Author Topic: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line  (Read 1090 times)

Vinny Zee

Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« on: January 14, 2018, 11:11:37 PM »
I will be on travel for work for quite a while.  The only thing nearby to which I think I could possibly attend has this to say on its website about its clergy.  It is a traditional Roman Catholic Church.  In the early years it stated their church was exclusively served for a short time by priests from the late-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X (“SSPX”), or by priests affiliated with the SSPX. When the Society decided to no longer serve the faithful of this particular area, the members sought-out independent and validly ordained priests who were willing to travel and continue offering Mass and providing the Sacraments, until a full-time priest could be found.

In late-February 2008, they found a new, full-time priest, who they also call Bishop. Prior to being offered the position of “Pastor,” the members performed their due-diligence by investigating his religious credentials.  It states the congregation confirmed his credentials as authentic and accurate and he passed a criminal background check, as required by the By-Laws & Constitutions.  It says the Bishop’s first acts as Pastor included making a Profession of Faith, as well as the Oath Against Modernism, both of which are renewed annually as required by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The website states the members regard the Bishop as a validly and licitly ordained Priest and Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church and they requested to be under his Episcopal Protection and Jurisdiction.

According to the website, the Bishop’s "Apostolic Succession is derived from Bishop Patrick Taylor, who possesses valid and licit Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession through Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh Thuc of Vietnam, as well as additional sources. According to the late-Rev. Fr. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D. (1929-2006), in his article “I’m The Only One Ordained!”, the Vatican II church and its popes have authenticated and fully recognize the validity of Bishop Patrick Taylor’s Apostolic Succession."

According to the website, "Patriarchal powers were conferred on Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh Thuc by Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. These extraordinary pontifical faculties were renewed by Pope Pius XII on December 8, 1939, and were never rescinded. This power included, but was not limited to, the choice of priests to consecrate and to confer upon them the episcopacy without papal approval, and without any contingencies of future approval, acceptance, or ratification of those consecrations by future popes. Therefore, the bishops directly consecrated by Archbishop Thuc, and those bishops, who in turn consecrated others, to our present day and in the future, possess both valid and licit Apostolic Succession, and are all validly and licitly ordained priests and/or bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The validity and/or liceity of the Sacraments are not contingent upon the personal sanctity or worthiness of the priest or bishop conferring Sacraments."

1. I don't know a whole lot about Archbishop Thuc, but it think there is some controversy surrounding his consecrations? Is that correct?
2. Does this line possess valid apostolic succession?
3. Is this Bishop a valid Bishop? I have no reason to doubt it.
4. Any other thoughts send them along.
 
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2018, 11:21:52 AM »
This is kind of a sensitive topic.

I would not personally trust Taylor's orders.  I've heard good things about him, but a man's piety and leadership are ultimately irrelevant to the most important question: is he validly ordained? 

Quote
1. I don't know a whole lot about Archbishop Thuc, but it think there is some controversy surrounding his consecrations? Is that correct?

Not really, the controversies which exist are more about the men who Thuc consecrated, and whether or not they validly conferred orders to other men.  Some derivations of the Thuc line are highly problematic, while others aren't problematic at all.  The more problematic ones, though, are barely identifiable as Catholic anymore anyways (like the Palmarian Church).

Quote
2. Does this line possess valid apostolic succession?

Probably the wrong question to ask.  Look, it's often said today that "such and such is a Thuc Bishop, so he's OK to go to."  As someone who supports and defends the validity of the main Thuc consecrations and sub-consecrations (i.e., the consecrations by Thuc of des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora, the three of whom are responsible for much of the sedevacantist clergy in the United States-- Pivarunas, Dolan, Sanborn, McKenna (RIP), et al.), just "being a Thuc bishop" doesn't satisfy the question of validity.

The problem is that some of the men Thuc consecrated went off and changed the sacramental rites.  As a matter of fact, this happened with some of the Palmarians.  Six or seven consecrations later some "Thuc bishop" ends up consecrating or ordaining some Catholic man and everybody is "fine" with it because "he's a Thuc bishop."  But really, you need moral certainty about all the steps that lead up to the man in question. 

Taylor has been conditionally consecrated/ordained a few times.  His "best bet" for validity is through Adamson (a minor Thuc bishop in the US), but Adamson has his own issues (in terms of validity), discussed here: http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=137.0

I'm not saying Taylor's not a bishop or priest for sure, I'm just saying that it seems to me that the evidence does not exist, or at least I have not found it, to satisfy concerns about validity.  You need to show that everyone who "led up" to him was validly ordained/consecrated, and given that this involves investigating the validity of five or six Palmarian clerics, it would be difficult.  Certainly not impossible-- if someone really wanted to do the investigation.  But short of that, I'd stay away.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

TKGS

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2018, 06:03:23 PM »
It's often said today that "such and such is a Thuc Bishop, so he's OK to go to."  As someone who supports and defends the validity of the main Thuc consecrations and sub-consecrations (i.e., the consecrations by Thuc of des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora, the three of whom are responsible for much of the sedevacantist clergy in the United States-- Pivarunas, Dolan, Sanborn, McKenna (RIP), et al.), just "being a Thuc bishop" doesn't satisfy the question of validity.

This actually is a major problem for Catholics today.  The other problem I've seen reported are people who claim to be Thuc bishops but who can really provide no evidence that the line of succession truly exists.  Sometimes, a congregation become so desperate for a priest, they will accept a number of excuses in order to believe and accept the orders of someone who shows up.  On CI there has been a extensive discussion of this problem in regards to a "Resistance priest" in Kentucky looking for a bishop to ordain his seminarians.

I don't personally know anything about Bishop Taylor so I can't advise on that issue, but I would be troubled by Mith's comments. 

One generally good resource for finding a Mass is Lux Vera:
http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html

 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

Vinny Zee

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2018, 07:37:36 PM »
It's often said today that "such and such is a Thuc Bishop, so he's OK to go to."  As someone who supports and defends the validity of the main Thuc consecrations and sub-consecrations (i.e., the consecrations by Thuc of des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora, the three of whom are responsible for much of the sedevacantist clergy in the United States-- Pivarunas, Dolan, Sanborn, McKenna (RIP), et al.), just "being a Thuc bishop" doesn't satisfy the question of validity.

This actually is a major problem for Catholics today.  The other problem I've seen reported are people who claim to be Thuc bishops but who can really provide no evidence that the line of succession truly exists.  Sometimes, a congregation become so desperate for a priest, they will accept a number of excuses in order to believe and accept the orders of someone who shows up.  On CI there has been a extensive discussion of this problem in regards to a "Resistance priest" in Kentucky looking for a bishop to ordain his seminarians.

I don't personally know anything about Bishop Taylor so I can't advise on that issue, but I would be troubled by Mith's comments. 

One generally good resource for finding a Mass is Lux Vera:
http://www.ecclesia.luxvera.org/Directory-USA.html

Can you clarify what you mean by being troubled by Mith's comments? In a positive way or negative?

I found a directory that directs back to http://www.traditio.com

Their list directs masses to stay away from, such as Novus Ordo Latin Masses, but notes positively if the Mass was safe (for lack of a better word.) Therefore, that was what I was looking for in the area where I'll be traveling. I checked out the list you've provided and this church is on the list from ecclesia.luxver.org as well. Thanks for the comments.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 07:39:28 PM by Vinny Zee »
 

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2018, 08:39:50 PM »
Hi Vinny, fwiw (very little  :furtive: ) when I "thank" a post, it usually means that I agree with the post. Mith and TKGS have been around trad forums for over ten years ( that I know of ) and I consider them to be very reliable.
Cheers.
"Now when [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.".      St. Francis de Sales.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne

Anonimus

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2018, 10:30:23 PM »
I will be on travel for work for quite a while.  The only thing nearby to which I think I could possibly attend has this to say on its website about its clergy.  It is a traditional Roman Catholic Church.  In the early years it stated their church was exclusively served for a short time by priests from the late-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X (“SSPX”), or by priests affiliated with the SSPX. When the Society decided to no longer serve the faithful of this particular area, the members sought-out independent and validly ordained priests who were willing to travel and continue offering Mass and providing the Sacraments, until a full-time priest could be found.

In late-February 2008, they found a new, full-time priest, who they also call Bishop. Prior to being offered the position of “Pastor,” the members performed their due-diligence by investigating his religious credentials.  It states the congregation confirmed his credentials as authentic and accurate and he passed a criminal background check, as required by the By-Laws & Constitutions.  It says the Bishop’s first acts as Pastor included making a Profession of Faith, as well as the Oath Against Modernism, both of which are renewed annually as required by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The website states the members regard the Bishop as a validly and licitly ordained Priest and Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church and they requested to be under his Episcopal Protection and Jurisdiction.

According to the website, the Bishop’s "Apostolic Succession is derived from Bishop Patrick Taylor, who possesses valid and licit Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession through Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh Thuc of Vietnam, as well as additional sources. According to the late-Rev. Fr. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D. (1929-2006), in his article “I’m The Only One Ordained!”, the Vatican II church and its popes have authenticated and fully recognize the validity of Bishop Patrick Taylor’s Apostolic Succession."

According to the website, "Patriarchal powers were conferred on Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh Thuc by Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. These extraordinary pontifical faculties were renewed by Pope Pius XII on December 8, 1939, and were never rescinded. This power included, but was not limited to, the choice of priests to consecrate and to confer upon them the episcopacy without papal approval, and without any contingencies of future approval, acceptance, or ratification of those consecrations by future popes. Therefore, the bishops directly consecrated by Archbishop Thuc, and those bishops, who in turn consecrated others, to our present day and in the future, possess both valid and licit Apostolic Succession, and are all validly and licitly ordained priests and/or bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The validity and/or liceity of the Sacraments are not contingent upon the personal sanctity or worthiness of the priest or bishop conferring Sacraments."

1. I don't know a whole lot about Archbishop Thuc, but it think there is some controversy surrounding his consecrations? Is that correct?
2. Does this line possess valid apostolic succession?
3. Is this Bishop a valid Bishop? I have no reason to doubt it.
4. Any other thoughts send them along.

Hello Vinny-

Yes, there most definitely is controversy regarding the validity of Thuc consecrations (all of them):

On the one hand, some question Thuc's mental capacity to validly consecrate.

On the other hand, there are counterarguments defending his sanity.

Which are the better arguments seems irrelevant to your question: "Is there controversy?"

I would not want you thinking there is a consensus on the matter, because there simply is not.

The validity Thuc consecrations are DEFINITELY controversial (as proven by the fact that some even some sedes themselves do not accept them), and you need to be aware of that.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 10:32:25 PM by Anonimus »
 

annamack

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2018, 08:06:38 AM »

Hello Vinny-

Yes, there most definitely is controversy regarding the validity of Thuc consecrations (all of them):

On the one hand, some question Thuc's mental capacity to validly consecrate.

On the other hand, there are counterarguments defending his sanity.

Which are the better arguments seems irrelevant to your question: "Is there controversy?"

I would not want you thinking there is a consensus on the matter, because there simply is not.

The validity Thuc consecrations are DEFINITELY controversial (as proven by the fact that some even some sedes themselves do not accept them), and you need to be aware of that.

The only serious sedevacantists that I'm aware of who have a problem with all Thuc lines are the SSPV, who raise scrupulosity to an art form.  There is plenty of good evidence to defend the Thuc consecrations and very little to uphold the scrupulosity.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, Rubecorks, Cleves

Rubecorks

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2018, 12:03:09 PM »
I will be on travel for work for quite a while.  The only thing nearby to which I think I could possibly attend has this to say on its website about its clergy.  It is a traditional Roman Catholic Church.  In the early years it stated their church was exclusively served for a short time by priests from the late-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X (“SSPX”), or by priests affiliated with the SSPX. When the Society decided to no longer serve the faithful of this particular area, the members sought-out independent and validly ordained priests who were willing to travel and continue offering Mass and providing the Sacraments, until a full-time priest could be found.

In late-February 2008, they found a new, full-time priest, who they also call Bishop. Prior to being offered the position of “Pastor,” the members performed their due-diligence by investigating his religious credentials.  It states the congregation confirmed his credentials as authentic and accurate and he passed a criminal background check, as required by the By-Laws & Constitutions.  It says the Bishop’s first acts as Pastor included making a Profession of Faith, as well as the Oath Against Modernism, both of which are renewed annually as required by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The website states the members regard the Bishop as a validly and licitly ordained Priest and Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church and they requested to be under his Episcopal Protection and Jurisdiction.

According to the website, the Bishop’s "Apostolic Succession is derived from Bishop Patrick Taylor, who possesses valid and licit Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession through Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh Thuc of Vietnam, as well as additional sources. According to the late-Rev. Fr. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D. (1929-2006), in his article “I’m The Only One Ordained!”, the Vatican II church and its popes have authenticated and fully recognize the validity of Bishop Patrick Taylor’s Apostolic Succession."

According to the website, "Patriarchal powers were conferred on Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh Thuc by Pope Pius XI on March 15, 1938. These extraordinary pontifical faculties were renewed by Pope Pius XII on December 8, 1939, and were never rescinded. This power included, but was not limited to, the choice of priests to consecrate and to confer upon them the episcopacy without papal approval, and without any contingencies of future approval, acceptance, or ratification of those consecrations by future popes. Therefore, the bishops directly consecrated by Archbishop Thuc, and those bishops, who in turn consecrated others, to our present day and in the future, possess both valid and licit Apostolic Succession, and are all validly and licitly ordained priests and/or bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The validity and/or liceity of the Sacraments are not contingent upon the personal sanctity or worthiness of the priest or bishop conferring Sacraments."

1. I don't know a whole lot about Archbishop Thuc, but it think there is some controversy surrounding his consecrations? Is that correct?
2. Does this line possess valid apostolic succession?
3. Is this Bishop a valid Bishop? I have no reason to doubt it.
4. Any other thoughts send them along.

Hello Vinny-

Yes, there most definitely is controversy regarding the validity of Thuc consecrations (all of them):

On the one hand, some question Thuc's mental capacity to validly consecrate.

On the other hand, there are counterarguments defending his sanity.

Which are the better arguments seems irrelevant to your question: "Is there controversy?"

I would not want you thinking there is a consensus on the matter, because there simply is not.

The validity Thuc consecrations are DEFINITELY controversial (as proven by the fact that some even some sedes themselves do not accept them), and you need to be aware of that.

There is no principle that posits the idea that just because a closed group like the SSPV decides to deny something they should not, that it would therefore become a "controversial" issue, except among themselves. It's like a cult belief. It's really based on an irrational fear of sin, like a phobia. And because it is based on emotion, they don't really engage in arguing it, because they very quickly are reminded how it is really just an unfounded fear not based on any Catholic principle.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

Marcellus

Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2018, 09:28:45 PM »
Taylor has been conditionally consecrated/ordained a few times.  His "best bet" for validity is through Adamson (a minor Thuc bishop in the US), but Adamson has his own issues (in terms of validity), discussed here: http://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=137.0

I'm not saying Taylor's not a bishop or priest for sure, I'm just saying that it seems to me that the evidence does not exist, or at least I have not found it, to satisfy concerns about validity.  You need to show that everyone who "led up" to him was validly ordained/consecrated, and given that this involves investigating the validity of five or six Palmarian clerics, it would be difficult.  Certainly not impossible-- if someone really wanted to do the investigation.  But short of that, I'd stay away.

I am a "Taylor line" priest.  I can understand and appreciate that everyone is cautious regarding the various lineages that are out there.  If anyone cares to know Bishop Taylor's lineage, I can provide that.  The two main lineages that other clergy examine in Bishop Taylor's lines are the Duarte-Costa and Thuc lineages. 

If you haven't read Fr. Coomaraswamy's  "I am the Only One Ordained", you can find it here:  http://www.the-pope.com/ordination.rtf

I know personally the bishop being asked about in this post, and I know this chapel well.  It's a small group of faithful, but they are very warm and kind.  Your other option in that area would be the "indult" Mass, and I could not recommend attending there.

In the end, I can only say this... If you doubt a priest's orders, the simple solution is to just not receive the Sacraments from him.  And if we are all honest, there's not one lineage out there that at least one person will say is invalid.. Thus the title "I am the Only One Ordained" of Fr. Coomaraswamy's article.

It seems, honestly, it's the laity that argue these issues much more than the clergy of all the various lineages.  Most of us at least get along well with one other, despite our differences.
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: Traditional Catholic Church Clergy Line
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2018, 09:04:43 AM »
Thanks for the input, Marcellus.

I agree with you here:

Quote
In the end, I can only say this... If you doubt a priest's orders, the simple solution is to just not receive the Sacraments from him.  And if we are all honest, there's not one lineage out there that at least one person will say is invalid.. Thus the title "I am the Only One Ordained" of Fr. Coomaraswamy's article.

But not all reasons (for doubting someone's orders) are created equal.

The doubts that the SSPV have about the orders given from Thuc to des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora are just negative doubts, borne out of a clinging to ignorant suppositions which have all been disproved (Thuc wasn't crazy, he had witnesses, the consecrations were publicized, there are certificates, etc.).  But we don't have, at least not as a matter of any public record, these types of proofs for people like Taylor. 

Doubts about the orders that trace back to Thuc through the Palmarians are quite well founded.  The Palmarians changed the rites for the sacraments, and Adamson's lineage (and therefore Taylor's) come through several Palmarian bishops.  If anyone in the lineage was consecrated or ordained according to a non-Catholic rite (a real possibility when dealing with Palmarians), then the whole house of cards comes down unless it can be shown that such persons were conditionally consecrated/ordained in the Roman rite (by someone with the power to do so).  As far as Duarte Costa goes, I think that's a complete dead-end, and I'd venture to say that Taylor would probably agree given that he sought conditional rites through Adamson.

It seems to me that Taylor should definitely provide whatever proofs he has, and publicly.  It doesn't have to be super complicated, even just a free blogspot where the lineage is stated and the available proofs for its validity and posted (pictures, certificates, etc., not just of Taylor's own reception of those orders but of the men who led up to him).  There's really no onus on any Catholic to recognize extra-canonical orders, the onus is on those who receive(d) them to prove them.  For the most part this hasn't been a problem throughout the tradosphere, but here and there we run into certain clerics were legitimate questions are raised and those clerics are really the one's responsible for answering them.

ETA: Taylor and Adamson don't come from the Palmarians.  As Marcellus pointed out, they come from Dattessen and the line didn't deviate to the Palmarian Church.  There are still questions, of course, but they don't have anything to do with the Palmarians, mainly with the ordinations of most of the men.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 09:45:42 AM by Mithrandylan »
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, Nick, Rubecorks