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.

Sure, with one being squishier than the next.

Did the Angelus Magazine in June 1982 make this up?

Yes, yes they did.  Nobody has ever found a source for this statement other than The Angelus article, and there are contrary statements made by +Thuc.  He regretted Palmar after Clemente came out as "Pope" but never actually said anything about withholding intention.  Only other statement from +Thuc was that he was once pressured into concelebrating a NOM but said he didn't join in the intention of the "con-celebrating" priests to consecrate.  So he was trying to spin that as a more passive participation in the NOM.

Hold on.  When we're talking about traditional tridentine rites of ordination (or any tridentine sacrament) aren't those written/designed in such a way that the intention is PART of the prayer?  In other words, as long as the bishop is valid, and matter/form (i.e. sacramental prayers) are said/valid, then his personal intention (or lack of one) is irrelevant, no? 

Yes, I absolutely agree with this opinion.  By performing the rite, the minister is doing WHAT the Church does.  And the notion of "internal intention" is widely misinterpreted.

I use this analogy.  I hold a loaded gun to someone's head, pull the trigger.  Meanwhile, in my mind I'm saying, "I don't want him to die.  I don't intend that he die."  But by pulling the trigger you DID intend for him to die.  Based on this warped definition of "formal intent," one would argue that he didn't really formally kill the person because he didn't intend for him to die.  Of course he had the intent.  When he willed and intended ("internally") the cause, then he also willed the effect.

You could have a Satanist priest up there saying, "I don't intend to transubstantiate.  I don't intend to transubstantiate." but if he goes through and performs the Rite that the Church intends to effect transubstantiation, he certainly intended to do what the Church does, and the Church's intention for the effect is transubstantiation.

This warped notion of "formal" has also polluted some approaches to moral theology, such as regarding the jab.  It's also been the root justification for EENS denial.  But this concept has been abused and misapplied for the past few centuries.

You could have a Satanist priest up there saying, "I don't intend to transubstantiate.  I don't intend to transubstantiate." but if he goes through and performs the Rite that the Church intends to effect transubstantiation, he certainly intended to do what the Church does, and the Church's intention for the effect is transubstantiation.

This is the exact example I had in mind. Lex orandi, lex credendi. I remember some EO guy on FE accusing me of thinking about the sacraments like they were magical spells because I made the same example about a Black Mass having a valid consecration (in an argument about the New Mass being evil).

I think that one could make an argument that Black Masses are invalid because they're not really intending to do what the Church does.  If you offer Mass in a Catholic Church at a scheduled time, for example, you're performing a Catholic Mass.  But if you take it to some other venue and put all these Satanic circuмstances into the equation, that could vitiate what the Church intends to do with the Mass.  But it's debatable.

It is debatable. I would say that since God tolerates sacrilegious liturgies among the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and (potentially) the Novus Ordo, all of which are an offense to Him; it's possible that He would tolerate a valid consecration in a Black Mass as well. But, that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this opinion.  By performing the rite, the minister is doing WHAT the Church does.  And the notion of "internal intention" is widely misinterpreted.

I use this analogy.  I hold a loaded gun to someone's head, pull the trigger.  Meanwhile, in my mind I'm saying, "I don't want him to die.  I don't intend that he die."  But by pulling the trigger you DID intend for him to die.  Based on this warped definition of "formal intent," one would argue that he didn't really formally kill the person because he didn't intend for him to die.  Of course he had the intent.  When he willed and intended ("internally") the cause, then he also willed the effect.

You could have a Satanist priest up there saying, "I don't intend to transubstantiate.  I don't intend to transubstantiate." but if he goes through and performs the Rite that the Church intends to effect transubstantiation, he certainly intended to do what the Church does, and the Church's intention for the effect is transubstantiation.

This warped notion of "formal" has also polluted some approaches to moral theology, such as regarding the jab.  It's also been the root justification for EENS denial.  But this concept has been abused and misapplied for the past few centuries.

How would this apply to the novus ordo mass? Do you believe that a new mass could be valid if a validly ordained priests offers it?

How would this apply to the novus ordo mass? Do you believe that a new mass could be valid if a validly ordained priests offers it?

No, because the NO Rite itself is defective.  By removing the Offertory and replacing it with a тαℓмυdic table prayer, they have changed the nature of the Rite.  Of course with the "for all" translations that was certainly invalid.  Pope Leo XIII in discussing the Anglican Orders spoke of how a Rite, even when the essential form is valid, gets put into a non-Catholic context, it could be rendered invalid ex adjunctis (from the context and things around it).  If the Rite itself is defective, no amount of intention can override the defect.

That's a different issue than validity of course, but I share your disappointment with many / most of the SV priests.  Among other things, including a tendency to coldness and bitterness, they're about the worst when it comes to EENS.

Zero theology, adamant about obedience to them, no common sense, off their rocker.