Father Francis Miller, OFM was a personal friend of Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. He shares his personal reflections on the latter part of His Excellency's life in this audio from the 2014 Fatima Conference in Spokane, Washington.
I was at this conference and I wished I could see the slides that came with the talk. I am grateful to find this talk again because I had family that I wanted to hear this and now I can send them a link.
I feel the pain you felt, Father. I felt similarly with my grandparents, wanting to escape from an awful situation with them but fully aware of their age and how that limited them.
I've read a couple of replies in the comments about reading a book by Edward Jarvis, who is against Bishop Thuc. He is an Angelican clergy, and I wouldn't waste my time.
anger does NOT always do that when JESUS was angry & chased the snakes & vipers out of his father's house his anger did NOT seek try to obscure the facts... another modernist FAIL at 6: 33- [6: 36- "always"]... [6: 38- 39- "seeks to obscure the facts"] ...6:49 talking about human philosophy & ad hominem arguments YET JESUS was far more than mere HUMAN & his anger was ALWAYS RIGHTEOUS... and these modernists will find this to be TRUTH & FACT on judgement day!
How about someone explain Father Cekadas reversal of decision that he was dubious in his actions ? Or someone explain in detail His Excellencies crazy Concecrations ? This is of utmost concern...
Father Cekada, I believe, simply accepted the Consecrations "upon further consideration", as did Bishop Sanborn and others. As for the "Crazies", Archbp Thuc lacked the resources to properly background-check potential Consecrees. And he was said to have been guileless and trusting, preferring to err on the side of performing dubious Consecrations than denying potentially valid ones. Regardless, if Bishop Des Laurie, one of the top minds of the entire mid-20th Century Church, believed his Consecration was valid, that's proof enough for me. 😊
@@dandavis5718 ...thanks brother. I would like to hear about the " upon further considerations" part. Anybody have any reasonings for this. This is critical. Ty...
Cekada was an opportunist. He was against Thuc until he saw the Thuc lineage as a way to power. Religion is no more than a pretense for men like Cekada. He covered up child sex abuse, the scandals at SGG are well known. Many left that church after sex abuse at the schools was covered up by leadership. So many skeletons in the closet with them.
Not me. as I said before, Bishop thuc consecrated in obedience to Christ. Not in disobedience to the man he considered Pope like the rest of them. And both him and the Mexican priests that he consecrated coming from persecuted countries, knew what they had to do to preserve the faith
Bp.Slupski lineage were Clergy at 1st trad chapel I attended a decade ago. His validily isn't 1 of my questions,Mr.Presumptuous. Thuc line is the only 1 which Consecrated pre-Vatican 2 Priests into the 3rd generation. First Holy Sacrifice of the Mass I attended as a boy 1991 was offered by valid Priest.(Ord 1961) If a valid Priest/Bishop offers H.S.O.T.M & nothing is available,I will go,contrary to the Una Cum view.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad Too many for print. If it's God's will,I will talk w Fr.Francis one day. You know why he left Bp.Vezelis group? He's 1 if not the only Priest ordained by Bp.Vezelis to defect. It's not an insult,simply an observation.
I've thought about this many times. The first time I heard this story was from a Fatima conference that I listened to on a traditional Catholic website about 8 years ago. The poisoning of Fr. Miller has never really left my mind.
But I do wonder why, when Bishop Thuc had the chance to leave his “captors” with a police escort, he claimed he was too tired and wanted to stay? I find that extremely odd.
@@Vendeevictores He may have perhaps been drugged. Thankfully, however, none of what would later transpire matters in the long run since what he did will always be "valid" (even the Novus Ordo Church must concede to this fact, especially since the 1981 Consecrations were conducted under the True Code of Canon Law 2 years before the false Canon Law was implemented by the Novus Ordo Church); What's done is done. Also, once a bishop uses his "Validity" (the POWER to consecrate), then "Liceity" (the RIGHT to consecrate) becomes irrelevant in this particular unique situation. This is because if the faithful in this unique situation focus on trying to perfectly synch "Liceity" with the already absolute “Validity”, not only would it be unnecessary but it could also POSSIBLY lead to the faithful being forced to choose between two logically contradictory positions: the faithful must choose between either being "Obedient Heretics" or "Faithful Schismatics". While the latter would be preferred INFINITELY over the former given only those two choices, one also realizes that a "faithful person" cannot logically be a "schismatic". And because the Church would NEVER put the faithful in such an agonizingly frustrating conundrum (since the Church's primary purpose is to "save souls"), the faithful can therefore receive the sacraments from ANY Thuc line of bishops so long as the proper “matter” and proper “form” of the sacraments are present (proper “intention” is ALWAYS PRESUMED when proper “matter” and proper “form” are present in the conferring of the sacraments by the priest) and they can freely do so with an absolutely clear conscience. That’s why I consider Archbishop Thuc a hero and champion of the faith.
@@michellelongwell75 didn't have to. Faith is enough and knowledge from the history how heretics treated one true faith through the ages. It's just another example of true virtues of followers of Christ and wicked deeds of NovusOrdo hierarchy.
Not sure what to make of this. Story sounds very vague. There was a big gap in the Abps age towards the end. 82 to 96 years. Not saying the Abp was a fraud or invalid or anything but there is nothing truly convincing about this story. God Bless.
You'll want to read the Edward Jarvis book "Sede Vacante: The Life & Legacy of Archbishop Thuc". This was the first person Thuc consecrated directly after the Fall of Saigon: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pGUQqNgffUM.html
@Tridentines 78 I see this book being suggested a lot here. I made a comment about Edward Jarvis because he's an Angelican clergyman. The Angelican religion is against traditional Catholics. As traditional Catholics, we shouldn't read books by religions that oppose us. God bless you.
If he was indeed sound in mind, then he had the right to leave the Franciscans. He had plenty of opportunities to return with Father Francis, he preferred not to.
@@jmac4412 Then he was not in his right mind. He even told the police he was fine. You can't have it both ways. Either he was mentally compromised, and was kidnapped through being confused, or he was mentally competent, and wanted to leave the Franciscans.
Bishop Neal Webster claims Bishop Thuc was physically sick by 1984,wanting to go somewhere as to receive proper medical care,good food,and not live hand to mouth in his last months. Also,he wanted to die amongst his own people (Race) due to missing Vietnam. He was in his right mind,simply was elderly physically dying and had a homesickness we'll never understand. He hadn't been to Vietnam in over 20 yrs. Bishop Webster's account of why he left sounds legit and it's very understandable. Amazing man and story,his life would be an awesome inspiring movie. Bishop Ngo Dihn Thuc ora pro nobis.
At first this objection may appear to be logical but there are many logical reasons that it is not necessarily true as you presume. Those who are around the elderly know that even when elderly are of sound mind they are inherently more vulnerable, esp to deception. This is for reasons such as physical, technological, cultural, social, etc. This reminds me of what one of the Church Fathers had written next to a human skull on his desk: Where you are now, I once was. Where I am now, you will one day be. Besides, it would be a ridiculous requirement if the Church required someone to have the mental capabilities of a 25 year old to validly confer sacraments. Many great saints such as St Francis of Assisi and St Alphonsus were deceived in their later years by those whom they should have been able to trust. So yes, it is easily possible for a mentally sound person to be deceived, blackmailed, or otherwise manipulated! Even the very fact that mentally capable people such as yourself still doubt the bps consecrations (despite more evidence than almost every consecration in history and using sound rules of theology) is a testament to this. There is no reasonable doubt. Clearly there is more to the story for those pushing the 'doubt '. Furthermore, contradictions in any person can be easily understood in the confessional, where we confess our contradictions of action before God! To sin is to contradict!
