So I have been looking into this Thuc controversy for about a year now with regards to the validity of the consecrations. I feel presently they are invalid, or, at the very least, doubtful. However, of mething I have been totally unable to find is whether or not the Vatican has ever made any kind of a ruling or statement on the matter? Has Time ever declared these consecrations to he invalid? Or have they never said anything?
They are incontrovertibly valid. The Church would not have issued a statement denouncing them as “illicit ordinations” if they were invalid.
Hm. Ok but that was for Palmar de Troya. The ones that are the most controversial (at least debatable I should say) are his later ones which included Father Gerard Des Laurier and others. Did the Church release a similar statement like the one you quoted above for those consecrations?
And actually it’s even more difficult to discern than that when we bring up the fact that at Palmar de Troya he said he withheld his intention. He admitted to doing the same thing while conferring orders ten times. That’s why I was curious about what the Vatican stated. I’m not sure that the above quote now really means the Vatican is endorsing the validity of the consecrations since the Palmarian ones that they wrote that statement for was certainly INVALID because he withheld his intention. So perhaps the statement from Rome was just an auto response and not a full on investigation adn ruling which I was wondering if they ever did. If they said “the orders are valid but illicit” I’d accept it, but the above statement i find unconvincing as actual evidence
Aside from the Thuc-line consecrations being illicit, the farther out you get from the first consecrations, the sketchier things get. In his waning days, well, let’s just say that Archbishop Thuc didn’t exercise the best judgment in the world.
The Palmar de Troya business is one rabbit hole I’m definitely not going down.
I agree wholeheartedly there. I’ve seen a few, rather several people from my church leave and go to a Thuc church. I don’t think God sends people to Hell for being confused about the papacy right now-i mean we have Pachamama and Francis. So I’m not worried because they left but are still Catholic but are simply confused, and wrong, about the papacy. However, I’d feel more at ease for them if they weren’t dropping off and going to a Thuc line church. Some sede churches there’s no question at all about validity. Thuc I’m afraid there is. And it certainly does matter that Thuc himself declared he withheld his intention while consecrating 10 times. Now was he lying? Maybe. But how can someone take that chance? I was hoping I’d find a declaration from Rome "Thuc orders valid but illicit."maybe they haven’t ruled
Same here. I don’t read anybody out of the Church for coming to different conclusions about the changes of the past 50-60 years than I would come to. Sedevacantism has a certain internal logic about it, however, the longer things go on, the weaker their arguments become. You would think they would all come together, establish a type of “imperfect conclave”, and elect their own pope. Aside from some minuscule (and I do mean minuscule) factions here and there, each attempting to elect their own pope, they haven’t done that.
Validity shouldn’t be the only thing that matters. Granted, it’s kinda important but stopping there ignores other important matters.
Every bishop, prior to consecration, takes on oath of fidelity to the Holy See (as to priests and deacons) - previously it used to be done immediately prior to ordination, now it’s a little bit earlier. In taking the oath, the bishop-elect promises obedience to the Holy Father and (in the more recent version) to defend the unity of the universal Church. In addition to this, as part of the rite itself, the bishop-elect is required to promise “fidelity, submission and obedience (in new rite simply requires him to promise to be “faithful in his obedience”) to the Holy Father”. So, in the case of the Thuc and Econe consecrations it fair to say that this probably wasn’t a good way to start either the consecrations themselves or the bishops’ commitment to the oath they were taking!
I’m also assuming the part in the Rite requiring the Papal mandate was simply skipped as being all a bit too awkward…
Episcopal ordinations without a Papal mandate are taken extremely seriously (which is why it incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication for all involved) because they’re a massive violation of ecclesial communion - effectively, those involved are trying to establish their own Church within a Church without it’s own hierarchy, rules and authority - much like Henry VIII really. In other to be authentically Catholic, every bishop must be in communion with the Holy Father as well as with his brother bishops in the College of Bishops. There can’t be any “lone ranger” bishops answerable only to themselves - that’s simply not how Catholic ecclesiology works - which is why bishops are also obliged to undertake regular ad limina visits (also in the oath). Yet this is exactly what happens as a result of illicit consecrations.
They’re covered in the same statement. As for “incontrovertible validity” well let’s just say I wouldn’t bet the house on that one:
Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination
That’s the CDF’s way of saying there’s definitely a question mark over these orders. Part of the problem I’d say is that Thuc was sedevacantist which raises issues as regards whether his intention could be the same as the Church’s. No doubt canonist and sacramental theologians will have eagerly spilled countless pages of ink pondering this question.
will noone think of the poor octopi?
more seriously, if"incontrovertible validity" was a practical standard to meet, I doubt we’d have three bishops at every consecration . . .
This is from the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. The Vatican’s position is that anyone ordained in the Thuc lineage shall be considered to be in the same state he was previously. For example, a validly ordained priest who is consecrated a bishop in the Thuc line remains just a priest. A layman ordained a priest in the Thuc lineage remains a layman. I know a man who was ordained a priest by a Thuc “bishop”. He was a sedevacantist. He left sedevacantistism and came into full communion with the Church. He was told that if he wanted to be a priest, he would need to go through the seminary and be ordained all over again, as his orders were not considered acceptable.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.