Expert: Griff Ruby - 9/22/2004

Question
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Hi Griff,
I have read your book found it informative.  The only thing that bother's me is that the Thuc line bishops & priests being doubtful because of Thuc's mental state...was he in his right mind? I have my doubts! What make's me think that he may not have been in his right mind...is that, he, being a very intelligent bishop as he was and then ordaining and consecrating men he didn't even know and who had no training at all...how could a man in his right mind do such terrible thing?  Even if he was under depression at the time.  This is what leaves doubt to the ordinations and consecrations...among other things he did...but this is the one, in my mind, puts the greatest question of the validity of the consecrations & ordinations. And, even if he did, later, ordain and consecrate some men who had some training...how can we know he was in his right mind then either?  
Blessings in JMJ,
Karen
Answer -
I believe that Abp. Thuc's uniquely tragic life most strongly and dramatically rubbed his nose in the fact of just what a horrific thing has happened in Vatican II.  Perhaps the shock of fully understanding that is what prevents so many in today's Vatican group from seeing how bad it really is.  "It can't really be all that bad; I will close my eyes to it all and pretend that such questions do not exist."  But for Thuc this was no option, given the horrific deaths of nearly all his brothers caused by the communists, followed by the easy and comfortable manner in which the new communist "church" not only got along with them but even serve to advance their cause.
Who can a man trust after such a devastation?  And furthermore, Thuc had rather little experience in forming a seminary, or for that matter, seminarians.  He saw the need to make new bishops and hierarchy members for the Church, but who could he trust?  What resources did he have to check out those who presented themselves to him for ordination to the priesthood, let alone consecration as a bishop, as to their credentials?  Contrast his situation with that of Abp. Lefebvre.  Lefebvre had been making seminaries and training and forming seminarians for decades as a Holy Ghost Father and missionary bishop.  When it was time for him to act, he simply did what he had always done, namely open a seminary and begin training seminarians.
With the exception of a handful of early exceptions, all transfer students from other known and respected seminaries which had gone modernist, all of those he ordained had been trained and formed under his own tutelege.  He had heard their confessions, seen their academic records, had them as pupils in classes he himself taught, seen the sorts of responses they gave to test questions in the course material, dined with them, prayed with them, overheard their conversations with other seminarians, and so forth.  He knew what made them tick as individuals.  He knew them all thoroughly and when he ordained them he truly had been with them for six years in a very intensive and close relationship.  When it came time to make the bishops, again he chose those he trained, formed, and ordained, and who had loyally served beside him for many years,  and whose capabilities and qualifications were well known to him.
When Abp. Lefebvre and his successors ordain a seminarian, that in itself is all the credentials the ordinand requires.  Abp. Thuc of course lacked all of this.  He wanted to do the same thing, but without the same organizational skills, especially in setting up and running seminaries (An Archbishop's skills are many and varied, and each has their own area of expertise.  Thuc's area was more in academic research and scholarship than in the practical day-to-day needs of running seminaries), he had no real help in assessing the qualifications of those who approached him.  In this case, the credentials of those who did need to be examined on their own independent right, and as it turns out, at least three men truly did have sufficient qualifications.
Fr. des Lauriers had by far the highest credentials of any, having been a professor at the Pontifical University in the Vatican, one of the Pope's (Pius XII) confessors, a known and approved theologian of the Church, a professor at Econe, prime mover and shaker behind the drafting of the famous Ottaviani Intervention (Cd. Ottaviani only wrote the cover letter to it) by a team of roman theologians he organized for it, and certainly would have known how to evaluate Abp. Thuc's mental state.  Just as there is no room to question his credentials, neither is there room to question his consecration to the episcopacy.  He of all persons would have known if there were room to doubt.
Frs. Camona and Zamora already had long and illustrious careers as parish priests in prominent parishes in Mexico.  Trained, formed, and ordained to the priesthood by the Church in Mexico well before the Vatican II crisis, their priestly training and qualifications as parish priests are unassailable.  Both had served long as priests, and no doubt would have been made bishops and appointed dioceses in Mexico had Vatican II and its attendant nonsense not come along.  Both had already been appointed to two of the most prominent Mexican parishes, easily the most so in each of their respective cities.  They were in the running, so to speak.  But of course, Vatican II did come along, and these men had the theology to recognize early on what a disaster it was, to resist it from the beginning, and pastoral qualifications to carry it off for many years after so many around them modernized.  Both had the strength of character to stand firm with what they knew and to put their careers on the line for what they knew to be right.  And again, their concern was valid sacraments, and they of all would have known (and sought others) had they any doubts as to the validity of what Abp. Thuc did for them.
As for the rest, by all evidences, Abp. Thuc had been lead to believe that their training and qualifications were as were those of these three, but he had been deceived.  There is therefore no room to question let alone doubt his subjective mental state when he consecrated those questionable men.  His purpose was unquestionably to save and further the Church (something no one else seemed to be doing at the time, Abp. Lefebvre being committed until sometime after Thuc's death to not making any bishops), and his desire admirable, just his choices made in the absence of information that might have better guided him.
Validity really doesn't require very much.  If the man knows what he is (a bishop) and what he intends to do (make another man into a bishop) and follows the procedure correctly (right form etc.), then that is all that validity requires.  Publicity, number of witnesses, or qualifications thereof, do not matter whatsoever.  Consecrations have often been done in secret (usually in hostile countries, such as communist countries in recent decades) and with few if any witnesses.  At times it was enough that a man stepped forward and declared that he was the one consecrated by the late and recently martyred bishop (who would only say that he consecrated someone but not tell anyone who).  The man would be a priest that all local Catholics knew personally and could trust to be telling the truth about this.
As the three known Catholics who were made bishops by him have never questioned it, and also Bp. de Castro-Meyer and even Pio Laghi, neither do I question or doubt Abp. Thuc's consecrations as to their validity or for that matter impartation of the Apostolic duties, authority, and jurisdiction.

Dear Griff,
Thank you for taking the time from your busy day to answer my question.  A couple things I would like to comment on:  Archbishop Thuc was himself a priest, bishop and archbishop...surely he knew what it takes in education and training to become a priest and/or bishop...just by example of his own training. I can't believe that he was as ignorant as you seem to believe.  And, if he didn't know the men he was about to ordain/consecrate, wouldn't the wise thing to do, if he was in his right mind, to NOT ordain or consecrate them?  Surely, if he was in his right mind, and the intelligent bishop as he was, and his love and respect for the Sacraments, he shouldn't have gone ahead and performed the ordinations/consecrations.  And, as far as him ordaining and consecrating some more worthy men later...I think...says nothing, because there have always been good men who have become ambitious to be a bishop.  
I do pray that you are right because, if not, there are alot of people attending what appears to be Traditional Masses and really receiving no sacraments at all.  I do pray I'm wrong but, still, I can't escape from the doubts I have in my mind about Bishop Thuc ordaining lay men whom he didn't know and who had no training at all.  I'm a simple housewife with no college education and I know that a priest and bishop needs several years of training before he can become a priest or bishop...even my grandchildren know this...so how can I reconcile it in my mind that an intelligent bishop could be confussed about this? I'm sorry, I just can't see it unless he wasn't in his right mind.  And, if he was in his right mind...what would that speak of him?
Poor Archbishop Thuc has gone to his judgement and we are left to figure out his mind...the only way is by what we have seen by his actions.  I know some very good Catholics who attend the masses of the Thuc line and I'm sure God see's their intentions are good...but, for myself...I have my doubts and I really can't help it because I cannot reconcile in my mind that an intelligent (and even one not so intelligent) archbishop in his right mind could do such a thing.
By the way Griff, I too, am a convert to the Catholic Faith.  I converted twice...the first when I was just 10 years old (I'm 61 yrs old now) after attending Mass with my girlfriend and again when finding the Traditional Latin Mass again in 1983.  I love to hear the stories of Converts to the Faith and how they found the True Faith through the Grace of God.
Blessings in JMJ,
Karen
Answer -
I really don't see room to question his mind at all.  The few persons he had to help him were all well-meaning but inexperienced laymen.  If a priest shows up on his doorstep, recommended by these laymen who he has wowed with his supposed "illustrious career," saying that he has a such and such degree from so-and-so school and was ordained for the Diocese of Umpty-ump in 1952 and obviously seems learned and well-versed in Latin and Catholic theology, that may have been all that he needed.
A little historic context should also prove helpful here.  One of the reforms instituted by the Council of Trent dealt with the fact that all too many priests and bishops had been ordained and consecrated with almost no training and no formation.  Parishes and even bishoprics were more often than not bought with gold rather than earned with ecclesiastical merit.  The rampant "sale of indulgences" that occasioned the abuses Luther was right to criticise in the beginning before he weirded out and started his own church was made possible by there being such a preponderance of such persons.
The average priest in circa. 1500 (including Luther himself) had less learning and qualifications for the ministry than the least of Abp. Thuc's ordinands or consecrands.  No one questions the validity of these clergy, nor even of their continuance of the Apostolic mission and authority, despite their rampant simony and corruption.
While there may be room to question the education of the Palmar de Troya group, all of those who came later were of undoubted education.  It was their loyalties that proved them wrong.  Some had loyalties to the Old Catholics whose orders they also sought, not so much to confirm their validity, but to "collect" multiple episcopal lines in themselves.  For some unknown reason, in Old Catholic circles particularly, there seems to be some sort of added status that comes of being able to say that was was consecrated six times by six different bishops or whatever.  The more, the better, as they see it.  Some of these were simply adding Thuc to their list, keeping quiet about these things while being inspected by Thuc and his lay helpers, and then flashing the fact of their having deceived Thuc as yet another pelt on their belt.  Others were simply wanting to build something profitable for themselves, with no regard to continuing the Church, and these proved to be crooks in the end.
Again, the whole point for Thuc to have gone through with his consecrations was to preserve an indisputably valid succession.  He was concerned because due to his learning he could see the grave doubtfulness of the Novus Ordo consecrations, far worse even than Novis Ordo ordinations, which are themselves suspect.  The fears you had about him exactly mirror the genuine concerns he had about the Novus Ordo clergy.  What mistakes he made in his choices in no way obviates the validity of what he did.  He was bent on preserving the Hierarchical Church and he was going to do it; even though he knew he could not be sure as to who to trust.  He may also have figured that even a bad bishop could still have good successors, as long as the line itself is valid.
Finally, something to know about the sacraments is that they are not purely of some unknown and unknowable mysterious and vague result.  The sacraments confer Grace when validly done and do not confer Grace when not validly done.  A priest who is not valid (and does not know it) could say a perfect Mass, give an excellent homily, flawless pastoral advice to those in his congregation, and seem to do everything right.  But the graces will not be there and it shows conspicuously in the graceless lives of his congregation.
The Grace of any sacrament has its clear and indisputable effects, and I have consistantly seen those Graces in the lives and congregations of the CMRI clergy.  It would be obvious if they were not there.  Indeed, had the CMRI no valid orders, it would most likely have disbanded by now, with everyone giving up and going home.
I think it is wrong and sinful for certain priests of the SSPX and SSPV to spead suspicion and doubt regarding the Thuc line.  This is done in bad faith, thinking that this will attract the members of Thuc-based clergy's congregations to their chapels.  Quite frankly, such spiritual "street-fighting" is very much on the level with gas station price wars.  We must always pray earnestly that these otherwise fine clergymen would please cooperate with their fellow clerics in the same Church instead of competing with them.  And I speak here of only a few particular clergymen of each of those orders, certainly not any official policy position of either order itself.
The priniciple here is that when a valid and lawful cleric condemns a similarly valid and lawful cleric for what amounts to no valid reason other than mere competition, he acts "ultra vires" that is to say, beyond the scope of his authority.  However they all act within the scope of their authority when they administer the spiritual needs of a congretation, or in the case of bishops, ordain priests to further that end and bishops to continue the Church.  Us simply layfolk would be most wise to pay such divisive nonsense no mind.

Dear Griff,
Thank you again for taking the time to answer my email.  Considering your answer I have the following thoughts come to my mind.
Shouldn't Apb. Thuc have check out what was told to him on such an important task as ordinations and consecrations? What can we tell about his state of mind in doing them?
In regards to the priests before the Council of Trent...didn't they need to attend the Seminary before they were ordained?  If so, it was the fault of the Seminary if they weren't trained or formed right.  Where did you receive the information about the average priest having less learning and qualifications than the least of Abp. Thuc's ordinands and consecrands? How can you know this for sure?
YOu are so right when you stated: "the fears you had about him (Thuc) exactly mirror the genuine concerns he had about the Novus Ordo clergy."
I think it useless to speculate what was in the mind of Abp. Thuc when he ordained and consecrated lay men whom he didn't know...he isn't here to tell us...all we have to go by is what he actually did and the scandals it intailed.
The effects of God's Grace that you discribed could be said by any growing protestant parish.  I had a Novus Ordo catholic tell me something similar when I questioned the Real Presence in the Novus Ordo church.  They have an all night adoration and he told me: "if Christ wasn't really present in the Eucharist the people wouldn't have the Grace to continue to stay all night at the adoration.
I see the fruits of the Novus Ordo and the Thuc line by the scandals that occure within them. Actually, I think all the self proclaimed "popes" have come from the Thuc line.
I also feel the SSPX and SSPV are concerned with the salvation of souls. They are not in bad faith. They have only told the facts concerning Abp. Thuc...should they keep the facts from the people?  They are not trying to attract the members of the Thuc line to their chapels...these priests are already overworked and have a hard time keeping up with what they already have.  But, I think what you stated can be said for some of those in the Thuc line.  What do you think about Dolan and Cekada sending out a forged document to all the members of the SSPV just to try to make Bishop Mendez look "as bad as" Apb. Thuc.  And, when it was discovered the document to be forged...we didn't hear a word of apology or reparation from them...all was ignored.  In our secular world you could be put in jail for the crime of forgery!
They are the ones in bad faith trying to get the members of the SSPV and SSPX to come to their chapels.  But, all they acomplished with their letters about Bishop Mendez was some people left and are now "home aloners" or went back to the Novus Ordo...the majority could see through the letters and ignored them. Dolan still sends out his newsletters to those in SSPV who never asked for them.  There is a big difference in the newsletters of Bishop Kelly and Dolan. Do you receive both of them?  I don't know if Bishop Kelly has ever had his photo in his newsletter and Dolan has his photo many times on each issue.  Which is the most humble and which is most proud?  Pride cometh before the fall!  They try hard to make Apb. Thuc and Bishop Mendez the same but this cannot be done.  Bishop Mendez only consecrated one Bishop and then only after much prayer and deliberation because he knew how sacred the office of Bishop is.  While Apb. Thuc seemed to consecrate just about anyone who asked him without any thought at all. You are wrong Griff, it is the Thuc bishops and priests who are in bad faith.
If they were in good faith they would have made some reparation for the scandal of forgery and lies against Bishop Mendez.  I doubt this will ever happen...they have too much pride getting in the way of what is the right thing to do.  I would like to hear what you think about the forged documents and what do you think would be the right thing for the Thuc line to do about this most serious sin.
In all love of the TRUTH!
Karen


Answer
It is clearly debatable whether Abp. Lefebvre would have performed his consecrations had not Thuc broken that ground before him.  Lefebvre was not one to be the first at anything, as a result of his humility and not any lack of daring, capability, or initiative.  It really was thuc who, as I say in my book, "blazed all the trails and made all the mistakes."  And it clearly is a documented fact that Bp. Mendez would not have done his consecration had Lefebvre not done his.
Is the consecration of an unqualified individual a bad thing?  Of course.  But nowhere near as bad as allowing the entire Apostolic Succession to disappear.  And when it comes down to it, even a bad individual could still function as a repository of the Divine Treasure, should times get so desperate (they haven't yet, but this is the closest things have ever yet come to it, and there is still the prophesied End Times Great Apostacy which hasn't even begun yet).
Thuc did everything in his power to check out those who came to him, only his resources were limited.  And even as that goes, he still did markedly better than the Vatican bureaucracy did over the same period.  I really fail to see what it is you expected him to do.  Are you claiming to have never made a decision, based on what limited and imperfect information you had available to you at the time, and which failed to turn out well?  A woman might do everything in her power to ascertain that a man she is contemplating marriage to will be a good man, but despite everything on him checking out just fine and all his duck lined up neatly in a row and all quacking on key, he still turns out to be a churl.  This was a big decision in her life, one she took seriously, one she did her level best to be careful about, and it still turned out wrong.  Was she insane?  Maybe nobody should ever marry, or do anything of any even remote possible consequence of any kind?
I can't help wondering if Abp. Thuc's frustration with his failed attempts before des Lauriers must have resembled the frustration of a traditional-leaning lay parishioner in a Novus Ordo Parish or Liturgy Committee who asks for "more reverence" and gets a "more reverent" liturgical dance from the "sisters of servitude."
As for the fruits of Thuc's activities, what I see in my nearest traditional parish is quite representative.  My pastor, Fr. Dominic Radecki (one of the two authors, along with his identical twin brother Fr. Francisco Radecki, of the book "What has happened to the Catholic Church?" and now the more recent "Tumultuous Times") was ordained by bp. McKenna, who was consecrated by des Lauriers, who was consecrated by Thuc.  That fruit is not merely in numbers or even the friendliness of the people (you are correct that even Novus Ordo Protestants and others can duplicate those things), but in that exclusively Catholic holiness that is never seen outside the Church.
The Palmar de Troya situation is admittedly a different scenario.  It is Thuc himself who raised what doubts there are as to the validity of his Palmar de Troya "consecrations."  By the time Palmar de Troya had gotten far enough to be asking for his consecration, he had come to want out, and being a frail old man, the only was was to go through the motions (he had given up on them as people worth treating honestly as their slimy dishonesty had showed itself to him in no uncertain terms) of a consecration, however using the Novus Ordo formula as an expression of his having withheld intent.  The Palmar de Troya "clerics" thus made were such ignoramuses that they honestly failed to notice the difference.  But this was the price of Thuc being sent back home and away from those dreadful people.  It is interesting to note that nearly all the scandals (and all the most serious ones by far, such as someone pretending to "ordain" Sinead O'Conner) were the result of the Palmar de Troya "line" which, as it turns out, was declared invalid by Thuc himself.  However he went to his grave affirming in the strongest terms he could muster the validity of des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora.  Not even the harsh Novus Ordo pressure he was under in his dying days, that even persuaded him to buckle as to the rightness of having consecrated them, ever got him to back down as to their validity.
What I say about the priests and bishops before the Trentan reformation can be gleaned from any standard historical reference discussing the state of the Church and clergy at that time.
As to the documentation stuff, what I find is equal blame on both sides, and neither really quite apologizing.  This is really just everyone's human frailty at work.  Doctored documents mean nothing and are all best ignored.  As always, the Church is composed of imperfect men who sin, and it is that sin that brings scandal and home alonism.  The two pieces of good news are 1) as you point out, the "majority could see through the letters and ignored them" - how very wise of them.  That too is the work of Catholic holiness, and 2) the bishops on both sides of that seem to have matured beyond that petty feud and are no longer active in spreading such scandalous lies against each other.  I really do believe we would do well to follow their more current example in this.
I really can't fully express how much I truly wish and desire for a chance to sit down over lunch with Bp. Kelly and help him to see that his role, either personally or that of another from what succession must one day come from him, is to lead the others, not to condemn them.  If he has the jurisdiction to condemn then he has the jurisdiction to forgive (technically he has neither, exactly the same as all other bishops, but perhaps if he were to start leading instead of condemning that could one day change).
This gets back into the whole situation I described back in chapter 3 of my book.  Lumen Gentium threw jurisdiction, faculties, lawful legitimacy, and the whole Apostolic mission to the four winds.  In practice this means that all bishops who are validly consecrated and orthodox in their teaching are canonical equals.  None has authority over the other, nor exclusive claim to any geographical territory, except by the mutual consent of all.
When I say (on my site, not in my book or in these discussions as yet) that there is no Pope, what I mean is not any commentary on bp. Wojtyla, but rather the patent fact that there is no one bishop exercising authority over all the traditional bishops.  This must happen one day if the Church is to continue and restore all things in Christ.