Lefebvre had two Bishops lay hands, so if one was not a true bishop then the other did the job. End of story.

Tommy, +Leinart also ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood

Tommy, +Leinart also ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood

Becoming a Bishop covers for that.

Debatable.  Not theologically settled. 

Actually, in the Roman Rite, it's almost morally certain that it's invalid ... due to the way the essential form is worded.

COMPLETE IN YOUR PRIEST the summit of your ministry.

"Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica

Bassically it assumes this is a priest (if he weren't the essential form would be incorrectly designating the matter), and it refers to COMPLETING something that's already there, and not merely granting it.

What was held AS A MINORITY OPINION was whether Episcopal Consecration can be validly conferred on someone who isn't a priest, in general, and there may be some Eastern Rites that are not worded as above, the the attempt to perform the Latin Rite consecration on a non-priest would certaily be invalid.

So, it's not really debatable ... except in general terms.

Nothing exposes someone more than when they're soundly refuted about something and so they come up with a backup reason, and that's the surest indication he's already made up his mind, out of spite, to continue slandering Archbishhop Thuc, but wants to make certain exception (+Lefebvre line) to the crap theology of "internal intention" he invented, where some occult Freemason could "wish away" the Church intention for the Sacrament.

+Lienart's having been a Freemason was proven, and not just speculation, and +Lefebvre admitted it on two different occasions.  If one were to believe Scuмmage's fake made-up theology, there's an extraordinariliy high chance the +Lefebvre was never a valid priest, and therefore we've had millions of invalid Sacraments among Traditionalists.  Except of course that this buffoon simply made it up.

Toward the end he quotes the theologians, but like Scuмmage here fails to notice that it has to be an internal to DO what the Church does, and not merely to perform the actions or the Rites.  If it were merely the latter, someone goofing around or mocking the Church by saying the essential form while pouring water on someone's head would in fact confect the Sacrament.  THAT LATTER SCENARIO is what's meant in the Catharinus condemnation.  If there need be an intention to actually bring about the Sacramental effect, then an atheist could never validly baptize.  Period.  That of course contradicts Pope Leo XIII.

When +Lienart put on his vestments, went to a an Ordination Rite, he was intending to do what a minister of the Church does and seriously perform the Rite of the Church.  This guy above leaves out the part from St. Thomas where he says that, if a minister internally intended to do the Rite ... the Church imposes upon that Rite the Church's intention to achieve the Sacramental effect.  Those passages were cited when I was arguing with Sean Johnson about Catharinus.

Debatable.  Not theologically settled. 

You are correct.
The common opinion is that it does cover though.

Probably the greatest refutation of the mistaken notion of "internal intention" of an ordaining prelate affecting valid of Holy Orders (and by extension any proper minister confecting a sacrament) are the the ordinations of bishops and priests by Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, one-time Bishop of Autun, for the schismatic Constitutional Church of France.

The Catholic Church treated and judged these ordinations to be valid, whilst Tallyrand himself was an free-thinker, a libertine, possibly a Mason, and a civil official of the revolutionary regime in France. He was laicised by Pope Pius VII in 1802 and only returned to the practice of the Faith in the last years of his life.

You have misunderstood the issue completely.

The issue is that he deliberately withheld intention.

The common opinion of the Church is very clear on this point.

I posted it in another thread on this issue. Did you miss that?

You have misunderstood the issue completely.

The issue is that he deliberately withheld intention.

The common opinion of the Church is very clear on this point.

I posted it in another thread on this issue. Did you miss that?

Elwin probably knows more about sacramental theology than everyone who has posted on your calumnious threads combined

You can provide no direct evidence whatsoever of Archbishop Thuc saying he withheld intention. Go back from whence you came

You can provide no direct evidence whatsoever of Archbishop Thuc saying he withheld intention. Go back from whence you came

gratuitous assertions that the article was connected to some other rumor just aren't going to cut it for reasonable, mentally stable people.

The Sacraments are deadly serious.

Souls are at stake.