Ut quis Fideles Inveniatur

Has the Thucists' retraction letter been taken seriously?

 

The defenders of Ngo Dinh Thuc's position, also called Thucists, avoid the issue of this posthumous retraction letter from their founder. What is the reason for this evasion? Could it be that they have no arguments against hominem? Why so much cheap and unjustified dialectic? Can you block the sun with one finger? His way of acting on this issue reminds me of the way of proceeding of the Pharisees regarding Our Lord Jesus Christ when he said: “You break the commandments of God, while you observe the tradition of men; washing jugs and cups and many other things similar to these you do.” And he said to them: “You have beautifully done away with the commandment of God, to observe your tradition.” (Saint Mark Chapter 7, verses 8 and 9 ). Likewise, you Thucists distort the truth through error, teaching and spreading what your founder never defended. You say that he is a holy bishop, you say that he is a “traditionalist”, that he is a defender of the TRUTH, and that he is a sedevacantist. If so, why did he issue this letter of retraction and submission to “Pope” John Paul II? You have a lot to explain. As for us, we refresh your memory and leave you the retraction letter for your meditation. You have the source from which this retraction was extracted. I wonder. Is the source reliable or fake? You can investigate it. Here is the letter:

Carthage, Missouri , July 11, 1984.

  “I, the undersigned, Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular archbishop of Bula Regia, and emeritus archbishop of Hue, wish to publicly retract all my previous errors concerning having illegitimately ordained to the episcopate, in 1981, several priests, namely: Fathers Guerard des Lories, Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, as well as having rejected the Second Vatican Council, the new "Ordo Missae" , and especially the dignity of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, as the current legitimate successor of Saint Peter, published in Munich in 1982.

I sincerely wish to ask everyone to forgive me, praying for me, and repairing all the scandal caused by such regrettable actions and statements of mine.

I would also like to exhort the priests mentioned above, who were illegitimately ordained by me to the episcopate in 1981, and all those whom they in turn have ordained bishops and priests, as well as their followers, to recant their error, abandoning their truly false position, and reconcile with the Church and with the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II.

Again, I wish to ask for your loving compassion and prayers of support, so that I may please God in the rest of my life.

  With all my thanks, and asking for God's abundant blessing on all of you. I am sincerely yours in Christ and his Blessed Mother,

Your Excellency Most Reverend Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc.

Archbishop.

 

As you will see, Thucist gentlemen, the letter shows:

First. That she is legit. Because it has all the formality that every letter addressed to the Holy See demands and you can observe that. Or are we inventing something? It would be dishonest for us to act in the same way as you. We would be missing the TRUTH and that is very serious. We do not want to lower ourselves to the dialectical and poorly founded speculations of your Thucist graces.

Second. In the retraction he makes a clear and unequivocal mention of three “bishops” who were the last of the large number of “bishops” that he supposedly consecrated, namely: “Monsignor” Guerard  des Lories , “Monsignor” Moisés Carmona and “Monsignor” Adolfo Zamora, to whom he urges: “ I would also like to exhort the priests mentioned above, who were illegitimately ordained by me to the episcopate in 1981, and all those whom they in turn have ordained bishops and priests, as well as their followers, to that they retract their error, abandoning their truly false position, and reconcile with the Church and with the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II.” Could you tell me why in his letter he makes explicit mention of these three “bishops”? Why does he omit those from Palmar de Troya and the Catholic Vetero? On the other hand, he tells them that their consecrations are ILLICIT, but. Are the other consecrations legal? Or is there a collusion between Modernist Rome and Ngo Dinh Thuc? Unfortunately, whoever writes this is not in the mind of God to answer all these questions that I ask you with great charity, not with the desire to open a dull, hybrid, sterile and fruitless controversy. It is rather up to you to respond frankly and with the TRUTH to all these concerns of mine, which are eating away at my soul.

Third. If you were in the place of these three “bishops”. Would you submit to Modernist Rome as requested by your leader and founder Ngo Dinh Thuc? Apparently your three “bishops” ignored the paternal recommendation of the one who “consecrated” them, and not only that, but they blatantly ignored his advice and began a series of irregular consecrations and ordinations that border on invalidity and illicitness, whose end is the Schism and the confusion that prevails in many traditionalists of good will. Or are you also in cahoots with Modernist Rome whose goal is to end the true tradition of the Church? If this is your case, you are disappointing and collaborate with Rome in the destruction of the Church of Jesus Christ.   

Room. Is it possible to expect a retraction from you as requested by someone you defend so much? This reminds me of the story of Martin Luther and Catherine Von Bora. One day she was resting on a solitary bench at the back of his garden in Wittenberg. His wife, Catalina Von Bora, sat next to him. He was distraught and, raising his eyes to the sky, suddenly exclaimed. Oh beautiful sky, I will never see you! The unfortunate Catherine, terrified by what she had just heard, stood up and told him. What if we go back? Luther responded, No! Because?. she inquired. “Because the car has gone too far in the mud.”  Could it be that your cart is also already too stuck and a miracle is no longer possible due to your damned diabolical obsession?

Fifth. You say that Ngo Dinh Thuc is a traditionalist. Wow, what a novelty! But is it really? Aren't you contradicting yourselves? Because he charitably asks you : “ to recant his error, abandoning his truly false position, and to reconcile with the Church and with the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II.” I do not find in these last words a true traditionalist as you proclaim. Why do you lie? Of course, it is very difficult at this point to accept the truth and what is worse is to align with Rome as he asks, but. Are you not collaborating with Modernist Rome with your attitude? What is the purpose of the modernists? The destruction of the social and religious reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth and the social and religious reign of the Antichrist. Who is behind them? You say it if you have the courage or we say it... Freemasonry and the Jews. Do you know them? I wonder. Aren't you collaborating with them? Because at the end of the day you have every appearance of being liberal in your own way. This position has nothing to do with the true traditionalist position that loves objectivism and scholasticism.

Sixth. You say that Ngo Dinh Thuc is a sedevacantist. What do you rely on to say such brutality without evidence just because your sentimentality advises you to do so? My question is. Would a sedevacantist ask him or would he recant in the face of a staunch modernist like John Paul II, considered by you not to be Pope? Of course not. Or am I wrong? If so let me know.

Seventh. The new "Ordo Missae". What ironies of life, Ngo Dinh Thuc advises the three “bishops” to reconcile (See the retraction) with John Paul II and accept the Novus Ordo Missae, when you do not want to accept the “missal of John XXIII” because in fact it was not composed by him, but by His Holiness Pius XII and edited by John XXIII. What is more heretical? Accept the Novus Ordo Missae or the “missal” of John XXIII? If we follow your way of thinking, we would say that Canon Law is from Benedict XV when it was composed by Saint Pius X and edited by Benedict XV. We cannot accept your diabolical dialectic because it would be going against the TRUTH.