CathInfo.com

Again, consider the times. If you can imagine the covid scamdemic panic x 10000, you will begin to grasp how things were in those days for trads trying to avoid public persecution.

The standard cliche back then was "we're in the catacombs" was really true. It is very easy for me to believe that his consecrations happened like that because  +Thuc was most likely avoiding public notoriety/scrutiny/persecution/etc. Back then, "the less people knew, the better off you were" was often the rule, and it was a good rule too - for those times.

Ever been to a TLM in the 70s when dozens of protesters were screaming loudly outside of the banquet hall where you're at  Mass. The crazies were right outside of the only door, protesting against you for being schismatic heretics? The reigning bishop, Gumbleton, was among them when they crashed through the door in the middle of the consecration right as the priest raised the host? and the cops had to intervene? The times matter as regards this issue with +Thuc.

Heck, back then, very many (most?) trads thought the "3 days of darkness was at the door," or that world was going to end at any time - because of the crisis, which for many, was still very much in it's infancy back then. I don't know but IMO, +Thuc likely felt that the situation was critical and that the need for bishops was immediate. That's just a guess, but it fits.

All I am saying is that today, some odd 50 years later, even for those who were around back then it is easy to forget, to not take into account, and to even completely disregard what was going on back then as a main reason for some of the things that happened back then.

And I'm no sede and do not care about +Thuc or the +Thuc line one way or the other, but as a bishop, he does not deserve to be calumniated for this ridiculous allegation, particularly without 100% reliable, solid evidence. I guarantee whether he was right or wrong, he received more than his share of being calumniated while he lived, and not only by the Church's enemies. 

Alright, that is understandable, but Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrations were done quite openly during the same time period. 

No one is calumniating Archbishop Thuc. If you read my long post, you would have seen that there is good reason to doubt the integrity of his actions, and that the most charitable way to interpret his notoriously strange and non-Catholic behaviour, is to attribute it to a mental disorder, since he could not plead ignorance. This is not about attacking his person. It is a matter of approaching the sacraments with the reverence that the Church demands of us. 

For those that argue from the standpoint of: I would rather trust this or that clergyman/clergymen because they were not idiots, they were educated, prudent, etc. etc. etc. ...

  That's the whole point...the entire case against/for +Thuc relies on opinions of other clergy.  This is not evidence.

As I said above, this is not about making a definitive judgement, we all ought to have the humility to admit that the things Archbishop Thuc did, objectively, bring about many real and relevant uncertainties, 

What uncertainties?  Still waiting.

a.  +Thuc was not insane.
b.  Becoming a Sede and consecrating people schismatically does not affect validity (see the Orthodox).

to the point that the Church desires us to treat the entire thing as doubtful. 

This is a bald-face lie.  Nowhere in canon law does a schismatic act = invalidity or some kind of doubt.

Prudent doubt, according to the mind of the Church, is important, and must be taken into account when approaching the sacraments. Probability is not sufficient certitude when it comes to the validity of the sacraments. 

Now you're making up terms.  "Prudent doubt" is not in canon law.  Unless you're talking about "positive doubt" which is based on verifiable facts.  

For the 800th time...what is the reason for YOUR doubt?
You've posted/referenced 2 articles ... 1 is from the Angelus, related to +Thuc's mental state.  1 is from Fr Cekada (who doesn't mention mental state at all) but discusses schism (which he shortly thereafter, agreed with that position).

Neither article is evidence.  It's simply opinions.  YOU CAN'T BASE THE JUDGEMENT OF SACRAMENTS ON OPINIONS.

Those who defend +Thuc obstinately, as a rule, do not seem at peace, and appear to be more like those disquieted souls who thirst impetuously for their conscience to be appeased.

  I don't go to any +Thuc-line masses, nor have I ever (if I remember correctly).  My point in defending +Thuc is not really about him, but in defending canon law and stupid/emotional arguments which hurt Tradition, in general.