Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2020 23:59:28 GMT
The following list was forwarded to me and is reprinted here with permission of the author, with slight formatting changes, the title is mine. All emphasis in the original. - Admin
A Compilation: Abp. Lefebvre [and the traditional-SSPX] on the Thuc-line Bishops
- A Warning to Traditional Catholics Concerning False ShepherdsThe Angelus June 1982During 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.[Emphasis -The Catacombs]
- 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 Americanpriest 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 theseindividuals 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...”www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=652
- From the SSPX WebsiteAre the Masses of Thuc-line priests valid, and can we attend them?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. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott] archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#thucline
- From the SSPX Asia WebsiteSiSiNoNo November 1998 No. 29Meet the Sedevacantist PriestsFr. 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. sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1998_Novemb/Meet_the_Sedevacantist_Priests.htm
- Taken from The Angelus April 1983WHO IS MSGR. PIERRE MARTIN NGO-DHIN-THUC?“...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: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...” www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=745"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."
- Taken from 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.