So....  Are you saying that being persecuted by the Conciliar sect disqualifies one from sainthood or are you refuting Mithrandylan?

I was disagreeing with Mith's statement that +Thuc isn't worthy of being considered for canonization because he didn't take a high-profile public stand against the Conciliar Church.  I was saying that he didn't really have the resources to do so, having been exiled and relegated to a state of abject poverty, unknown and nearly forgotten, playing the part of a simple associate pastor.  I also said that the contrast with +Lefebvre is unfair, as +Lefebvre wasn't about to make the big move of founding his Society had it not been for those seminarians who had to persuade him to do so.

I took his post as refuting Mithrandylan.

Yes.  Sorry, I should have quoted him when posting my response.  I was disagreeing with Mith about his not having been public enough in opposing Vatican II.

Archbishop Thuc was a good and holy man, and I do believe he will be canonized.

People who doubt this or who have been conditioned by the slanderous attacks from SSPV, and Bishop Kelly in particular, need to read +Thuc's Autobiography.

I've read as much as I could find available in English online, and it reads like St. Therese's Story of Soul.  Archbishop Thuc exhibited a breath-taking humility.  He was an Archbishop, had received a "Mandate" from Rome, earned a couple of advanced degrees, founded and taught at a seminary, could speak multiple languages, belonged to a noble / elite family in Vietnam (his brother was President of Vietnam), and not once did he ever complain about having been reduced to the state in which Father Barbara found him, living in a tiny and filthy little room with some cats and an altar set up to offer Traditional Mass.  This man should have been offering Mass at a cathedral, sitting on an episcopal throne, and preaching to thousands.  Instead he was reduced to what amounted to an associate pastor in an obscure little village, earning his meager existence by hearing Confessions.  And he never complained.  In fact, he was grateful to the bishop who set him up with that opportunity in that it allowed him to earn his keep.

Another facet of his Autobiography that's ignored by his slanderers is that, having been written after the main consecrations, of +Guerard des Lauriers and +Carmona/+Zamora, it showed that he still had an extremely sharp mind, recalling minutes and obscure details decades after the fact ... and just in its style.  This was not a man who was so far gone that he didn't possess the very tiny minimum intellectual capacity required to validly confer Sacraments, i.e. to know what he was doing ("I am consecrating a bishop.") and to intend to do it (shown by simply performing the complex ceremony of the Church).  He was fluent in Latin, having obtained advanced degrees in Rome, and absolutely presumed by the Church to have validly consecrated.  Add to that Bishop Castro de Mayer who told The Nine when they went to him seeking consecration that they should go see Guerard.  When The Nine objected to this, citing their concerns about validity, Bishop de Mayer responded that if anyone was competent to know whether a Sacrament was valid, it would be Guerard (considered arguably THE top theologian in the Church just before Vatican II).  That comment was in fact what prompted Father Cekada to re-evaluate his position regarding the +Thuc line.

Bishop +Thuc also reminds me of Bishop Vida Elmer.  When I once visited him, he invited me over to his modest little rectory, and insisted that I sit down while he cooked me a humble breakfast of eggs and toast.  That made me uncomfortable to watch a bishop cooking me breakfast while I sat there, reminiscent of how Our Lord washed the Apostles' feet.  And I think many of these Independent heroes will also be considered for canonization ... having kept the faith and served the faithful in this greatest crisis in all of Church history.  So I am deeply pained by the slanders of SSPV, especially Bishop Kelly, against Archbishop Thuc.  And they are in fact nothing short of slanders ... and could very likely results in his cause being passed over.  If the Church later canonized +Thuc, Bishop Kelly might once again become a sedevacantist.

But [+Thuc's] ministry does not compare to Archbishop Lefebvre's, whose was very active and bold. Lefebvre is a much more obvious candidate for canonization. And canonized saints really should be obvious.

To remind you of what you were arguing, despite your denying it later.  Ah, OK, so his ministry wasn't "active and bold", whatever that means in terms of assessing sanctity.  That's a nonsensical made-up criterion.  Canonizations aren't political statements, as the Novus Ordo has turned them into.  What's at issue is what he did, and how he did it, given the circuмstances that Divine Providence put him in.  Many saints were obscure and unknown until their canonization.

Bishop de Castro Mayer did not go onto the world stage to battle the Conciliar Church either.  He just did his thing in his diocese, where Divine Providence put him, and yet he's no less worthy to be considered than +Lefebvre ... who, again, barring Divine Providence sending those seminarians his way, likely would have just retired in relative obscurity.  What's at issue is their RESPONSE to Divine Providence, and not the circuмstances into which God put them.

It's also highly likely that +Thuc died a martyr.  He was kidnapped from a group of Traditional Catholics and, despite having been known to be in good health, died shortly thereafter.

It's also highly likely that +Thuc died a martyr.  He was kidnapped from a group of Traditional Catholics and, despite having been known to be in good health, died shortly thereafter.

Do you recall what group of traditional Catholics kidnapped him? That's a terrible thing for them to do. 

Do you recall what group of traditional Catholics kidnapped him? That's a terrible thing for them to do.

Sorry if I was unclear.  He was kidnapped FROM a group of Traditional Catholics (Bishop Vizelis' group, with whom he was living) but abducted BY a group of Conciliar Vietnamese.

And their motivation was clear, as shortly after they kidnapped +Thuc, they released this alleged letter from him denouncing Traditional Catholicism ... but which bore no signature, and then the Archbishop was dead soon after its "release".

I don't know much about +Thuc, but I'm sorry to hear that this happened to him. Maybe this shows how difficult things could be back then. If he can be cut some slack, given what he endured, then perhaps others can be too (like +ABL). I'd be interested in reading his autobiography. He does sound like a good and humble man, even though he made mistakes.

.

I believe this too. While in captivity, Bp. Thuc managed to get to a telephone and call Fr. Francis Miller, the priest who was taking care of him when he was kidnapped. He told Fr. Miller that his captors were trying to get him to sign a retraction of his ordinations, but he refused to sign. He died within a year of his kidnapping. I believe those heretics kidnapped and murdered him to prevent him from consecrating any more bishops for traditional Catholics, which make him a martyr.

Clearly no heroic virtue. 

Article on Archbishop Thus I never saw before by a Fr. Byman:

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=745