Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on August 26, 2019, 06:33:54 AM
-
5 years ago, in a debate with conciliar canonist Pete Vere, it was observed by him that Thuc "clergy" reconciled with the Vatican are always accepted according to the station they were in before receiving Thuc "orders."
I asked Pete why that was, and this was his response:
"It likely has to do with initial questions surrounding Archbishop Thuc's mental state during the Palmar de Troya consecrations. Reportedly he agreed to perform them after being convinced that Pope Paul VI had been taken prisoner in the Vatican and replaced with a fake Paul VI. The information was allegedly relayed to an intermediary through an apparition of the Blessed Mother.
A friend of mine who is a Vietnamese priest and a canon lawyer knew Archbishop Thuc, and helped bring about his eventual reconciliation with Rome. He claims that Archbishop Thuc was definitely showing signs of weakened mental state around the time of these consecrations, likely due to the combination of advanced years and the amount of human suffering and trauma he had suffered during the communist revolution in Vietnam.
In terms of the quality of ordinands, I would agree that the Palmar de Troya consecrations were absolutely scandalous. But at the other end of the spectrum, Mgr Guerard des Lauriers (who incidentally was the doctoral adviser of my former indult pastor and professor of theology) was of such a quality as to far surpass the four candidates consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre. So one sees both ends of the spectrum here."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/calling-out-pete-vere/30/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/calling-out-pete-vere/30/)
If I was tempted by sedevcantism, this would scare the hell out of me, and indicate my course of action was extremely reckless if I was heading in that direction for a solution to the crisis in the Church.
The "alternative" seems to be the secret "consecration" of "Bishop Kelley" (only revealed two years after the fact by questionable evidence).
Sedevacantism is a dead-end.
-
The problem with all these groups is the same problem with Rome which sodomy and pedophilia...and this why the world is in crisis.
-
What I mean to say is that, if we are obliged to take a turiorist approach when it comes to the validity of sacraments, I am not sure how the Thuc line is an option.
Even if one of wants to make the argument that though Thuc was of questionable mental state at the Palmar consecrations, but not during various other consecrations (eg., des Lauriers), I don’t know how the subjective interpretation of evidence gets one back to a tutiorist state of moral certitude on the matter, when the (modernist) Vatican itself suggests the matter incapable of yielding a certain judgment, in light of the strange circuмstances.
And if one would dismiss the (modernist) Vatican’s uncertainty as partisan opposition, they will need to explain why this same partisan opposition did not cause them to render the same judgment in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
"It likely has to do with initial questions surrounding Archbishop Thuc's mental state during the Palmar de Troya consecrations. Reportedly he agreed to perform them after being convinced that Pope Paul VI had been taken prisoner in the Vatican and replaced with a fake Paul VI. The information was allegedly relayed to an intermediary through an apparition of the Blessed Mother.
.
I like Pete. He's a bright guy, and affable. But isn't it typical that the Novus Ordo would ascribe mental defects and illness as the cause of believing in an apparition? "He believed in an apparition, he must be nuts."
.
To be perfectly clear, Palmar de Troya is a schismatic cult and there were no apparitions. But the difference between credulity (especially in the tornadic seventies!) and the kind of suspension of mental faculties required to doubt a sacrament is the difference between night and day.
-
https://magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/11/schism-at-palmar-palmarian-bishops/
Arch. Lefebvre gets a mention
-
Looks interesting:
http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf (http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf)
-
What I mean to say is that, if we are obliged to take a turiorist approach when it comes to the validity of sacraments, I am not sure how the Thuc line is an option.
Even if one of wants to make the argument that though Thuc was of questionable mental state at the Palmar consecrations, but not during various other consecrations (eg., des Lauriers), I don’t know how the subjective interpretation of evidence gets one back to a tutiorist state of moral certitude on the matter, when the (modernist) Vatican itself suggests the matter incapable of yielding a certain judgment, in light of the strange circuмstances.
And if one would dismiss the (modernist) Vatican’s uncertainty as partisan opposition, they will need to explain why this same partisan opposition did not cause them to render the same judgment in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre.
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.
-
Looks interesting:
http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf (http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf)
No, it's total crap. One could write something much worse of +Mendez.
... as +Sanborn did here.
http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html (http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html)
-
Note, I do not frequent sedevacantist chapels, and you might know from my posts here that I practically detest the CMRI. I have no personal ax to grind. I'm just interested in truth and fairness. I have looked at both sides of this, and the SSPV narrative is completely unconvincing and entirely self-serving (for political reasons).
-
And this, from the paragraph containing footnote 20 onward:
http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html#thuc (http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html#thuc)
Seems even some of those “consecrated” doubted their “consecration.”
-
And this, from the paragraph containing footnote 20 onward:
http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html#thuc (http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html#thuc)
Seems even some of those “consecrated” doubted their “consecration.”
And the fact that they doubted it means nothing. Some of these are the serial consecrandi who receive 5 consecrations from 5 different lines out of a scrupulous need to make sure they're valid.
-
Note, I do not frequent sedevacantist chapels, and you might know from my posts here that I practically detest the CMRI. I have no personal ax to grind. I'm just interested in truth and fairness. I have looked at both sides of this, and the SSPV narrative is completely unconvincing and entirely self-serving (for political reasons).
Agreed, wholly.
Aside from all of that, it is altogether ridiculous to say he was not in his right mind, but all those he consecrated didn't notice.
-
Note, I do not frequent sedevacantist chapels, and you might know from my posts here that I practically detest the CMRI. I have no personal ax to grind. I'm just interested in truth and fairness. I have looked at both sides of this, and the SSPV narrative is completely unconvincing and entirely self-serving (for political reasons).
May I ask why you "practically detest" the CMRI?
If you don't want to answer here, a private message will do.
-
Sedevacantism is a dead-end.
That's what an FSSP chaplain in a Carmelite Monastery told me about six months ago. He said the exact same thing to me.
-
Looks interesting:
http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf (http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf)
I read that book years ago.
-
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.
Thank you. It seems that this topic comes up over and over again regarding the Thuc and the Lefebrve ordinations...whether it's here or another forum. However, it's usually because someone new to the topic brings it up.
-
I’m not convinced.
I supplied a link to a book by another sedevacantist (Kelley), which questions the mental state of Thuc, and the response I received was “it’s crap.”
That’s an assertion, not a refutation.
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!”
Yet that is exactly what Thuc did when the Palmerians came for him.
-
May I ask why you detest the CMRI?
If you don't want to answer here, a private message will do.
Oh, I've stated this openly before ... so it's no secret. I don't like their undermining and watering down of Catholic EENS dogma as well as their promotion of NFP.
-
I’m not convinced.
I supplied a link to a book by another sedevacantist (Kelley), which questions the mental state of Thuc, and the response I received was “it’s crap.”
That’s an assertion, not a refutation.
Correct. i don't have the time nor inclination to refute a 300-page book in a scientific manner. I have read it, as well as the various opposing and am merely indicating my personal opinion ... which as far as you're concerned is gratuitous.
-
Oh, I've stated this openly before ... so it's no secret. I don't like their undermining and watering down of Catholic EENS dogma as well as their promotion of NFP.
I spent years away from CI so I'm not up on the latest.
Thank you.
-
Ladislaus said:
“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.”
Response:
Nope: There were two co-consecrators.
http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm)
-
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!”
Define mental capacity. Yes, I might think that you're nuts, colloquially speaking, or, rather, extremely gullible ... but would I say that you couldn't validly go make a good Confession? Those two are separate issues.
Hey, I think it's just as crazy to support the visions of one "Dawn Marie" ... and also Garabandal or Valtorta, but that doesn't make me believe that +Williamson is crazy to the point of not being able to validly ordain. To be perfectly honest, if Dawn Marie had gone to +Williamson and told him to ordain someone a priest or consecrate another a bishop, I am not entirely certain that he would not have complied. And, even if he had, I would just listen to him speak for 5 minutes and realize that he's certainly capable of validly ordaining.
-
No wonder why we have home aloners.
This is all headache inducing and endlessly going around in a circle.
-
Ladislaus said:
“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.”
Response:
Nope: There were two co-consecrators.
.
Irrelevant when Leinart made him a priest. If he's not a priest, he can't be a bishop.
-
Define mental capacity. Yes, I might think that you're nuts, colloquially speaking, or, rather, extremely gullible ... but would I say that you couldn't validly go make a good Confession? Those two are separate issues.
Hey, I think it's just as crazy to support the visions of one "Dawn Marie" ... and also Garabandal or Valtorta, but that doesn't make me believe that +Williamson is crazy to the point of not being able to validly ordain. To be perfectly honest, if Dawn Marie had gone to +Williamson and told him to ordain someone a priest or consecrate another a bishop, I am not entirely certain that he would not have complied.
:furtive:
-
Define mental capacity. Yes, I might think that you're nuts, colloquially speaking, or, rather, extremely gullible ... but would I say that you couldn't validly go make a good Confession? Those two are separate issues.
Hey, I think it's just as crazy to support the visions of one "Dawn Marie" ... and also Garabandal or Valtorta, but that doesn't make me believe that +Williamson is crazy to the point of not being able to validly ordain. To be perfectly honest, if Dawn Marie had gone to +Williamson and told him to ordain someone a priest or consecrate another a bishop, I am not entirely certain that he would not have complied.
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.
-
No wonder why we have home aloners.
This is all headache inducing and endlessly going around in a circle.
It can be, certainly. Since the shepherd has been struck (whether you interpret that in an SV or R&R manner), the sheep are scattered. It's inevitable and only highlights the importance of the divinely-established papacy.
In the meantime, however, I desperately need the Sacraments and would lose my soul without access to them ... so home aloneism is not an option for me. It also is fraught with the danger of developing a schismatic mentality and thinking that you're the only good Catholic left in the world.
-
.
Irrelevant when Leinart made him a priest. If he's not a priest, he can't be a bishop.
I think you need to read this:
http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm)
-
It can be, certainly. Since the shepherd has been struck (whether you interpret that in an SV or R&R manner), the sheep are scattered. It's inevitable and only highlights the importance of the divinely-established papacy.
In the meantime, however, I desperately need the Sacraments and would lose my soul without access to them ... so home aloneism is not an option for me. It also is fraught with the danger of developing a schismatic mentality and thinking that you're the only good Catholic left in the world.
Ditto.
-
It can be, certainly. Since the shepherd has been struck (whether you interpret that in an SV or R&R manner), the sheep are scattered. It's inevitable and only highlights the importance of the divinely-established papacy.
In the meantime, however, I desperately need the Sacraments and would lose my soul without access to them ... so home aloneism is not an option for me. It also is fraught with the danger of developing a schismatic mentality and thinking that you're the only good Catholic left in the world.
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???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
I think you need to read this:
http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm (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.
-
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.
-
.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
Could you please answer the question about Mendez?
To apply your criteria, then you would have to question +William's mental capacity too ... for considering Dawn Marie to have credibly received visions from the Virgin Mary. Or was it just the act of packing his bag that did it for you?
-
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.
You're absolutely making this up. You have no idea how much forethought went into the consecrations. He could have been considering the facts all the way down to Palmar and then made up his mind after witnessing the events there. You have zero proof that he did it with the same forethought as a sudden impulse the turn the channel. Now you are revealing yourself as intellectually dishonest.
Before running your mouth constantly, I invite you to dig up and read his autobiography. In it you will find a very gentle, humble, and completely lucid individual, a faithful Catholic. You and the SSPV's campaign against him is tantamount to slander.
-
You're absolutely making this up. You have no idea how much forethought went into the consecrations. He could have been considering the facts all the way down to Palmar and then made up his mind after witnessing the events there. You have zero proof that he did it with the same forethought as a sudden impulse the turn the channel. Now you are revealing yourself as intellectually dishonest.
Before running your mouth constantly, I invite you to dig up and read his autobiography. In it you will find a very gentle, humble, and completely lucid individual, a faithful Catholic. You and the SSPV's campaign against him is tantamount to slander.
:fryingpan:
-
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.
Oh?
How do you explain this:
"Cardinal Jose Castillo Lara and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc
Cardinal Lara, former President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, raised questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc in a way that gave the impression that Thuc's "mental imbalance" was a given fact. He stated quite categorically that Archbishop Thuc was mentally unbalanced, and because of this, his actions - from a canonical point of view - did not have the same consequences as those of Archbishop Lefebvre. For if a man is not mentally competent when he breaks the law, he does not actually incur the penalty because he is not responsible. In a letter to John Beaumont, dated May 26, 1993, on the subject of the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Lara wrote:
'Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.8'
8 Cardinal Jose Castillo Lara, quoted in Fidelity 13 (March 1994), p. 37."
(See p. 88 here: http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf (http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf))
or this from the same work, pp. 87-88:
"Bishop Barthe and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc
Bishop Gilles Barthe of the diocese of Frejus-Toulon in France raised questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc. Bishop Barthe concelebrated the New Mass with Thuc on Holy Thursday, April 16, 1981, three weeks before the consecration of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers. He later called into question the validity of Fr. des Lauriers' consecration, as well as that of Fr. Moises Carmona, to whom "Bishop" Dolan traces his orders. His reason had to do with questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc. The concelebration took place on April 16, 1981. The consecration of Fr. des Lauriers was on May 7, 1981. Carmona and Zamora were consecrated on October 17, 1981. The statement of Bishop Barthe questioning the validity of these consecrations was published in La Docuмentation Catholique on February 21, 1982 - No. 1824. In it he said:
'Certain Catholics are asking me what must be thought of the clandestine ordinations by Monseigneur Ngo Dinh Thuc. Here is that which I can respond:. . .
I voice the most express reservations about the value [valeur] of these ordinations: because of the person of him who did them. Already one time before, on January 11, 1976, Monseigneur Thuc proceeded to some ordinations of this type at El Palmar de Troya. On order from Rome, the apostolic nuncio of Spain immediately recalled "after attentive examination of the facts relative to the presumed episcopal ordinations" that the consecrating prelate was excommunicated, as well as those ordained themselves. Monseigneur Thuc left Italy where he resided, to come to live in the diocese where we received him fraternally; but I avow that the way in which he explained his "mistake" has never been very clear. It is even less so for the ordinations done in his house at Toulon. It is permitted to ask oneself up to what point he was well aware of the acts which he did and to what point his liberty went. What to think, today, of the affirmations of his regrets and of his promises?7"
7 Quoted in Rev. William W. Jenkins, The Thuc Consecrations: An Open Appeal To Fr. Donald Sanborn (Oyster Bay, N. Y.: The Society of St. Pius V [1993]), p. 16.
PS: I notice every time I rebut you, you become the emotional woman Loudestmouth is known for.
-
Oh?
How do you explain this:
"Cardinal Jose Castillo Lara and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc
Cardinal Lara, former President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, raised questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc in a way that gave the impression that Thuc's "mental imbalance" was a given fact. He stated quite categorically that Archbishop Thuc was mentally unbalanced, and because of this, his actions - from a canonical point of view - did not have the same consequences as those of Archbishop Lefebvre. For if a man is not mentally competent when he breaks the law, he does not actually incur the penalty because he is not responsible. In a letter to John Beaumont, dated May 26, 1993, on the subject of the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Lara wrote:
'Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.8'
8 Cardinal Jose Castillo Lara, quoted in Fidelity 13 (March 1994), p. 37."
(See p. 88 here: http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf (http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf))
or this from the same work, pp. 87-88:
"Bishop Barthe and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc
Bishop Gilles Barthe of the diocese of Frejus-Toulon in France raised questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc. Bishop Barthe concelebrated the New Mass with Thuc on Holy Thursday, April 16, 1981, three weeks before the consecration of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers. He later called into question the validity of Fr. des Lauriers' consecration, as well as that of Fr. Moises Carmona, to whom "Bishop" Dolan traces his orders. His reason had to do with questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc. The concelebration took place on April 16, 1981. The consecration of Fr. des Lauriers was on May 7, 1981. Carmona and Zamora were consecrated on October 17, 1981. The statement of Bishop Barthe questioning the validity of these consecrations was published in La Docuмentation Catholique on February 21, 1982 - No. 1824. In it he said:
'Certain Catholics are asking me what must be thought of the clandestine ordinations by Monseigneur Ngo Dinh Thuc. Here is that which I can respond:. . .
I voice the most express reservations about the value [valeur] of these ordinations: because of the person of him who did them. Already one time before, on January 11, 1976, Monseigneur Thuc proceeded to some ordinations of this type at El Palmar de Troya. On order from Rome, the apostolic nuncio of Spain immediately recalled "after attentive examination of the facts relative to the presumed episcopal ordinations" that the consecrating prelate was excommunicated, as well as those ordained themselves. Monseigneur Thuc left Italy where he resided, to come to live in the diocese where we received him fraternally; but I avow that the way in which he explained his "mistake" has never been very clear. It is even less so for the ordinations done in his house at Toulon. It is permitted to ask oneself up to what point he was well aware of the acts which he did and to what point his liberty went. What to think, today, of the affirmations of his regrets and of his promises?7"
7 Quoted in Rev. William W. Jenkins, The Thuc Consecrations: An Open Appeal To Fr. Donald Sanborn (Oyster Bay, N. Y.: The Society of St. Pius V [1993]), p. 16.
PS: I notice every time I rebut you, you become the emotional woman Loudestmouth is known for.
More witnsses who testify against the mental stability of Thuc (from the same book, pp. 89-90):
"Fr. Barbara and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc Fr. Noel Barbara, who published the journal Fortes In Fide, interviewed Archbishop Thuc in March of 1981 and again in January of 1982. Subsequent to these interviews, he suggested three possible answers to the question of whether or not Archbishop Thuc was "in possession of his faculties." Fr. Barbara wrote:
'The relapse into profanation of the sacrament of order (the latest consecration conferred in a sect was on 24 Sep 1982) and the lack of firmness in his promise not to lapse again make it permissible to ask an essential question. Was this old man, over 85 years of age, in possession of his faculties, did he realize what he was doing in imposing his hands so easily on no matter whom? Was he truly responsible for his acts? There are only three possible answers to this distressing question.
- No. Thuc was not in possession of all his faculties; he was not responsible and did not incur the penalties provided by the Law. But then the consecrations conferred are not valid, since the consecrator was not in possession of his faculties for the performance of a responsible act.
-Yes. The consecrator at these consecrations was in full possession of his faculties. The consecrations are valid but consecrator and consecrated have incurred all the penalties provided by the Law and Thuc is truly a scandalous bishop.
- We do not know with certainty. Perhaps he was in possession of his faculties, and perhaps he was not. That would leave a doubt hovering over the censures incurred, but also over the validity of all these ordinations.10
10. Rev. Noel Barbara, Burning Questions: Straight Answers (Tours, France: Fortes In Fide [ca. 1983]), Appendix, p. 20
-
I make Bishop (?) Kelly's conclusion my own:
"The preponderance of the evidence, however, suggests that Archbishop Thuc was not responsible for what he did and that he had "not the full use of reason." Thus, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he was "incapable of administering a Sacrament," as Msgr. Pohle said in The Sacraments, A Dogmatic Treatise. But since we do not know for sure, we cannot say for certain that the Thuc consecrations are invalid. Neither can we say for certain that they are valid. What we can and must say is that they are certainly doubtful as to validity. Therefore, they must be treated in the practical order as if they were certainly invalid, because when it comes to the validity of the Sacraments, it is forbidden to follow a doubtful or even a merely probable course of action. To quote Fr. Davis again:
'In conferring the Sacraments (as also in [the] Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely, an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments,12 there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary, there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion.13
13. Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3: Sacraments (1), 3d ed., rev. and enl. (London: Sheed & Ward, 1938), p. 27.
PS: Msgr. Pohle says:
"The combination of matter and form into a sacramental sign (confectio), and its application to the individual recipient (administratio), . . . require a minister who has the full command of reason. Hence lunatics, children, and others who have not the full use of reason are incapable of administering a Sacrament."
The Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle, Ph.D., D.D., The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, adapted and ed. Arthur Preuss, 3d, rev. ed., 4 vols. (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1944), vol. 1: 162.
-
Were these "witnesses" at the consecrations?
Also, for further reading regarding Archbishop Thuc's "mental state":
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf (http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf)
-
Were these "witnesses" at the consecrations?
You are grasping at straws:
If they know a bishop is senile, they don't need to be at the consecration to hold it doubtful.
It is presumed doubtful because of the senility, since the senile cannot confect a sacrament.
-
You are grasping at straws:
If they know a bishop is senile, they don't need to be at the consecration to hold it doubtful.
It is presumed doubtful because of the senility, since the senile cannot confect a sacrament.
"know"? Are they doctors?
-
"know"? Are they doctors?
Yes.
PS: Can I know my Uncle Louie is senile if I am not a doctor?
-
Yes.
PS: Can I know my Uncle Louie is senile if I am not a doctor?
From the link I shared above:
Your Excellency’s claim that the Thuc consecrations must be considered doubtful because Bp. Thuc may not have been in a mental state sufficient to have the necessary sacramental intention totally leaves out of account the fact that the minimum-necessary intention for conferring a valid sacrament is based on the minimum necessary for a human act, which is an act proceeding from knowledge and free will. “Mental imbalance,” if such should have been the case with Bp. Thuc, does not nearly suffice to prevent one from engaging in a human act. There is no evidence that Bp. Thuc was insane, much less habitually so, and such would have to be proven clinically anyway, as any court of law, ecclesiastical or civil, would require.
-
From the link I shared above:
Your Excellency’s claim that the Thuc consecrations must be considered doubtful because Bp. Thuc may not have been in a mental state sufficient to have the necessary sacramental intention totally leaves out of account the fact that the minimum-necessary intention for conferring a valid sacrament is based on the minimum necessary for a human act, which is an act proceeding from knowledge and free will. “Mental imbalance,” if such should have been the case with Bp. Thuc, does not nearly suffice to prevent one from engaging in a human act. There is no evidence that Bp. Thuc was insane, much less habitually so, and such would have to be proven clinically anyway, as any court of law, ecclesiastical or civil, would require.
The senile do not commit human acts, and consequently, they do not confect sacraments.
I refer you to Pohle-Preuss above.
-
You are grasping at straws:
If they know a bishop is senile, they don't need to be at the consecration to hold it doubtful.
It is presumed doubtful because of the senility, since the senile cannot confect a sacrament.
I know (and knew) several people who knew the Archbishop personally. They ALL attest that he was mentally sound and that he celebrated mass perfectly. Anything but sedevacantism, right Sean?
-
I know (and knew) several people who knew the Archbishop personally. They ALL attest that he was mentally sound and that he celebrated mass perfectly. Anything but sedevacantism, right Sean?
Damn right, QVD, anything but schismatic, heretical sedevacantism.
Now back to the topic:
I don't care if you know 30 people with letters from their mommies who say Thuc was steady as a rock.
When bishops and cardinals, sedes, and trad priests say he was off kilter, your buddies' opinions don't amount to a hill of beans.
And I might ask, "Where is your common sense?" The man flies off at the drop of the hat to go consecrate some strangers becaause some other stranger arrives to tell him the BVM sent him to fetch him to go do some consecrations!?!?
Sorry but if you can't see that is crazy, I don't think I can help you.
-
Damn right, QVD, anything but schismatic, heretical sedevacantism.
Now back to the topic:
I don't care if you know 30 people with letters from their mommies who say Thuc was steady as a rock.
When bishops and cardinals, sedes, and trad priests say he was off kilter, your buddies' opinions don't amount to a hill of beans.
So far the only evidence of senility you've provided is just multiple people saying "He made consecrations we didn't agree with!". That isn't proof of senility at all, or even an indicator of it.
-
So far the only evidence of senility you've provided is just multiple people saying "He made consecrations we didn't agree with!". That isn't proof of senility at all, or even an indicator of it.
LMAO:
I am going to send someone to your house tonight to tell you that the BVM sent him to fetch you to bring you to the Congo.
If you go, would you be sane?
But wait, there's more!
Shortly thereafter, I'm going to apologize and concelebrate the new Mass.
Then 3 weeks later, I am going to "consecrate" des Lauriers.
Then I'm going to consecrate ANYONE who asks to be consecrated.
Then I'll repent again, then I'll revert again, and on and on.
Am I senile, or just plain evil?
-
Damn right, QVD, anything but schismatic, heretical sedevacantism.
Now back to the topic:
I don't care if you know 30 people with letters from their mommies who say Thuc was steady as a rock.
When bishops and cardinals, sedes, and trad priests say he was off kilter, your buddies' opinions don't amount to a hill of beans.
I am on topic because I see right through your agenda. You try, unsuccessfully, to cast dispersions on the only theory, during this crisis, that is supported by nearly all theologians, Doctors of the Church and basic logic.
The nonsense that you’re peddling has been put to rest long ago. Muddying the waters is a sad and futile defense of your position.
-
LMAO:
I am going to send someone to your house tonight to tell you that the BVM sent him to fetch you to bring you to the Congo.
If you go, would you be sane?
But wait, there's more!
Shortly thereafter, I'm going to apologize and concelebrate the new Mass.
Then 3 weeks later, I am going to "consecrate" des Lauriers.
Then I'm going to consecrate ANYONE who asks to be consecrated.
Then I'll repent again, then I'll revert again, and on and on.
Am I senile, or just plain evil?
“I am going to send someone to your house tonight to tell you that the BVM sent him to fetch you to bring you to the Congo.”
It wasn’t the Congo, it was Europe. Nice exaggeration though. As for the rest, at least he saw that there was a problem in the Church. Yeah, I might not have acted the way he did, but then again I wasn’t an Archbishop who experienced the havoc that Vatican II and the arch heretic Montini was doing to the Church.
-
Damn right, QVD, anything but schismatic, heretical sedevacantism.
That’s right stick with your church of the superfluous pope and superfluous magisterium. Anything but sedevacantism.
-
Oh?
How do you explain this:
I explain this by the fact that all of the testimony you cited is nothing more than what +Kelly does, speculate that he was unstable due to the unpredictable nature of his activities. He would do something, then recant, then do something similar. None of it speaks to the basic fact of whether he knew what he was doing. Did +Thuc know what a bishop was and what Holy Orders are? There's no question that he did. His being a weak man who could be easily manipulated has no bearing on this simple fact. +Mendez too was clearly and obviously being manipulated by +Kelly. +Kelly is just a self-serving hypocrite, since all the issues with +Thuc apply even more to +Mendez. There were people who know him at the precise time of the consecrations who explicitly stated that +Mendez was in a frail mental state and was manipulated emotionally by +Kelly into performing the consecration. And that doesn't matter either ... in terms of validity (except +Kelly thinks it's material the +Thuc case while gratuitously dismissing it in the case of +Mendez). In the case of +Thuc, his mental lucidity is corroborated by many people who know him well during the time. Mental Lucidity and being suggestible and easily manipulated are two different things.
It's the same kind of Modernist subjectivist reasoning that's applied these days to engineer all these fake marriage annulments. I didn't REALLY want to do it. I had cold feet. I was under a lot of pressure due to my dad having already paid for the wedding. etc. etc. etc. NONE OF THAT MATTERS. Unless you were explicitly co-erced and/or had no idea what marriage was, or were half-unconscious on drugs so that you didn't know where you were and who you are during the ceremony, the valid intention is presumed to exist.
Same thing with +Thuc. That Rite of Episcopal Consecration is NO TRIVIAL matter, and the mere fact that +Thuc was able to perform it and to properly read the text suggests that he was in possession of his faculties to the point that he knew what he was doing.
-
I am on topic because I see right through your agenda.
Yup. I had to LOL when Ladislaus said he was "now" showing he was intellectually dishonest. Now? :laugh1:
-
PS: I notice every time I rebut you, you become the emotional woman Loudestmouth is known for.
This is laughable, coming from the most emotionally-driven little girl here on CI. Even Matthew called you out for acting like a baby. So it's not just me.
You didn't "rebut" anything. You provided a couple pieces of evidence which must be weighed against all the other evidence. Rebuttal implies an argument. All you've done is try to make a case for a certain fact based on some testimony ... which is contradicted by other testimony. But then you have next-to-no grasp of logic, so you routinely confound your little temper tantrums with "rebuttal".
There were several times where you had your ass beaten with logical argument, where you stormed off the thread, and then started a half dozen spam threads in your fits of temper. One time you even announced publicly that you were leaving CI due to Matthew's toleration of heretics. Within days you were back posting in the Anonymous forum, and then when you were outed, returned with your tail between legs ... and not holding fast to your prior blustering. At least once you created a fake new account so that you could pretend that you hadn't caved. Both childish and effeminate. You start blustering like this when you feel that your beat-down is imminent and when you have nothing else rational to add.
-
You are grasping at straws:
If they know a bishop is senile, they don't need to be at the consecration to hold it doubtful.
It is presumed doubtful because of the senility, since the senile cannot confect a sacrament.
Do you know how many ordinations and consecrations in the history of the Church were performed by men who were senile and forgetful? Never has the Church doubted them. One famous priest wrote in his biography that an assistant at his ordination had to place the elderly bishop's hands on his head because he had forgotten. It is nonsense that the senile cannot confect a Sacrament. In order to establish positive doubt, you have to provide concrete evidence that he lacked sufficient control of his faculties to have any idea of what he was doing. That threshold is very, very low. But you like to make things up, Johnson. Father Cekada did a thorough theological study of the question and cited theologian after theologian regarding what a low bar is required for validity. You want to think that mere speculation based on +Thuc's erratic behavior suffices. But in point of fact, it does not. If it did, the Church would be riddled with scruples regarding every other priest ever ordained. But the Church doesn't operate like that.
-
From the link I shared above:
Your Excellency’s claim that the Thuc consecrations must be considered doubtful because Bp. Thuc may not have been in a mental state sufficient to have the necessary sacramental intention totally leaves out of account the fact that the minimum-necessary intention for conferring a valid sacrament is based on the minimum necessary for a human act, which is an act proceeding from knowledge and free will. “Mental imbalance,” if such should have been the case with Bp. Thuc, does not nearly suffice to prevent one from engaging in a human act. There is no evidence that Bp. Thuc was insane, much less habitually so, and such would have to be proven clinically anyway, as any court of law, ecclesiastical or civil, would require.
THIS ^^^
-
The senile do not commit human acts, and consequently, they do not confect sacraments.
Utter garbage, Jonhson. You do understand, don't you, that there are different degrees of senility? So your blanket statement in this regard is utterly moronic. Only the most extreme stages of senility would render the man incapable of performing the act, and if he was even capable of performing the complex ceremony at all, then it's clear that he was NOT at that stage of senility.
-
LMAO:
We are witnessing another epic meltdown on the part of Johnson here.
-
Yup. I had to LOL when Ladislaus said he was "now" showing he was intellectually dishonest. Now? :laugh1:
Well, yes. We always knew the actual truth of the matter. But for a while he tries to play rational and civil, and then the cracks start showing, until finally there's a complete meltdown. We've gone through this process several times before .. and it always plays out the same. It's pathetic to witness each time.
-
"Your Excellency’s claim that the Thuc consecrations must be considered doubtful because Bp. Thuc may not have been in a mental state sufficient to have the necessary sacramental intention totally leaves out of account the fact that the minimum-necessary intention for conferring a valid sacrament is based on the minimum necessary for a human act, which is an act proceeding from knowledge and free will."
THIS ^^^
What about the claims that Archbishop Thuc admitted to withholding his intention? That's something that has always bothered me.
This is the specific claim I'm referring to:
“So after the questionable ordinations [Palmar de Troya], Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the ‘orders’ he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect.” (Angelus Magazine, June 1982 edition - emphasis supplied) http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html (http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html)
Does anyone have any additional information about this?
-
What about the claims that Archbishop Thuc admitted to withholding his intention? That's something that has always bothered me.
This is the specific claim I'm referring to:
“So after the questionable ordinations [Palmar de Troya], Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the ‘orders’ he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect.” (Angelus Magazine, June 1982 edition - emphasis supplied) http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html (http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html)
Does anyone have any additional information about this?
No one has yet produced a source for this allegation. He said at one time that he withheld his intention while concelebrating the Novus Ordo Mass under pressure from the ordinary. So my guess is that this allegation was conflated with this statement.
-
I see Mrs. Loudestmouth has vomited out a string of 11 2-sentence posts. Again.
:baby:
-
It’s reassuring that the best argument the Novus Ordo has against traditionalists is that traditionalists are mentally unstable. I’d be worried if they had anything substantial.
-
Cardinal Castillo Lara was responsible for the 1983 code of canon law in the Conciliar Church.
-
This is laughable, coming from the most emotionally-driven little girl here on CI. Even Matthew called you out for acting like a baby. So it's not just me.
You didn't "rebut" anything. You provided a couple pieces of evidence which must be weighed against all the other evidence. Rebuttal implies an argument. All you've done is try to make a case for a certain fact based on some testimony ... which is contradicted by other testimony. But then you have next-to-no grasp of logic, so you routinely confound your little temper tantrums with "rebuttal".
There were several times where you had your ass beaten with logical argument, where you stormed off the thread, and then started a half dozen spam threads in your fits of temper. One time you even announced publicly that you were leaving CI due to Matthew's toleration of heretics. Within days you were back posting in the Anonymous forum, and then when you were outed, returned with your tail between legs ... and not holding fast to your prior blustering. At least once you created a fake new account so that you could pretend that you hadn't caved. Both childish and effeminate. You start blustering like this when you feel that your beat-down is imminent and when you have nothing else rational to add.
😂
-
Do I understand correctly that the basis for concluding that +Thuc was insane is that he consecrated bishops?
-
Father Noel Barbara, who had been cited by Johnson:
Archbishop Lefebvre knew Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc quite well from the Second Vatican Council. He considered him to be a bishop with good doctrinal views. Like himself, this bishop belonged to the conservative group. It was because he considered him to be a Catholic bishop, committed to the faith, devoted to Mary, and having nothing to do, that he encouraged him to work with the emissaries of Palmar de Troya who had come to Econe in order to solicit his episcopal services. I heard these facts directly from Archbishop Lefebvre. One day a canon of Saint Maurice named Father Revas arrived at the seminary in Econe. He was accompanied by a priest who spoke English. A lover of the extraordinary, both had come from the location of the Apparitions. They came straight from Palmar to beg Archbishop Lefebvre to come to this location immediately because the Blessed Virgin was waiting for him. She was insisting that a Catholic bishop come in order to confer the episcopacy on those she planned to designate. The Archbishop excused himself and advised them to “approach Archbishop Thuc. He is orthodox and he is not at present occupied. Go and seek him out. He will most certainly agree with your request.” The two messengers immediately left and had no difficulty in convincing the elderly Vietnamese Archbishop to respond to the Virgin’s request. As I explained, I have these explanations directly from the mouth of Archbishop Lefebvre. He informed us of these facts on the occasion of a visit I made to Econe when someone brought up the name of Archbishop Thuc at the dinner tabl
So +Lefebvre told Father Barbara in person that HE had encouraged the Palmar group to approach Thuc, saying, "He will most certainly agree with your request. So +Thuc is visited by a priest who informs him that +Lefebvre had asked him to see to the needs of (i.e. cooperate with) these emissaries, and that isn't sufficient ground for him to take the request seriously?
Johnson, I submit, that based on your reasoning, it's more +Lefebvre who should be considered mentally incompetent, and all the ordinations he performed afterward, including the episcopal consecrations, should be regarded as doubtful.
-
Dr. Coomaraswami, M.D., an assistant professor of psychology --
It is my understanding that the professor of Canon Law at Econe accompanied Archbishop Thuc on this venture. If this episode is to be used as the basis of demonstrating the “senility” of Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, then one must argue that Archbishop Lefebvre and his canon lawyer must have been equally senile. Of course, Father Noel Barbara is elderly and occasionally forgetful. Perhaps he is also senile. And what are we to say of Bishop Guerard and Bishop Carmona’s inability to recognize that they were being consecrated by a doddering old fool? (Quod absit.) Are we then to consider anyone whose thoughts or actions we find offensive as senile? Let us now turn to the issue of senility, or to use the more precise psychiatric term, dementia. Here we indeed have an example of fools stepping where angels fear to tread. Few things are more difficult to determine than the presence of minor and subtle degrees of dementia. . . . Polemicists speak of the necessity of the “full command of reason.” If by this phrase one understands that the individual is at all times logical, then almost everyone involved in the current controversies—where lack of reason is so often manifested—would be administering invalid sacraments. I would suggest, however, that what is meant by this phrase is not that a priest at all times be some paragon of reasoning ability, but that he know what he is about when confecting a sacrament. There is absolutely no evidence that Archbishop Thuc did not know what he was doing or that he was acting unwillingly. It is absurd to suggest that a person can go through a three-hour relatively public and highlydemanding ceremony such as an episcopal consecration, and not know what he is doing. . . . Allow me to conclude by stating that the diatribes asserting that Archbishop NgoDinh-Thuc was suffering from “senile dementia,” “mental impairment,” “doubtful lucidity,” or “lacked the full command of reason,” to say nothing about their declaring him “insane,” are patently absurd and the supposed evidence offered for such affirmations only exists in the minds of those who would use insinuation and innuendo to αssαssιnαtҽ his character. Even if appropriate testing had been performed and some mild loss of memory or cognitive function demonstrated, there would be no grounds for declaring him incompetent. What is at issue is competence and in psychiatry, as well as in theology, an act is considered “sane” or “rational” (sacramental theology would add “human”) when the person who performs it knows what he is doing and freely wills to do it. Not having examined the Archbishop personally, I am not in a position to give any psychiatric opinion as to the state of his mentation. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems patently obvious that we must consider him to have been fully aware of what he was doing and in no way either “conned” or coerced. In essence, we are forced to assume that he acted in his right mind and was fully competent. We simply cannot go around declaring those whose actions, judgments and thoughts we find personally abhorrent are somehow mentally defective. To do so is plain and simple calumny.
You hear that, Johnson? Calumny.
-
You look a bit foolish continuing to argue, when you were checkmated 1.5 page ago.
Oh, the froth and the lather!
What is more pathtic than a sede Feeneyite??
:popcorn:
-
from Dirksen's work, which anyone who wants to honestly find the truth ...
But let us also focus on the evidence for Bp. Thuc’s sanity. What follows is a brief scorecard of eyewitnesses who knew Bp. Thuc and could testify regarding his sanity at the time of the consecrations in 1981:
What is the evidence of the eyewitnesses who knew Archbishop Thuc?
1. Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller. These are the two German eyewitnesses of both these consecrations. They knew Archbishop Thuc intimately, having seen him regularly when the Archbishop resided in Munich for a number of months. They have both testified under oath, one in writing, the other orally, with God as their witness, that Archbishop Thuc was in full command of his faculties when he performed the above mentioned consecrations. These laymen are well-educated, intelligent, and alert; there is absolutely no reason to doubt their veracity or their ability to judge the Archbishop’s state of mind.
2. Fr. Noël Barbara. Fr. Barbara went to see Archbishop Thuc in the Spring of 1981 and then again in January 1982. He thus saw him both before and after the consecrations. Fr. Barbara has sworn, in writing, with God as his witness, that both times he found Archbishop Thuc to be in full use of his mental faculties, and that he answered the questions put to him about the consecrations clearly. Fr. Barbara also wrote, immediately after the January visit, notes concerning his conversation with Archbishop Thuc. These notes reflect the clear mind of the Archbishop, as he answered questions with clarity and distinct memory.
3. Fr. Gustave Delmasure. This priest, who was a well-respected traditional priest in France, former pastor of a parish in Cannes, went to see Archbishop Thuc in March of 1982. He has given sworn testimony, with God as his witness, that he found Archbishop Thuc to be in his right mind, and that he responded to his questions with swiftness and clarity.
4. Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. In a personal interview with Fr. Joseph Collins, Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, who himself had been consecrated in May, 1981 by Archbishop Thuc, attested to the fact that the Archbishop was in his right mind. He said that the rite of consecration was followed integrally by Archbishop Thuc, and that he (Thuc) was of sound mind throughout the ceremony. (Bishop Guérard des Lauriers was a well-known Dominican theologian who taught at the Lateran University in Rome, and who advised Pope Pius XII on the definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950).
5. Fr. Philippe Guépin. Fr. Guépin is a traditional priest who says Mass for a large group in Nantes. He was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1977, and was asked to leave the Society of St. Pius X in 1980 because he refused to recognize John Paul II as pope. He knew Archbishop Thuc at Ecône, and had prolonged conversations with him. He has attested that Archbishop Thuc was in his right mind.
6. Fr. Bruno Schaeffer, who was ordained by Abp. Thuc in 1982 (after the episcopal consecrations) told Fr. Guépin that Abp. Thuc was completely in his right mind, and that he observed the rite of ordination perfectly.
7. Eyewitnesses who saw him and knew him in Rochester, New York, where Abp. Thuc stayed in 1983 and 1984, also attested to the fact that even at that time, shortly before his death in 1984, Abp. Thuc was in his right mind, and offered daily Mass. To this list we may also add the name of Mr. James Condit, Jr., of Cincinnati, Ohio, who met Bp. Thuc in Northern Kentucky in early 1982. Mr. Condit told me personally that he had found the bishop to be of entirely sound mind and that he had offered Holy Mass with great decorum. Furthermore, the bishop had distributed Holy Communion without any help from then-Fr. Louis Vezelis, who was also present, and this at an attendance of over 100 adults and children, according to Mr. Condit’s recollection.
While I am also aware of also other eyewitnesses who are on record testifying to Bp. Thuc’s sanity and mental stability, including Bp. Robert McKenna, Fr. Neil Webster, and Fr. Francis Miller. With all of this eyewitness testimony sufficient to allow us to have moral certitude regarding Bp. Thuc’s lucidity, it is reasonable to ask the following questions: [A]re all these people liars? All of these eyewitnesses say the same thing, even though they knew Abp Thuc at different times and in different circuмstances. Are they all lying? It would be ridiculous to say such a thing. Those who would have us believe, for whatever reason, that Archbishop Thuc was not lucid are telling us to conclude that all the eyewitnesses cited above are BOLDFACED LIARS. That would mean that faithful Roman Catholic priests, some of them ordained for fifty years or more, and who have labored for the salvation of souls their whole lives, are LIARS, calling down the authority of God to witness to their wicked lies. This they would do shortly before they go to God for judgement, and in such important a matter as an episcopal consecration. This supposition is absurd and very uncharitable. There is no better testimony than that of sworn eyewitnesses. No one can reasonably fault someone for taking the word of reliable sworn eyewitnesses. I remind you that the classic, time-tested, and universal way in which to establish a fact is the sworn eyewitness testimony of reliable witnesses. It is the way in which every court of law determines the fact of crime or innocence. Based on such testimony, human beings are either exonerated or condemned, sometimes to death. The law courts of the Catholic Church operate on the sworn testimony of reliable witnesses. Most importantly, our Blessed Lord sanctioned the practice with divine approval: And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. (Matthew 18:16) And in the Gospel of Saint Mark, Our Lord upbraids the disciples for not having believed the witnesses of his resurrection. (Mark 16:14).
-
Ladislaus, please have mercy on Sean. Sean, please stop committing intellectual ѕυιcιdє.
-
My name is Sean Inigo Montoya Johnson, you killed my thread, prepare to die!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6JGp7Meg42U (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6JGp7Meg42U)
-
You look a bit foolish continuing to argue, when you were checkmated 1.5 page ago.
Oh, the froth and the lather!
What is more pathtic than a sede Feeneyite??
:popcorn:
:facepalm: “checkmated” :facepalm:
-
Another nonsensical accusation supposedly supporting the invalidity of the Thuc line is the supposed fact that holy orders done in secret are invalid. Bishop Kelly promoted this on page 67 of his “red book”. Mario does an admirable job refuting this falsehood and to support him, I came across this interesting case from “The Casuist” Volume V:
-
Unfortunately some people with the R&R mindset will look at the above and brush it off under the umbrella that the Church made mistakes then just as they do today.
-
:facepalm: “checkmated” :facepalm:
Right, he cited two people who were speculating that Thuc might be unbalanced due to his erratic behavior. That just nailed his case shut.
No person seeking the truth could read Derksen's work without concluding that --
http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf (http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf)
1) there's no positive doubt about the major +Thuc consecrations (des Lauriers, Carmona, Zamora)
and
2) Father Kelly was dishonest in his campaign against +Thuc, manipulating and selectively quoting sources to make it falsely appear as if they supported his case.
-
What a sad joke.
Encouraging people to attend sacraments by doubtful priests and bishops is a serious failing.
Hopefully you do it from honest error, and not agenda.
I will pray for (all) your repentance and conversions.
-
What a sad joke.
Encouraging people to attend sacraments by doubtful priests and bishops is a serious failing.
Hopefully you do it from honest error, and not agenda.
I will pray for (all) your repentance and conversions.
Yeah, but thankfully the Thuc bishops are not doubtful. More effeminate emotion from Johnson here ... lacking any substance. Notice how he merely assumes the truth of the conclusion he's arguing for here and then denounces those who reject it as committing a "serious failing", thereby pretending that he's motivated by a love for souls.