Choose style:

Author Topic: Thuc Line Bishops  (Read 6876 times)

InquisitorGeneralis

  • Guest
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2005, 09:03:PM »
How could someone go through the entire consecration ceremony and have  it be invalid due to insanity?  I mean, it's a sufficiently  complex set of rites, is it not?  It seems to me that if someone  was able to do it, it was very likely quite valid.
 

JubilateDeo

  • Member
  • Posts: 448
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2005, 11:12:PM »

Hello HMiS,

 

I really do think that we are on the level here and are not as far off in our mindsets as we might think. Probably more to do with perception, but hey, such is life.

 

Although I might sound like a broken record here, I've got a question... What is the difference between going to an Orthodox Bishop and Bp Thuc? I mean they are both excommunicated, right? This is the kicker for me. Catholic principle dictates that we not commune with excommunicates, heretics, and schismatics. This is the whole point of what we are trying to do as traditional Catholics. Now why not just trust that God will provide a good faithful Bishop instead of breaking one of the principles we are trying to uphold?

 

See where I am going with this?

 

If you disagree, feel free to hit me with the smack down as you see fit.  Look forward to hearing from you. God bless....

Pax, Stephen

JubilateDeo

  • Member
  • Posts: 448
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2005, 11:34:PM »

Oh, I forgot to mention... I can see Epikeia applying to a situation such as going to a bishop who is in good standing out of necessity. The thing is, however, throughout Thuc's whole situation, he was under the ipso facto excommunications for the "imprudent" consecrations, and not in good standing (obviously). How does the rightness of his consecrations change depending on who he is consecrating, especially when we shouldn't go to him in the first place?

 

God bless, dude...

Pax, Stephen

JubilateDeo

  • Member
  • Posts: 448
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2005, 11:55:PM »

One last thing... Seriously...  

 

If anyone wants to hear the SSPV's opinion on this question (and not just mine), The internet radio station, WFTS ( http://www.wftsradio.com/ ), is doing an interview with Bp Kelly specifically on the Thuc consecrations. The entire interview is three hours long and is being released in three parts. The first part is being replayed for the next couple of days. It is right now just an introduction to the overall situation in the church and only the last couple minutes of this segment start to touch on the Thuc issue. I have not as of yet heard the two other parts of the interview, and so cannot comment.

 

Fr Jenkins also has a segment about Fatima and the Third Secret. It was pretty good!!!

 

Just FWI, in case anyone was interested.

 

God bless...

Pax, Stephen

HMiS

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,172
  • Gender: Male
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2005, 07:07:AM »

I value your opinion, JD.

 

But I must say, to equal Thuc and any schismatic bishop of an heretical orthodox sect, goes beyond me. I think to say so is wrong and just calumny. Thuc was not an heretic, nor a schismatic. He was a confused prelate, but not a non-Catholic. 

 

You, nor Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins, have the authority and the right to declare someone to be excommunicated. Not only because they are not the interpretators of the law (the Pope is), but also because they themselves have also acted under Epikeia for their own bishop's consecration! Why blame others then?

 

In fact, given the history of Fr., now Bishop Mgr., Clarence Kelly: he ran away from the SSPX, broke with some other priests of the "Nine", and him having occupied SSPX property. Given that history, Bp. Mendez (?) of Alceribo (?) might have also incurred excommunication, because Fr. Kelly might have run away and started a homosexual sect?

 

I just can't follow the reasoning here.

 

And to doubt the validity because of the personal history of the Consecrator is wrong. I could doubt Fr. Kelly's ordination concerning validity, because Cardinal Liénart was the Consecrator of Abp. Lefebvre, and Liénart was a high ranking Freemason, and at least a very liberal modernist. Cardinal Rampolla - a Freemason - was the one who consecrated Cardinal Merry del Val, an excellent prelate and a great Anti-Modernist hero.

 

It is not required for VALIDITY and not even for LICEITY on part the consecrated cleric, that the consecrator be of a pure personal history without sins and excommunications.

 

After all, as the SSPV does not know what the status of the Papal See is at the moment, Abp. Thuc did repent from the consecrations at Palmar de Troya and of the homosexualist bishop, and he received the lifting of the excommunication from Pope Paul VI. So when consecrating the sedevacantist bishops Zamora, Carmona, Guérard des Lauriers, he might have been no longer under the penalty and at least had subjectively repented from his previous consecrations, if you grant that Paul VI had canonical authority according to Thuc in 1977. After that he came to the conclusion that the Papal See was vacant. And thus acting (again?) under Epikeia - after having received canonical freeing of excommunication by Paul VI - Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc validly and licitly consecrated Bishops.

 

Licit according to the Sedevacantist opinion at least. And some later Fr. Clarence Kelly took the same Epikeia argument to receive Consecration without a papal mandate from an other emeritus-bishop.

 

So what is the problem then about the post 1981 Consecrations of the Thuc line. Fr. Kelly took the same arguments as did Frs. McKenna and Vezelis to justify their consecrations.

 

So why is he mocking them and is Bp. Kelly constantly doubting the validity of the Thuc line with these most illogical and very emotional arguments? It's because he is in an intense emotional struggle with Fr. Anthony Cekada and the others of the Nine (1983), with whom he broke, and who subsequently broke with each other.

 

There are NO VALID arguments at all to call into doubt the validity of the Abp. Thuc line of Consecrations after 1981 (the Palmar de Troya line having been invalidated since ca. 1983 due to an invalid Palmarian "new rite" of Antipope Gregory XVII Gomez).

 

Why should I take them seriously then?

 

It is truly a disease among the Sedevacantists to call into doubt other groups' valid Sacraments and to claim right and authority to proclaim this and thus "lure" people out of those groups.

 

This is done by "Einsicht" (Germany) a publication in which Prof. Dr. Eberhard Heller constantly doubts the validity of Abp. Lefebvre's consecration etc. Why? Not because he would have doubted it under Pope Pius XII's pontificate. No, merely because he emotionally abhors from the SSPX's position and demands all-or-nothing Sedevacantism.

 

And the Mgr. Bp. Clarence Kelly arguments go along the same line. But then again they can be used again Kelly himself too.

 

It does not help the Sedevacantist Movement to constantly divide and get ruptured internally. But then again I am not really into Sedevacantism. At least not (yet) in my own convictions concerning the Most Holy Apostolic Roman See of Peter.

 

Both Bp. Kelly and the sedevacantist Thuc-line bishops are valid bishops, who have received consecration acting under Epikeia.

 

To end with: the sins of the Consecrator-Bishop are not "transmitted" to the consecrated, if the consecrated act under good intentions and good will in the spirit of Canon Law.

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.


HMiS

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,172
  • Gender: Male
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2005, 10:51:AM »

Another note: Bp. Castro Mayer of Campos deemed the Thuc consecrations valid.

 

And Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger officially acknowledged the validity of the Thuc bishops.

 

In the mean time even some non-re-consecrated bishops from the Palmar de Troya and sede groups (e.g. Bp. Seiwert Fleige) have been officially reconciled by the Vatican (being recognized as episcopal clerics) without being consecrated sub conditione. The Vatican - under modernist influence - might not be that bothered about validity as Cardinal Walter Kasper demanded the lifting of the bull Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII in which Leo XIII declared Anglican orders null and invalid in se. But I highly doubt that the Vatican would easily take over former traditionalist or Palmar-sectarian bishops while they don't  re-consecrate them. After all, why wouldn't they want to make the sedevacantists of Thuc-line priests feel uncomfortable?

 

May I add, that the reasoning of Bp. Kelly about Abp. Thuc and the "fact" that ordaining individuals without a Mandate and without good selection, lead to the coming into existence of "home-aloner" sedevacantists, who think the Church defected and there are no licit Sacraments left.  

 

This link is essential too:

http://www.the-pope.com/keating1.html

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.

brogan

  • Member
  • Posts: 519
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2005, 07:47:AM »
Quote from: JubilateDeo

What is the difference  between going to an Orthodox Bishop and Bp Thuc? I mean they are both  excommunicated, right? This is the kicker for me. Catholic principle  dictates that we not commune with excommunicates, heretics, and  schismatics. This is the whole point of what we are trying to do as  traditional Catholics.

 
 Sorry about the size but I  wasnt about to type this up. Basically even if they were excommunicated  we can still recieve the sacraments from them so the SSPV is wrong on  this.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

DominusTecum

  • Guest
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2005, 10:21:AM »

What book is this? (I'm just curious)


brogan

  • Member
  • Posts: 519
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2005, 01:52:PM »
I think its called "The Vatican II "popes" vrs the Roman Catholic  Church" or something equally colorful. It's by those Dimond brother  guys. And i guess the way I wrote that above could be misunderstood as  "that can't be true cause the Dimond brothers taught against it" or  some other hilarious nonsense. Those guys are over the top but  they do have good quotes. I actually think that SSPV would just respond  that these other bishops are not  "tolerati" excommunicates but I  don't think that argument would really hold water.

Vincentius

  • Guest
Thuc Line Bishops
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2005, 07:47:PM »
Quote
 

11. It is sinful to doubt the validity of someone's Holy Orders, without proof.

 

 


  I'm interested to know "how so is it a sin"? If one is doubtful of a  priest's valid holy orders, it is presumed that the burden of proof  lies on the priest. I have never met a priest (except one) who did not  hesitate to tell me his ordination, the bishop who ordained him, and  where it took place. The priesthood is the highest calling a man can  receive (not even the angels are so privileged) and he is right to be  "proud" to speak about it and will do so happily. The only priest I  have ever asked about his orders, and evaded the question is perhaps  the priest we all have encountered in our meanderings in the internet:  Fr. Moderator (Morrison) of Traditio. His evasiveness makes one avoid  going to him for the sacraments, for the reason that he has no priestly  faculties, unless and until he provides irrefutable proof (at this  point in time anyway) that he is validly ordained. And it these  priestly faculties that one must be sure of when asking about a  priest's valid orders, because having none, he cannot confer the  sacraments (esp. confession and the Eucharist). There is what is called  the "common error" -- where one sees a long line in the confessional  and rightly presume that since everybody is going to confession to this  priest he must be valid. In that case, one receives absolution via this  "error," even if this priest had no valid holy orders.  This  especially for those who have no ordinary jurisdiction.