CathInfo.com

+Leinart is only being brought up to prove a point to Tom here. If there is anyone who we could say would be internally "withholding intention" it would be a Freemason. They don't intend to do what the Church does, they want to destroy the Church. But, as +Leinart ordained +Lefebvre with the proper matter and form, the intention to do what the Church does is presumed.

Most theologians said becoming a Bishop covers for it.

It is not a given that Freemason clergy are trying to withhold intention. Many of them joined for ambition. They are not necessarily privy to the outright destructive intentions of Masonry in the direct way you describe. Bishop Williamson talks about this in his conferences on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. You should listen to them.

Compare that with the very credible reporting that Thuc withheld his intention deliberately.
Now there is some arguments that is not true, but the point is that we cant verify that because he is dead. 

So in the meantime, we need to stay away, and conditionally ordain those who seek it.

Correct, WorldsAway.

It was only a minority opinion that considered episcopal consecration of a priest to be valid under any circuмstances, e.g. using an Eastern Rite form ... but there's zero chance the Latin Rite form would be valid on a non-priest.  So, the essential form must unequivocally declare what you're doing and who you're doing it to.  To "COMPLETE" Holy Orders "in this priest" is utterly nonsensical when being applied to a non-priest.  Clearly invalid.  But even if this guy could cling to one or two theologians to held that view, at best it's postiively doubtful, and you treat it as invalid for all intents and purposes with the sole exception of if you're in danger of death without any other options.

As for +Lienart, I guess that this clown's speculation that +Leinart may not have really meant it ... that's all I need now to remove all doubt of validity.  Thanks for putting that one to rest.  No, +Lienart was KNOWN to have been a Commie-sympathizer at the very least, and it wasn't just because he wanted to ride around in a tiny car with a silly hat, and drink beer at the corner lodge.

I have scoured the internet and sent some AI bots also in search of any verification of that allegation in The Angelus ... and there is none.  You can, instead find statements from +Thuc expressing his regret for the Palmar consecrations and repudiating them, but not in terms of validity.  What The Angelus did was conflate +Thuc's repudiation of the Palmar consecrtaions with Father Cekada's blunder in characterizing his response to the Novus Ordo Mass which he concelebrated as "simulating the Sacrament" and witholding intention.  The Angelus conflated the two into their ridiculous false analysis.

To give you a window into their credibility, the published a personal correspondence of mine without requesting permission, made edits without my prermission, injected bad translations of some Latin quotes that I had been too lazy to translate (given who I wrote the thing to/for), and SPELLED MY NAME WRONG.

Lol, you guys are so unhinged.
No new arguments.

I will continue to blaspheme Saint Pierre Thuc, and if you don't like it... go to a sede web forum!

It's over Tom.

we cant verify that

You should consult a good traditional priest about these evil thoughts you're acting on