|
Post by Pacelli on May 7, 2018 15:05:08 GMT -5
“Questioning the Thuc Apologists, A Matter of Trust,” Weiskittel, John Kenneth, The Athanasian, Vol. 16, no. 2, June, 1995. PDF of article linked HERENote to reader: The Athanasian was a newsletter printed under the auspices of Fr. Francis Fenton, one of the original Catholic priests who reacted to the crisis in the Church and who, along with numerous other legitimate diocesan and religious priests travelled the country and said mass and misnistered to the Catholics who would not go along with the Conciliar sect in the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s. When Fr. Dolan from St. Gertrude’s chapel in Ohio had agreed to be consecrated as a bishop, an act which brought the Thuc lines into the mainstream of the Catholic sedevacantist response, it led to a controversy among Catholics. This article, along with another that I will post tomorrow, “Notes Concerning the Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Dolan,” captures the controversy. Although, in my opinion, fwiw, I remain unconvinced of the arguments that cast doubt on the validity of the Thuc lines, the argument against the liceity of these acts is solid. Although, I will say this, that the whole matter as to validity, since the issue is being openly questioned with damaging testimony by witnesses, along with very strange and unCatholic actions by Thuc raises suspicions as to Thuc’s mental state, which must be submitted to the Holy See for an authoritative response. Until that happens, Catholics must rely on their own well informed conscience to form a moral certitude on the facts of the matter. No one can settle this dispute or bind anyone’s conscience except for the Holy See.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 17:14:06 GMT -5
I am thankful to read this. It explains a lot. I think the Thuc line is valid, but its origins are very bad. It would have been better for then Fr Sanborn and Fr Cekada just to be honest about it and state the facts plainly rather than pretending. This damage their credibility.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 23:28:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 25, 2022 10:57:33 GMT -5
Hi Resolution, The +Thuc situation was a mess, and we can only wish that things did not play out as they had. Due to +Thuc’s acts of consecrating bishops as he did, we now have in the world hundreds of “Traditional bishops,” many of whom to this day are still consecrating more. The damage done by this is incalculable. The damage, imo, goes far beyond the Palmerians and ex-Palmerians, as I see bad fruit with many others who either teach or impose the NUC doctrine on Catholics, the idea that the Apostolic successors can cease to be present in the world, the idea that traditional bishops can be the apostolic successors, and even now a Feeneyite Thuc line bishop. So the fruits haven’t been great, in my opinion, with the exception of CMRI and maybe some independent priests, who, among the groups, strives to maintain the minimalist role of traditional priests and just answer calls for the sacraments by starving laypeople. With that said, strictly looking at validly, can I ask you to read Mario Derksen’s study on this published in 2013. I know it’s long, but this is not a simple matter. His arguments are air tight, and he should be commended on putting together this well written work that stands the test of time, as no one on the other side has rebutted it, despite Mr. Derksen publishing it as an open letter and inviting them to do so. The study can be found here: www.thucbishops.com/Let me say one last thing on this topic: the SSPV have acted reprehensibly on this matter. It’s one thing to have doubts about sacramental validity, it’s quite another to usurp the powers of the hierarchy and bind Catholics to their opinion on this. The proper role they have is to submit their research to the Holy See and leave the binding to those given that power by Our Lord, which isn’t them. I also see them as cowards, as their position has been publicly challenged and rebutted very respectfully, but forcefully, by Mario Derksen, and almost 10 years later, there is still no response. If they care about truth, and as they are publicly spreading this opinion to Catholics, and even binding their consciences on this opinion, then they have an obligation to answer challenges to what they are teaching. One could easily see that they may have needed time to respond, to research the objections, and that is reasonable. But, to ignore serious challenges to their public position, and not even try to answer them after almost a decade is enough to suspect that they are running and hiding, in their isolated little sect, and are not behaving as Catholics.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2022 19:36:30 GMT -5
Thanks Pacelli . I think the authors of the above article I linked would have some problems with the following point made by Mario in his concluding remarks: John Kenneth Weiskittel writes: From the descriptions of Abp Thuc it seems likely that he was in the early stages of dementia and did not have the full command of reason at all times. This is certainly the most charitable explanation for his consecration of so many unworthy men, including apostates against anyones better judgement. I would be interested to know whether senility or dementia would preclude someone from giving the sacraments to others given it cannot be certain whether such a person would have full command of reason at any one point in time. This is the only point where I can see there being any legitimate opposition left to the validity of the Thuc consecrations. I do not buy Fr Cekada and Bp Sanborn's comments that to question Abp Thuc's health status is in any way calumnious. Given his behaviour it is the most charitable interpretation of his actions. Their behaviour actually reminds me of recent accusations against those who have expressed legitimate questions as to whether John Fetterman is fit to run for public office.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 26, 2022 10:50:26 GMT -5
Thanks Pacelli . I think the authors of the above article I linked would have some problems with the following point made by Mario in his concluding remarks: John Kenneth Weiskittel writes: From the descriptions of Abp Thuc it seems likely that he was in the early stages of dementia and did not have the full command of reason at all times. This is certainly the most charitable explanation for his consecration of so many unworthy men, including apostates against anyones better judgement. I would be interested to know whether senility or dementia would preclude someone from giving the sacraments to others given it cannot be certain whether such a person would have full command of reason at any one point in time. This is the only point where I can see there being any legitimate opposition left to the validity of the Thuc consecrations. I do not buy Fr Cekada and Bp Sanborn's comments that to question Abp Thuc's health status is in any way calumnious. Given his behaviour it is the most charitable interpretation of his actions. Their behaviour actually reminds me of recent accusations against those who have expressed legitimate questions as to whether John Fetterman is fit to run for public office. I’m not convinced that he was insane by any of the evidence as of yet. It’s not been proven. It’s also very possible that he was gullible and trusting as to why he did the many consecrations, including the Palmerians, and not due to insanity and having lost his mental faculties. If anyone is convinced by the arguments that support that he wasn’t in his right mind and was insane or senile, then they are free to follow that judgment and it’s ramifications. What people cannot do is elevate a private judgment to a binding authoritative judgment which is what we witnessed with SSPV. One last point: how did the Church ever make a determination that a person was insane, or was not of a right mind with dementia, or having any other medical condition that could be diagnosed to give certainty about whether one was truly afflicted with it? The Church relied on a good doctor to make such a determination who would then attest to his findings to the bishop. I am not living in a cloud and I realize that this was impossible to do since the 1970’s, but the principle to be applied which is the mind of the Church is to rely on a qualified doctor to make the judgment and the bishop who is the authority in the matter would make his authoritative judgment most likely on the report of the doctor. None of this happened in the case of +Thuc. Men who are laymen in terms of their qualifications of judging mental fitness have used certain stories of things that +Thuc said or did which they believe can be used to demonstrate senility or insanity and then proceed to make what is in essence expert judgment upon him. What is the training and education of the accusers of +Thuc on making judgments of mental illness, insanity or senility? How much time did they spend with him in making this judgment? What are their other experiences in making such judgments? Why, if this is such a clear and obvious fact are there many who knew +Thuc personally that did not make this judgment? Why are there many other stories of +Thuc saying and doing things which indicate that he was still in full possession of his faculties? It seems to me that these men are playing doctor and not admitting that on a matter such as this that they are laymen. They are outside of the scope of their training and expertise and are making judgments that go beyond their abilities. The case of +Thuc is not an obvious case that all can easily see of a man in an asylum banging his head on the wall, drooling and speaking incoherently! His case is complex, not simple, and that’s why medical and psychiatric laymen are hardly competent to make any certain judgment of his mental state. The onus is on the accuser, and they, in my opinion have not made a compelling case.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2022 17:58:42 GMT -5
I ask the question only because I don't presume senility to be equated with insanity. If Church law showed this to be the case then it would put it to rest and end the dispute. If not it remains an open question. Nonetheless I do think it important to answer this question.
NB: It isn't in my interest for this to be the case, however I do believe in the searching for truth and knowing the mind of the Church in all things.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 27, 2022 9:44:47 GMT -5
I ask the question only because I don't presume senility to be equated with insanity. If Church law showed this to be the case then it would put it to rest and end the dispute. If not it remains an open question. Nonetheless I do think it important to answer this question. NB: It isn't in my interest for this to be the case, however I do believe in the searching for truth and knowing the mind of the Church in all things. I agree with you that we must only be searching for the truth. Every assumption must be questioned. Every conclusion must be substantiated. Senility and mental illness up to and including insanity both fall under the same principle, as both problems lead to the same end. In both cases, the person afflicted is losing or has lost their mental faculties. If the person is in such a case where their mental faculties are open to question, then if we were living in ordinary times, the bishop would have the priest evaluated by a doctor and would act upon the report of a doctor. Was Archbishop Thuc in his right mind? I really don’t think we will ever know with absolute certainty. What we do know is that the consecrations of bishops by him were a fact, and no one is disputing that. We also know that the arguments presented that he was not on his right mind are not strong, as there is a lot of evidence by people who knew him which contradicts the narrative as put forward by the SSPV. I really think asking Archbishop Thuc to do these consecrations alone was a bad idea, as the Church uses co-consecrators for a good reason. Look at the mess we have now that these questions are raised. If there were other bishops co-consecrating, these issues would be non-issues, but here are are talking about it, and many are acting on it. I am not even convinced that consecrations of wandering bishops should be happening in the first place. These bishops are not needed to continue the apostolic succession, as they are not successors of the apostles, so the only justification could be to be sacramental bishops, but in practice, in many cases, that’s not what we are seeing. So, is it worth the risk of having bishops such as these when some behave and others, maybe even most do not? It’s certainly an open question. No one has ever convinced me that this is a practice that the Church allows in our circumstance. Anyway, I looked up the commentary on canon 984 which gives the mind of the Church on these issues of problems in the mind and body and how the Church legislated on them: archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1797/mode/2upI know this doesn’t directly deal with sacramental validity, but before you get there, it’s good to see how the Church dealt with making a determination that a priest/bishop was suffering from a problem which may cause a defect in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Jul 23, 2023 10:46:51 GMT -5
I ask the question only because I don't presume senility to be equated with insanity. If Church law showed this to be the case then it would put it to rest and end the dispute. If not it remains an open question. Nonetheless I do think it important to answer this question. NB: It isn't in my interest for this to be the case, however I do believe in the searching for truth and knowing the mind of the Church in all things. I agree with you that we must only be searching for the truth. Every assumption must be questioned. Every conclusion must be substantiated. Senility and mental illness up to and including insanity both fall under the same principle, as both problems lead to the same end. In both cases, the person afflicted is losing or has lost their mental faculties. If the person is in such a case where their mental faculties are open to question, then if we were living in ordinary times, the bishop would have the priest evaluated by a doctor and would act upon the report of a doctor. Was Archbishop Thuc in his right mind? I really don’t think we will ever know with absolute certainty. What we do know is that the consecrations of bishops by him were a fact, and no one is disputing that. We also know that the arguments presented that he was not on his right mind are not strong, as there is a lot of evidence by people who knew him which contradicts the narrative as put forward by the SSPV. I really think asking Archbishop Thuc to do these consecrations alone was a bad idea, as the Church uses co-consecrators for a good reason. Look at the mess we have now that these questions are raised. If there were other bishops co-consecrating, these issues would be non-issues, but here are are talking about it, and many are acting on it. I am not even convinced that consecrations of wandering bishops should be happening in the first place. These bishops are not needed to continue the apostolic succession, as they are not successors of the apostles, so the only justification could be to be sacramental bishops, but in practice, in many cases, that’s not what we are seeing. So, is it worth the risk of having bishops such as these when some behave and others, maybe even most do not? It’s certainly an open question. No one has ever convinced me that this is a practice that the Church allows in our circumstance. Anyway, I looked up the commentary on canon 984 which gives the mind of the Church on these issues of problems in the mind and body and how the Church legislated on them: archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1797/mode/2upI know this doesn’t directly deal with sacramental validity, but before you get there, it’s good to see how the Church dealt with making a determination that a priest/bishop was suffering from a problem which may cause a defect in the first place. Pacelli, I have not read the work of Mario Derksen, but I know the topics that he mentions here in broad strokes, I have a question. Does this work address the question that Bishop Thuc received a power to consecrate bishops without a Papal mandate? , in John Daly's articles he mentions on several occasions that this is a hoax but that the clergy who have believed this are not guilty of having believed it, and that leads me to the interview that they did to Bishop Guérard des Lauriers in the 80's www.sodalitiumpianum.it/interview-with-monsenor-guerard-des-lauriers/ and here he mentions this famous power that they gave to Thuc. ¿John Daly or another person ever showed or argued the evidence that this is a hoax? Did this famous power come from the mouth of Thuc himself or was it something that was born from others and awarded to Thuc? who told Guérard des Lauriers about this power?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 3, 2023 18:49:51 GMT -5
I agree with you that we must only be searching for the truth. Every assumption must be questioned. Every conclusion must be substantiated. Senility and mental illness up to and including insanity both fall under the same principle, as both problems lead to the same end. In both cases, the person afflicted is losing or has lost their mental faculties. If the person is in such a case where their mental faculties are open to question, then if we were living in ordinary times, the bishop would have the priest evaluated by a doctor and would act upon the report of a doctor. Was Archbishop Thuc in his right mind? I really don’t think we will ever know with absolute certainty. What we do know is that the consecrations of bishops by him were a fact, and no one is disputing that. We also know that the arguments presented that he was not on his right mind are not strong, as there is a lot of evidence by people who knew him which contradicts the narrative as put forward by the SSPV. I really think asking Archbishop Thuc to do these consecrations alone was a bad idea, as the Church uses co-consecrators for a good reason. Look at the mess we have now that these questions are raised. If there were other bishops co-consecrating, these issues would be non-issues, but here are are talking about it, and many are acting on it. I am not even convinced that consecrations of wandering bishops should be happening in the first place. These bishops are not needed to continue the apostolic succession, as they are not successors of the apostles, so the only justification could be to be sacramental bishops, but in practice, in many cases, that’s not what we are seeing. So, is it worth the risk of having bishops such as these when some behave and others, maybe even most do not? It’s certainly an open question. No one has ever convinced me that this is a practice that the Church allows in our circumstance. Anyway, I looked up the commentary on canon 984 which gives the mind of the Church on these issues of problems in the mind and body and how the Church legislated on them: archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n1797/mode/2upI know this doesn’t directly deal with sacramental validity, but before you get there, it’s good to see how the Church dealt with making a determination that a priest/bishop was suffering from a problem which may cause a defect in the first place. Pacelli, I have not read the work of Mario Derksen, but I know the topics that he mentions here in broad strokes, I have a question. Does this work address the question that Bishop Thuc received a power to consecrate bishops without a Papal mandate? , in John Daly's articles he mentions on several occasions that this is a hoax but that the clergy who have believed this are not guilty of having believed it, and that leads me to the interview that they did to Bishop Guérard des Lauriers in the 80's www.sodalitiumpianum.it/interview-with-monsenor-guerard-des-lauriers/ and here he mentions this famous power that they gave to Thuc. ¿John Daly or another person ever showed or argued the evidence that this is a hoax? Did this famous power come from the mouth of Thuc himself or was it something that was born from others and awarded to Thuc? who told Guérard des Lauriers about this power? Hello Didymus, Thank you for the question, and sorry for missing this post before. I can't remember the article (or articles) you mention from John Daly where he addressed this, can you post them for us here? I did research this question years ago, and here are my conclusions: 1. There is an impressive looking document all over the internet which seems to support this idea supposedly signed by Pope Pius XI which says: Here is one site among many that has this alleged document pictured: www.ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com/archbishop-thucThere are many problems with this however. There is absolutely no evidence that this is a legitimate document. One common thread among all these websites that have a photo of this alleged document is that they never source it. There are no footnotes leading to any way of authenticating it. In this website I just posted, it even states that Pope Pius XII renewed the powers given to Bishop Thuc in 1957. (I refer to Archbishop Thuc in this post as Bishop, not Archbishop, as at the time of Popes Pius XI and XII, which is what is under discussion, he was a bishop, not an Archbishop.) There is of course no proof given to support this. Even if it were a legitimate document, and I highly doubt it is legitimate to begin with, but either way we don't know which powers were granted to Bishop Thuc, presuming it is real. The alleged document does not name which powers the pope supposedly gave Bishop Thuc. 2. If it were a legitimate document and if the purpose was to give Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate and appoint bishops to sees in Vietnam without a papal mandate, then history shows that this power was never used. Therefore, on the matter of the Apostolic Succesion, this document has no value, even if it were legitimate. 3. There is also absolutely no evidence that Pope Pius XI gave Bishop Thuc any power to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Vietnam. 4. Even if this document were legitimate, it would have to be demonstrated that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII authorized Bishop Thuc to consecrate "sacramental" bishops outside of Vietnam, and in the European countries where he did these consecrations. Anyone with any knowledge of how the Church works, would immediately know that this never would have happened. 5. The website I gave above, along with other similar websites also assert that according to a Fr. Lesourd, Pope Pius XI said to Bishop Thuc: I also highly doubt that the Pope Pius XI would have ever said such a thing. The onus is on those making this claim, and the claim that Pope Pius XI gave Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate bishops in Vietnam without papal approval, to substantiate these claims with evidence or retract them. Personally, I think this alleged statement is bunk. 6. To sum up, I strongly believe this document is a fake, as no one who supports its legitimacy has ever bothered to provide any support to demonstrate it is legitimate. All they do is put up this photo of a document that is not authenticated and expect people to just uncritically buy into their narrative. Even if it was legitimate, we don't know what powers the Pope gave to Bishop Thuc. Even if the Pope did give Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate and appoint bishops in Vietnam without a direct papal mandate, due to the danger of communism in that country, there isn't a shred of evidence that this power would have extended beyond Vietnam. There is also no evidence that Bishop Thuc ever used this alleged power anyway, while he was a bishop in Vietnam. Lastly, there is no evidence to support the idea that Popes Pius XI and XII gave Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate strictly sacramental bishops who would not be appointed to a diocesan see, and would have an independent status in the Church, which is what is under discussion anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 3, 2023 19:38:23 GMT -5
Pacelli, I have not read the work of Mario Derksen, but I know the topics that he mentions here in broad strokes, I have a question. Does this work address the question that Bishop Thuc received a power to consecrate bishops without a Papal mandate? , in John Daly's articles he mentions on several occasions that this is a hoax but that the clergy who have believed this are not guilty of having believed it, and that leads me to the interview that they did to Bishop Guérard des Lauriers in the 80's www.sodalitiumpianum.it/interview-with-monsenor-guerard-des-lauriers/ and here he mentions this famous power that they gave to Thuc. ¿John Daly or another person ever showed or argued the evidence that this is a hoax? Did this famous power come from the mouth of Thuc himself or was it something that was born from others and awarded to Thuc? who told Guérard des Lauriers about this power? Hello Didymus, Thank you for the question, and sorry for missing this post before. I can't remember the article (or articles) you mention from John Daly where he addressed this, can you post them for us here? I did research this question years ago, and here are my conclusions: 1. There is an impressive looking document all over the internet which seems to support this idea supposedly signed by Pope Pius XI which says: Here is one site among many that has this alleged document pictured: www.ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com/archbishop-thucThere are many problems with this however. There is absolutely evidence that this is a legitimate document. One common thread among all these websites that have a photo of this alleged document is that they never source it. There are no footnotes leading to any way of authenticating it. In this website I just posted, it even states that Pope Pius XII renewed the powers given to Bishop Thuc in 1957. (I refer to Archbishop Thuc in this post as Bishop, not Archbishop, as at the time of Popes Pius XI and XII, which is what is under discussion, he was a bishop, not an Archbishop.) There is of course no proof given to support this. Even if it were a legitimate document, and I highly doubt it is legitimate to begin with, but either way we don't know which powers were granted to Bishop Thuc, presuming it is real. The alleged document does not name which powers the pope supposedly gave Bishop Thuc. 2. If it were a legitimate document and if the purpose was to give Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate and appoint bishops to sees in Vietnam without a papal mandate, then history shows that this power was never used. Therefore, on the matter of the Apostolic Succesion, this document has no value, even if it were legitimate. 3. There is also absolutely no evidence that Pope Pius XI gave Bishop Thuc any power to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Vietnam. 4. Even if this document were legitimate, it would have to be demonstrated that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII authorized Bishop Thuc to consecrate "sacramental" bishops outside of Vietnam, and in the European countries where he did these consecrations. Anyone with any knowledge of how the Church works, would immediately know that this never would have happened. 5. The website I gave above, along with other similar websites also assert that according to a Fr. Lesourd, Pope Pius XI said to Bishop Thuc: I also highly doubt that the Pope Pius XI would have ever said such a thing. The onus is on those making this claim, and the claim that Pope Pius XI gave Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate bishops in Vietnam without papal approval, to substantiate these claims with evidence or retract them. Personally, I think this alleged statement is bunk. 6. To sum up, I strongly believe this document is a fake, as no one who supports its legitimacy has ever bothered to provide any support to demonstrate it is legitimate. All they do is put up this photo of a document that is not authenticated and expect people to just uncritically buy into their narrative. Even if it was legitimate, we don't know what powers the Pope gave to Bishop Thuc. Even if the Pope did give Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate and appoint bishops in Vietnam without a direct papal mandate, due to the danger of communism in that country, there isn't a shred of evidence that this power would have extended beyond Vietnam. There is also no evidence that Bishop Thuc ever used this alleged power anyway, while he was a bishop in Vietnam. Lastly, there is no evidence to support the idea that Popes Pius XI and XII gave Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate strictly sacramental bishops who would not be appointed to a diocesan see, and would have an independent status in the Church, which is what is under discussion anyway. Excellent analysis Pacelli thank you very much for your very detailed answer, it was exactly what I was looking for, although it is no longer relevant, John Daly's statement can be seen in his work "The brussels Syllabus commented". Certainly I believed it at first, but later I began to suspect about this, and the key point is in the Apostolic Succession, all that paperwork does not make any sense if it made bishops without jurisdiction. This leads me to another question but I can't find the exact quote I apologize for this, so I can only cite more or less how it remained in my memory, I read the matter in the Bellarmine Forum, in a discussion that I don't remember the topic either but it was within the context that as long as the legitimate authority of the Church does not declare the Vacant See it does not have any power to link the consciences of the Catholics by those members who hold it as a thesis, however a person made an objection to him about Thuc, Thuc declared the Vacant Headquarters in the 80s Wasn't this a legitimate authority certainly and therefore the vacant see would have some power by a successor of the apostles? John lane responded something like "I have my doubts about this". Sorry I can't quote verbatim and be more precise but it's hard to search the Archive. What do you think about that Thuc statement had any weight?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 4, 2023 7:02:00 GMT -5
Didymus, Thank you for providing the Daly quote, I had forgotten where he wrote that. The declaration you are referring to from Archbishop Thuc is found on the CMRI website linked HERE
First, regarding the hierarchy, if a bishop or some bishops, or even many bishops declare the see vacant as the present occupier is a heretic and not a Catholic, it would only have any legal effect over their own dioceses. If the bishop did this in the spirit of schism or was acting against a true Pope, it would most likely cause a schism within his own diocese, so these matters are extremely delicate, and such a bishop must be certain on this matter before taking any such action. This makes me think of how great the burden was on Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, in trying to work out with certainty the status of John Paul II, and whether or not to make a declaration and call for a council to elect a Pope. There really isn't an identical legal precedent in the Church for a situation like ours. There is the western schism, but all in that schism were not schismatics, as all followed good reasoning on who the pope was and were acting in good conscience. During this period, it is certain there was a true pope, it just wasn't clear to all on which one was the pope. The bishops who make such a declaration could then call for a papal election, which would then be a call to any remaining cardinals, and if none were found, then the right of election would fall to the hierarchy or the clerics of Rome. Archbishop Thuc never took it to the next step and called for a council to determine this fact for the Church, and to either call for the remaining cardinals to elect, or for the bishops who were the successors of the Apostles themselves to elect. If Archbishop Thuc contested his resignation, and claimed to still be the Archbishop of Huế when he made this declaration in 1982, it might be arguable that he could then, as the local ordinary, make this declaration for his own flock, but it certainly wouldn't extend to the universal Church. This never happened, however, so it's all hypothetical anyway. Regarding +Thuc, another point to consider is that he resigned in February, 1968, and the new bishop was appointed in March, 1968, and that was prior to Paul VI's new ordination rites being imposed, so it seems that the new bishop's appointment would have served the common good of the diocese, as he was validly consecrated and would have been providing valid sacraments to the Catholics of the Archdiocese, so any argument against the validity of Paul VI's acceptance of Thuc's resignation is at least debatable, and it appears to me at least that it would have been valid as the condition needed for supplied jurisdiction is clear, as there was a common error in the belief that Paul VI was Pope, and this act would have benefited the common good.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 4, 2023 9:31:54 GMT -5
I would like to add to my last post above. I am not completely certain that if a single bishop, absent a judgment from a council, that the Roman See is vacant could on his own bind his diocese to his judgment, and further, I am by that not certain that his priests must remove the alleged pope's name from the canon.
I think an argument could be made that the most he could do is call for a council to make a declaration, then proceed to either elect themselves or call for a council to elect. We are in uncharted water, so I don't want to make it look like things are very clear on how a remedy to this situation can or will take place.
The legal precedent that we do have is canon 10 from the Fourth Council of Constantinople which says:
I realize that this law is not in force currently, but what it does give us is the mind of the Church and guidance on how to navigate the current crisis. If a synod was required before judging, and acting upon that judgment, in regards to Metropolitans or Patriarchs, how much more so is this necessary in regards to the man that is thought to be the Pope?
It is a complex matter to navigate, as on one hand heresy must be avoided, but on the other judging another of heresy is not an easy matter, and even when judgments are made by individuals, they are not the judgment of the Church.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 369
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 4, 2023 17:36:10 GMT -5
Pacelli, I have not read the work of Mario Derksen, but I know the topics that he mentions here in broad strokes, I have a question. Does this work address the question that Bishop Thuc received a power to consecrate bishops without a Papal mandate? , in John Daly's articles he mentions on several occasions that this is a hoax but that the clergy who have believed this are not guilty of having believed it, and that leads me to the interview that they did to Bishop Guérard des Lauriers in the 80's www.sodalitiumpianum.it/interview-with-monsenor-guerard-des-lauriers/ and here he mentions this famous power that they gave to Thuc. ¿John Daly or another person ever showed or argued the evidence that this is a hoax? Did this famous power come from the mouth of Thuc himself or was it something that was born from others and awarded to Thuc? who told Guérard des Lauriers about this power? The link to the interview brings up a 404 error. Do you have any other?
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 369
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 4, 2023 17:44:06 GMT -5
Hello Didymus, Thank you for the question, and sorry for missing this post before. I can't remember the article (or articles) you mention from John Daly where he addressed this, can you post them for us here? I did research this question years ago, and here are my conclusions: 1. There is an impressive looking document all over the internet which seems to support this idea supposedly signed by Pope Pius XI which says: Here is one site among many that has this alleged document pictured: www.ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com/archbishop-thucThere are many problems with this however. There is absolutely no evidence that this is a legitimate document. One common thread among all these websites that have a photo of this alleged document is that they never source it. There are no footnotes leading to any way of authenticating it. In this website I just posted, it even states that Pope Pius XII renewed the powers given to Bishop Thuc in 1957. (I refer to Archbishop Thuc in this post as Bishop, not Archbishop, as at the time of Popes Pius XI and XII, which is what is under discussion, he was a bishop, not an Archbishop.) There is of course no proof given to support this. Even if it were a legitimate document, and I highly doubt it is legitimate to begin with, but either way we don't know which powers were granted to Bishop Thuc, presuming it is real. The alleged document does not name which powers the pope supposedly gave Bishop Thuc. 2. If it were a legitimate document and if the purpose was to give Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate and appoint bishops to sees in Vietnam without a papal mandate, then history shows that this power was never used. Therefore, on the matter of the Apostolic Succesion, this document has no value, even if it were legitimate. 3. There is also absolutely no evidence that Pope Pius XI gave Bishop Thuc any power to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Vietnam. 4. Even if this document were legitimate, it would have to be demonstrated that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII authorized Bishop Thuc to consecrate "sacramental" bishops outside of Vietnam, and in the European countries where he did these consecrations. Anyone with any knowledge of how the Church works, would immediately know that this never would have happened. 5. The website I gave above, along with other similar websites also assert that according to a Fr. Lesourd, Pope Pius XI said to Bishop Thuc: I also highly doubt that the Pope Pius XI would have ever said such a thing. The onus is on those making this claim, and the claim that Pope Pius XI gave Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate bishops in Vietnam without papal approval, to substantiate these claims with evidence or retract them. Personally, I think this alleged statement is bunk. 6. To sum up, I strongly believe this document is a fake, as no one who supports its legitimacy has ever bothered to provide any support to demonstrate it is legitimate. All they do is put up this photo of a document that is not authenticated and expect people to just uncritically buy into their narrative. Even if it was legitimate, we don't know what powers the Pope gave to Bishop Thuc. Even if the Pope did give Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate and appoint bishops in Vietnam without a direct papal mandate, due to the danger of communism in that country, there isn't a shred of evidence that this power would have extended beyond Vietnam. There is also no evidence that Bishop Thuc ever used this alleged power anyway, while he was a bishop in Vietnam. Lastly, there is no evidence to support the idea that Popes Pius XI and XII gave Bishop Thuc the power to consecrate strictly sacramental bishops who would not be appointed to a diocesan see, and would have an independent status in the Church, which is what is under discussion anyway. Having visited the website that you linked it claims that there was "a parallel case in which identical powers were conceded by Pius XI to Mgr d'Herbigny (S.J.) as was reportedly recorded in the book of Father Paul Lesourd, published by Lethielleux Editions under the title "Le Jesuite clandestine." Here is the translation: The website claims that "The two cases are analogous. With this Act of the Holy See, the two bishops received pontifical powers, similar to those of Patriarchs. The details of these powers are explained by Pius XI himself, as reported by Father Lesourd in the following terms: Has this claim been investigated? How the powers of the Papacy and those of Patriarchs similar as discussed above?
|
|