Talk:Ngô Đình Thục

message: Archbishop Thuc's arrival to the United States was predicted in a letter written to Pope John XXIII in 1961.  Utica, NY. mystic Charles Grestl wrote the letter after receiving no reply from either the Vatican or Cardinal Spellman of New York City.  
In 1947, Grestl had several visions of Christ carving angels out of wood and received a message to be given to the "Cardinal". The message from Christ said that "... the priests represent me on the altar and I am always waiting."
This message, couple with references "my foster father's house," "boys work," and the cities of Rochester and New York seem to indicate the arrival of Archbishop Thuc in Rochester, NY; his final trip to New York city, and the coming of a NEW Clergy to replace the clergy that have fallen away from the Catholic Faith.
We discussed these and the biblical and theological issues of Charles Grestl's letter in our book, The Man Who Saw Jesus.  Thank you, Bishop L. Poccia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.238.55 (talk) 14:27, 19 September, 2003 (UTC)
:A book with that title, The Man Who Saw Jesus, is not found in WorldCat and a search for  yields ONE other site besides this Wikipedia talkpage and its copies. It is most certainly not a reliable WP:SOURCE. A search for  yields unremarkable apparition and pareidolia stories — nothing notable or reliable. This topic should just be archived and forgotten. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Grestl

message: What does mean the sentence: Thục was the principal consecrator of Bishops Michel Nguyên Khác Ngu (1909-2009) and Antoine Nguyên Van Thien (born 1906), the last Roman Catholic bishop in Vietnam.[1]?? It is a nonsence. Probably, they were the last Bishops in V. consecrated in Tridentine Ritus but, as I hope, these pages are Wikipedia, not Tradypedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.160.206 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the result of  that changed the sentence from  to  They were not the last Catholic bishops in Vietnam (see "Living Bishops of Vietnam" on catholic-hierarchy.org). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Catholic Bishops in Vietnam??

message: Inasfar as the archbishop's brothers' names all began with Ngô, it is reasonable to infer that Ngô was the family-name, not Thuc. Indeed, it is the tradition in the east for the surname to come first. A better rendition of his full name would be with his Christian names first, since such names customarily precede the surname.
:You are right and I did edit about Vietnamese name. But did you note that his nephew, François-Xavier Cardinal Nguyên Van Thuán, are not bear the family name of Ngô. The reason is that Cardinal Thuan is the son of Thuc's sister, so Thuan bear the family name from his father, and not from family Ngô. —Dieu2005 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's thus wrong to talk about Thuc bishops.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.103.133 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not wrong, Vietnamese custom is to refer to people by their given name (Vietnamese name), i.e. Thục. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: surname

message: The Clemente Domínguez y Gómez article claims that Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc was excommunicated for valid but unlawful ordinations, then accepted back into the church, and then excommunicated a second time. But this article makes no mention of reacceptance or a second excommunication. Which article is correct? — Gwalla | Talk 22:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  communion with Rome 

message: I gave a verifiable source to the corrections I made.  Whether you agree/disagree about the factual accuracy of the source is a matter of opinion – one which the individual reader should be allowed to form of their own.  I have no axe to grind – if you can disprove the source, I will remove without contestation.
The reference to des Lauriers however, is not sourced.  If you cannot provide a verifiable source for this, it does not belong. —Donalcone 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Smith2006 - the one committing vandalism here is you.  You remove properly sourced material and/or substitute your opinion in its place.  Please familarize yourselves with the rules of editing on this site before you continue to make bad ones.  Thanks. —Donalcone 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: Did Thuc use the pre-concilar or the post-concilar rubrics when he concecrated the bishops?  Becuase it appears that Thuc had no religious objections to the Novus Ordo, he only chose sedevacantism because of the crisis within the Church.  If he did used the post-conciliar rubrics, then the whole Thuc line could be in-vaild (by a Traditionalist perspective). —75.3.73.19 22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concecration Rite?

message: These claims may not be posted inside the article in large CAPS constantly, as there is no source provided, and the opinion of Barthe is contrary to that of the official Vatican position. Also, there is no reason to believe that a man who could write Latin and preach sermons all over the world, was unable to confer a sacrament validly due to ALLEGED "mental illness". If Archbishop Thuc could validly celebrate Mass, and he could and observed the rites totally, he could also validly ordain and consecrate, as nothing more special is required. Those claiming otherwise, do not understand Roman Catholic sacramentology and theology. They seem to deny the validity of the Episcopal Consecrations by Mons. Thuc, just because they deem them to be imprudent, undesirable, illicit or criminal. That may be true all, but invalidity is something else that licitity or illicitity. Thuc clearly made imprudent decisions, e.g. at Palmar de Troya, but archbishop Thuc was not insane and unable to say Mass validly. Imprudent popes and bishops conferred sacraments validly. Licitity is something else than validity. —Smith2006 (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of "Mgr. Barthe" 

message: A search of Google Books and Scholar seem to show that Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc is more common than Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục (BOOKS  23 on -Pierre-Martin-Ngô-Đình-Thục Pierre-Martin-Ngo-Dinh-Thuc Pierre-Martin-Ngô-Đình-Thục -Pierre-Martin-Ngo-Dinh-Thuc - did not match any documents. SCHOLAR 147 for -Pierre-Martin-Ngô-Đình-Thục Pierre-Martin-Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, 79 for Pierre-Martin-Ngô-Đình-Thục -Pierre-Martin-Ngo-Dinh-Thuc). On that evidence unless someone can show that it is faulty  the article Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục should be moved to Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc following the WP:NC policy and the WP:UE guideline. —Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ngo Dinh Thuc" gets 2,030 results on Google Books. "Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc" gets 281. Vietnamese Catholics all have Christian names, but it is quite unusual to see the Christian and Vietnamese names stuck together like this. —Kauffner (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Scolaire, you asked the question in your edit summary about papal powers, wanting to know what it means. Here is a good link for you: 
https://holyrosarychapel.vpweb.com/ARCHBISHOP-THUC.html
As well, this makes a good case for being a reliable source as there is a photo-copy of the motu proprio by Pius XI. Ngô Đình Thục publicly consecrated priests without explicit papal mandate, because he knew what powers the pope gave to him. Diligens (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks an extremely dubious source to me. I suggest you go to the Reliable sources noticeboard and ask if it would be a reliable source. If they say yes, then by all means restore the content. But please explain what "invested with papal powers" means. A hyperlink is not an explanation, and readers of an encyclopaedia need to have things explained to them in plain English.  Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hyperlink itself is not an explanation, but the content at the target of that link does explain. WP asks that discussion be started here before asking for help. Why do you consider it "extremely dubious" source? You have the photocopy of the papal document in Latin. It is translated on that page. A document by a pope is within the tops of reliable. The motu proprio is designed as such for the whole world of Catholics because an Archbishop receiving it by name every trusts will reliably exercise whatever he knows it entails. Papal powers obviously means powers the pope normally reserves for himself. One doesn't have to know the details to understand what it means. If needed, another link can be giving to give further details. Now, please give some explanation on why you think it is a dubious source. Thanks. Diligens (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a dubious source because it is a typical "traditionalist Catholic" web page, with lots of bolding, red ink and photos, and very little of real substance. If you actually read WP:RS, especially WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF, you will understand what I am saying. As to your , it is translated on that web page as "whom we invest with all the necessary powers, for purposes known to us." It does not say "whom we invest with papal powers" or "whom we invest with all the powers we normally reserve for ourselves." So we're back to how reliable the page is for the purposes of interpreting that document. I say it is not reliable at all. You would save yourself a great deal of trouble if you just did what I suggested: go to the Reliable sources noticeboard and ask if it would be a reliable source.  Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your "dubious source because" really shows a bias on your part when one looks at your experiential reason. As well, you say "save yourself a great deal of trouble", but really what you are doing is trying to save yourself the "trouble" of discussing this, but Wikipedia doesn't consider that a trouble; WP recommends it BEFORE going to ask for help. Which is what I am doing here. Now, I want to ask you about the link I gave you, and the quote there from Fr. Lesourd. Apparently, you consider it not reliable because it wasn't sourced, which is fair enough, but I wish you stated it. Now I am going to give you the reference about that quote to help you: "Entre Rome et Moscou: Le jésuite clandestin, Mgr Michel d'Herbigny". This is from 1976 and can be purchased on Amazon. The priest who wrote it gave testimony to the public on what he heard from the pope about what the motu proprio meant. Do you accept that a reliable source, and if not, WHY not? Diligens (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to take the trouble do discuss this, at least as long as it doesn't start going round in circles. Since you accept that the source you gave was not reliable per WP:RS, there is no need to go to the RSN, so that's fine. Now, your book, as is clear from the title, is about Michel d'Herbigny, whose mission to the USSR in 1926 was of a very different nature to Thuc's posting in Vietnam in 1938. The conversation reported in the book, as reproduced on your web page, is in regard to the 1926  (d'Herbigny), not the 1938 one (Thuc). So, what does the book – which you obviously have purchased on Amazon or are about to – say specifically about Ngo Dinh Thuc? If nothing, which I suspect is the case, then it is not a reliable source for anything in the Ngo Dinh Thuc article. Do you accept that as a straight answer?  Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my website, and I don't have or plan to buy the book. The quote shows what special powers a pope gives to Bishops who were dealing with Communists. Perhaps you don't really know about the essential needs of a Bishop who already cannot, or likely may not, be able to access the Holy See for permissions. Those permissions are rescinded so a Bishop doesn't have to contact Rome for them. They are very few and common essentials. Perhaps you don't know about the history of this? Diligens (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says the quote shows what special powers a pope gives to bishops who were dealing with communists? Not Lesourd, apparently, since you don't have or plan to buy the book. Not the web page (I only called it "your" web page because you cited it at the start of this discussion), which doesn't say anything about the pope asking Thuc to "deal with communists". And by the way, communists weren't in control of Vinh Long for nearly 40 years after Thuc was posted there, and they weren't in control of any part of Indochina in 1938; the French were in control, and France is a Catholic country. If it's you saying it, then it's original research. Now, I said I would continue to engage with you as long as it doesn't start going round in circles. If you don't produce a reliable, published secondary source to back up your absurd claim that Pope Pius granted Thuc "papal powers", I will not be commenting further.  Scolaire (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the discussion. It was valuable, and I know where to go from here. However, the claim that this Bishop might have been given the permission to consecrate other bishops without papal mandate, is certainly not "absurd". Diligens (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

text: FWIW, there is a biography of +Thuc published some time ago by Fr. Terence Fulham, which also makes the claim of papal powers. Not sure if it would count as a "reliable source" or not, nor do I know where one can obtain a copy today.  Anonymous, 6 May 2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.236.205 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pontifical Powers  

message: The CMRI is a random religious community, not a reliable source. They are not qualified to talk about history in general or this person's biography
Depite your claim, this blog post on the CMRI's website was never published by the Oxford University Press. It was first published by the CMRI itself in one of its magazines. Veverve (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sitting with my copy of Death of a Generation: how the assassinations of Diem and JFK prolonged the Vietnam War by Oxford University Press. I included the page numbers. ~HomeAcc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeaccount (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Death of a Generation is a reliable source, I have no intention of removing it or its information. But this is not the ref I am talking about; the ref I consider unreliable is this one. Could it be a quid pro quo? Veverve (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMRI  

message: The redirect Thuc has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 05:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Thuc]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]