Bishop Williamson now promotes Archbishop Thuc?

[Stone]

It is hard to imagine any SSPX priest or bishop giving credence to the 'apostolate' of Archbishop Thuc, particularly after the 1960's. He gave great scandal in his dubious 'consecrations' to some men who were not even Catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre warned against trusting the Thuc line, as did the traditional SSPX. And yet, we see this scandalous prelate being promoted by Bishop Williamson as a kind of savior.

His Excellency chooses to quote from an anonymous nun who sees visions, who claims Our Lord praises Archbishop Thuc (and of course, Bishop Williamson).

ELEISON  COMMENTS  DCCCXLVII
HEAVEN’S  MESSAGE  –  II
7 October, 2023
[Taken from here - slightly adapted, emphasis mine].]

None of what follows is dogma of the Church, nor official nor infallible, it is merely opinion of the author of these “Comments”, speculating on the nature of the Catholic Church and its present distress. Two weeks ago these “Comments” (845, Sept. 23) quoted a message supposedly from Heaven, in which an unknown Sister in France re-assured a Traditional priest that he was still serving Our Lord, even if he was apparently disobeying Church Authority above him in order to do so. Before commenting on the message it may be necessary to quote it again, as it appeared two weeks ago, but with some numbers for reference.

1. “The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is presently passing through a deep and hurtful crisis in its representatives, and you, Father, are one of its victims.

2.  Mgr. Thuc understood the breakdown inside the Church, and as bishop he took a personal stand which was not according to the rules, because he ordained priests and bishops without incardination, thus putting them all in an irregular situation, even if they are fervent and wish to exercise a ministry in accordance with the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

3.  Mgr Williamson, having been put in a similar situation by his dismissal from the Society of St Pius X by its Superior at that time without valid reason, should be able to understand your situation because he too has consecrated bishops and ordained priests. Like yourself, for now, these too are lacking incardination.

4.  The present situation within the Holy Catholic Church is so bad that the Lord is happy with all His ministers working faithfully for Him, with or without incardination.

5.  This is the Lord’s answer to your question. As soon as Holy Church has recovered within itself the strength of the Truth, priests still seemingly adrift will be able to rejoin it officially, while unofficially never having left it. The Lord blesses you, be at peace, and be faithful.”

1.  The message starts out from the Church’s present “deep and hurtful crisis”, to deny which is to grasp nothing of Church events today. The message shows real sympathy for a priest suffering in the crisis.

2.  Some readers may be scandalised by the message beginning with mention of Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc (1897-1984), because his long career in service of the Church did not finish in glory. In principle he understood the gravity of the Church crisis in the 1960’s and the need for emergency measures, but in practice he finished by consecrating bishops and ordaining priests with a wild abandon. However, in this context the message is using his case to show that the principles of the crisis go way back to the 1960’s.

That Mgr Thuc exaggerated in practice is not strictly relevant to the underlying principles still in play today. The message goes on to recognise both the normal need of a priest for structural incorporation in a diocese or Congregation (Authority), and the good will of priests doing their best to serve God (Truth). The message is throughout balancing Truth and Authority.

3.  Similarly with the movement in the Church going today by the name of “Resistance”, or “Fidelity”. On the one hand that movement has relied on abnormal or emergency measures for its bishops and new priests, as did Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 (“Truth”). On the other hand these bishops and priests have no normal incorporation, or “incardination”, in the official structure of the Church – “Authority”.

4.  However – and here is the “punchline” of the entire message – as long as such bishops and priests are working faithfully for Our Lord, then lack of incardination is not so important, because “the present situation in the Church is so bad”. In other words, Faith before structure, Truth before Authority.

5.  And here is the basic principle of common sense which solves the above priest’s original problem. Church Authority only exists to serve Church Truth and therewith the salvation of souls. And as soon as Truth recovers its rightful top place in the Church, as it will do, then Authority will likewise recover its secondary place, and everything truly rightful will recover its temporarily lost official rightfulness.

Deo Gratias!
                                                                                                              Kyrie eleison.


Till then, sit still, my soul. Foul deeds will rise,

Though all the world o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.

- Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2, end.

✠ ✠ ✠

One hardly knows where to begin there are so many issues in this one EC. And as with many of the Eleison Comments, there is error mixed with truth, so that souls default to believing these words and swallowing them whole rather than parsing them out.

Just a few of the many serious concerns raised after reading the above EC:

• Bishop Williamson cites as an authority the 'visions' of an anonymous nun in France. He give no context to these visions, no dates, etc. We are given no idea whether this is a traditional nun or Novus Ordo, etc. She is merely put forward as an authority, as one whose words deserve mention. We are asked to trust her based solely on her promotion by Bishop Williamson. This is not at all the habit of the Church, to accept visions without a thorough investigation and without the facts and circumstances surrounding those visions being well known.
  
• Archbishop Thuc has performed many doubtful ordinations and consecrations over the years, the most infamous being the Palmar de Troya connection in Spain, who have elected their own pope decades ago. To promote him and his scandalous consecrations as being praised by Heaven, is unforgiveable from Bishop Williamson. To lie and say the Thuc consecrations were 'exaggerated' is inexplicable. To say that his career in the Church 'did not end in glory' but still imply he is somehow someone to be admired is unfathomable.
  

For example, here is an excerpt from The Angelus, 1982, A Journey with the Archbishop [Lefebvre]:

“...The Archbishop also was adamant in his complete and total condemnation of the recent consecrations of so-called "bishops" by the Vietnamese bishop, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. The Archbishop's condemnation included the supposed ordination of an American priest by those "consecrated" by the Vietnamese bishop. His Grace urged all Catholics to totally reject these individuals and to have nothing whatever to do with them. He looks at the act as being an act of schism which, if carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to heresy. This is based on the fact that several of the "bishops" and a number of the priests with whom they have met have openly declared that their intention is to select a "pope" from among their group. The Archbishop predicted that these individuals would attempt to lure unsuspecting traditionalists into their schismatic schemes. He also said that eventually the movement will be a discredit to traditional Catholicism and would be used by the enemies of the Church as a means of trying to discredit traditional Catholicism. To emphasize his condemnation of these individuals, Archbishop Lefebvre specified that none of the chapels of the Society are to be made available to either these individuals or to those who support them...”

It would appear that Bishop Williamson has forgotten how vehemently Archbishop Lefebvre used to condemn the same prelate he is now promoting vis-à-vis the visions of this anonymous nun.

After insisting on New Mass [fake] miracles, promoting attendance at the New Mass, at Feeneyite chapels, etc. and even making allowances for the Anglicans, this appears to be yet another promotion of falsity by Bishop Williamson. Where is the concern for souls? Where is the attempt to truly lead them, as Archbishop Lefebvre did in the one brief admonition above?

[Stone]

The following was taken from the Archived Catacombs:

A Compilation: Abp. Lefebvre [and the traditional-SSPX] on the Thuc-line Bishops

• A Warning to Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds
  The Angelus June 1982
  
  During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."
  
  "It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil."
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre also stated that the actions of Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, the former Vietnamese Bishop who participated in the so-called "consecrations," are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco which took place in Spain some years ago. A "visionary" of sorts, Clemente Dominguez de Gomez induced Thuc to ordain and consecrate him and then proceeded to proclaim himself pope. This group scandalized the world by conferring orders indiscriminately on anyone who presented themselves to "Pope" Gomez. The sect now claims hundreds of clerics, including large numbers of 14-and 16-year-old bishops and cardinals.
  
  Soon after the questionable ordinations, 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. Given his past performances, there is no reason to believe that his present fiasco is any more credible.
  
  Referring to Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre said, "He seems to have lost all reason."
  
  The proof of these individuals' bad intention is clearly evident in the fact that the new sect—which includes Father Moise Carmona and Father Adolfo Zamora of Mexico; Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., of France; and Father George Musey of America—have already conducted meetings with small groups of traditional Catholic priests and have announced their intention of calling their own "Council" and selecting one or more popes!
  
  Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise.
  

• A Journey with the Archbishop
  Taken from The Angelus July 1982
  
  “...The Archbishop also was adamant in his complete and total condemnation of the recent consecrations of so-called "bishops" by the Vietnamese bishop, Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. The Archbishop's condemnation included the supposed ordination of an American priest by those "consecrated" by the Vietnamese bishop. His Grace urged all Catholics to totally reject these individuals and to have nothing whatever to do with them. He looks at the act as being an act of schism which, if carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to heresy. This is based on the fact that several of the "bishops" and a number of the priests with whom they have met have openly declared that their intention is to select a "pope" from among their group. The Archbishop predicted that these individuals would attempt to lure unsuspecting traditionalists into their schismatic schemes. He also said that eventually the movement will be a discredit to traditional Catholicism and would be used by the enemies of the Church as a means of trying to discredit traditional Catholicism. To emphasize his condemnation of these individuals, Archbishop Lefebvre specified that none of the chapels of the Society are to be made available to either these individuals or to those who support them...”
  

• Are the Masses of Thuc-line priests valid, and can we attend them? - by Fr. Peter Scott
  SSPX - Catholic FAQs
  
  I do not believe that there is a strong reason to doubt the validity of the episcopal consecrations performed by the exiled Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. However, there are several lesser reasons, that might be considered sufficient to establish some kind of positive doubt in the matter. These include the absence of correct witnesses during the original ceremony of consecration, which was done in private, and in the middle of the night.
  
  Also relevant is Thuc’s confused mental state, as evidenced by his public concelebration of the New Mass with the local Novus Ordo bishop of the diocese of Toulon, just one month before these consecrations in 1981. Also, the lack of conviction can be seen in the fact that twice he consecrated bishops illicitly and twice he requested absolution from the canonical punishment of excommunication. These frequent changes indicate that he was a man who, to say the least, lacked conviction about what he was doing. This is further confirmed by his failure to join the Coetus internationalis patrum, the traditional group of bishops at Vatican II, and by a certain liberal tendency that he showed during the Council, speaking out against discrimination directed towards women and in favor of ecumenism.
  
  Consequently, although the logical thing would be to presume that he did have the intention of confecting the sacrament of Holy Orders, the absence of co-consecrators, and of a clear purpose, does open the door to some astonishment and doubt. Any doubt concerning the first bishops that he consecrated would clearly be passed on to any other bishops and priests ordained as a consequence. The moral theologians say that we must hold to the pars tutior,or safer position, when it concerns the sacraments.
  
  Consequently, in case of doubt, it would not be permissible to go to these priests for the sacraments, unless there was no other priest available, and in danger of death.However, even were there no doubt at all as to validity, it would still not be permissible to assist at the Masses and receive the sacraments from priests of the Thuc line. For they all hold to the radical sedevacantist position that there is no pope, and that if anybody says that there is a pope, or that he is in communion with the Holy Father, then he is in communion with a heretic and a heretic himself. By maintaining such a position, which makes no distinctions, and takes no account of the confusion in the Church due to the breakdown of authority, they not only condemn every other Catholic to hell fire, but effectively separate themselves off from all other Catholics, and make themselves into a church of their own. They are truly schismatic. It is consequently entirely illicit to have any kind of association with them. As a consequence of their loss of the sense of the Church, they abandon all sense of hierarchy and structure in the Church. Any bishop can consecrate any other bishop at any time, without authority between them. These bishops constantly ordain to the priesthood men who have no preparation or training, who belong to no religious community, and who are consequently entirely independent of one another and all Church authority. Throwing all canonical norms out of the window, they effectively become just as protestant as the modernists they pretend to defend the Church against.
  

• Meet the Sedevacantist Priests
  SiSiNoNo November 1998 No. 29
  
  Fr. Guérard des Lauriers was a Dominican theologian asked by Archbishop Lefebvre to be one of the professors at Ecône in the early 70’s. In the mid-70’s, he developed his theory distinguishing between “a material pope and a formal pope.” Archbishop Lefebvre strictly forbade him to teach this theory. In a retreat which he preached to the seminarians at Ecône (Sept., 1977) he defied the Archbishop and taught it anyway. Archbishop Lefebvre expelled him as a professor at Ecône. In 1981, he was dubiously consecrated "bishop" by the aging Bishop Ngo Di Thuc in a secret ceremony, and has since died.
  

• WHO IS MSGR. PIERRE MARTIN NGO-DHIN-THUC?
  The Angelus April 1983
  
  “...pseudobishops...”
  
  “...If we don't stop our apathy in so serious a case, the Catholic Church may be flooded in a short time by hundreds, or thousands, of vocationless impostors, consecrated and ordained arbitrarily, or having bought their Orders...”
  
  “...How odd this statement sounds, published in the sedevacantist "Trento" of March,1982, that Msgr. Ngo Dhin-Thuc held that it was necessary to dispel certain conjectures:
  
  "I testify that I performed the ordinations of Palmar deTroya in full lucidity, (sic) I do not have any relation with Palmar de Troya since its chief imparted himself a pope...etc.
  Imparted, December19,1981,in Toulon in full possession of my faculties,(sic) Pierre Martin Ngo Dhin-Thuc, Archbishop Tit. of Bulla Regis."
  
  Why such a curious self- criticism, that only could be valid with an affidavit of a physician? Its hows that he thinks the opposite beforehand. This is the reason why, in Europe, where Msgr. Thuc is better known, there exists some doubt oncerning the validity of those ordinations and consecrations. Validity depends on the mental responsibility of the consecrating bishop...”
  

• Archbishop Lefebvre Interview
  Fideliter 66, November-December 1988
  
  (Notice how in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre does not call Fr. Guérard Deslauriers “Bishop” even though he was “consecrated” in1981. He also says about Munari, “the one who is called Monsignor Munari.” Munari was “consecrated”a bishop in 1987 by Guérard des Lauriers. The Archbishop does not acknowledge them as bishops.)
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre: “I think that it is maybe necessary to take care to avoid anything that could show, by expressions a little too hard, our disapproval of those who leave us. Do not label them with epithets which can be taken a little injuriously, it is useless, it is the other way around. You see, personally, I've always had this attitude among those who have left us, and God knows how many in the course of the history of the Society have left us; the history of the Society is almost a history of separations, isn’t it? I always believed, as a principle: No more relations. It's over. They are leaving us, they are going towards other pastors, other shepherds. No more relations. They tried, just as well I would say, those who left as sedevacantists, like those who left because we were not papists enough etc. All have tried to lead us into a polemic. I received letters from Father Guérard des Lauriers with lawsuit threats, didn’t they, if I did not answer? I threw it in the garbage - never replied. I never replied one word. Neither Monsignor, I mean the one who is called "Monsignor Munari"and the others, northe fourteen (or thirteen) of America, nor Cantoni who left us, nor the other Italians who left us. I never replied.
  
  This is what I said to Dom Gerard: "Dom Gérard you will never hear from me anynore, I will not set foot at your place. I will not write to you anymore and when you will write to me, I will not answer you. You will not hear a word from me. It is over. I consider you like those who have left us, like Fr. Bisig, like Dom Augustin, like the others who have left us. That’s it. I pray for you but it's over. We will not have contact anymore." This way they can’t ever pull out, none of them, from their sleeve, I would say, a letter [saying]; This is how the Archbishop treated me. This is what he told me. Because if one writes, the sole fact of writing, and it is false to claim: “See, I agree with the Archbishop. He wrote to me again 8 days ago.” So then, we would have almost had to denounce it right away. But I wrote, I didn’t say that I agree, and we write another letter, and we begin another polemic. It is over. We cannot. We cannot play that game. We have to leave them behind. I think there is nothing better to make them reflect and then bring them back to us eventually, if there are some, and there are not many who came back. But at least for eventually and in any case, they cannot say that we were unpleasant towards them or that we did them wrong. No. I think it's the best method, you know, except of course, when there are statements that are absolutely false. Then we must publish a communique to rectify them like the superior general for the declaration of Dom Gerard. It is normal but it is necessary to say for correspondence that is established, we could do it indefinitely, and then we come, in fact,easily and unfortunately to say things that we regret a little to have said, which are not charitable. That’s it. Thank you.
  
  Archbishop Lefebvre published in part in Fideliter 66 November-December 1988, p. 27-31.