+ Quinguagesima Sunday +
Please pray for the brave people in the Ukraine who have endured so much and now seem to be the targets of more persecution.
Recently I received an email from a man who says he received “consecration” from Bishop Thuc, although some deny this. While many are willing to admit is that he became a “bishop,” by whose hand this was done is not certain. The email was all in French. From what little I could make out, he is discussing whether or not Thuc was mental, if he was a member of the Novus Ordo church, the arguments for or against his orders/consecrations being valid, etc… Of course it is assumed that having been made a priest by Thuc, he is defending him in order to protect his own “validity.” In other words, he has a prejudice in that his own validity is being questioned.
While all the arguments against Thuc being able to rightly consecrate or ordain are relevant and confirmed by several different sources, including Thuc himself, they are not enough in themselves to prove his ecclesiastical ministrations invalid. We are not saying he was not initially a Catholic bishop, only that he could not validly convey his powers to others. He later ceased to remain a Catholic bishop because he signed Vatican 2 documents and failed to denounce the false church in Rome for teaching heresy and apostasy. Therefore he lost his initial office as a bishop from Vietnam and the jurisdiction that went with it, being deposed as a bishop for heresy under Can. 188 no. 4. He committed communicatio in sacris by accepting a titular bishopric (that of Bulla Regiae) from Paul 6 and participating in Novus Ordo services, which he did nearly up to the day he made his “declaration.” For this he incurred infamy of law, and that prevents him from valid ecclesiastical acts, (Can. 2294).
By acting outside the parameters of his authority to consecrate bishops he also usurped papal jurisdiction. According to Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolica Sedis, his acts were null and void from the moment he attempted them and this by infallible decree. Some will say he had special faculties from Pope Pius XI, but these have never been verified, and even if they had it would not matter today. During an interregnum, bishops cannot be consecrated by the infallible order of Pope Pius XII, period, because this is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. It is not because even if excommunicated, such men could not validly convey the mark of the order; it is because the pope, who holds the supremacy of jurisdiction, says that during an interregnum they are forbidden to do so without the necessary papal mandate.
Another reader also states that Traditionalists are claiming that Vacantis Apostolica Sedis (VAS) was only addressed to the College of Cardinals, implying that it is not addressed to the universal Church and was not infallible. Nice try, but it is entered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis (A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, n. 3; pp. 65-99), which according to “Humani generis,” another infallible encyclical, means it is “normative,” or binding as ordinary teaching on everyone, so must be accepted with a firm and irrevocable assent. The election of a pope scarcely involves JUST the College of Cardinals; the faithful are asked to pray for the election in this constitution and are excluded from any participation in it. They would have to read it or know of it to observe this law. Pius XII writes in the preamble to no. 2 of his constitution: “We desire that the College ought to watch over and defend these rights during the contention of all influential forces.” Indeed the cardinals, in taking their oaths on becoming cardinals, vow to show themselves “fearless, even to the shedding of blood, in making our holy Faith respected, in securing peace for the Christian people and in promoting the welfare of the Roman Church…” How was the welfare of the Church promoted by violating the provisions contained in VAS, which they took a specific oath to uphold? Certainly Pope Pius XII did not expect the entire college to abandon their faith as they did; he assumed that at least some of the cardinals would protect the Church from the very fate She suffered. But in this he was mistaken, even though he foresaw that something would be attempted.
Also, in para. 109, summarizing what he has written, the pope again stresses: “Moved by the examples of Our Predecessors, We therefore ordain and prescribe these things, decreeing that this present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged… We command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if ANYONE should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void.” Here we find the word “anyone,” even though in all respects it is only a reiteration of para. 3 of the preamble; so this directive is NOT just limited to the cardinals. And if only the cardinals’ authority were intended here, it would not read, “by whatever authority.” Traditionalists forget that after all, cardinals are only bishops, priests (and in times past deacons) who have added to their rank an additional honorary title. They are expected to be the bishops and priests extraordinaire during an interregnum, guarding the Church from any and every danger that threatens Her until a true successor of St. Peter is elected. If even the head honchos as bishops and priests are forbidden to exercise these powers when they have universal jurisdiction by virtue of their office (Can. 239), then how can anyone argue that those not granted these privileges could possibly claim: ”But this doesn’t apply to me…”
The basis for the contention bishops can act on their own and do as they please is that held by the late Louis Vezelis, that bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from Christ in virtue of their valid consecration. But the bishops cannot proceed on their own unless they first receive their office and jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff as taught in Mystici Corpus and Ad Sinarum Gentum; so what Vezelis held is heresy. If the cardinal-bishops and priests are forbidden to act, how can the others presume to do so?! We are talking here of men (Traditionalist bishops) who never received valid tonsure from their bishops (Old Catholics, Orthodox or Lefebvre or Thuc), who lacked jurisdiction to administer tonsure, because they forfeited it as heretics under Can. 188 no. 4. Since tonsure is an act of jurisdiction, no tonsure was conveyed. No priests could be created without tonsure and no bishops could be created if the ones consecrated were not certainly priests. As such they could never be ordained clerics under Canons 108, 118. We also are forgetting Ad Apostolorum Principis, which forbids consecrating without papal mandate and levies excommunications for doing so. Such consecrations might be held as valid but not licit during an interregnum, when the pope could supply, but without a pope to supply could only be null and void for want of supplied jurisdiction as Vacantis Apostolica Sedis teaches.
In any event, the circumstances rendering tonsure and ordination null and void have nothing to do with Vacantis Apostolica Sedis and everything to do with excommunication for heresy. If even the cardinals are forbidden to supply jurisdiction during an interregnum, than certainly no one else can supply it. Any of these men, following the death of Pius XII, could have resolved the situation by electing a true pope, but they did not. They alone had the power to resolve this crisis.
God cannot and will not deprive man of free will. He wished/willed (DZ 1821) that the bishops and among them St. Peter and his successors would continue in their positions to the end of time, but since when have His laws been obeyed? All God’s laws are an indication of His will, but evil men have no qualms about ignoring this salient fact. The cardinals chose to reject the truths of faith and violate their oaths. They all became collective Judas in betraying Christ and His Church. Hence this blog and this site.