CathInfo.com

In a matter so grave as Sacramental validity, we must abstain where the suspicion is credible.

Trying to say that it is about "evidence" is a deliberate (and quite frankly retarded) distraction.


Our Lord Jesus Christ did not choose the Thuc line to preserve his Church, He chose the Lefebvre line. A mentally stable man, with no accusations at all of withholding intention.

Folks, dont be a Thuc-tard. Its pathethic.

The pathetic thing is you pretending to be Christian while having such language. Not a single Saint talks like you do. You think you can escape hell? What a joke ! 

Ok, so you admit that we cannot verify this.  Which means that there is no proof.
If something is inconclusive, then it can't be credible/believable.  Do you not understand this?
No, it's the exact opposite.  Canon Law takes the approach of "sacraments are valid until proven otherwise".

If you were going to prove invalidity, there are 2 steps along the way -

a) facts which show the sacrament was doubtfully valid. (canon law calls this "positive doubt")
b) final determination of invalid.

You don't even have any evidence to support step (a).  There is no evidence to suggest that +Thuc withheld his intention, except people's opinion.  An opinion isn't a fact.  WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, then YOU MUST PRESUME VALIDITY.  This is church law.
Stop ignoring canon law.

You presume validity, EXCEPT when the minister has explicitly gone against the intention of the Sacrament.

Then you are a total fool for ignoring that.

It truly is ridiculous to doubt the validity of the Thuc consecrations.  I have in my files somewhere an original letter written by Abp. Thuc himself written in Latin in attestation of the fact that he had done the consecrations.  For heaven's sake, Fr. Gerard des Laurier was a canon lawyer to Pius XII.  Am I supposed to believe that he is going to run off and get consecrated by some man who does not have his wits?

Here is the problem with consecrations:  Let us say that bishop A consecrates bishops B,C,D,and E.  But let us say that bishop D runs off and becomes a liberal and consecrates bishop F, who is also a liberal.  Now people will heap all kinds of opprobrium on bishop A because he consecrated some guy who went haywire. It is terribly emotional and illogical to questions bishops A,B,C and E because bishop D does something crazy. At some point perhaps the lineage of bishop D does become suspect, but this does not call into question the aforementioned bishops. 

Here is a statement that Bishop Moises Carmona gave of his own episcopal consecration:  Bing Videos In the case of Abp. Vigano referring to the current NO hierarchy as "my brother bishops," I would never do such a thing.  These NO bishops are all of them, to a man, consecrated with the new forms of consecration.  All of their orders can and should be legitimately called into doubt. At most I would say to them, "My brother bishops, if brothers you be, you have, all of you, partaken of the new orders, the New Mass, the Revolution.  We traditional Catholics must call into question your orders..."  Abp. Vigano is just not there yet.  We must pray for him.