Thuc Line Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bigcat71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bigcat71

Guest
I have read many things concerning Thuc Line Bishops. What exactly is a Thuc Line Bishop?
 
These are Bishops who trace their episcopal consecration to Vietnamese Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục. Over a period of roughly two decades he consecrated nearly 200 bishops without a papal mandate, some of whom were not even priests.

He was excommunicated and reconciled to the Church multiple times.
 
giuseppeTO said:
These are Bishops who trace their episcopal consecration to Vietnamese Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục. Over a period of roughly two decades he consecrated nearly 200 bishops without a papal mandate, some of whom were not even priests.

He was excommunicated and reconciled to the Church multiple times.
Click to expand...
As long as they were validly ordained priests to begin with, the modern church would consider them valid but not licit.
 
Zhenia said:
As long as they were validly ordained priests to begin with, the modern church would consider them valid but not licit.
Click to expand...
Maybe yes, maybe no. There have been cases where the men “ordained” by a renegade Bishop are not even considered valid priests.
 
Zhenia said:
As long as they were validly ordained priests to begin with, the modern church would consider them valid but not licit.
Click to expand...
In general, that may be true unless there was either an imperfection of the matter or the consecrator was insane, which was one of the charges levied against Bp Thuc in regard to a number of these consecrations.

I don;t personally know Rome’s disposition to any or all of his consecrations.
 
Basically, he was the “go to guy” for any one, or any group, who was schismatic, sedevacantist, conclavist, etc. who needed a Bishop to give their own Bishops and priests a valid (though certainly illicit) consecration or ordination.

If you had a congregation, claimed to be “Catholic” in some manner, and needed a Bishop to give your clergy the ability to confer valid sacraments, but didn’t want to bother with the whole “Papal authority” thing, Archbishop Thuc was your man.

Interestingly, his brother was President of South Vietnam during the first half of the Vietnam War.
 
JaMc said:
Basically, he was the “go to guy” for any one, or any group, who was schismatic, sedevacantist, conclavist, etc. who needed a Bishop to give their own Bishops and priests a valid (though certainly illicit) consecration or ordination.

If you had a congregation, claimed to be “Catholic” in some manner, and needed a Bishop to give your clergy the ability to confer valid sacraments, but didn’t want to bother with the whole “Papal authority” thing, Archbishop Thuc was your man.

Interestingly, his brother was President of South Vietnam during the first half of the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...
His story is indeed a sad one. After his brother was executed, he became a victim of political correctness as the Vatican sought to make inroads with the Communist governments in Hanoi and Saigon. He was “put away” in a small apartment in Rome with very little income and/or visibility.
 
Corki said:
Maybe yes, maybe no. There have been cases where the men “ordained” by a renegade Bishop are not even considered valid priests.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said in my original post, “As long as they were validly consecrated priests to begin with”.
 
Just a question, can a person become a priest and then a bishop on the same day?
 
Zhenia said:
Where did Christ consecrate bishops for His Church? Maybe not hotel rooms, but not in formal churches either. 😉
Click to expand...
Oh, well then absolutely !

All Thuc line Bishops are valid. Probably more valid than others ! :extrahappy:

seriously though, there are things called protocol and rubrics … and common sense
 
Zhenia said:
As long as they were validly ordained priests to begin with, the modern church would consider them valid but not licit.
Click to expand...
How can something be valid but not licit? That sounds like you are trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.
 
giuseppeTO said:
His story is indeed a sad one. After his brother was executed, he became a victim of political correctness as the Vatican sought to make inroads with the Communist governments in Hanoi and Saigon. He was “put away” in a small apartment in Rome with very little income and/or visibility.
Click to expand...
Why would the Church be overly concerned withPC?
 
Bigcat71 said:
How can something be valid but not licit? That sounds like you are trying to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.
Click to expand...
“Valid” means an ordination or consecration actually took place. “Illicit” means it wasn’t SUPPOSED to take place. For example, if I steal a car, get it started, and get going down the highway, I am “validly” driving - I am operating the car, and getting to a destination. However, since I didn’t have permission to take it, my act was “illicit.” I’m still driving the car, but I’m breaking the law in doing so. Unfortunately, just because something is done contrary to the law, doesn’t mean it physically CAN’T be done, period.

Similarly, assuming Archbishop Thuc, even Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, for that matter, perform a consecreation or ordination using the correct form, you have a new Bishop or Priest, whether or not the Bishop was authorized to do so, and whether the Holy See likes it or not. However, the Archbishops SHOULDN’T have conducted an ordination or consecration without approval from Rome. They created the new Bishops and Priests, but they violated Church Law in doing so.

In a nutshell - “Valid” means an actual sacrament (in this case, Holy Orders) was conferred, but “illicit” means Archbishop Thuc shouldn’t have conferred said sacraments. And, the Masses offered by these Priests and Bishops, likewise, are valid - the bread and wine becomes the Body and Bread of Christ just as it would at your local parish. But they are illicit - the Priests aren’t authorized by the local Bishop to do so.
 
Zhenia said:
As long as they were validly ordained priests to begin with, the modern church would consider them valid but not licit.
Click to expand...
The problem is that given the highly changeable nature of Archbishop Thuc (he could never make up his mind over who he supported, the Pope or the sedes), his sanity is in question and thus the validity of the ordinations and consecrations. Apparently he even admitted to withholding the proper intent for the sacrament, making it invalid. While certainly illicit, I think there is also a great many of the Thuc line may also be invalid; meaning they would need a conditional ordination before assuming any ministry in the Church.
 
giuseppeTO said:
His story is indeed a sad one. After his brother was executed, he became a victim of political correctness as the Vatican sought to make inroads with the Communist governments in Hanoi and Saigon. He was “put away” in a small apartment in Rome with very little income and/or visibility.
Click to expand...
First of all President Diem, a devout Catholic, was not executed. He was assassinated.

Secondly there have been many credible allegations that our government was complicit in his murder. President Kennedy was assassinated a few weeks after President Diem. I have often wondered what Diem said to Kennedy, if they met in the afterlife.

Finally, South Viet-Nam never had a stable government after Diem’s murder. This lack of a stable government eventually led to the introduction of American combat troops about two years later.
 
roadsend said:
First of all President Diem, a devout Catholic, was not executed. He was assassinated.

Secondly there have been many credible allegations that our government was complicit in his murder. President Kennedy was assassinated a few weeks after President Diem. I have often wondered what Diem said to Kennedy, if they met in the afterlife.

Finally, South Viet-Nam never had a stable government after Diem’s murder. This lack of a stable government eventually led to the introduction of American combat troops about two years later.
Click to expand...
I thought it was pretty well accepted that the Americans, if not being outright involved in President Diem’s assassination, at the very least supported it in some manner. After it happened, Ho Chi Minh was said to have made a remark to the effect of, “I can’t believe the Americans could be so stupid,” recognizing that, while President Diem was authoritarian, and not very popular, he was a stabilizing force and an effective leader.

As for the Archbishop, one can only hope, for the sake of his soul, that his mental state was compromised in some manner, and that he didn’t really know what he was doing by so egregiously abusing his Apostolic authority to consecrate and ordain Bishops and Priests. Some accounts say that he died reconciled to the Church. We can only hope and pray that is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top