This situation is similar to TIA accusing Archbishop Lefebvre of being a Freemason because someone overheard a seminarian mention it. Then they try to defend their wild accusation because some Masonic publication mentions the Archbishop. But if I recall correctly, TIA said the main proof was that a seminarian said it and he would not lie!
Sorry Mr. G. Normally you are a good poster, but this time you are way off base.
I will explain why, and hopefully you can reflect and come back.
Some reasons it is absurd to make this comparison are: The accusation was not a spurious one because it was Angelus Press publicly stating this, unlike one seminarian. Even less spurious because Thucs clear mental instability makes the possibility of habitual simulation quite possible.
The suggestion that Lefebvre was a Mason, even coming from a seminarian, could indeed be listened to but they would have to some else to suggest that it might be true.With Lefebvre there is none of this, with Thuc there absolutely is. We see how much he flip flopped. So it is very reasonable to be suspicious of his Sacraments being simulated.
There has been way to much tradecuмenism going on even in our own resistance ranks, where we have far too kind to the Thucists. We can't afford to be. CMRI is becoming very popular and the risk that people will lose their souls to them is now much higher than in the past.
Plus also how will people look on us as the remnant, if we are such doctrinal fαɢɢօts by telling people Thuc line and SSPX are ok? If that is the case then why even consecrate our own Bishops like we have? It makes no sense, and is certainly not the spirit of the Martyrs.
And the TIA comparison also falls flat on its face because they are a pure cult who could never make up their mind who they were with in terms of episcopal lines.
Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 2123 times)