pray it never comes to that, but God's will be done. If God wanted me to receive Last Sacraments as I lay dying, he wouldn't send me an invalid priest. If he didn't want me to receive them, then He would. It's entirely His will. I hope that it's the former due to First Friday promises.
But it's the same for me about Baptism. You could always wonder if the priest who baptized you may have botched the form. Well, if that happened, it was God's will. God could have willed for me to be born among animists and never be baptized at all. Salvation is a free gift of God that I don't deserve. We can pray that if that happened to us, it would be discovered somehow and fixed or that God might send an angel to baptize us, or as in the case of St. Peter Claver, have a saint raise us back to life.
-
Ah, you're definitely opening up cans of worms. So the question about intent in the NO (and there is a question of intent there also) has to do with the fact that normally when you intend to DO what the Church DOES, that which the Church does, aka the Rite, sufficiently expresses (at least outwardly) the intention of the Church.
But, yes, the NO changed essential form of Ordination to Priesthood and Episcopal Consecration to the point that the essential forms are also dubious.
Thank you for your summary which I will need to reread and digest a number of times.
I have come to the same conclusion because logic dictates that if something perfect needed to be changed, the intention can only be to make it imperfect. That conclusion was enough to flee the Novos Ordo Sacraments and priests ordained by conciliar bishops.
-
I am very ignorant about ++Thuc. Sometime near the end he remarked that he " had withheld his intention" ...during a consecration of a bishop, (?) somewhere in the spaghetti bowl of consecrations / ordinations. This is the Month of the Poor Souls, let's pray for ++THUC. R.I.P.
Yes definitely pray for him, and I am definitely NOT putting him on a pedestal. Instead of listing any of his achievements in the timeline I presented the sedes on this thread are up in arms, and for what, just because I stated fact and they could not add to it. Like really what did I say was wrong. He was like a soccer team that scored only 3 goals all season during the last game of the season. Oh wait his legacy is a bunch of sede bishops, one example is Weber and the so called consecration of Fr Pfeiffer, Fr P believes the pope is the pope, Weber doesn't, so the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, he'll make any one a bishop. Was Simony involved in that? Just a question.
-
I am assuming though that you have no positive doubt concerning your own baptism.
A positive doubt is one that is based on some verifiable, specific fact or problem. Example: You watch a baptism being performed and priest says all the correct words/form, but you notice that he pours the water on the baby's neck, instead of the forehead. You ask the priest later about it (and the godparents agree with what you saw) and he says "it's fine, no problem". But you later research and find that this MIGHT be invalid. The point is, your doubt is based on two facts....
1) you witnessed the pouring of the water done in a non-normal way,
2) the priest and godparents agreed it was non-normal, but said it wasn't a problem.
This is a positive doubt because it's based on evidence, with eyewitnesses. In other words, this doubt is not just your imagination; something "odd" did happen.
A negative doubt is just an anxiety, a worry, or a wondering. It is not based on anything, except your own imagination or fear. You cannot point to anything which is non-normal or odd.
You may know this, but I wanted to clarify.