CathInfo.com

I am writing to say I will not respond to Mr. Tom anymore, because I do not believe he is being rational.

Our Lord knows what I truly think, and that is good enough for me. Thank you to the people who have given intelligent and well-mannered responses. I'll let the men handle this if they deem it worth their time.

Being flippant about the validity of the Sacraments is not rational at all.

It's very sinful of you to try to flip things around like that.

I see why you chose to use the ignore feature. Truth hurts.

The following presentation contains information I was unaware of until recently, after long hours of reading and researching. Do what you will with it, I only wish to share in case there are others who are ignorant as well. This is not being done to spark a heated discussion. I am only presenting information here for consideration, and to make reparation for my previous ignorance concerning +Thuc. I may add more information as I find it. I provide all the sources.

In the Jenkins-Cekada debate, Jenkins mentions that on the sworn testimony of eyewitnesses Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller, that des Lauriers, throughout his own consecration to the episcopate, had to keep reminding +Thuc that it was wrong for him to mention being in union with the authority of John Paul II, bringing to +Thuc's mind what had been discussed and agreed on before the ceremony, which was that they both assented to JPII not being the Pope. Cekada, pro-Thuc, acknowledges this as a historical fact. There was obviously something going on in +Thuc's mind here, some inconsistencies. 

This can be seen from 11:47-14:00 in the following video, and it is quite revealing how Cekada handles the issue vs. Jenkins. A woman quickly passes through the footage with short sleeves, for some reason. I wish to give a warning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNRUA2JW5r4&list=PLmLF4fSj2HtLrwemAUApp9USPzoIK4dNn&index=14

On +Thuc's declaration of the vacancy of the Holy See, the last Pope according to him being Pope Pius XII, he signs his name as "Archbishop", a title which was given to him by John XXIII. Another inconsistency.


In Bishop Thuc's own autobiography, he writes about being asked to travel to Palmar de Troya to perform a consecration, and his response to it. His gullibility and the ease with which he assents to this, seemingly without any reflection, is astounding. At the very end we see he blatantly lies about what he is about to do:

Then a priest came to me, one I had met before in Ecône, Switzerland. He told me outright: "Excellency, the Holy Virgin sends me in order for me to send you to central Spain immediately to render her a service.  My car is ready for you at the parsonage's door and we will depart immediately depart in order to be there for Christmas." 

    Stunned by this invitation, I said to him: "If it is a service that the Holy Virgin required, I am ready to follow you to the end of the world, but I must inform the priest because of the Christmas Mass and must pack my bag.  Meanwhile, since it was soon midday, go to the village restaurant and get something to eat."  He replied to me: "There are three of us in the car and we do not even have a cent with which to buy a cup of coffee."  I told him:  "All three of you go; I will pay for your lunch."  A lunch that cost me 3,000 Liras.

    In order to reach Palmar de Troya, I would have spent 50,000 Liras for gas and meals. While I nibbled on a piece of bread, they ate well. I called the Sexton [sacristan] and asked him to inform the priest about Christmas Mass. I told him that I would immediately go to France because of urgent family matters and would return promptly in two weeks...

Source: http://www.einsicht-aktuell.de/index.php?svar=5&artikel_id=1923

His own hand condemns him. I am lead to believe that he was either not in full possession of his faculties, or was accustomed to lying. From his life and reputation before Vatican II, I would like to believe the former. Interestingly, +Thuc was referred to as "less than candid" by des Lauriers in his memoriam of +Thuc. https://web.archive.org/web/20080305062917/http://catholic.shrineofsaintjude.net/homec081.html

It is recorded in newspapers such as in The Catholic News Archive, that +Thuc was excommunicated by Paul VI and then reconciled, and excommunicated again later on by JPII, and then reconciled. This is either frequent vacillating or behaviour done without fully grasping what one is doing, which in combination with the way he did the consecration of des Lauriers, renders his mindset and yes, his intentions, reasonably suspect. If he is in communion with JPII, his consecration of des Lauriers would be schismatic. He repeatedly kept seemingly agreeing and disagreeing with being in union with JPII by mentioning "Pope John Paul II" multiple times in merely one consecration ceremony.


The following below is from the same memoriam of des Lauriers concerning +Thuc. I believe usury named here was mistranslated, and was supposed to be simony. The way des Lauriers excuses him is unjust. This is an excommunicable crime and a grave sin, which +Thuc would have known as having a doctorate in Canon Law. Yes, it may have been out of weakness etc., but des Lauriers seems to exaggerate the goodness of +Thuc here, and does not mention that his behaviour is excommunicable:

Usury as a result of solitude for which the past had never prepared Mgr. Thuc. "vera dicentes solent persecutionem pati; nec tamen ideo Prophetae antiqqui timore persecutionis a veritatis praedicatione defecerunt" (St. Augustine, De Sermone Domini) (Whosoever affirms the truth is usually persecuted. However, the Prophets of old never failed to bear witness to the Truth for fear of being persecuted.) With a wealthy background, Mgr. Thuc was accustomed with regard to his interpersonal connections, to live in an atmosphere of comfort and prosperity. Solitude, which is the price of witnessing, therefore went against his nature. One can understand then that, spontaneously and without any calculation, he was inclined in these re-consecrations to "patronize" the individuals involved, and without any disproportionate psychological commitment, to "patronize" the halls of the wealthy which reflected his own apostolic soul, and which also gave sustenance to his great financial needs. Those who fight desperate battles find, in those who they vanquish, a reason to live which secretly sustains them. The supreme test is that of solitude which intrudes into the land of the Strong. Such was the lot of Jesus in His Passion, and of Mgr. Thuc in his final dereliction. If Mgr. Thuc on occasion succuмbed to this insidious temptation, it is those who are with out sin who should cast the first stone and condemn him.


“All persons, even those of episcopal dignity, who through simony knowingly promote a man or are promoted [themselves] to orders, or who administer or receive other sacraments through simony, are suspect of heresy; clerics, moreover, incur a suspension reserved to the Holy See." (Canon 2371, 1917 Code)

"They incur upon the fact a suspension from divine things, reserved to the Apostolic See, who presume to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic; but whoever in good faith was ordained by such a one as these lacks the exercise of the orders thus received until he is dispensed." (Canon 2373, 1917 Code)

I realize the above in Canon Law is not speaking of validity; however, it seems to me that the Church would not authorize, much less recommend, the faithful to seek sacraments from those ordained in +Thuc's post Vatican-II lineage, on account of the contradictions, dishonesty, and utter betrayal of Our Lord in the form of simony that occurred, at least without a proper examination by the Church Herself, which has not occurred. I am quite surprised by those who use the Conciliar Church's view of the Thuc consecrations being valid, as a legitimate argument. The very foundation of this institution is based on lies.


Is it not reasonable to be justly suspicious, that simony in these circuмstances is a form of deceit? Is this the behaviour of someone genuinely desiring to preserve the truly Catholic episcopate? Again, who would trust a man's intention when he is known to be "less than candid" as des Lauriers worded it, and lies without seeming to realize it?

Concerning Sacramental Intention:

“The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation.” — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, p. 69.


In consideration of all of this, the circuмstances of the consecrations do not seem to exclude all prudent doubt (which is required for moral certainty, and moral certainty of the intention is required for the validity of the sacraments). I am always open to being shown if I err in a certain matter.

If anyone wishes to comment, please do so calmly and objectively, in a way that is befitting a Christian. This is no declaration that I am perfect in this regard, but I say this as a fellow sinner who desires amendment and holiness for both myself and others. I have learned that despite having good intentions, sometimes our words can be objectively provocative, and almost without fail as a result, this prevents the recipient from rightly perceiving what we meant to communicate. I hope we can all be patient with one another's failings, whether one is too angry, or too timid. In a world so cold, we do not need more coldness. 

So this may seem strange of me to say this, but it is not so much the reasons you give in that post which give us doubt.

In fact is precisely because of mental issues, tiredness etc. that habitual intention is presumed, and why the only time is when the minister expressly excludes intention that we must stop to take things seriously.

The mental issues are important, but as building the case of suspicion.

Let me put it this way, if Archbishop Lefebvre had an accusation leveled that he had admitted to withholding intention during the 1988 consecrations, we would be less likely to believe it. As he was incredibly stable. If the person saying it was credible though, we should investigate it. Yet no one ever suggested that of either him or Bishop Williamson.

However in the case of Archbishop Thuc, not only do we have the accusation, but we have manifest instability. This leads us to be highly suspicious.

However we should always be good willed and try to give the benefit of the doubt, so we would go to that person and ask them directly. But we cannot do that now. We cannot just rely on our feelings, and say well we should "presume good". Not in the case of the Sacraments when explicit denial of intention is suspected. So THIS is where the potential doubt lies.

But it's ok because we have a line of perfectly valid Sacraments, and that is Bishop Williamson's line.Who's priests are all over the US and Canada and the world.

Thank you for your kind response. I earnestly strive to not look at things from an emotional standpoint, I find it distracting.

I understand that habitual intention is normally presumed, but how can it be presumed when +Thuc needed repeated corrections from des Lauriers throughout the ceremony?

In addition, he does have the reputation for not being honest in certain instances, so why should we trust that he truly intends to consecrate others?

My point in referencing the punishment reserved for clerics who commit simony, is that it seems the Church would not approve of the laity to seek sacraments from clergy ordained by such a Bishop, on account of the confusion of what +Thuc's goals in these consecrations generally were; the simony, mental state, vacillating, etc. rendering it all quite unclear.

Historically, the Church always examined whether certain orders were to be regarded as valid, as we can see in the case of the Anglicans and the Eastern Schismatics, and it was not laypeople gathering together, and deciding on the matter. I wish we could somehow know how the the Church would have handled this. I understand where people on both sides are coming from.

I emailed Angelus Press, inquiring about the article that you gave us in this thread, and a lady replied promptly, giving me the entire issue along with a later issue of The Angelus from 2013, which I will attach here. In the preceding pages directly before the article from the June 1982 issue, was an interview between Archbishop Lefebvre and Louis Moore, religion editor of The Houston Chronicle. It seems to give further context, in a sense, to the short notice of warning to Catholics given afterwards. What is said in there of Archbishop Lefebvre is consistent with the interview.

However, the 2013 issue speaks of the +Thuc consecrations as being valid, but illicit. I wonder what brought about this change? It seems strange.