He withheld intention for Palmarians. He admitted that. We have the Angelus Magazine which refers to that.

I'm sorry that's not good enough for you. But it is for reasonable minded people.

God will decide if those Williamson Consecrations were necessary or not. Just as God will decide whether the Pivarunas-Dolan Consecration was necessary.

"Thuc had superpowers to do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted even though he never mentioned it before he died because he was too humble to. Trust me bro’, i know of what i speak of because I’m a genius on all things!"

https://x.com/BishopsThuc/status/1984603330543567203

A valid bishop has the God-given power to consecrate. While a consecration made without papal approval may be illicit, it is not invalid.

I never said anything about validity, which btw is a moot point if episcopal consecrations without apostolic mandate are always illicit (which I believe they are).

I don't understand your statement, "traditionalist bishops who claim to have no authority are like "square circles".  Which traditionalist bishops claim to have no authority? 

No traditionalist bishop claims to have authority, except maybe the conclavists or some other special types.

What kind of authority do they claim not to have?

Instead, they claim to be "priests plus" or simple priests with a few more powers activated, but no authority. That's theologically impossible (hence the square circle comment). As Fr. Belmont proves, a Catholic bishop is by nature a hierarch. A clear example: before the present situation there were ZERO bishops without diocese, they all were at least the bishop of a titular see. Even the Supreme Pontiff, the one with universal jurisdiction, the Pope, had his own diocese (Rome). If you were a 100-year-old bishop connected to an oxygen tank in some nursing home, the Pope still gave you a diocese in partibus to govern. But, lo and behold, now it's normal and permissible (for trads) to have bishops without diocese. 

Some more proofs are pretty obvious and visible: What does the staff mean? Authority. What does the mitre mean? Authority. What does the episcopal ring mean? Authority. Go google any traditionalist bishop and you'll find a million pics of him attired in mitre and ring and holding a staff, but God forbid that they claim to have authority.


Another proof: Read the rite of episcopal consecration, whatever that says, it should reflect what a bishop is in reality (lex orandi, lex credendi). Here's one fragment: "Promote him, O Lord, to the Episcopal chair, to rule Thy Church, and the Flock committed to him. Be Thou unto him authority: be Thou his power, be Thou his strength...". That clearly means a conferral of authority (provided that the consecration is done with apostolic mandate). But, lo and behold, no traditionalist bishop claims to have a see ("a chair"), a flock or any kind of authority.

P.s.  your link doesn't work for me.

Please google "belmont quicuмque" and you'll surely find Father's blog.

You have to be ragebaiting. What authority does THE ANGELUS have in the subject?. Did the author know hear a rumor that no one else up to the publishing of that article has heard? Do you really believe that. Thuc’s prevailing fault was that he was perhaps too gullible. Dude, you are getting up there in gullibility if you believe an Angelus article that provides no citations for its claims. Anything you hear that is against Thuc, you immediately believe without any cross referencing. What if I just started calling you a pedophile on this forum? If people had your level of charity and ability to think for themselves, you would be throw in jail forever simply based off of my unsubstantiated claim. Gullible Tom can’t think for himself!

.

Tom, I think we have established that Bp. Thuc asserted having performed those holy orders, even though he regrets doing so.

The author of the article in the Angelus magazine is either mistaken, misinformed, or incorrect for some other reason. You have failed to provide any evidence that what that author asserts is correct, and the burden of proof is on the one making an assertion.

On the contrary, the docuмents you yourself have provided disprove what you are saying.

What are you are doing (to explain for the benefit of the innocent reader), is imposing an artificial made up standard, so that you and the many other naive dogmatic sedevacantists can go on attending their CMRI chapels in peace without worrying about the validity of the confessions and their priests Masses.

There's a lot at stake here. No one likes to have to admit that. To walk away from your sede chapel that you have been going to for years is difficult.

And this is the last thing the devil wants. So he will fight furiously.

But I got news for him. The Truth fights back even harder. We must be absolutely without mercy on this mad LARPING. Souls will go to hell over this nonsense.

The Truth can be found in humility. And it takes humility to bring yourself back to a reasonable acceptance of this article as being a perfectly fine witness.

No reason to doubt it other than it wasn't sedevacantist.