What Laviliere and some others have said about SSPV questioning the validity of Thuc's ordinations and consecrations is true. 
The Church presumes validity of the sacrament when the minister is duly trained.  For example, as ordinary ministers of baptism, priests and bishops are expected to know how to baptize.  Laymen, though we should know how to baptize when properly catechised, are not necessarily given such a benefit of the doubt.  As an example,  if an emergency baptism was administered at home by the mother because the baby appeared to be dying, but actually lived, when apprised of the situation, the priest would need to inquire to what the mother did in baptizing the child.  On the other hand,  if a priest was at hand, no inquiry by the pastor of the child would need to be done-he learns that a Catholic priest did the emergency baptism, so he(the pastor) will only supply the ceremonies.  In other words, he would not "grill" the priest as to what he actually did, unlike inquiring with a layman.
  With that said,  the minister of Holy Orders, a truly ordained Catholic bishop, is presumed to know how to follow a ritual/pontifical. 
  Does the typical person assisting devoutly at Mass, even when sitting up close to the altar, know the words that the priest is saying, or does he believe that the priest is doing what he is supposed to be doing at the consecration?  Holy Mother Church teaches that moral certitude is sufficient for us to approach the sacraments.  The priest is there to say Mass, we devoutly assist.  If you do not hear the words of absolution in confession because, let us say, while the priest utters the words, you are reciting your act of contrition, or because he says them lower then usual, does that mean because you did not pay attention enough at the precise moment that you are not absolved?  No, if he said them, then you are, even though, yes, I certainly prefer hearing them,
  I just bring this up so that if anyone has interest in scenario's like I just played out above, I heartily recommend that you inform yourself of both arguements.  Bishop Clarence Kelly, SSPV has a book called "The Sacred and the Profane" put out in the mid-90's.  You can buy it online, or read it for free online at  In it he gives his reasons for saying what he says.
  Objections to Bp Kelly's contention on doubtful validity of Thuc-devived orders can be found at the same website.  The work was put out earlier this year.  The title is "An Open Letter to Bishop Clarence Kelly on the "Thuc Bishops" and the errors in The Sacred and the Profane".  It is a work by Mario Derkson.  It is 101 pages long and is free for the viewing.  There are also related videos on the site for free as well.

  If you read both, you will be able to see what Bp Kelly actually says in his own words, and how others who recognize the Thuc line as valid respond.  Objective facts are laid out with copious footnotes.  Pray to Our Lady and your patron saints for guidance as you undertake this effort. 

(11-28-2011, 02:05 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: I've asked this before, but never got a answer on it.....

Why do does the Society of Saint Pius V forbid their laypeople from attending a CMRI chapel, or Trad priests ordained by the Thuc Line Bishops??

As I understand it, the SSPV also forbids people from receiving our Lord at their Chapels if they attend a FSSP or ICK because some of those priests may be doubtfully ordained( post 1969 NO Ordinations ????), however I will never understand why they believe the Thuc Line priests may also be of doubtful lineage... Anyone know?????

Regarding the SSPV's issue with the CMRI, I can't answer that any better than Joe17. I can elaborate some on their objections to the Moto Proprio places, as I recently heard Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV elaborate on this issue on I will paraphrase:  Validity is certainly a major concern, but there are still other issues aside from that. What one needs to remember is that the Vatican never intended originally for the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo to coexist. The Novus Ordo was meant to totally replace the traditional Mass and efface its memory from the face of the earth. The only reason the Vatican permits the traditional Mass (at least that of 1962) now to the extent that it does is because they know there are people who refuse to give it up and it is a ploy to keep them under their wing. Remember, it was not until 1988, after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops without the Vatican's consent that John Paul II made the initial concessions and permitted the traditional Mass (1962 version) to be celebrated to some extent. When you associate yourself with these Moto Proprio places, you are also associating yourself with all of the innovations and problems which are now a licit part of the Conciliar Church, regardless of which Mass you are going to (all the sham annulments and remarriages, the administering of communion/sacraments to non-Catholics in certain circumstances according to the new canon law, ecumenism, etc.). You also have parishes where they have both the old and the new Mass celebrated. Are you getting hosts consecrated at the traditional Mass or the new Mass? Are the traditional Mass hosts being "handed out" carelessly at the New Mass, with particles going all over the floor for you to step on? Is the priest you go to for Mass and confession also saying the New Mass--that obviously poses problems as well. These are the various objections I heard from Fr. Jenkins and hopefully I haven't misrepresented him in anyway since this is a very rough paraphrase. Bottom line according to him is that even if you do have an older validly ordained priest saying the traditional Mass at a Motu place, no traditional Catholic should want to get all mixed up in all of the above problems.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)