I was myself initially troubled about the validity of the Thuc line, and at the the time I did not have the hours of time to devote to the research that would have been required to debunk the SSPV allegations.  But once I did sit down and look at the arguments, the SSPV case against the Thuc line holds NO WATER whatsoever, and it was extremely irresponsible.  Father Kelly quite literally pulled these made-up principles out of thin air and then found some out-of-context quotes to back them up.

This requirement that "competent" witnesses are required who can attest specifically to whether the matter and form were correctly applied simply does not exist.  As long as the minister has been properly trained, e.g. a bishop like Thuc who had been a seminary professor and who had personally consecrated a number of men before Vatican II, the competence of the minister is presumed.  During the Cold War, bishops were clandestinely consecrated with no witnesses present (to minimize the risk), and their validity was never doubted by the Church.  In fact, +Thuc himself had one of these commissions to consecrate bishops clandestinely ... since he was operating in Communist territory.  One could argue, even, that, if there were no legit popes since Pius XII, his permission to consecrate endured ... and one could even make a case that they were done with all necessary jurisdiction.

I mean, what if the priest had botched the Baptism Rite of a man who was being consecrated?  Then he wouldn't be a valid bishop.  Was there anyone present who could swear that the priest poured water correctly on the infant's head and said the proper Latin formula?  Such testimony was never demanded by the Church.  Even though it's theoretically possible that it was botched, the Church leaves it to God's providence to take care of such matters.

What if I'm assisting at Mass?  Could I please get an altar boy trained in Latin to sign off that the priest got the words of consecration right before I go to receive Holy Communion?  According to Father Kelly, I can never receive Holy Communion, then, since I would have to hold the consecration to be doubtful due to lack of sufficient witnesses.

It's utter nonsense.

Frankly, if someone showed me all the facts concerning both the Thuc and Mendez lines and said that just one of the lines was valid, using Bishop Kelly’s criteria, I would have to choose the Thuc line as the valid one. 

Help me with this citation of Pope Pius XII.  I read it online but where?  It was a paragraph long adding to a code of law 1917?  I can't be sure. But the paragraph was the listing of all different ways that a "man", be he layman, (there was a layman elected pope at one time), suspended, excomunicated, heretical, and etc.could be elected, but that person would have no authority.  

To me, when I first read it, it was like, "why would Pius XII say this?"  It was supposed to be an addition to another code/citation written before.

I thought about it.  Pope Pius XII knew how bad things were.  He knew what could be expected after his death.  No authority makes sense but wasn't that always understood?  

Could the next pope show publicly that he was Mason, or heretical?  If so, than the "games" would begin, of no authority.  Then how would we keep sacraments going?

I hope we get answers to our questions.

To me, when I first read it, it was like, "why would Pius XII say this?"  It was supposed to be an addition to another code/citation written before.

Probably because he didn't.  If he did, it would be front and center every single time this issue was discussed.

You are absolutely right about the issue with scruples and negative doubt. Sadly, several years ago I had to instruct one of the younger priests on the difference between positive and negative doubt. One thing in their favor is the fact that everyone of the seminarians and priests are upstanding individuals. Even with their serious flaw regarding the Thuc issue, I like all of them.

Yes, I like them too.  Father Jenkins is one of my all-time favorite priests.

ditto.  Bishop Sanborn laid out very nicely how Bishop Kelly's own criteria apply even more to the Mendez consecration than to the Thuc ones.

Can you tell us where he did so?  While I agree with that premise after reading the SSPV book and the Dirksen reply, I'd like to see Bishop Sanborn's arguments.

I understand the argument surrounding the validity of the Thuc bishops, but can we still really say they are safe? I mean even if they are valid, what about the fact that Archbishop Thuc consecrated and ordained non-Catholics prior to his sedevacantist consecrations? There's no doubt that even if his consecrations were valid they were most certainly NOT licit. He not only consecrated the Palmarians, but even the Old Catholic schismatics. Some assert he was supposedly swindled into consecrating and ordaining the Palmarians, but even if that were the case, it is simply a fact he consecrated five Old Catholic schismatics. Let's also add the fact that the Church gravely condemns such actions. Any bishop to abuse his powers in such a way is ipso facto excommunicated, according to canon law, and he could not exercise his orders. Only with a dispensation that is reserved to the Holy See. If, as Mr Derksen asserts, approaching such a schismatic for episcopal orders is justified by epikeya, then in that case we might as well throw the laws of the Church out the window. If that were the case then who's to say it isn't wrong to receive episcopal orders from the Russian schismatics? Holy Mother Church has declared their orders valid, but they are not licit, and therefore, no Catholic could ever approach them for orders.

Check the lineage of Bishop Carmona (Thuc)