Thuc Consecrations

Thuc Consecrations 2019-09-22

Comments (Posts 12/13):
Once they created the initial FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) about the consecrations, the average lay person was scared enough of even the POSSIBILITY that their Sacraments might be invalid that even the most solid refutation could not offset that. SSPV preyed on people's scruples and started by articulating the tutiorist principles in such a way as to fan the flames of negative doubt. What they did there was very serious. Bishop Sanborn quoted Father Kelly as once having said, "We can't say the Thuc bishops are valid, since people might go to them." So from that moment on, it was suspect whether Father Kelly was approaching this matter in the interests of ascertaining the truth. In fact, Dierksen cites cases where Father Kelly so badly distorted and misrepresented his sources (in out-of-context quotations) that it's difficult to believe those were simple mistakes and not done deliberately......

...the SSPV case against the Thuc line holds NO WATER whatsoever, and it was extremely irresponsible. Father Kelly quite literally pulled these made-up principles out of thin air and then found some out-of-context quotes to back them up.

This requirement that "competent" witnesses are required who can attest specifically to whether the matter and form were correctly applied simply does not exist. As long as the minister has been properly trained, e.g. a bishop like Thuc who had been a seminary professor and who had personally consecrated a number of men before Vatican II, the competence of the minister is presumed. During the Cold War, bishops were clandestinely consecrated with no witnesses present (to minimize the risk), and their validity was never doubted by the Church. In fact, +Thuc himself had one of these commissions to consecrate bishops clandestinely ... since he was operating in Communist territory. One could argue, even, that, if there were no legit popes since Pius XII, his permission to consecrate endured ... and one could even make a case that they were done with all necessary jurisdiction.

I mean, what if the priest had botched the Baptism Rite of a man who was being consecrated? Then he wouldn't be a valid bishop. Was there anyone present who could swear that the priest poured water correctly on the infant's head and said the proper Latin formula? Such testimony was never demanded by the Church. Even though it's theoretically possible that it was botched, the Church leaves it to God's providence to take care of such matters.

What if I'm assisting at Mass? Could I please get an altar boy trained in Latin to sign off that the priest got the words of consecration right before I go to receive Holy Communion? According to Father Kelly, I can never receive Holy Communion, then, since I would have to hold the consecration to be doubtful due to lack of sufficient witnesses.

It's utter nonsense.

___________________________________________

For Audio Files:
Thuc Bishops and the Errors in “The Sacred and the Profane”
Author :

Mario Derksen
NB. Mario Derksen's views on sedevacantism are not shared by this Administration. We post his refutation as a stand-alone piece for its objectivity.

ETA : Since Pope Francis is true pope, to assist at the Mass of a sedevacantist validly ordained priest of the Thuc not united to the Pope would be uncatholic. The period between the death or resignation of a Pope and the election of his successor, when the See of Peter is vacant, is called the Interregnum. This Latin term means between the reign (of one Pope and another). It is a period governed by papal law, which admits of no changes to Church governance, or to the spiritual or material patrimony of St. Peter, save the election of his successor. For a Catholic to hold that the see of Peter is vacant is a private opinion only, resulting in people now acting according to their consciences. Regarding faith and morals a true Catholic is not entitled to private opinions.

This definition has no resemblance to the true meaning.

..
Author
Admin
Downloads
7
Views
103
First release
Last update
Rating
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings
Top