The fact of whether he withheld intention the whole way along his career can only be verified by the man himself.
I have repeated this multiple times now. You are clearly showing how stubborn you are, and quite frankly just autistic at this point. Not even an attempt to be objective.
We would have evidence if he was alive to tell us that he withheld intention. We cant get that now. So the whole thing is inconclusive.
Dont be a moron. If you have inconclusivity in such a serious matter you are morally obliged to abstain.
Stop leading folks to hell by encouraging them to go to CMRI.
Tom, you have been corrected multiple times about this "Thuc withholding his intention" thing. It never happened. You are a diabolical liar.
Thuc was alive for many years after performing these consecrations, and yet, he never said he simulated them or withheld intention. Why would that change if he were brought back to life? Do you have absolute certainty that the bishop who ordained your parish priest did not withhold his intention during the ceremony? Have you asked the bishop?
This retard really just said that asking for evidence is misleading and a distraction.
Easily scandalized Tom can't get past all of the weird stories he has heard about Thuc! Let us flip Tom's autistic logic around and point it back at him: "My name is Tom, I have not seen Bishop Williamson's baptismal certificate and since he was an Anglican and harbored a gαy priest, I have personal doubts about the validity of his consecration because: 'weird story makes me scared'". Tom grow up. If you had been born during the 4th century and had heard some of the stories told about weak priests, you would have been a Donatist. You are currently a neo-Donatist.
All of the arguments against Thuc are controverted at this point. That is why Tom does not want "evidence," he prefers listening only to a vague personal gut feeling.
Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 301 times)