SAUCY DOUBTS AND FEARS

He that hath not the craft, let him shut up shop. Herbert

From time to time, we're asked whether we accept the Thục line. When we reply with something simple like, "Yes, at present, we believe the lineage/succession is valid," we always do so with some unease. Such a short answer doesn't fully express the many caveats we harbor. Inasmuch as our recommendation of multiple lineages has sparked a firestorm of e-mail inquiries, the Readers thought it time to post a more nuanced position, one that reflects their deeper concerns about the deplorable condition of line today.

Our misgivings are almost entirely practical.  As you know, PL's hobby horse is not episcopology or armchair diagnoses of the mental state of consecrators. We leave all that to others with more industry or free time than we possess: the Readers' chief aim has ever been to expose the deficits of the Tradistani cult masters. Period.

Nevertheless, that doesn't mean we altogether ignore the question of validity of lines. Validity of holy orders is at the very heart of traditionalism and indeed has always been a concern to the Church. No one wants to adore mere bread, as the Skipper's people sacrilegiously did. So, for what it's worth to our readership, here's where PL stands right now on the question:

Although we continue to affirm in general the validity of many Thục "bishops" (at least until the other shoe drops), we nevertheless do hold in reserve our assent to particular branches of the line. Our caution stems not so much from sacramental theology as from the horror stories of actual ordinations or consecrations. Deficient training, carelessness, ignorance, and downright goofiness are the ingredients for a deadly cocktail of doubtful orders conferred by men who themselves may be validly consecrated "bishops."*

This is the hidden scandal of contemporary Sedelandia.  As a result, no one can have confidence in the assertion that a given line is unqualifiedly valid, seeing that "clergy" from one of the successors in that line may be invalid owing to an ordaining "bishop's" incompetence (or worse, his own invalidity). In other words, the question is not whether the Thục line is valid, but whether you can trust the orders conferred by a specific "bishop" in that line.

But let's lay aside all these abstract convolutions and give you a few concrete examples.

● At one video-recorded ceremony, the knuckle-headed  consecrator was holding the Pontificale in one hand so he was physically unable to impose both hands. (Only heaven knows why the dopey consecrandus didn't recognize the defect at the time! Cluelessness, probably. Most of these guys would be grossly unprepared to be a busboy.)

● Another thoughtless "bishop" either didn't have a Pontificale or didn't want to use the one he possessed, so he had someone retype the rite of priestly ordination, thus inviting the intrusion of textual errors on the part of a transcriber who knew no Latin.

● Yet another flake admitted he was unaware the Pontificale had a separate text in the Appendix for conferring orders on one candidate (all references to the ordinand in the grammatical singular). He used the section where all the references are in the plural. That would be dangerous even if he knew Latin.

● In preparing for an "ordination," an MC, pressed for time, copied a well-known rubrician's Latin instructions and distributed them to the other ministers, including the yo-yo ordaining "bishop." His comment was, "Now let's have this in English so we know what's going on."

● At an "ordination" to the priesthood, the dippy "bishop," despite the immediate availability of a genuine printed Pontificale, chose to use a photocopy of the rite, which had been greatly enlarged for ease of reading. However, the not-too-swift  "priest" who photocopied the materials hadn't noticed that, during the image-enlarging process, a paragraph had dropped out. Only the vigilance of the lay MC assured the text's recitation at the ordination; the air-head "bishop" hadn't noticed anything was missing.

 ● At many ceremonies, viewers report dazed "bishops" repeatedly stumbling over the Latin words of the Pontificale, often having to re-read them or crudely garbling them. Just look on YouTube and you'll see for yourself how they struggle with fluency, pronouncing each word slowly, hesitantly, and un-rhythmically, like an adult illiterate who's still learning the alphabet. It's clear they're just decoding letters without understanding a thing they recite.

● One "ordination" was so hopelessly disorganized that some witnesses went away unsure the sacrament had been confected.

● A certain ding-a-ling "bishop" has been known to "ordain" entirely in the vernacular.

● Another "bishop" didn't own a copy of the Pontificale for a number of years after his "consecration," and the moron has never acquired a complete set of vestments for basic pontifical ceremonies.

●Some Latin-language certificates of ordination are so desperately ungrammatical that they threaten the presumption of a valid ordination.** 

You see, therefore, even if each of these men had been consecrated by a valid, knowledgeable, and conscientious member of the Thục line, that's no guarantee they'll subsequently perform rites with the same scrupulous care. Moreover, their abject incompetence in Latin leads us to believe that many of these clowns have no idea about what they're doing, unless they've got a Latin-literate MC. (Most lay MC's, however, are not, despite their admirable ceremonial expertise.) Often, it's obvious the "bishops" understand neither the rubrics of the Pontificale nor the explanation of the ceremonies by recognized Latin ecclesiastical authors.

It would not be an exaggeration to affirm that many orders conferred today, both sacerdotal and episcopal, are highly doubtful, if not baldly invalid. Hence, our hedging. At present, we'd be willing, if pressed, to aver that Carmona and, with greater internal confidence, des Lauriers were validly consecrated, yet we cannot affirm unreservedly the validity of the many, many men in the sub-lines coming afterward. The validity of some second generation "bishops" like Robert Fidelis McKenna is probably assured, but third-generation successors are much less certain to varying degrees. Of many in the fourth generation and beyond, we have positive doubt. None of us would ever set foot in their chapels, not even to get out of the sun or a blizzard.***

In hopes of putting his agitated mind to rest, the conscientious layman will naturally ask a twofold question:

(a) How can I determine whether the "bishop" who consecrated my "priest" is valid, and (b) how can I know if the ordination of my "priest" was competently performed? 

Sad to say, but here's no way of getting a reliable answer, unless you have videos of both ceremonies. But even video records won't solve the problem. For instance, you might have footage of a correctly executed priestly ordination, but the ordaining "bishop" might be doubtful or invalid.**** Alternatively, you might view a correctly conferred episcopal consecration, but if the guy who was consecrated can't understand Latin well or is careless, he may later botch the ordinations/consecrations he performs. Lamentably, in most cases, there is no video record, and usually no reliable documentary attestation. 

The only safe approach is to stay away from the "bishop"-led cults. Find independent traditional priests trained by the SSPX or Novus Ordo clergy who've been re-ordained by "bishops" with multiple lineages (Duarte Costa, Thục, Eastern rite, etc.). They're not as hard to find as you might think. Those who assist at SGG or the Swampland have viable options virtually in the backyard.

YOU NEVER HAVE TO BE STUCK IN A CULT CHAPEL. GET OUT TODAY!

* It goes without saying there is also a deeper, more frightening question involved, one which PL cannot answer: "Is the episcopal character itself sufficient for valid administration of Orders, or is some licentia ordinis exsequendi, that is, authorization to use episcopal powers, implicitly or explicitly required?" (B. Leeming,  S.J., Principles of Sacramental Theology [1956], p. 521). If the answer is yes, then very few clergy in TradWorld  — if any — are valid.

** One well-known sede's Testimonium Ordinationis not only lawlessly reads rite dimisso, but also prints a nominative (!) as the subject of the infinitive contulisse in indirect discourse. Adding insult to injury, he spells the ordinand's Latin Christian name using the nominative instead of the dative. In other words, the illicit phrase didn't give him the slightest clue as to the right case for the name. Now that's real dumb.

*** Our remarks here do not apply to our doubts about Dubious Dan. They're based on the 1990 letter from the nine priests regarding his one-handed ordination (click here). As you know, Tony Baloney's defense of one-handed orders has been completely demolished (click here). To our knowledge, Dannie has yet to beg Big Don to "ordain" and "consecrate" him sub conditione. Therefore, the validity of every man he's ordained in major orders is suspect.

**** For instance, from personal observation, one of the Readers can affirm that Dannie's ceremonies are performed accurately. Many years ago, our colleague purposefully attended an "ordination" to see whether Dannie knew enough to use the text with everything in the singular. (He knew way back then Deficit Dan was no Latinist and thus probably not able to think on the fly and change the plurals to singulars.) It turned out that all words were indeed in the correct grammatical number for the "ordination" of one individual. However, Dannie's doubtful status renders the man's orders doubtful despite the competent execution of the rite. (As an act of charity, a few years ago we sent one of Dannie's creatures, a Mexican national, a copy of the Spanish translation of our monograph "The Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand." We urged him to seek conditional orders. We don't know what he did. For the health of the souls he serves in Mexico, we hope he heeded our plea. It's always possible, though,  that the loud-mouthed Chihuahua King of Juárez advised him against prudent action.)