I think that Thuc line of bishops is dubious at best.
It's known fact that he consedratec non-Catholics, some Old Catholic also and known French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist. 
Those two "witnesses" claimed that archbishop Thuc didn't educated them to know anything about consecration of Catholic bishop. So they weren't actual witnesses, they don't know if it's valid or invalid.
If we have a pope like Pius IX. or Gregory XV., Pius XII. he would be warned, and if he would persist, he would be excommunicated like he was from Paul VI, aka Montini. 
Some of the bishops and laymen defend archbishop Thuc because it's convenient from them to accept validity of his consecrations. 
Just because of crisis and confusion, lack of true Catholic authority from pope and rest of hierarchy, it doesn't mean that everything goes.

I don't know what the true way is, but neither one of us really know, only God.

 
I think that Thuc line of bishops is dubious at best.
It's known fact that he consedratec non-Catholics, some Old Catholic also and known French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist.
Those two "witnesses" claimed that archbishop Thuc didn't educated them to know anything about consecration of Catholic bishop. So they weren't actual witnesses, they don't know if it's valid or invalid.
If we have a pope like Pius IX. or Gregory XV., Pius XII. he would be warned, and if he would persist, he would be excommunicated like he was from Paul VI, aka Montini.
Some of the bishops and laymen defend archbishop Thuc because it's convenient from them to accept validity of his consecrations.
Just because of crisis and confusion, lack of true Catholic authority from pope and rest of hierarchy, it doesn't mean that everything goes.

I don't know what the true way is, but neither one of us really know, only God.

So I see that you've bought into Bishop Kelly's nonsense, eh?

No, it's not "known fact" that he consecreated some non-Catholics, Old Catholics, and a French ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  Some shady individuals have emerged CLAIMING to have been consecreated by Archbishop Thuc but were unable to provide any evidence of it.  And so what if he did?  This would not impact the validity of his consecrations.

Church Law does not require witnesses to be "educated" about the Rite of Episcopal consecration, just like witnesses to a Baptism don't have to know about the requirements for the validity of a Baptism.  In both cases, when you have a Bishop who is property trained, it's presumed that he can validly confer episcopal consecration.  Archishop Thuc has multiple "doctorate" level degrees from Rome in Canon Law and Theology, and started/founded and taught at a seminary.  In fact, the Church does not require witnesses at all, not to establish validity.  Several clandestine bishops operated behind the Iron Curtain and were ordered to consecrate bishops without witnesses.  When The Nine met with Bishop de Castro Mayer, seeking episcopal consecration, he directed them to +des Lauriers.  When The Nine objected about the validity of the consecrations, +de Castro Mayer responded with, "If it's valid for +Guerard, it's valid for me."  Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was arguably THE top pre-Vatican II theologian, having helped formulate Pius XII's declaration regarding the Dogma of the Assumption and was personal confessor to Pius XII for some time, and a top professor of theology in Rome.  Between +Thuc and +des Lauriers, they knew the requirements for validity.  +des Laurier spoke Latin fluently (taught classes in it).  +Carmona was no slouch either, also having advanced degrees.  There's no positive doubt whatsoever about the validity of the consecrations in terms of the Rite itself being properly confected.

Mario Derksen demolished Bishop Kelly here:  http://www.thucbishops.com/ ... if you're interested in seeking the truth.

Finally, NOBODY defends the validity of the +Thuc line because "it's convenient from [sic] them to accept validity".  That's nonsense and it's slanderous.  They defend the validity based on Catholic principles.  I invite you to read Derksen's study above.

Mario Derksen demolished Bishop Kelly here:  http://www.thucbishops.com/ ... if you're interested in seeking the truth.

There's even a 5 page summary. http://www.thucbishops.com/Open_Letter_SUMMARY.pdf

   
I have read all that Derksen wrote on Thuc bishops. 
It's not about SSPV, also Lefevbre and SSPX-MC, fr. Hewko and others were against Thuc consecrations. Did you ever saw a docuмent that confirms that consecration of fr. Des Lauriers?
Why this dubious ordinations and consecrations, (scandal with Palmarian sect) didn't happend with other traditional bishops?
I don't have any reason to defend SSPV, or CMRI, they both aren't present in my country.
I don't defend SSPX new leadership, I think bishop Fellay is going in wrong direction. 
And SSPX is the only one that I can go to TLM. 

Archbishop Thuc at Vatican II, here are some direct quotes:

“With great consolation I see present in these assemblies the delegates of the non-Catholic Christian Churches, to be witnesses of our fraternity, sincerity and liberty. But where are the delegates or observers of the non-Christians? Do they then not need this wondrous sight of the unity of the Catholic Church? Or do they not need an explanation of our Christian faith? What! do the people whom they represent not form a third part—or rather more truly the greater part— of these scattered sheep that Christ eagerly desired to enter into one sheepfold? The scandal coming to the whole world from the absence of any invitations sent to the chiefs of the non-Christian religions I expounded in the central commission—but in vain. I earnestly begged the council to make good the omission, so that this most loathsome discrimination between some religions and religions may not longer be found. This absence of an invitation to the heads of the Christian religions confirms in a certain manner that prejudice creeping through the Asiatic and African world: ‘The Catholic Church is a church for men of white color and not for colored men.’” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359)

“…it seems to me an extraordinary thing that in the schema concerning the people of God, express mention is nowhere made of women, so that the Church appears totally masculine, whereas the reality is quite different. Do not women constitute the greater part of the laity—even of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course I well know the Church had to behave like this in order not to offend the prejudices of those ages. Thus, St. Paul imposed the veil on women in Church, lest they displease the angels. So why must men proudly enter the church bareheaded which is contrary to the custom of clerics today both in the West and the East? In the same way, silence was imposed on women whereas in this Basilica the walls recently resounded to the voices of the Fathers. So to, nuns must obtain the permission of churches to wash the sacred linens. And likewise this unjust discrimination appears here and now in this conciliar hall… Why is it that in our atomic age, when almost everywhere in the world women have obtained juridical equality with men, it is only in the Church of Christ that they still suffer these injurious discriminations… I eagerly seek… these discriminations against the most valiant sex be eradicated. Last of all I shall be grateful to him who can present me with a plain apodictic text of the Gospel which excludes the sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the sacred functions.” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp. 513)

I think what we all need to be cautious, we all read something on the Internet and chose what to believe and what not. I don't find arguments from Mario Derksen more or less convincing, but to impose absolute certainity of validity of all consecrations done by archbishop Thuc is to me unfathomable. 
I'm writing what I think, I may be wrong so may you Marulus Fidelis, and Ladislaus.
We all are searching for answers, on wrong and/or right places. 
It's sin a pride to think one has all the answers, like Dimond brothers.
I found pro et contra arguments for R & R and sedevacantism, I don't think I can accept either position fully as it is mostly presented.
We all know that there have been changes in rites of sacraments, but we don't know for sure if new sacrament of ordination or consecration is invalid. We only have our opinions and conclusions based on research of Church docuмents, theologians, etc.
It's up to Church in future, after the restoration to declare such things, and also about who is pope and who is antipope.
I believe that archbishop Lefevbre was right in this position.

I can't impose my opinion, but I have right to express it, like all other members. 

Wait a second, so you also must consider all of the Novus Ordo consecrations and ordinations dubious at best since they are full of sodomites and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists?

Do you treat all Novus Ordo ordinations as invalid?

You definitely should because the form has been destroyed, I'm just pointing out an inconsistency if you consider NO sacraments to be valid.

And I'd still like to know if you treat Novus Ordo consecrations as invalid since pretty much all the NO "bishops" support sodomy and other heresies.

I hope you realize that consecrations have nothing to do with whether the one performing them is a heretic, in that case the eastern schismatics wouldn't have valid orders.

A heretic can be Pope or he cannot.

The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.  "Per se" or "by its very nature" means that this applies to any Catholic, including the pope.

The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church.  "Per se" or "by its very nature" means that this applies to any Catholic, including the pope.

Let's not derail this thread. It was just an example of a truth claim which is either true or untrue and you must know which. 

I'm trying to point that one can't say the validity of Thuc's consecrations will be decided later by the Church.