Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 21, 2025, 05:54:53 PM

Title: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 21, 2025, 05:54:53 PM
Thuc line priest condemns Thuc line priest.
What a clown show.

How dare he insult his holiness Pope Michael II !!!


(https://i.ibb.co/1Y8sPPc5/Thucsaythuc.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fV48yyJ5)





REASON NUMBER 2343 TO STAY AWAY FROM THUC LINE SACRAMENTS!
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Freind on December 21, 2025, 06:02:07 PM
Looks like the only thing the post is against is "Palmarians, self-elected popes and mystical sects"

This doesn't have anything to do with Thuc.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 22, 2025, 06:33:09 AM
Looks like the only thing the post is against is "Palmarians, self-elected popes and mystical sects"

This doesn't have anything to do with Thuc.

Pope Michael is now Thuc line.

Keep up.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Freind on December 22, 2025, 08:31:41 AM
Pope Michael is now Thuc line.

Keep up.

You mean, I'm supposed to keep up on all the nuts?
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2025, 08:56:29 AM
Thuc line priest condemns Thuc line priest.
What a clown show.

How dare he insult his holiness Pope Michael II !!!


(https://i.ibb.co/1Y8sPPc5/Thucsaythuc.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fV48yyJ5)



REASON NUMBER 2343 TO STAY AWAY FROM THUC LINE SACRAMENTS!
The Thuc line is varied and large.  One size does not fit all.  You can’t condemn all of them and you can’t say all his consecrations are 100% ok.  If you had some critical thinking, then you wouldn’t be making this overly-simplistic argument.  Life is full of gray area.  It’s part of being an adult. 
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 22, 2025, 11:14:20 AM
The Thuc line is varied and large.  One size does not fit all.  You can’t condemn all of them and you can’t say all his consecrations are 100% ok.  If you had some critical thinking, then you wouldn’t be making this overly-simplistic argument.  Life is full of gray area.  It’s part of being an adult.


The point, which you're obviously too dull to understand, is that the entire line has bad fruits. 400 Bishops and counting.
Therefore Lefebvre/Williamson line is much more sane and certain. You should just go with that.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Freind on December 22, 2025, 11:17:18 AM

The point, which you're obviously too dull to understand, is that the entire line has bad fruits. 400 Bishops and counting.
Therefore Lefebvre/Williamson line is much more sane and certain. You should just go with that.

R&R ain't more sane.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2025, 02:58:17 PM

Yes, this is the kind of stupidity to expect from someone who's malicious and has zero intelletual honesty.

+Lefebvre "line" priests condemn +Lefebvre "line" priests all the time, starting with The Nine vs. Lefebvre, and then one SV after another, and then FSSP types that condemned +Lefebvre for the consecrations, and the myriad +Lefebvre "line" priests that went back to the Novus Ordo, and then the +Lefebvre line priests of The Resistance condemn the +Lefebvre line priests of the neo-SSPX

... and now

Resistance priests Pfeiffer, Hewko, et al. condemn Bishop Williamson and the other Resitance priests
Then Hewko leave Pfeiffer and condemns him
Fr. Ringrose, Resistance priest went SV
Pfeiffer of the Resistance went +Thuc-Palmar line

So if any group fragmented in LITERALLY RECORD TIME, where you had priests condemning one another ... that was the Resistance.

I can't believe that Scuмmage attempted to try this tactic, as if it wouldn't blow back in his face, where he was trying to throw a bucket of manure right into an industrial sized fan.  Only someone who's been stultified by malice wouldn't see what was about to happen.  So furious with rage, he hurls the contents of the bucket, and the rage makes him oblivious to the fan.

I recall when Fr. Chazal put out his little chart of the SV groups in trying to attack the SVs, and I said at the time that he'd better be careful about trying that tactice ... and within weeks you had Pfeiffer insulting Bishop Williamson outside his door at Broadstairs.


Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2025, 03:08:38 PM
I just looked it up before posting, but I was sure this moron didn't even know what he was talking about.  He's such an idiot that he completely discredits himself.  He's so filled with venomous rage and hatred (of a diabolical variety) against Archbishop Thuc that he sees +Thuc behind every bush.

Bawden (Michael I) was ordained/consecrated through the Duarte-Costa line with some overlap from Old Catholic.

Martinez (Michael II) was consecrated by two guys from the "Catholic Charismatic Church" (Old Catholic line, sortof)

So there was no +Thuc anywhere in the Michael line ... despite the ravings of this fool.

Nor do I see established anywhere the identity of the one MAKING the critisism in the OP.

This guy's literally had a psychotic break where he dreams of +Thuc flying around, and hiding everywhere coming after him.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Ladislaus on December 22, 2025, 03:12:09 PM
Pope Michael is now Thuc line.

Keep up.

False, you liar.  He was consecrated by bishops from the "Catholic Charismatic Church", whose lineage, if you look it up, comes from Old Catholic with some alleged Eastern Orthodox somewhere in the mix ... after having been ordained to the priesthood by a Duarte-Costa bishop.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 22, 2025, 05:56:17 PM

The point, which you're obviously too dull to understand, is that the entire line has bad fruits. 400 Bishops and counting.
Therefore Lefebvre/Williamson line is much more sane and certain. You should just go with that.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. You are completely uneducated and completely wrong.  Your generalizations on this matter are shockingly stupid.  The whole point is, generalizations don't matter.  EACH INDIVIDUAL SACRAMENT STANDS ON ITS OWN.  

You're trying to invalidate an ENTIRE LINE of clerics based on your "emotional dislike" of a bishop. 

This is the most feminized attack on validity i've ever seen.  If you are truly a man, you should be ashamed.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Marcellinus on December 22, 2025, 07:14:35 PM

This guy's literally had a psychotic break where he dreams of +Thuc flying around, and hiding everywhere coming after him.
You can read the saga that resulted in this madness here:  https://traditionalcatholiclies.com/kenneth#d203e575-ee00-4328-9087-c0a87d4b1e3d

Essentially, he blames Bp. Pivarunas for his marriage falling apart, so now his mission in life is to destroy the "Thucs".

It's sad... Poor man.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 05:51:51 AM
I just looked it up before posting, but I was sure this moron didn't even know what he was talking about.  He's such an idiot that he completely discredits himself.  He's so filled with venomous rage and hatred (of a diabolical variety) against Archbishop Thuc that he sees +Thuc behind every bush.

Bawden (Michael I) was ordained/consecrated through the Duarte-Costa line with some overlap from Old Catholic.

Martinez (Michael II) was consecrated by two guys from the "Catholic Charismatic Church" (Old Catholic line, sortof)

So there was no +Thuc anywhere in the Michael line ... despite the ravings of this fool.

Nor do I see established anywhere the identity of the one MAKING the critisism in the OP.

This guy's literally had a psychotic break where he dreams of +Thuc flying around, and hiding everywhere coming after him.


Hey if you want to do us all the favor of posting that up with links etc, I would return the favor, more than happily of retracting that statement.

It's no skin of my back, Thuc has already so much madness in his line, that I have plenty of other ammunition.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 05:54:09 AM
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. You are completely uneducated and completely wrong.  Your generalizations on this matter are shockingly stupid.  The whole point is, generalizations don't matter.  EACH INDIVIDUAL SACRAMENT STANDS ON ITS OWN

You're trying to invalidate an ENTIRE LINE of clerics based on your "emotional dislike" of a bishop. 

This is the most feminized attack on validity i've ever seen.  If you are truly a man, you should be ashamed.

No its about discerning where the safest place to go for true Catholic Sacraments is.

If you want to call that effeminate while having your little temper tantrum, then go right ahead.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 05:56:05 AM

I recall when Fr. Chazal put out his little chart of the SV groups in trying to attack the SVs, and I said at the time that he'd better be careful about trying that tactice ... and within weeks you had Pfeiffer insulting Bishop Williamson outside his door at Broadstairs.


I literally have no idea what posting the picture of sede madness has to do with Father Pfeiffer at the door of Broadstairs.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 05:57:02 AM
R&R ain't more sane.


You've gone down the dogmatic sede rabbit hole where every one is trying to out do eachother in their toughness and moral lecturing, so you would think that.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Everlast22 on December 23, 2025, 06:22:53 AM

Hey if you want to do us all the favor of posting that up with links etc, I would return the favor, more than happily of retracting that statement.

It's no skin of my back, Thuc has already so much madness in his line, that I have plenty of other ammunition.
There's confusion and problems in any "trad bishop" line... It's part of the chastisement.
And a lot of calumny goes along with that.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 07:51:37 AM
There's confusion and problems in any "trad bishop" line... It's part of the chastisement.
And a lot of calumny goes along with that.


No more will I stand by and let people equivocate Thuc line nonsense with the resistance line.


Do not try to muddy the waters. There is simply NO COMPARISON between the madness of 400 bishops Thuc line/  constant division within sede land and the Lefebvre/Williamson line. NONE. Are the resistance priests and bishops sinners? Most definitely! But the stability of things is very clearly a sign that the remnant is with the resistance.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Everlast22 on December 23, 2025, 08:44:26 AM

No more will I stand by and let people equivocate Thuc line nonsense with the resistance line.


Do not try to muddy the waters. There is simply NO COMPARISON between the madness of 400 bishops Thuc line/  constant division within sede land and the Lefebvre/Williamson line. NONE. Are the resistance priests and bishops sinners? Most definitely! But the stability of things is very clearly a sign that the remnant is with the resistance.
Why is Thuc the problem of others? Should we spit on the grave of the Bishop that ordained Luther? You're being irrational and you need to stop. 

And don't tell me to try and not muddy the waters. lol. The irony...
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Freind on December 23, 2025, 08:53:42 AM

You've gone down the dogmatic sede rabbit hole where every one is trying to out do eachother in their toughness and moral lecturing, so you would think that.

You are confusing DOCTRINE/MORALS with VALIDITY. Thuc was deceived into performing consecrations. The morals and doctrines of the men are not Thuc's results. Just the validity (if it still exists down the bad lines). The fault lies with the deceivers, NOT the deceived.

In the case of the R&R, there may be some question here or there about validity also, but the main thing is that in PRINCIPLE "r&r" is schismatic thinking and acting, definitively.

Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 08:59:45 AM
You are confusing DOCTRINE/MORALS with VALIDITY. Thuc was deceived into performing consecrations. The morals and doctrines of the men are not Thuc's results. Just the validity (if it still exists down the bad lines). The fault lies with the deceivers, NOT the deceived.

In the case of the R&R, there may be some question here or there about validity also, but the main thing is that in PRINCIPLE "r&r" is schismatic thinking and acting, definitively.



Lol, a Thuc-ite giving me lectures about confusion.

I'm very calm and clear about this. Maybe ask the question; Why did he allow himself to be deceived? because, as we can see, he was clearly unstable.  

Was he deceived when he recanted from his traditionalism years later? Or when he con celebrated the novus ordo?
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 09:00:46 AM
Why is Thuc the problem of others? Should we spit on the grave of the Bishop that ordained Luther? You're being irrational and you need to stop.

And don't tell me to try and not muddy the waters. lol. The irony...

I think you've missed the point.


That the true Faith lies with the resistance, and not the 400 thuc bishops, or multiple mom-elected-me Popes.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Freind on December 23, 2025, 09:03:57 AM

Lol, a Thuc-ite giving me lectures about confusion.

I'm very calm and clear about this. Maybe ask the question; Why did he allow himself to be deceived? because, as we can see, he was clearly unstable. 

Was he deceived when he recanted from his traditionalism years later? Or when he con celebrated the novus ordo?

Tell me what's wrong in my mini-lecture. Is every post a lecture to you?


Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Everlast22 on December 23, 2025, 09:20:59 AM
I think you've missed the point.


That the true Faith lies with the resistance, and not the 400 thuc bishops, or multiple mom-elected-me Popes.
No one here has missed the point.. You are insane.. 
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Ladislaus on December 23, 2025, 10:34:48 AM
Since Gubbins here claims to represent for the Resistance, and then give other notable examples like Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo ...

does "The Resistance" lead to insanity and mental imbalance?

Scuмmage is also a liar, a slanderer, and shows other signs of malice.  If that's the "True Faith", he's not exactly being a good ambassador for said faith.  I think that most people running into this psychologically-disturbed clown would run, not walk, but run as fast as possible in the other direction.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: Ladislaus on December 23, 2025, 10:40:19 AM

Hey if you want to do us all the favor of posting that up with links etc, I would return the favor, more than happily of retracting that statement.

It's no skin of my back, Thuc has already so much madness in his line, that I have plenty of other ammunition.

Not only do you need to retract the statement but should apologize to the world for your slander.  It is not my obligation to post the links.  Simple Google searches uncovered the answers, but you're so deranged with hatred, malice, and other psychological disturbances that you're too lazy to do a 5-minute Google search before making sure that you're not slandering people.  But you don't care.

You're a filthy, malicious, lying slanderer ... where you care absolutely nothing about truth.  You exaggerate, lie, and make stuff up on a regular basis and are constantly exposed for it.

So unless YOU can prove that Michael II is Thuc line (he's not, as a 2-minute Google search and clicking on some links would immediately indicate) and that Michael I is Thuc line (he's also not, as another Google search would reveal).  When you make accusations, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence.  Of course, the moral obligation rested on you to do a tiny bit of research BEFORE you posted these smear-jobs ... but that ship has sailed, and can be dealt with at this point only in the Sacrament of Confession, except of course that you're not the least bit contrite.

You're literally just making stuff up, slandering and shit-posting without any regard for truth whatsoever.  For all that you claim to promote the "True Faith" Resistance, you're actually disgracing and discrediting it.

If I didn't know any better, you're a troll deliberately trying to make the Resistance look bad.  If so, you're doing a great job.

Can any of you who claim to be Resistance vouche for this lying, slandering, malicious shit-poster as being one of you?  Or do you disown this fool?  If you do not disown him, he's bringing completely disgrace upon all of you just like Fr. Pfeiffer and Pablo have.
Title: Re: Thuc condemnding Thuc
Post by: TomGubbinsKimmage on December 23, 2025, 04:33:31 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/LXgfRMy4/thuc-pope-michael.png) (https://ibb.co/Mx1LSbHq)




Your apology can go as follows:


"Dear Tom Gubbins Kimmage, 
I offer my sincere and unreserved apology for my arrogant behavior towards you, and  in particular for erroneously stating that Pope Michael is not Thuc line.
Please allow me to kiss the ground in front of you as a token of my sorrow.
Signed,
Ladislaus"