Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful  (Read 6987 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46788
  • Reputation: +27648/-5129
  • Gender: Male
Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2019, 12:18:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • Do you think if Dawn Marie turned up on Bishop Williamson’s doorstep, as an unknown stranger, and declared to him that he must leave with her that day to consecrate other unknown strangers, because the Blessed Virgin told her he must do this, that he would have responded, “Let me pack my bag?”
    I don’t.

    Well, I wish I could rule this out, but I can't, not 100%.  Once one has become convinced that DM is Our Lady's Messenger, would it not be wise to listen to Our Lady's message, even if it APPEARED to be irrational.  I mean, St. Bernadette complied with Our Lady's request to dig up and eat some grass ... even though it seemed crazy on the surface.  To this day, I don't think anyone knows for sure why Our Lady asked her to do that ... except as a test of her complete obedience, to the point of doing something that seemed foolish just because she asked it of her.  Let's say that it's 1945 and I was a bishop, and Sister Lucy told me Our Lady requested that I ordain someone a priest.  I would be greatly burdened in conscience NOT to heed her.  Maybe I'd be foolish to comply, but maybe not ... and I certainly wouldn't be insane.  How much of a stretch is that from what Bishop Thuc did.  It's a time of great crisis in the Church, you show up at Palmar and witness all manner of preternatural activity to the point of becoming convinced that Our Lady was appearing there.  Was it unwise and imprudent to comply?  Certainly.  But insane?  That's a huge stretch.

    But, even if +Williamson WERE to do exactly what you describe, I would still consider his Sacraments valid ... until such a time as he made it clear that he basically didn't know who he was or what he was supposed to be doing in conferring them.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #31 on: August 26, 2019, 12:26:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • That said, if a stranger showed up to my door out of the blue, and claimed the Virgin Mary had sent them to rush me off to be consecrated, you would be fully justified in questioning my mental capacity if my response was, “Let me pack my bag!”
    You're not being very fair. It was an SSPX priest that requested it, and the priest had already spoken with +Lefebvre who clearly didn't order his priest to put a stop to his nonsense. It's not quite as bad as a randomer just showing up with no "referral" so to speak. Was it still gullible and perhaps stupid? Yes. Are either gullibility or stupidity enough to declare someone mentally unfit to consecrate? Not at all. 


    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #32 on: August 26, 2019, 12:35:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • I mean, St. Bernadette complied with Our Lady's request to dig up and eat some grass. 
    This reminds me of a, perhaps apocryphal, story I heard about King Henry V and his army kneeling down in prayer before battle. All of them took a mouthful of dirt before they prayed, to humble themselves before the Lord. I never heard the St. Bernadette story so I can't help answer that, but perhaps it's a similar idea of showing humility and obedience. 

    I mean, it wouldn't be the strangest command by a long shot. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son and, although that command was just a test, I think if it wasn't for the story being part of Sacred Scripture no one would believe Our Lord would command such a thing. I would be much more likely to believe Our Lady was asking me to consecrate some men than sacrifice my son, even if I figured the latter was a test. 

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #33 on: August 26, 2019, 12:42:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • No, the tutiorist approach does not require scruples.  It's easy to confound this with scruples.

    Bottom line is that there's no positive doubt regarding most of the Thuc consecrations ... not the ones that can be traced clearly back to Thuc ... e.g. the des Laurier line (McKenna, Sanborn, etc.) nor the Carmona/Zamora line.  Some of them are shady ... with little proof they actually happened.  Anyone can set up shop and claim they derive from the Thuc line.

    The standard or threshold for the mental competence to validly confer a Sacrament is very low.  You basically just have to know that you are a bishop doing this thing the Church does to make bishops/priests.  Unless Thuc were walking around with drool coming out of the corner of his mouth barely answering to his name ... the presumption is what he was mentally capable.  People who knew Thuc attested to his mental sharpness ... relating stories that he could switch seemlessly between modern languages in having conversations with groups of priests.

    Having done something irrational ... such as the Palmar consecrations ... absolutely does NOT rise to the standard of establishing mental incompetence.  It was actually an SSPX priest who went to +Lefebvre first to ask him to do the ordinations/consecrations.  +Lefebvre was the one who then referred the priest to +Thuc.  So Thuc was persuaded to go, and he was evidently taken in by the preternatural phenomena on display at Palmar, and was persuaded that Our Lady wished the ordinations and consecrations.  Having been gullible and suggestible doesn't mean you can't validly confer a Sacrament.  Recall that this was BEFORE Clemente declared himself pope.  As soon as that happened, Thuc renounced the group and broke all ties with them.

    So it's mainly if not exclusively the SSPV that created all this FUD regarding Thuc.  It is reported that Bishop Kelly made a statement to the effect that, "We can't tell people they're valid because then they might go to them."  Doesn't sound like an unbiased source.

    NOW, ironically, the +Mendez consecrations DO rise to the level of creating doubt.  +Mendez had been hospitalized for a stroke very shortly before he did the consecrations, and family members who visited him in the hospital after that declared the +Mendez didn't recognize them.  So what kind of state was +Mendez in when he did the consecrations?  Stroke could in fact result in a mental impairment sufficient to invalidate the Sacraments.  I find it ironic that SSPVers have no problem going to Masses offered by Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger (Father Zapp relates that Mendez appeared to have almost deliberately garbled the pronunciation of the essential form and after the assisting priests told him to repeat it twice, the answer to Father Kelly's "Did he get it right that time?" was an "I think so.")  So they are OK with that but then create all kinds of stink about Thuc, whose issues were much less profound.

    No one has been able to demonstrate that Thuc was mentally impaired.  Period.  Consequently, the validity of the Sacraments conferred by him is presumed.  No need for "tutiorism"  You could apply tutiorism to avoid priests ordained by +Lefebvre because of the ridiculous Tisserant-mason allegations.  But the questions is whether the allegations are real and well founded, and rise to the level of positive doubt.  They do not in the Tisserant allegation, nor do they in the allegations against Thuc.
    Excellent!
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46788
    • Reputation: +27648/-5129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #34 on: August 26, 2019, 12:45:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Where are we supposed to go then?
    In my area, I have FSSP, SSPX, CMRI.  The last time I heard a fiery sermon at an SSPX Mass was probably sometime in the year 2000.  The FSSP priest thinks Paul VI and JPII were "good shepherds".  That leaves the CMRI, and every once a while, one of their priests seems to just disappear and no one ever finds out how or why and anyone who knows isn't telling.
    Politics reign no matter which group you turn to.
    Is there no one anymore that is there solely for Jesus Christ and souls???

    Well, I wouldn't go due to fiery sermon or not go due to a lack thereof.  I've been assisting at the Mass of an elderly priest who's been told by some not-so-gentle person that his sermons "lacked fire".  But I'm not going there primarily for the sermons.  He's a good, solid, Traditional priest who is unquestionably valid (1950s ordination).

    In this time of Crisis, I'd go where I could receive valid Sacraments so long as there was no danger to my faith (e.g. the group was not Catholic).  Given your choices above, I myself would opt for the SSPX.  Given no SSPX, my next choice would be CMRI (despite my not liking the group all that much ... hey, they don't own the Sacraments as those are given by God for the good of souls).  And my third choice would be FSSP.  Would I go there if that's all there was?  That would probably depend on the priest, since some are ex-SSPX or otherwise certainly validly ordained ... since I personally have doubts about the new rite of ordination.  But you may have formed your conscience differently.

    IDEAL:  valid Sacraments + perfect defense of Catholic Tradition + fiery edifying sermons
    PERFECTLY FINE:  valid Sacraments + perfect defense of Catholic Tradition + boring sermons
    LESS-THAN-IDEAL:  valid Sacraments + a bit soft on defending Catholic Tradition + [sermon irrelevant at this point and below]
    ACCEPTABLE (under certain conditions): valid Sacraments + potentially harmful to Catholic Tradition ..... provided that care is taken to avoid the harm, right down to hit-and-run reception of the Sacraments (step outside for sermons, etc.)
    UNACCEPTABLE : doubtful Sacraments or does not even profess the faith (e.g. schismatic Orthodox) ... except if it's all you've got in danger of death

    So, in the language of CI here ...

    IDEAL + PERFECTLY FINE = GREEN LIGHT
    LESS-THAN-IDEAL = YELLOW LIGHT
    ACCEPTABLE = ORANGE LIGHT (I made that one up myself)
    UNACCEPTABLE = RED LIGHT

    Depending on one's needs and the availability of Sacraments, i.e depending on your circuмstances, I could see justifying an ORANGE light or higher.  Unless of course there's a YELLOW or GREEN alternative readily available.  And YELLOW might be OK even if a GREEN is available ... depending on a lot of considerations.  YELLOW, for instance, might have a good school.  Or, conversely, GREEN might be a 90-minute drive.

    So, again, give your choices, I would go SSPX.  Of course, with neo-SSPX, one might want to do a quick check of the ordination history of any priest that happens to show up there.  They have been known to bring in Novus Ordo refugees without conditional ordination.



    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4603
    • Reputation: +5342/-466
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #35 on: August 26, 2019, 12:48:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think you need to read this:
    http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm
    .
    I've read it and agree with it.  I was essentially agreeing with Ladislaus, that the criteria used to evaluate Thuc would seem to render ABL's orders equally doubtful, and I was pointing out to you that the fact that there were co-consecrators accompanying Leinart is totally irrelevant since if Leinart's intention is doubtful then Lefebvre was never a priest in the first place, and you can't be made a bishop unless you're a priest first.
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2677
    • Reputation: +485/-122
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #36 on: August 26, 2019, 12:49:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, I wouldn't go due to fiery sermon or not go due to a lack thereof.  I've been assisting at the Mass of an elderly priest who's been told by some not-so-gentle person that his sermons "lacked fire".  But I'm not going there primarily for the sermons.  He's a good, solid, Traditional priest who is unquestionably valid (1950s ordination).

    In this time of Crisis, I'd go where I could receive valid Sacraments so long as there was no danger to my faith (e.g. the group was not Catholic).  Given your choices above, I myself would opt for the SSPX.  Given no SSPX, my next choice would be CMRI (despite my not liking the group all that much ... hey, they don't own the Sacraments as those are given by God for the good of souls).  And my third choice would be FSSP.  Would I go there if that's all there was?  That would probably depend on the priest, since some are ex-SSPX or otherwise certainly validly ordained ... since I personally have doubts about the new rite of ordination.  But you may have formed your conscience differently.

    IDEAL:  valid Sacraments + perfect defense of Catholic Tradition + fiery edifying sermons
    PERFECTLY FINE:  valid Sacraments + perfect defense of Catholic Tradition + boring sermons
    LESS-THAN-IDEAL:  valid Sacraments + a bit soft on defending Catholic Tradition + [sermon irrelevant at this point and below]
    ACCEPTABLE (under certain conditions): valid Sacraments + potentially harmful to Catholic Tradition ..... provided that care is taken to avoid the harm, right down to hit-and-run reception of the Sacraments (step outside for sermons, etc.)
    UNACCEPTABLE : doubtful Sacraments or does not even profess the faith (e.g. schismatic Orthodox) ... except if it's all you've got in danger of death

    So, in the language of CI here ...

    IDEAL + PERFECTLY FINE = GREEN LIGHT
    LESS-THAN-IDEAL = YELLOW LIGHT
    ACCEPTABLE = ORANGE LIGHT (I made that one up myself)
    UNACCEPTABLE = RED LIGHT

    Depending on one's needs and the availability of Sacraments, i.e depending on your circuмstances, I could see justifying an ORANGE light or higher.  Unless of course there's a YELLOW or GREEN alternative readily available.  And YELLOW might be OK even if a GREEN is available ... depending on a lot of considerations.  YELLOW, for instance, might have a good school.  Or, conversely, GREEN might be a 90-minute drive.

    So, again, give your choices, I would go SSPX.  Of course, with neo-SSPX, one might want to do a quick check of the ordination history of any priest that happens to show up there.  They have been known to bring in Novus Ordo refugees without conditional ordination.
    God reward you for your thorough response.

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #37 on: August 26, 2019, 12:53:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • .
    I've read it and agree with it.  I was essentially agreeing with Ladislaus, that the criteria used to evaluate Thuc would seem to render ABL's orders equally doubtful, and I was pointing out to you that the fact that there were co-consecrators accompanying Leinart is totally irrelevant since if Leinart's intention is doubtful then Lefebvre was never a priest in the first place, and you can't be made a bishop unless you're a priest first.
    Not that my opinion matters, but this is absolutely correct.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46788
    • Reputation: +27648/-5129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #38 on: August 26, 2019, 01:33:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • God reward you for your thorough response.

    You're welcome.  Of course you likely have different opinions on some of the issues that might weigh in to your own considerations, so I just meant this to give you an example of how I think through this question.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46788
    • Reputation: +27648/-5129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #39 on: August 26, 2019, 01:37:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Sorry, guys.  You reminded me that I mis-recalled and wrote Tisserant instead of Lienart.  Hey, it's easy to confuse two French Freemasons.  And I'd be surprised if they didn't both also have some Jєωιѕн ancestry.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #40 on: August 26, 2019, 01:40:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    I've read it and agree with it.  I was essentially agreeing with Ladislaus, that the criteria used to evaluate Thuc would seem to render ABL's orders equally doubtful, and I was pointing out to you that the fact that there were co-consecrators accompanying Leinart is totally irrelevant since if Leinart's intention is doubtful then Lefebvre was never a priest in the first place, and you can't be made a bishop unless you're a priest first.

    Disagree.

    The criterion regarding intention yields a different conclusion when applied to Lefebvre’s ordination than it does when applied to Thuc’s consecrations:

    The criterion being:

    Is there anything in the EXTERNAL FORUM which evinces either a counter-intention to do what the Church does, or, an inability to form that intention?

    In the case of both Lefebvre and Thuc, their respective ordinations/consecrations were performed according to the rubrics, and in that respect earn a presumption of validity.

    But was there anything in the external forum surrounding the ceremonies in question of either which could evince an inability to form the intention which is usually presumed to exist?

    Not in the case of Lienart/Lefebvre.

    But as regards Thuc, given the circuмstances surrounding his arrival at Palmar (recounted above), testimony regarding his mental state by others at the time, and the questionable caliber and fitness of some of those he “consecrated,” I would say it is reasonable to at least question his psychological capacity  (as many have in fact done).

    And if that shadow of uncertainty (and therefore validity) exists, then...
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46788
    • Reputation: +27648/-5129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #41 on: August 26, 2019, 03:06:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • testimony regarding his mental state by others at the time

    All known testimony to Thuc's mental state has been positive in his favor.  So I'm not sure why you're citing this.

    You're going on nothing but some behavior.  But behavior has to be a conclusive indicator of a mental incapacity to perform a valid consecration.  Doing an imprudent or strange thing does not rise to that standard.

    Now, if you were to provide testimony from people at the time of some consecrations that at that time he was senile and confused and not sure of who he was, etc. ... that would be compelling.  But for having consecrated some people he should not have?   This is not even close to overturning the presumption that he knew what he was doing when consecrating.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46788
    • Reputation: +27648/-5129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #42 on: August 26, 2019, 03:09:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • And if that shadow of uncertainty (and therefore validity) exists, then...

    What does that term "shadow of uncertainty" even mean?  That sounds almost like the very definition of negative doubt.

    Were it not for the antics and propaganda of the SSPV, no such uncertainty would exist.

    Let me ask, do you consider the +Mendez ordinations/consecrations to be similarly doubtful?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #43 on: August 26, 2019, 03:14:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What does that term "shadow of uncertainty" even mean?  That sounds almost like the very definition of negative doubt.

    Were it not for the antics and propaganda of the SSPV, no such uncertainty would exist.

    Let me ask, do you consider the +Mendez ordinations/consecrations to be similarly doubtful?

    I consider every consecration done by a man who believed the Blessed Virgin sent a stranger to fetch him to consecrate some other strangers he had never heard of, and whose only level of introspection in the matter was to request sufficcient time to pack his bag, to be doubtful.

    Consecrating bishops is the most important thing a bishop can do, and he apparently did it with little to no forethought as though he suddenly had an impulse to turn the TV channel.

    To me, that makes the condition of his psyche open to question.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46788
    • Reputation: +27648/-5129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thuc Consecrations/Ordinations Highly Doubtful
    « Reply #44 on: August 26, 2019, 03:18:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • the questionable caliber and fitness of some of those he “consecrated,” I would say it is reasonable to at least question his psychological capacity  (as many have in fact done).

    And Bishop Williamson ordained most of the Society of St. John pedophile society, despite warnings received beforehand not to do so.  I believe he also ordained Benedict VanderPutten.  Well, even if he didn't directly lay on hands, as rector he was the one who approved their ordination.  Bad judgements to not constitute mental incapacity.

    Nobody questioned Thuc's mental capacity until the SSPV propaganda campaign started, and onto this wagon latched all the scrupulous types who cave to every least suggestion of negative doubt.  SSPV did nothing but fan the flames of negative doubt.

    Oh, yes, by the way, this was the SAME SSPV that claimed Bishop Dolan and Bishop Williamson and others were invalidly-ordained to the priesthood by +Lefebvre and were forcing their people to be conditionally re-ordained and to redo confessions made to these priests.  Why?  Because +Lefebvre reportedly had only laid on one hand (instead of the two prescribed) when conferring the ordination.  So you're really going to accept primarily the word of these same people when it comes to judging validity?