As a supporter of the Resistance since day 1, I am in full agreement on this issue (Fr. Pfeiffer).

You can't just throw prudence, common sense, and virtue to the wind because "we need priests". You can't place your own will above God's will, as Fr. Pfeiffer has done. There is NO indication in the real world that it's God's will for him to head a seminary, OR become a bishop. That was 100% Fr. Pfeiffer's will.

On the contrary -- there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. There wasn't just a lack of POSITIVE evidence that it WAS God's will -- after all, most actions we have to guess what God's will is. God seldom speaks with a physical voice to us. No, in this case God's voice was loud and clear -- but Fr. P ignored it, because he didn't like the message.

You missed some of the BS in that post which could easily be turned against the Resistance, denouncing the Thuc line as "excommunicated", "illegitimate" and not "given authority to Consecrate".  That would apply as much to +Williamson's consecrations.  Of course, even to those performed by +Lefebvre (but somehow the SSPX claim that those were different).

Yes, you're right. But I'm only in agreement with him on the ONE issue of Fr. Pfeiffer and his legitimacy.  And yes, I even agree that going Thuc-line was a bad, dangerous move that should cause Catholics to steer clear.
Thuc-line consecrations *are* problematic, he's absolutely right about that.
This is not about consecration without a Papal mandate. It's about Thuc-line in particular. Huge difference.

Father Pfeiffer should be condemned for the alleged witchcraft of Pablo and his own rejection of the flat earth truth.

The Carmona, Zamora, and Des Lauriers lines are unquestionably valid. Yes, Archbishop Thuc wasn’t perfect and neither was Bishop Mendez.

Mmm...not so sure: It seems Rome doubted them enough to treat their priestly ordinations as invalid:

“Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.”

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

And “Rome” says the Paul VI is a saint. Yeah, I really care what the heretics in “Rome” determine.

Perhaps you will find additional causes for concern in this article (which notes Thuc not only consecrated and ordained for the sect of Palmar, but also for at least 5 schismatics, and that two weeks before consecrating des Lauriers et al, he had repented and sought absolution from Rome, continually invoked JPII during the consecration of des Lauriers et al, such that the latter had to continually interrupt Thuc, and that Thuc again repented afterwards and died in the conciliar church).

Many other strange accounts in this lengthy article which would make me avoid him and his progeny except in danger of death:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/amp/

You see, it ain’t just Bishop Kelly who has a problem with Thuc Consecrations.

Interesting to learn that des Lauriers did the same thing Pfeiffer did: Scoured the world to find a bishop to consecrate him, but only ended up in a doubtful state.

Perhaps you will find additional causes for concern in this article (which notes Thuc not only consecrated and ordained for the sect of Palmar, but also for at least 5 schismatics, and that two weeks before consecrating des Lauriers et al, he had repented and sought absolution from Rome, continually invoked JPII during the consecration of des Lauriers et al, such that the latter had to continually interrupt Thuc, and that Thuc again repented afterwards and died in the conciliar church).

Many other strange accounts in this lengthy article which would make me avoid him and his progeny except in danger of death:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/benedictinos.blog/2020/10/15/the-ministry-and-validity-of-mons-thuc/amp/

You see, it ain’t just Bishop Kelly who has a problem with Thuc Consecrations.

Interesting to learn that des Lauriers did the same thing Pfeiffer did: Scoured the world to find a bishop to consecrate him, but only ended up in a doubtful state.

The Church teaches that when the proper matter and form are used, the intention is presumed. What you have put forward is a negative doubt, not a positive doubt which is demonstrated in the case of the NO orders that you defend as valid. Yes, there actually is a positive doubt with the NO orders because the form WAS changed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Thuc line is just as valid as the Lefebvre line.

The Church teaches that when the proper matter and form are used, the intention is presumed. What you have put forward is a negative doubt, not a positive doubt which is demonstrated in the case of the NO orders that you defend as valid. Yes, there actually is a positive doubt with the NO orders because the form WAS changed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Thuc line is just as valid as the Lefebvre line.

If I thought there was any reasonable chance at your conversion, I would spend the time unwinding your errors.

But as it is, I have better things to do than go another 30 pages with an ill-disposed sede.

Have a great night!