|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 5, 2023 8:07:54 GMT -5
John Lewis wrote: I am familiar with the case of Mgr d'Herbigny. It's been written about and I am certain it is true. You can read more on it here: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1255/secret-clergy-communist-czechoslovakiaWhat I was not sure about is who this "Fr. Paul Lesourd" was, so I did some digging. The website obviously didn't verify things, as there is no "Father" Paul Lesourd, only Paul Lesourd, who was a historian, not a priest. Here is a book review on his book: biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rcl/06-4_252.pdfAnyway, there is no doubt that a Pope could grant powers to a bishop to clandestinely consecrate bishops and fill sees with his approval. Popes can authorize alternate methods of appointing bishops as they see fit, so this is nothing new. What we don't know is whether Pope Pius XI, followed by Pius XII authorized +Thuc to consecrate bishops in this manner in Vietnam. There is no evidence that this document is authentic, as none of those asserting it have proven it. Also, hypothetically, let's say the Pius XI document was authenticated and the Pope did really give +Thuc some powers known to him, that does not mean that the powers given to +Thuc would have been identical to those given to Mgr d'Herbigny. Nothing has been proven by those who asserting all of this. It has all appearances of being made up as it is unsourced and unauthenticated, and it doesn't pass the smell test. John Lewis wrote:Yes, the website claims this by blending the unverified case of +Thuc with the verified case of Mgr d'Herbigny. As said above, what the author on the website failed to do is prove that +Thuc received these powers from Pope Pius XI and the document is authentic. John Lewis wrote:The Pope can grant the Patriarch as much power in the Church as he sees fit, excepting things only a Pope can only do himself by the nature of his office. He could, for example, grant a patriarch the power to select and consecrate bishops for his rite without notifying Rome. To give another example, if you ever read on Papal legates, they could act in the Pope's name and with his authority, to even approve decrees or canons in an ecumenical council, and it would have the same binding force as though the Pope personally and directly approved the document. One last point to this matter: let's say for the sake of argument that +Thuc received the power to consecrate bishops with no limitations at all, outside Vietnam, and anywhere in the world, and that these bishops would not only be valid but licit, and he was given power to fill vacant sees anywhere in the world, the fact is that all of the bishops consecrated by +Thuc are dead, so the point is moot anyway. Anyone thinking the Apostolic succession could have been transmitted in this manner is living a fantasy, not in reality. The sacramental bishops consecrated by +Thuc never received any papal approval to continue consecrating more bishops, and they never made the claim that +Thuc had the power granted by the Pope to appoint them to a diocesan see, and then assumed the office and began governing a diocese, so this whole matter is a dead end, even if the initial matter of the Pius XI decree were proven to be authentic. The apostolic succession never continued with the +Thuc lines. Everything being done by these sacramental bishops is all based on an opinion that these actions of consecrating sacramental bishops in our situation is permitted by the Church as it for the salvation of souls and overrides all other law. But, on the other side of this, one may argue that these laws forbidding such consecrations also protect the salvation of souls by protecting the flock of Christ from men who may be wolves and endanger their souls. When a man dressed as a bishop presents himself to Catholics and by his appearance and words speaks and acts in a manner of authority, it certainly could fool Catholics into uncritically just trusting him, and what he says, and submitting to him. It also seems to me that as this crisis continues that many of these bishops are no longer regarding themselves strictly as "sacramental bishops" and are doing things and saying things that indicate that they now believe they are something more than that, up to and including claiming to be successors of the Apostles. It also seems obvious to me that many who go to traditional chapels no longer regard these bishops as only "sacramental bishops," but now treat them as successors of the Apostles.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 5, 2023 12:19:25 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 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. Here are several questions that arise to me if we assume that the document could be false ¿what reason Bishop Guerard would be lying about these powers given to Thuc, would there be any reasonable reason to doubt the credibility of his person? Pacelli when you say me : " "(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." Are you talking about Thuc's time after his retire ¿right? and that he was no longer Archbishop or are you saying that he never was? . Bishop Guerard speaks of him as an Archbishop in times of Pius XII also here it is affirming that Thuc was Archbishop for Thuc. I'm sorry for not knowing how to use these posters to generate quotes, but I attach question number 7 from the interview in Soladitium magazine, here Bishop Guerard appears talking about these powers and other issues. www.sodalitium.eu/interview-de-monseigneur-guerard-lauriers/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7) Sodalicio : Monsignor, in 1981 he was consecrated bishop by Monsignor Thuc. This bishop was not always clear in his actions. After this Consecration, you were "excommunicated" by Cardinal Ratzinger. What's up with that? Bishop Guérard : I received the Episcopal Consecration on May 7, 1981, from the hands of Bishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc. I affirm that this Consecration is valid, legal as far as possible, perfectly lawful. We call: "legal", what complies with the letter of the law. We call lawful what is in accordance with the object of the law. The virtue of epikie consists in neglecting the "letter", if this turns out to be contrary to the "objective". [Q.] The consecration is valid Whereas: 1) the traditional rite has been fully observed [except for the reading of the “Roman Mandate”!]; 2) Bishop Thuc and I intended to do what the Church intends to do. [II.] The consecration is legal, to the extent possible. Indeed, it should be known that, by a Brief dated March 15, 1938, Pius XI instituted Bishop Thuc as his legate [“deputamus in Nostrum Legatum Petrum Martinum Ngô-dinh-Thuc Episcopum titularem Sæsinensem ad fines Nobis notos, cum omnibus necessariis facultatibus”]. Monsignor Thuc, therefore, had the power to consecrate bishops, WITHOUT PREVIOUS reference to the Holy See, and therefore without a “Roman mandate”. Monsignor Thuc maintained this SAME power, when he was instituted Archbishop of Hué by Pius XII. The proof is that it was he, Msgr. Thuc, and not the Apostolic Administrator, who elected and consecrated all the Bishops of Vietnam between 1940 and 1950 [Msgr. Thuc explained it to me in person, and not without insistent malice, the reason ( hidden and real!). In this way, pensions, expenses in case of illness, etc. of said bishops, these charges, therefore, fell on the faithful of Vietnam; whereas they would have fallen in "Rome", if these same Bishops had been consecrated by the Apostolic Administrator]. Whatever this "entertaining" [!] "purpose" may be, the fact remains that, from the strict point of view of the formal cause, "Rome" IN FACT, under Pius XII, confirmed Bishop Thuc in his powers and prerogatives of Legacy. . Monsignor Thuc was aware of having consecrated them and shared them orally with several people: "When these Documents are found after my death...!" But these Documents were brought to light, and "updated", very late [they went through multiple and dangerous vicissitudes], and for this reason it was not possible to report on them as it would have been opportune. Therefore, it is in good faith and even with all frankness that Bishop Thuc proceeded to: Consecrations and Ordinations. He rightly thought that he had the canon right to do so, since this right had not been taken away from him. Are these consecrations and ordinations, made by Bishop Thuc, “legal”, that is, according to the letter of the law? For them to be perfectly, it would have been necessary that AFTER [not "before" since Monsignor Thuc had the legal power] of the act carried out, Monsignor Thuc sent to the Authority. But Bishop Thuc held, like myself, that there is no longer any Authority; although, paradoxically and very regrettably, he also insisted on looking good with the "authority" (6). [Read Authority = true Authority, for which there is currently a “formal vacancy”; authority = PSEUDO-Authority that has been raging since December 7, 1965]. Hence, two consequences: From the OBJECTIVE point of view, that is, if we consider in themselves the Consecrations and Ordinations performed by Monsignor Thuc, they are as “Legal as could be [and as can be!]. Because, on the one hand, Bishop Thuc had the legal power to fulfill them without a “Roman mandate” ; and on the other hand, it was and still is impossible to "declare" these consecrations and Ordinations to an Authority that, in fact and as such, does not exist. The "legality" of said Consecrations and Ordinations is in a STATE OF PRIVATION, since EVERYTHING is currently in the militant Church, due to the "formal vacancy" of the Apostolic See. From the SUBJECTIVE point of view, that is, if we consider said Consecrations and Ordinations as one of Bishop Thuc's behaviors, it is clear that they were for him the "sword of Pain" and the Stone of Scandal. They demanded that he break with "Roma", and he did so verbally: but he wanted, for "reasons of the heart", to forgive "Roma", and he was trapped where he died. “Noli judicare si non vis errare”. Whatever this intimate agony, and the Judgment of God, it remains that the Consecrations and Ordinations carried out by Monsignor Thuc are as legal as possible, participating according to the proper way of his nature in the state of deprivation that currently affects the entire militant Church, and differently each of its components... The Mystical Body Church, Bride of Christ, being a virgin, also on earth, of all privation.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 5, 2023 14:51:43 GMT -5
Didymus wrote:No one has accused +Guerard of a lie, including me. I do not believe he lied, but may have been mistaken on the facts. In times such as this, you cannot just ask Rome or your local bishop for answers to this and all sorts of other questions and just trust them, as you could in normal times. We live in times when you must verify everything, as even good people are misinformed and oftentimes have hidden biases that they may not even see in themselves. Didymus wrote:+Thuc was elevated to Archbishop in 1960 by John XXIII. This is a matter of public record. You can read about his appointment here: www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bngo.htmlDidymus wrote:It's ok, I know what you are saying. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:It's legal as far as his opinion goes. Let him cite the law which says that an episcopal consecration such as this is legal. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:I have no doubt that it was valid. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:It's possible that this is true, just not proven. Msgr. Guerard is relying on the memory of Archbishop Thuc, and is taking that as his proof. There are many unanswered questions: What were the exact powers given to +Thuc by Pope Pius XI and XII? Were these powers only to be used in Vietnam, or could they be used anywhere in the universal Church? Was the intent of the Pope to fill vacancies in dioceses or to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Vietnam? Did +Thuc's authorization from the Pope allow him to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Europe? +Guerard says that he acted in good faith according the way he understood it, and that's fine, no one, including myself is saying otherwise. Good men can make wrong judgments and not be acting in bad Faith. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:This is an opinion, that in the absence of the authority, the pope, that consecrations done in this manner of creating sacramental bishops is licit. It's very important to grasp that this is only an opinion. You will find no approved source that defends this practice. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:But, where is the proof that +Thuc could do these specific consecrations according to the alleged powers he received from Pius XI and Pius XII? As said above, we don't know exactly what powers he received, the area that he was allowed to use these powers, i.e., Vietnam, or the entire world, the duration that these powers would last, and how these powers were to be used, i.e., filling empty sees or consecrating "sacramental" bishops. There are many unanswered questions and no documents that show any of this. All of it is based on the memory of one old man who is accused of having a fragile mind, at minimum. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:True, but does that mean that in a situation such as this that "sacramental" bishops are permitted by law? The law doesn't say this, so all we have is an opinion that this is licit. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:This is one narrative, that +Thuc was trapped where he died, but I've not seen proof. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:The term, "legal as possible," is not found in Canon Law or any canonist. It is an opinion that such consecrations are licit, nothing more. If a traditional bishop decided it was necessary to consecrate 10,000 new bishops, would it be licit or not according to this idea? Why or why not? If he believed that the Church was in danger, and the supreme law was the salvation of souls, and that all other law is secondary, why could he not do it? What about 100,000 bishops ? Why or why not? According to the new opinion, there really is no limit to what can be done, so long as the traditional bishop determines that it is necessary, and the men to be consecrated agree to be consecrated. There is no real check on any bishop, it all relies on what his subjective judgment decides, and according to this opinion, it is always licit.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Aug 6, 2023 0:50:42 GMT -5
John Lewis wrote: I am familiar with the case of Mgr d'Herbigny. It's been written about and I am certain it is true. You can read more on it here: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1255/secret-clergy-communist-czechoslovakiaWhat I was not sure about is who this "Fr. Paul Lesourd" was, so I did some digging. The website obviously didn't verify things, as there is no "Father" Paul Lesourd, only Paul Lesourd, who was a historian, not a priest. Here is a book review on his book: biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rcl/06-4_252.pdfAnyway, there is no doubt that a Pope could grant powers to a bishop to clandestinely consecrate bishops and fill sees with his approval. Popes can authorize alternate methods of appointing bishops as they see fit, so this is nothing new. What we don't know is whether Pope Pius XI, followed by Pius XII authorized +Thuc to consecrate bishops in this manner in Vietnam. There is no evidence that this document is authentic, as none of those asserting it have proven it. Also, hypothetically, let's say the Pius XI document was authenticated and the Pope did really give +Thuc some powers known to him, that does not mean that the powers given to +Thuc would have been identical to those given to Mgr d'Herbigny. I found the linked book to be very interesting. I wasn’t aware that bi-ritual priests were possible. This could be a means of obtaining a mission from the Church for Latin Rite priests.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Aug 6, 2023 17:34:13 GMT -5
Didymus wrote:No one has accused +Guerard of a lie, including me. I do not believe he lied, but may have been mistaken on the facts. In times such as this, you cannot just ask Rome or your local bishop for answers to this and all sorts of other questions and just trust them, as you could in normal times. We live in times when you must verify everything, as even good people are misinformed and oftentimes have hidden biases that they may not even see in themselves. Didymus wrote:+Thuc was elevated to Archbishop in 1960 by John XXIII. This is a matter of public record. You can read about his appointment here: www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bngo.htmlDidymus wrote:It's ok, I know what you are saying. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:It's legal as far as his opinion goes. Let him cite the law which says that an episcopal consecration such as this is legal. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:I have no doubt that it was valid. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:It's possible that this is true, just not proven. Msgr. Guerard is relying on the memory of Archbishop Thuc, and is taking that as his proof. There are many unanswered questions: What were the exact powers given to +Thuc by Pope Pius XI and XII? Were these powers only to be used in Vietnam, or could they be used anywhere in the universal Church? Was the intent of the Pope to fill vacancies in dioceses or to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Vietnam? Did +Thuc's authorization from the Pope allow him to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Europe? +Guerard says that he acted in good faith according the way he understood it, and that's fine, no one, including myself is saying otherwise. Good men can make wrong judgments and not be acting in bad Faith. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:This is an opinion, that in the absence of the authority, the pope, that consecrations done in this manner of creating sacramental bishops is licit. It's very important to grasp that this is only an opinion. You will find no approved source that defends this practice. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:But, where is the proof that +Thuc could do these specific consecrations according to the alleged powers he received from Pius XI and Pius XII? As said above, we don't know exactly what powers he received, the area that he was allowed to use these powers, i.e., Vietnam, or the entire world, the duration that these powers would last, and how these powers were to be used, i.e., filling empty sees or consecrating "sacramental" bishops. There are many unanswered questions and no documents that show any of this. All of it is based on the memory of one old man who is accused of having a fragile mind, at minimum. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:True, but does that mean that in a situation such as this that "sacramental" bishops are permitted by law? The law doesn't say this, so all we have is an opinion that this is licit. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:This is one narrative, that +Thuc was trapped where he died, but I've not seen proof. Didymus wrote quoting Bishop Guerard des Lauriers:The term, "legal as possible," is not found in Canon Law or any canonist. It is an opinion that such consecrations are licit, nothing more. If a traditional bishop decided it was necessary to consecrate 10,000 new bishops, would it be licit or not according to this idea? Why or why not? If he believed that the Church was in danger, and the supreme law was the salvation of souls, and that all other law is secondary, why could he not do it? What about 100,000 bishops ? Why or why not? According to the new opinion, there really is no limit to what can be done, so long as the traditional bishop determines that it is necessary, and the men to be consecrated agree to be consecrated. There is no real check on any bishop, it all relies on what his subjective judgment decides, and according to this opinion, it is always licit. I believe what you say ": Would these powers be used only in Vietnam, or could they be used anywhere in the universal Church? Was it the intention of the Pope to fill vacancies in dioceses or to consecrate "sacramental" bishops in Vietnam?" This is a heavy burden on the authenticity of the document, clearly I do not believe that these Popes were thinking of and wandering Bishops without Office. I'm just curious about the point, why did Thuc transmit something like this without going into details of these powers? Another legend is the supposed "kidnapping" of Thuc that even some of his clergy seem to affirm that this was the case. Where do all these things come from? , all this is curious.
|
|