CathInfo.com

I dont treat them as invalid. Learn how to read.
I treat them as POTENTIALLY invalid. Huge difference.
We could have treated them as valid if Thuc was interviewed to some satisfaction. But was not. Therefore the best thing would be to get The resistance Bishops to conditionally ordain and consecrated Thuc line Bishops and priests.

You:

I dont treat them as invalid. Learn how to read.

Also you:

But the problem is a Thuc line priest can't be considered a priest at all.

You are looking for an argument when there isn't one. Because you claim to have "positive doubt" regarding +Thuc Orders, you treat them (i.e. behave towards them) as no priests "at all". Calm down

Tom, it is zealous to desire the utmost respect and reverence given to the holy sacraments as you have displayed, and this zeal I share. Please do not let this develop into an unjust anger directed at those who seem to irritate you. This is not the charity of our Blessed Lord. He always retained compassion even for the most annoying and wicked of people.

I do not defend the +Thuc lineage because I go to a +Thuc ordained priest. I do not. I care about justice and truth.

The various scandals attributed to Archbishop Thuc is certainly disquieting, for sure.

However, it is not anyone's right to hold someone guilty until proven innocent; this is not how Catholic moral theology operates. God does not require this of us. The doubt has to be a positive one based in positive evidence, not a mere suspicion.

Pope Leo XIII taught that we are bound to presume the person did a Catholic rite properly if externally, everything was observed, and a Bishop does not need to possess the Catholic Faith to validly consecrate. He only needs to have been validly consecrated himself. We are not speaking of licitness, but of validity. The Church has always regarded the schismatics in the East as having valid ordinations and consecrations, despite not possessing the Catholic Faith.

Saint Francis de Sales on Rash Judgements, from an Introduction to the Devout Life:

“Oh! how displeasing to God are rash judgements! The judgements of the children of men are rash, because they are not judges one of another, and in judging they usurp the office of our Lord; they are rash, because the chief malice of sin depends on the intention and counsel of the heart, which is a hidden thing of darkness to us; they are rash, because each one has enough to do to judge himself, without undertaking to judge his neighbour…We must always do the same, Philothea, judging in favour of our neighbour, as far as is possible; and if it were possible for an action to have a hundred different aspects, we should look at it in that aspect which is the most favourable.”

I have explained this multiple times already. I will explain yet again.

The issue is not that it is absolutely a positive doubt, but it is the step before that, which leads to a positive doubt. Which cannot be dismissed. It is credible suspicion. Suspicion that cannot be dismissed just because you like some Thuc priests or bishops want it to be otherwise. There was a MORAL OBLIGATION to investigate. Which sadly was not done by anyone during his lifettime. Now we do not have the means. In the absence of this ability to investigate we are OBLIGED TO ABSTAIN.

This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. It is the obstinacy of people who do not want to reflect and accept this moral obligation which makes it stubbornness and it is sinful. Gravely so. 
There is really only one time in the theology of the Church and this has been outlined for thousands of years that we must NOT PRESUME VALIDITY, and this is when the minister THEMSELVES HAS SAID THEY DIRECTLY HAD THE OPPOSITE OPINION.

This is well docuмented and quite obvious. But it is conveniently left out by Thuc priests.


I am really getting weary of this hack job theology that goes on with so many faithful. But I keep going in the hope that there are some good willed folks out there reading this that might care enough to save their souls.

But don't worry, I'll be here to mercilessly harass you.

Is that why you're here? Once again, too bad your dad didn't beat the shit out of you...