There is no quote, but the lying sack of excrement will continue his slander.

"The Angelus" made the statement based on Fr. Cekada's warping of the incident where +Thuc concelebrated the NOM.

The cope is real people.

Sedevacantism for many is not so much a theological opinion, but a mental condition.

That definitely seems to be the case for you. 

You come across like you're a overly zealous 18 year old.  I'm hoping you're not over 30.

I just hate foolishness with a passion

Trying to sound all snooty, like sedes do won't get you to Heaven. It will only dig your hole.

The only “snooty” one here is you, and everyone can see that for themselves with each reply to Ladislaus you’ve made. He’s destroyed you on every single point so far, so it seems being snooty is all you really can do. 

So then show the positive doubt. “He might’ve been crazy, we just don’t know!” is 100% not positive doubt, especially when every single person who knew Thuc personally affirms his lucidity.

Similarly, unsubstantiated claims and rumors that have no citations or evidence backing their claims is also, 100% not positive doubt.

Positive doubt is the credible belief that something was done which would undermine all his sacraments.

Negative doubt is a ridiculous claim of something which does not undermine the validity.

Positive doubt is the credible belief that something was done which would undermine all his sacraments.

Negative doubt is a ridiculous claim of something which does not undermine the validity.

This is for any honest people out there. The Tom guy is of bad faith. We all need to pray for him.

If the Vatican thought there was "positive doubt" about the Consecration, they could have simply said that Thuc was "non compos mentis" at the time the Consecrations occurred and washed their hands of the whole affair. They did not say that. Here is the docuмent again:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

In fact, the Vatican confirmed that the "illicit" Consecrations took place, and they excommunicated the people involved.

The Vatican said that Thuc "conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin. Subsequently Moises Carmona in his turn conferred episcopal ordination on the Mexican priests Benigno Bravo and Roberto Martínez, and also on the American priest George Musey."

If the Consecrations of these priests were not valid, then why did the Vatican use that language? Why did the Vatican not bring up the issue of "positive doubt?" Why did the Vatican, later in the notification, warn the priests not to "exercise the order" that they received?

Therefore, there is no positive doubt. Tom is completely in the ream of negative doubt with his assertions.

Positive doubt arises when there is sufficient, balanced evidence or conflicting arguments for and against a proposition, making it impossible for the mind to adhere to one side without misgiving.

Negative doubt arises not from conflicting evidence, but from an absence or insufficiency of evidence to establish a proposition as true. The mind does not actively find evidence against the belief, but rather lacks positive proof for it.

Tom lacks any evidence that Thuc was truly insane (lacking the use of reason, i.e., non compos mentis) at the moment of Consecration.

Tom's claim that Thuc's imprudent choices prove his insanity is ridiculous. There have been many imprudent bishops over the history of the Church who Consecrated men who were later recognized as bad bishops. They were not called non-bishops, nor were their consecrators called insane after the fact for Consecrating those men.

Oh, I know the difference between positive and negative doubt. It seems you, however, do not.

Even if we apply your vague and broad definitions, the burden of proof is still on YOU to show that positive doubt was present, which you have yet to do. What about your beliefs credibly lends to the idea that something was done which would undermine his sacraments? That's what you said right? CREDIBLE belief. An accusation from some random article which provides zero citations or evidence lending credence to that accusation is certainly NOT credible. If we applied your standard of "credibility", I could just claim that any Bishop in the world withheld their intention once, and despite me not showing any evidence for my claims, you would consider the claim in of itself sufficient enough to call "positive doubt" on each one of the sacraments that Bishop had conferred. That would be "credible belief" to you... Point is, even if we use YOUR DEFINITION, there is still only a NEGATIVE DOUBT.

Furthermore, positive doubt refers to an impediment found within the conferral of the sacrament itself. Even if Archbishop Thuc did withhold his intention for one of the sacraments he conferred (which he didn't), that absolutely does not invalidate all of his other sacraments. I can't just point to some random questionable act that occurred outside of the conferral of a sacrament, to say that a given sacrament is doubtful, unless Thuc explicitly said before the ceremony "I do not have the intention of making this man a Bishop". An example of positive doubt would be a Bishop fumbling over his words while saying the essential form, as was the case with Fr Pfeiffer's quote consecration. Something that ISN'T an example of positive doubt is "well MAYBE Thuc was mentally deficient despite the fact that everyone who personally knew him affirmed his lucidity... Still, we just don't know!" That is a NEGATIVE DOUBT. So, my question to you is, what problem occurred within the sacrament itself that indicated a problem with the conferral? You cannot point to anything.

Try as hard as you want to discredit the source, it still stands. We cannot investigate now that the man is dead.

We must conditionally consecrate all these Bishops from the certainly valid Williamson line.

In the meantime the faithful must avoid these "bishops".

If you take Roman modernists seriously, I can't take you seriously

Tom doesn't realize his contradiction. He claims to be of the SSPX Resistance.

Well, Abp. Lefebvre took "Roman modernists seriously," at least until 1988. This is just a fact. The docuмent from the Vatican about the Thuc consecrations was published 12 March 1983. The SSPX Angelus Magazine article from April 1983 states:

"The position of Archbishop Lefebvre is absolutely unequivocal—Pope John Paul II is the lawfully reigning Pontiff. We must accept this, we must pray for him, but we are not bound to follow him in measures which are ruinous for the Church."

At the time of that Vatican Notification, the SSPX did "take Roman modernists seriously." They were negotiating with them.

So, Tom is contradicting his R&R principles and insulting the founder of his movement. He implies that he would not take Abp. Lefebvre seriously because Lefebvre took the Roman modernists seriously pre-1988. Even after 1988, the Resistance would not consider that the Vatican excommunication of Thuc (and the reasons stated for it) would be "ruinous of the Church."

Tom just doesn't like the Vatican Notification because it provides clear evidence that there is no positive doubt about the validity of the Thuc Consecrations of the Palamarians, Lauriers, or Carmona/Rivera.


https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20200924013227/https://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=745