Sedevacantist Roots in Eastern Canada - Thuc line?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 149
  • Start date

Deleted member 149

After the opening of “canadafidele,” the new website of Fr. Roy, who says he is “una cum petro”(1), it seems necessary to explain the roots of sedevacantism in eastern Canada.

The sedevacantism in Eastern Canada came from different sedevacantist priests.

1) In the Maritimes, most of the Fr. Roy’s missions used to be under the ministry of a Canadian (?) priest, Fr. Daniel Ahern, who abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre the day he was ordained to join “the nine”.

2) Fr. Roy’s mission in Levis, that he shares with Fr. Pinaud (and now Fr. Romero), is made up of parishioners who were influenced by:

Fr. Noel Barbara (from France)

Fr. Roger Guéguen (SSPX priest from France and still residing in Quebec) who made an agreement more than 15 years ago with Bp. Fellay, that he could remain “sedevac” inside the SSPX.

Fr. Gilles Roger (from France) http://www.catholique-sedevacantist...nt-en-france-jusqu-au-4-octobre-84600580.html (standing in photo behind Dolan)

3) In Drummondville and Montreal, most of Fr. Roy’s parishioners are recruits of Fr. Roger Guéguen, who is probably waiting for “the seal” of Pope Francis before he joins his sedevacantist “apprentice,” Fr. Roy.

4) Finally, in Ottawa, the coordinator of the mission is a former parishioner of Fr. Daniel Ahern in Halifax.

Reading the comment of Fr. Roy in his last communiqué - “The assistance at Masses other than those of Father Pinaud and myself has nothing to do with my ministry” (January 21, 2017) - and seeing that he accepted to be replaced by Fr. Romero in Beaumont, Quebec, on January, 22, 2017, it is reasonable to ask oneself: Is Fr. Roy also going to allow his faithful to choose a so-called “Thuc-line bishop” for the sacrament of Confirmation, since that also “has nothing to do with his ministry?”

(see the picture of Fr. Roger and Fr. Romero on each side of the “so-called” bishop, Dolan, from the Thuc line).

N.B. The president of the trad-ecuminical SSPX group,“Tradition Quebec,” has just closed down his website and joined the declared “una cum petro” group of Fr. Roy. Another one falls in the trap.


(1) There has been a new strategy some sedevacantists use to now claim themselves to be “una cum” in their masses when someone asks them, when in fact it is deceptive, without identifying what they really stand for.

These sedevacantists do this by substituting the name of the present Pope, Francis, in their Masses, and replace it with the name "petro" (St. Peter), and say - “una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro petro” instead of "una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco". Which means "One with thy servant, our Pope Francis".

So when someone will say to them: Fr. Roy, are you “una cum?”, he’ll truthfully answer: “Yes, I’m “una cum.” This way, he doesn’t reveal the fact that he doesn’t put the name of Pope Francis in the Mass. He puts a sort of “generic” name in, to be able to say that he is “una cum.”

Nice trick. Nice try.
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 149

Regarding the "una cum" prayer in the mass, Archbishop Lefebvre was clear on the matter, that the intention of the Church is to "pray for the pope".

5) Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the "non una cum" sedevacantist error, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne, France, on April 1st, 1989

“… And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!

Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA CUM or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.

Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 149

There is shown to be a valid Thuc line of sedevacantism in Eastern Canada and beyond Fr. Roy is assimilating into; and into the false resistance (shown above). Here are a few other links drawing the lines.


Why the [sedevacantist] Enterprise Must Be Opposed

But, as I have already suggested, it is not enough to dismiss the Enterprise as useless and leave it at that, for the opinions it circulates are not mere academic exercises. With superficially plausible logic and a mountain of documents, the Enterprise has led some of the faithful into true and proper schism. This schism has arisen with the illicit and suspect ordination of bishops and priests, who justify their putative offices on the basis of the Enterprise’s doctrine of a vanishing Pope and hierarchy.

Since 1976 the Enterprise has illicitly consecrated more than 100 bishops scattered throughout the world. The "genealogy" of these bishops began with the illicit consecration in 1976 of five bishops at Palmar de Troya, Spain, by Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc (1897-1984), the late titular Archbishop of Hué (Vietnam). Archbishop Thuc was reconciled with the Vatican in 1977 only to relapse into sedevacantism almost immediately, followed by still more illicit episcopal consecrations. In 1982 Archbishop Thuc issued the so-called Munich Statement, declaring that "the See of the Catholic Church at Rome is vacant, and that it is fitting that I as a bishop do all that I can so that the Catholic Church may continue for the salvation of souls." Here we see the Enterprise’s belief that it is continuing the existence of the Catholic Church.

The bishops consecrated by Thuc have consecrated "successors," some of whom have in turn consecrated further "successors." Another line was begun by the illicit episcopal consecration in 1995 of Fr. Clarence Kelly (formerly of the Society of St. Pius X) by Alfredo José Isaac Cecilio Francesco Mendez-Gonzalez, C.S.C., retired Roman Catholic Bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Kelly has not, thus far, consecrated his "successor," although this seems inevitable.

The bishops of the [sedevacantist] Enterprise are hardly united as a body, but rather question each other’s doctrine and legitimacy, even if they share the same basic conclusions about the state of authority in the Church. For example, Bishop Kelly contests the validity of the "Thuc line" consecrations, and some Thuc line bishops contest the validity of Kelly’s consecration. At the theoretical level, Bishop Donald Sanborn (a Thuc line bishop consecrated by "Thuc line" Bishop Robert McKenna in June 2002) and his followers depart from the strict sedevacantist line — that the See of Peter has been literally empty since 1958 — and hold that the popes since Pius XII are validly elected "material" popes, but not "formal" popes due to their heresy. This argument, devised in an effort to avoid the absurd results of the sedevacantist thesis, will be discussed further below.

Below is an accompanying chart


  • Fr. Anthony Cekada defends the Thuc line he associates with.
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 149

Received word that the Thuc-line bishops are working with the false resistance.

The so call "bishop" Dolan is coming to Beaumont Canada this weekend to proceed "confirmation" to the faithful of Father Roy. They asked Father Roy for one of the 4 Bishops of the (false resistance) but they declined the invitation because they are to "busy "...

Here is a short bio of Bishop Dolan who is a professed sedevacantist.