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.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario