DEMOLISHING THE LEFEBVRE & THUC MYTHS ONCE AND FOR ALL / DERRIBANDO LOS MITOS DE LEFEBVRE Y THUC DE UNA VEZ POR TODAS

 

DEMOLISHING THE LEFEBVRE & THUC MYTHS ONCE AND FOR ALL / DERRIBANDO LOS MITOS DE LEFEBVRE Y THUC DE UNA VEZ POR TODAS

As has been repeated so many times, nearly all these men acting as champions of Tradition were initially members of the Novus Ordo church or some Traditionalist sect which was headed by bishops who were themselves initially members of the Novus Ordo sect or working in close cooperation with it. These bishops, Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo dinh Thuc, both admit to celebrating the false Novus Ordo Missae. It also can be demonstrated by documents extant in various publications and on the Internet that they both attended and participated in the false Vatican 2 council and signed Vatican 2 documents. These acts have grave consequences, for they involve these men in schism and communicatio in sacris, and no plea of ignorance will excuse them from this censure because of their episcopal status and knowledge. Even Traditionalists now admit Can. 2200 holds those guilty of heresy until their innocence is proven. Neither Thuc nor Lefebvre ever severed ties with the Novus Ordo entirely and certainly they never presented anything that proved their innocence.

Given this, they must be presumed to be schismatics, heretics, and infamous as stated in Can. 2314 §3. Is the Novus Ordo a non-Catholic sect? Well, if it is considered “Catholic,” then we should all be members! Of course it is a non-Catholic, schismatic sect, regardless of the ridiculous sophisms spun by certain Traditionalists regarding the exclusion of “pure” schism in Can. 2314. Theologians agree that the possibility of “pure” schism ended with the Vatican Council. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Schism is regarded by the Church as a most serious fault, and is punished with the penalties inflicted on heresy, because heresy usually accompanies it. These are: excommunication incurred ipso facto and reserved to the sovereign pontiff (cf. "Apostolicæ Sedis", I, 3); this is followed by the loss of all ordinary jurisdiction and incapacity to receive any ecclesiastical benefices or dignities whatsoever. To communicate in sacris with schismatics, e.g., to receive the sacraments at the hands of their ministers, to assist at Divine Offices in their temples, is strictly forbidden to the faithful.”

This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia was written prior to the codification of Canon Law. But Can. 2314 restates everything mentioned above by invoking also for clerics the penalties of Can. 188 n. 4, which states: “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto by tacit resignation… if a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic faith.” So Lefebvre and Thuc tacitly resigned the episcopal offices assigned to them by Pope Pius XI and Pius XII by celebrating the NOM and signing Vatican 2 documents. They were no longer bishops. They no longer possessed a diocese or were assigned any subjects. They were no longer members of the Catholic Church. And this was true long before Lefebvre set up his seminary or Thuc began his ordinations and consecrations. Yet Traditionalists entirely ignore this inconvenient truth. This despite the fact that it is a part of public record, cannot be ignored and constitutes a notorious delict.

By law (Can. 2232) Catholics had not only the right but the obligation to demand that both Lefebvre and Thuc observe the penalties for their excommunication for heresy and schism precisely because they were public, hence notorious. They could not be absolved or pardoned from these offenses by anyone but a canonically elected Roman Pontiff; no one else could restore them to their offices. Why did Catholics who left the Novus Ordo because of its heresies tolerate in these men what they themselves would not countenance in their local NO bishops? Ignorance of the law is the only reason this ever occurred. These men were not forthcoming about their status in the Church and were committed only to setting up mini-empires outside of it. And to whom did they go to assist them in this endeavor? To young men who had left the Novus Ordo church and believed that they had a “vocation,” a calling from God; men who believed these bishops could validly ordain them, and later, could validly consecrate them bishops. Let us follow the path of vocation and see what it entails, for it is a complicated one fraught with many pitfalls and hardly any today could avoid them all without a dispensation from Rome for some excommunication or irregularity.

(Teresa Stanfill Benns)