FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Tracking validity.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I remember reading somewhere that the Vatican tracks the ordinations of independent bishops and priests but I can't remember who does so. Does anyone know?

I ask because I found a series of videos on YouTube where the CMRI argues that they were validly ordained. An SSPV priest is present at the conference and he briefly argues why their orders are doubtfully valid. The arguments are basically individual interpretations of canon law, so I was wondering if I could write to the Vatican to get a straight answer. I remember reading/seeing/hearing that someone at the Vatican did state that the Thuc line bishops were validly ordained, but I can't find that now. I'm curious to get an official answer as both sides raise good points.

(Note: not trying to break the forum rules of talking about sedevacantism, I just want to know who to contact at the Vatican.)
I do not think the Vatican would release such information by request. Any tracking would be for their own use.

Be wary though of any "valid" lines. They start valid, but they usually don't end up valid given enough "generations".
  Damooster,

  I do recall that Papal Nuncio to the US Archbishop Pio Laghi in the late 80's say that the Thuc consecrations, while illicit to them, were valid.  That I know is out there.
  One thing that I could not track down is the story of a Thuc-ordained priest in France going to the SSPX.  He may have even ended up in Rome.  His orders were accepted.  Mind you, I do not know all details, so take this one with a grain of salt.

  Joe
(02-11-2012, 02:46 PM)joe17 Wrote: [ -> ]  Damooster,

   I do recall that Papal Nuncio to the US Archbishop Pio Laghi in the late 80's say that the Thuc consecrations, while illicit to them, were valid.  That I know is out there.
  One thing that I could not track down is the story of a Thuc-ordained priest in France going to the SSPX.  He may have even ended up in Rome.  His orders were accepted.  Mind you, I do not know all details, so take this one with a grain of salt.

  Joe

I had a story saved to my desktop of a Thuc-line priest who returned to the Church and there was no problem.  Unfortunately, I deleted it, so I can't give you any more information.

I am interested in knowing the results of the lone priest who remained behind at Abbot Leonard's Alabama Benedictine Monastery when it  reverted to the Church.  I remember that he was not allowed to function as a priest until whomever at the Vatican studied his line of ordination. 

Does anyone have an update on that?
Does anyone know what congregation at the Vatican would have this information? I understand they may not give the information freely, but I want to at least try.
The Vatican offices that would know something about it would be 1. Congregation for the Clergy, 2. Cogregation fo Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and 3. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 
  If the priest is now in good standing with the Vatican, the Congregation of the Clergy could be your one-stop-shopping destination.  Mind you,  the way things work even at today's Vatican, departments overlap, or, as I believe it would be in this case, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would have done the "heavy lifting" in deciding to recognise the orders of the Thuc-priest, even though I could see the Discipline of the Sacraments coming into play in the conversation.  Just going on from what I have picked up on over the years.
  By the way, Derkson's work at thucbishops speaks about how in the Spring of 1982, the L'Osservatore Romano had the story on Bishop Thuc's consecrations of the year before.  Of course, they would consider them illicit in their own eyes, but there is nothing in the article that assailed the validity of the consecrations.  Just thought I would add that.
  If you get anywhere with the Vatican's Congregations, I certainly would be curious in what they have to say.

  Joe