So ... as you know my problem is the gross disrespect he shows to Archbishop Thuc, whom he regularly derides as the "mentally deranged Thuc".  It's not "Thuc", but His Excellency Archbishop Thuc to him.  He's entitled to disagree, certainly, but not entitled to deride, to mock, and to slander the man.

There's zero evidence that he was "mentally deranged", and I'm sure that Bishop Kelly spent some time in Purgatory for his incredibly disrespectful and slanderous attacks against the Archbishop.

We are required to put the most charitable spin possible on his actions.  Yes, he did some highly imprudent things.  Now, some of them are false allegations and slanders, and many of those who CLAIM they were consecrated by the Archbishop can demonstrably be proven not to have been, etc.  But making mistakes and doing imprudent things, which anyone might be entitled to (charitably) criticize does not make one "mentally deranged" to the point that he's walking around drooling, unable to make a human / rational act (the standard for conserations).

Not only has everyone who had ever met him attested to the fact that he knew what he was doing, but even that he was remarkably lucid and intelligent.  Having possessed THREE advanced degrees from Rome when they meant something, etc. ... and after the consecration of +Carmona, witnesses say he was speaking in Latin with the latter and correcting his mistakes. NOT the actions of someone incapable of consecrating due to loss of mental faculties.  I personally was friends with Bishop Neal Webster, and he told me that he served Mass for him daily, and the Archbishop was extremely devout and absolutely coherent and lucid, showing zero signs of senility or any mental impairment.

This slanderous allegation was made up by Bishop Kelly for more ammunition.  I've done many imprudent / stupid things in my life.  Who hasn't?  But that does not mean they were not rational human acts in the sense of I knew what I was doing.

This slander needs to stop.  Archbishop Thuc is not beyond criticism, but this Scuмmage character has absolutely no business treating him worse than any human being should be treated, much less an Archbishop.  +Lefebvre had been friends with him at V2, and at one point asked him to set up Econe ... though he had declined.  He had set up seminaries in Vietnam and did have a Mandate to consecrate (due to Communism).

I'd love to see how these Armchair Warriors would react if their entire family were murdered by the Communists, buried alive, and then Montini effectively deposed them from their See (like he did to others in Communist terrotories), and where he found himself living in a tiny, dirty, roach-infested little hole in the wall, earning his keep by doing children's catechism and hearing Confessions.

Despite this disgraceful treament, he had never once ever been known to utter a single word of complaint.  In fact, he expressed gratitude for being allowed to make a living by helping with the catechisms and the Confessions.  Yes, TGK, that speaks to great personal virtue and even holiness.  He loved the children, and they loved him ... and his lines for Confession went out the door, and the jealousy of the pastor over this resulted in his having dismissed from even that lowly position.

He survived the Vietnamese Commmie purge of his family because he had been away at Vatican II, and after that he never went back, and barely had more than the close on his back, perpetually homeless, being kicked around from one place to another, happy to be taken in anywhere, including with Bishop Vezelis, before finally being kidnapped by the Conciliar Vietnamese (a well docuмented story).

So I'd love to see how Scuмmage here would have fared under similar circuмstances.  Yes, he was on one level an emotionally broken man, having received great crosses.  I'm sure that few of us would have accepted them with as much resignation as he did.  This reminds me of all the Armchair Warriors who excoriate Cardinal Siri ... if he stepped down in the face of threats.  Yeah, sure ... let's have someone threaten to exterminate your entire extended family, someone who you knew had the power to pull it off, and THEN get back to me ... and see if you'd intrepidly insist upon remaining the Pope.  I myself could only hope and pray that I would have the fortitude, by God's grace alone, to have stood up ... but left to my own devices would certainly have caved and collapse, much worse than he did, and much worse than Archbishop Thuc.

I also can't stand when various losers in Traddie-land who can barely pass a Baltimore Catechism No. 2 quiz will sit here deriding Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, as some kind of idiot, saying that his theory is idiotic and runs contrary to basic Catholic doctrine.  What utter hubris.  I even called out CMRI's (extremely arrogant) Father Lavery for doing that, effectively calling Bishop des Laurier as moron who didn't know the basics of the faith.  Sure, Father, with your cracker-jack-box equivalent of a CMRI training, compared to an actual real pre-Vatican II theology, a top theologian, who had been personal Confessor to Pius XII for a time, who collaborated in the declaration regarding the Dogma of the Assumption, and ghost-wrote the Ottaviani Intervention ... someone who was a theologian with degrees at a time when those meant something, the ONLY theologian who did not endorse Vatican II and say it was compatible with Catholicism.  Of course CMRI et al. will adhere to the absurd notion that theological consensus is a rule of faith ... ignoring the fact that all but one theologian went along with Vatican II, but you get crickets when you point this out.

Bishop Guerard is not infallble, and nobody is forced to agree with him, but the hubris of just sitting there deriding him as if he were some kind of moron, I actually trapped Father Lavery on this point on X, condemning him from his own mouth.  I deliberately made a post calling him out for his lack of any real degree or qualifications, etc.  So he then attacked me for the arrogance of going after him as a layman.  I quoted 95% of his own post right back at him when pointing out that he was doing the same thing to Bishop Guerard, having the audacity to deride him as if he were some low-grade moron compared to his amazing CMRI degree.  Again, it's not about whether you can disgree ... but ABOUT THE TONE, the hubris.  If I disagreed with Bishop Guerard, I would do so respectfully, and only bowing my head first in deference ... and sincerely "with all due respect".  He wasn't just some run of the mill idiot that many Totalists deride him as, including your Aunt Helen types all over the internet, a few absurdly arrogant women even on X who mock Bishop Guerard when they need to shut their traps and get back in the kitchen to bake cookies.

I recall that when an elderly priest visited STAS one time, all the seminarians were trying to spend time with him, tyring to understand what a true pre-Vatican II priest thought about various things, and he actually protested the fact that so many Trad clergy act like they're theologians of some kind, when he said that before Vatican II the seminary training was thought to qualify you for nothing more than being an assistant pastor, and then maybe after many years of experience you'd be considered for becoming a pastor.  But you had to go to Rome before you could be taken seriously as even close to knowing what you're talking about.

So of this clown wants to disagree with SVism, he's entitled to.  I'll disagree right back.  But he is NOT entitled to slander Archbishp Thuc in order to further his agenda.

The one of the gαy bar you attend every evening?