CathInfo.com

There are 2 Thuc lines: Moises Carmona and Gerard des Lauriers.  Gerard des Lauriers consecrated in secret(?) and Moises Carmona consecrated openly with supplied jurisdiction. Epikea is mentioned. Bishop Pivarunas was consecrated under Carmona.

When I hear someone saying, oh, the Thuc line is not good or right, I question if they understand there are different Thuc lines.

Of course everyone understands there are different ones. The main point of the article is that Thuc's intentions cannot be trusted. He deliberately withheld his intentions in administering the sacraments on two different occasions. Both being self-admitted.

No, I don't think he ever admitted that.  It's a lie that he admitted to simulating sacraments.  He denied ever simulating sacraments.  And his post-consecration actions would indicate that he didn't simulate nor ever admitted simulating the sacraments.  Just because someone with an ax to grind says he admitted something doesn't mean it is true that he admitted doing something.

He says he did:“So after the questionable ordinations [Palmar de Troya], Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the ‘orders’ he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect.” (Angelus Magazine, June 1982 edition – emphasis supplied)

Did the Angelus Magazine in June 1982 make this up? If so, why did Thuc never rebuke the lie?

"If there was rebuttal evidence to be found, that would be one thing, but there is no rebuttal evidence to be found anywhere. This absence alone speaks volumes.In the normal course of events, if any bishop was falsely charged with such a serious crime as simulating the Sacraments of the Church, one would expect a very loud and vocal denial of the accusations, followed by immediate demands for correction and retraction. Perhaps a defamation suit might even be in order. But in the case of Bishop Thuc, the record is absolutely silent. The article in the Angelus magazine was published two and one-half years before his death, and yet there is not a peep of protest against it to be found anywhere."

Have you got any evidence for that?

In fact, in 1981, he issued the following declaration in a German magazine (though it's not a great translation):

Quote

I testify to have done the ordinations of Palmar in complete lucidity.  I don't have anymore relations with Palmar after their chief nominated himself pope.  I disapprove of all that they are doing.  The declaration of Paul VI has been made without me; I heard of it only afterwards.  Given the 19.XII.1981 at Toulon in complete possession of all my faculties.

source: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bishop-pfeiffer/msg709477/#msg709477  Thanks, Ladislaus!

You can also read: http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_to_%20Bp_Kelly_FULL.pdf

And you can read a summary of the research that Fr Cekada and Bishop Sanborn did when they investigated the Thuc consecrations: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=60&catna

There is no reasonable basis for continuing to spread the calumny that +Thuc simulated any sacrament much less simulated an episcopal consecration.