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".

By the way, someone in the other thread has already shown that your personal hero, Bishop Williamson, held Thuc-line to be valid...

Tom's argument is more circular than a flushing toilet bowl; and that's its high point.  The comedic value is ample so I occasionally dip in and watch for developments.

Tom's argument is more circular than a flushing toilet bowl; and that's its high point.  The comedic value is ample so I occasionally dip in and watch for developments.

Not really. I will start a new thread on this, but the comparison I want to start using is this:
Imagine you come around the corner of an alley way, see a woman lying dead on the ground covered in blood and a man standing over her with blood on himself and a knife in his hand.
The sedevacantist says "we must never even think he was possibly the killer! because of X Y Z good thing about him"
The normal Catholic says, "Hang on and investigate".

Lol dude you are so silly.

Maybe it's just me, but I think Catholic charity dictates that we don't just believe every terrible unproven claim that is made about a CATHOLIC BISHOP.

Let's just clear this up... Yes or no, does the unsubstantiated claim from the Angelus, in of itself, show positive doubt for Archbishop Thuc's consecrations?

You've dodged and failed to refute almost every point I've made so far, let's see if you're forthcoming enough to be able to answer a simple yes or no question.

It merits investigation as the allegation is very serious.
And it is substantiated by his obvious mental instability combined with the awful fruits of all his successors.

It merits investigation as the allegation is very serious.
And it is substantiated by his obvious mental instability combined with the awful fruits of all his successors.

  An allegation is a negative doubt.  A positive doubt requires FACTUAL PROOF, which you don't have.

It's not an allegation.
He admitted it.

There's no proof.

Even if he did, he was manifestly so unstable, as I have already shown you how he went back to the novus ordo in the end.

So anyone that falls into temptation and falls into a bad religion is insane?  Sorry, but YOUR criteria is insane.

It's not an allegation.
He admitted it.
It is more of an allegation that he claimed lucidity.
Even if he did, he was manifestly so unstable, as I have already shown you how he went back to the novus ordo in the end.

He admitted nothing of the sort.  I mansplained to you already the origins of the story.  He said that when the bishop in whose diocese he was asked / ordered him to concelebrate, he showed up but, after being attacked over it, said that he hopes God will be more merciful on him than his attackers were and then said that he didn't really participate since he did not receive Holy Communion.  He was relying there upon the fact that there's no integral Mass per Traditional Catholic theology if the priest doesn't receive Communion.

From that comment Fr. Cekada idiotically claimed that he was "simulating a Sacrament" ... which is NOT what the man said at all.  The Angelus then conflated that with his repudiation of the Palmarians to conclude that he had withheld his intention.  Not a single shread of evidence has ever been produced to back our slander, and in fact +Thuc on several occasions affirmed the consecrations and asked for the excommunication to be lifted, and the Conciliars complied.

So, as pointed out earlier, this Scuмmage shifts from one reason to another, after each one is successively debunked, proving his intellectual dishonesty and his malice.

As for returning to the Novus Ordo, you now also disquality yourself with ignorance.  He did not return to the Novus Ordo under his own free will, but was literally kidnapped by some Vietnamese Novus Ordites, and the priest who accompanied him on the trip where this happened, and another individual who was present explained how it all went down.  He was elderly and very frail by that point.

BUT ... even if he HAD returned to the Novus Ordo of his own volition, it still matters nothing.  You do not lose your ability to validly confer the Sacraments due to heresy.

YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO HAVE SUFFICIENT MENTAL CLARITY TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

Even Father Noel Barbara, who was extremely hostile to the consecrations went to visit him after the consecrations of +des Laurier and +Carmona/+Zamora, and despite pushing against them, Father repored that +Thuc re-affirmed the consecrations and showed himself to be in complete possession of his faculties.

Who hasn't been confused by this Crisis?  If that's the standard for being able to confect the Sacraments, they none of us have valid Sacraments, as +Lefebvre himself vacillated back and forth, at one time pleading with Rome to be able to "make the experiment of Tradition".

None of that invalidates a Sacrament.

And in terms of your "internal intention crap", St. Thomas clarifies the matter.  That internal intention does not mean you intend what the Church intends  with the Sacrament, that you intend the Sacramental effect.  You merely have to be acting in the capacity of a minister of the Church and knowingly and intentionally perform the Rite.  If internal intention for the Sacramental effect were required, then no atheist could validly baptized.

If it's announced that Ordinations are taking place, and you go there, put on your vestments, and sincerely performed the Rite, in such a way that everyone in the external forum considers the Rite of the Church to have been properly and seriously followed, i.e. can just say with basic common sense that "that was an Ordination" (vs. some play or blasphemous mockery), then the minister who put on his vestments and performed the Rite INTENDED INERNALLY TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES, REALIZING HIS ROLE AS A MINISTER OF THE CHURCH.  No amount of "wishing it away" or "wishing it into the cornfield" would invalidate the Sacrament, any more than pulling the trigger on a loaded gun next to a man's temple does not constitute an intention to kill or at least gravel injure the man simply if the man in his mind thinks, "I do not wish for him to die."

St. Thomas ST III Q64:

Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.
...
But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A. 8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good.
...
On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.
...
A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.

That second metaphor explains the distinction quite beautifully, where the Church sends the minister to carry our the Church's intention, and if he goes ahead and does what he's supposed to, on orders from the Church, based on the mission he was sent on, his wicked intention means nothing.  He merely needs to intend to carry out the mission, by simply doing as he was told.  He could be filled with hatred the entire time, begrudge that the alms were being sent, wishing he could steal them, even plot to steal them, but so long as he carries out the commands and DOES what he's told, the intention of the one who sent him, i.e. the Church ends up being carried out, since the Church's intention regarding what she means to accomplish by the Sacrament ends up taking place, even if the emissary is kicking and screaming the entire time.  Church's intention and faith supply for those lacking in the minister, as long as the minister carries out his duties and internally intends to do what the Church does.

Where St. Thomas indicates that sufficient internal intention is lacking to confect the Sacrament is in a situation of "mimicry".  He distinguishes 2 types of perverse intention, i.e. whether the minister is seriously doing what the Church does or is engaging in mimicry (playacting or mockery).  Then the second type of perverse intention has to do with the effect of the Sacrmanet, with the former invalidating, the latter not invalidating.

The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

I'll give you another example.  St. Thomas refers to someone saying that he's not intending to perform the Rite, and that can be in a play or movie, or it can be just someone goofing around, making fun of the Rite, or derisively blaspheming ... or, if you have ever seen Fr. Goettler in a video explaining how to offer the Tridentine Mass, he says repeatedly, "I do not here intend to consecrate.", since he's going through the motions by way of demonstration, but not intending to actually perform the Rite.

This type of scenario best explains the subtle distinction that does not impress itself on dull minds such as those of the slanderer.

If you go to the chapel and see Fr. Goettler saying the words of consecration with some seminarians watching him, and he says, "oh, I was just teaching them how to say the Mass."  Father is not intending to do what the Church does, but intending to teach what the Church does.  If you see a movie where the priest pours water on someones head and says, "I baptize you ... etc.", it's quite clear from context, the he's intending to imitate what a priest does in the Rite, and not do what the Church does, i.e. actually performed the Rite (seriously).  If you see some buffoons dancing around, "ha ha, I baptize you etc.", it's clear that they are not intending to do what the Church does, but to mock what the Church does.  Get this distinction yet?

If the Church publishes an "such and such will be ordained to the priesthood at 9AM at the cathedral", and the bishop goes in there and performs his role in carrying out the Rite as the Church prescribes ... then he's intending to do what the Church does.  Period.  Sacrament valid.  And I will follow up with a question that the bumbling fool who warp the notion of internal intention cannot answer, and it'll be brief.

It's not an allegation.
He admitted it.
It is more of an allegation that he claimed lucidity.

Dude are you like 14 and using your dads account? Be honest