It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:43 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
 SSPV refuse communion? / Validity of Thuc line 
Author Message

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post SSPV refuse communion? / Validity of Thuc line
This is a photo of the back of a bulletin from an SSPV chapel.

Image

Click on the picture for bigger version.

I have a simple question; can they do this? Specifically, on what authority can they prevent a man from recieving from both "Thuc line" clergy and at their mass? Are they saying that they believe it is a mortal sin to attend a "Thuc line" mass?

I also was wondering a bit about the requirement for all those baptized after 1970 but I assume they are taking precautions against invalid forms used by Novus Ordians.


Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post 
Fr. Cekada wrote this article http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=54&catname=14 and it should cover and answer all of your questions.


Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:39 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
If they were right about the Thuc consecrations being invalid would their actions be justifiable?


Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:26 am
Profile E-mail
New post 
I have searched the internet in vain to discover the details of Archbishop Thuc's history. What I have found are Griff Ruby's articles which briefly touch on some problems, and mention a retraction of Thuc's consecrations, and finally hint at a counter retraction. Does anyone know of an impartial source of this bit of history? Or has Thuc become shrouded in mystery and controversy similar to Malachi Martin on a smaller scale? Due to extreme situation the Thuc family was in, I do not rule out lapses of sanity through no fault of the Archbishop.


Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:05 am

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post 
brogan wrote:
If they were right about the Thuc consecrations being invalid would their actions be justifiable?


There's no question that the consecrations are valid so there's not a chance they could be right. Do you hold the Thuc consecrations as invalid? If you haven't read them here are some articles defending the validity of the consecrations.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=13
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=13
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=13
As for justification, they would have to have a valid reason on why they are refusing to give that person Holy Communion.


Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:19 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post 
Of course the Thuc consecrations are valid.

I was just wondering about their justification if the Thuc consecrations were indeed invalid. I suppose though that they could say the person was a public mortal sinner (for attending masses by possibly invalid Bishops and preists or priests who associate with them) so they must be refused communion.

What I find most curious about it is the bolded part. How on earth could they refuse communion to someone who went to one of Fr. Cekeda's masses? Of course Cekeda is a valid priest; he was ordianed by Lefevbre. So I assume they are saying that Cekeda is excommunicated for associated with Bishop Dolan. Then they say that anyone who attend's Cekeda's mass is excommunicated because they attended the mass of an excommunicated preist.

I wonder if something happened between these 3 (Cekeda, Dolan, and Kelly) after leaving the SSPX that is the real cuase of all this.


Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
brogan wrote:
I wonder if something happened between these 3 (Cekeda, Dolan, and Kelly) after leaving the SSPX that is the real cuase of all this.


Exactly. There is a personal element, and there could be no justification for the position taken by the SSPV, as Fr. Cekada has clearly demonstrated. I really don't think we should criticise any of the traditional clergy unless absolutely necessary (in line with the traditional approach of laymen to the clergy pre-V2), so having said this much unless there is a good reason for pursuing it we should probably move on from this topic (i.e. the refusal of sacraments by the SSPV). The validity of the Thuc consecrations is another matter. I have no doubt at all about them, insofar as they affect the CMRI and other "mainstream traditional Catholics," but I think it is a subject that can be discussed with charity and prudence.

Does everybody agree, or am I missing something?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post 
Quote:
I wonder if something happened between these 3 (Cekeda, Dolan, and Kelly) after leaving the SSPX that is the real cuase of all this.


Something indeed did happen between them which is explained in one of Fr. Cekada's articles.

Quote:
In 1985 one of my confréres, the Rev. Donald J. Sanborn, suggested that our group approach Don Antonio de Castro-Mayer, the retired Bishop of Campos, Brazil, to see if he’d be willing to ordain priests for us, or at least offer some advice. This prelate had taken a strong stand against the New Mass, and his position on John Paul II was said to be much harder than Abp. Lefebvre’s.

Father Sanborn visited Campos in April 1985 and spoke at great length with Bp. Mayer. The bishop, it turned out, confined his apostolate to Brazil.

When Father Sanborn broached the topic of who could ordain priests for us, Bp. Mayer said: “Go to Guérard!”

Father Sanborn said that he doubted the validity of Bp. Guérard’s episcopal consecration. The bishop replied: “If it’s valid for Guérard, it’s valid for me.” Father Sanborn explained some of his hesitations. Bp. Mayer answered: “Guérard is the most qualified person in the world to determine if the consecration was valid.”

On his return, Father Sanborn suggested that some of us research the principles moral theologians employ to determine whether an episcopal consecration is valid. Since I was skeptical of the consecrations, I volunteered to work along with him.

The investigation turned out to be a formidable task. Since 1985 Father Sanborn and I have spent between us at least a thousand hours on research, much of it in the theology and canon law sections of Catholic university and seminary libraries throughout the U.S.[3]

The conclusion which began to emerge was, I admit, contrary to my initial expectation. There are no “special” or “extra” proofs which must be made before one can say that an episcopal consecration is valid. Canonists and theologians treat a consecration as they would any other sacrament. Once it’s been performed, it’s regarded as valid, and the “burden of proof” (if any) rests on those who attack its validity.

At a September 1988 priests’ meeting, Father Sanborn distributed a brief internal report to the priests on the theological principles to be applied. Father concluded that we had to regard the consecrations as valid.

Overall, I found the report convincing. In particular, Father’s comments corresponded with what I had uncovered in Pope Leo XIII’s Bull Apostolicae Curae.

A heated discussion ensued. Later that day, I spoke with the Rev. Clarence Kelly, the head of our organization. I mentioned that Leo XIII’s pronouncement seemed to demolish my objections to the validity of the consecrations — and his as well. He replied: “We can’t say that the consecrations [of the Thuc bishops] are valid — or some of our priests will want to get involved with them.”

At this point I concluded that the arguments against the validity of the consecrations might be based on something other than objective norms of sacramental theology.

After I left the Society of St. Pius V in July 1989, Father Sanborn and I continued to compare notes on our research. What follows is the product of our collaborative efforts. The lion’s share of credit belongs to Father Sanborn, who tracked down theological sources and papal decrees with fierce determination.


Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:22 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:13 pm
Posts: 37
New post 
Quote:
Does everybody agree


Yep


Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:25 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.