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.

Hey Ladislaus and Giovanni Berto, maybe you can help here.

Did +Des Lauriers really teach that attending a Mass "una cuм" a wicked/heretical pope meant you were "one with" his errors and/or sins? I have a hard time believing that. I am under the impression that, like you said, he was a serious theologian the likes of which we don't see today, especially in Tradition.
Which is why I seriously doubt he could have held such an IDIOTIC idea.

Only a greedy, self-serving priest could come up with such a doctrine. It's an obvious play to "remove the competition" and "own" your flock more completely.

5. Sodalitium: What are your thoughts on the Traditional Mass celebrated by priests who, while being critical of Rome, still support that John Paul II is truly Pope and name him in the Te igitur, during the Canon in the Mass?
Bishop des Lauriers:  Traditional Masses, celebrated with the mention of John Paul II during the Te igitur.
The priests that celebrate such a Mass pronounce the following words: “In primis quae Tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia Tua sancta catholica…: una cuм famulo tuo Papa nostro Johanne Paulo…”. These Masses are commonly designated with the name “UNA cuм MASSES”.
It is necessary, in this proclamation, to consider two things: on the one hand that which is directly meant; on the other, that which is indirectly co-expressed, due to its context.
[I.] That which is directly meant by the formula: “una cuм”. The crime of sacrilege.
The general meaning of the supplication is determined by the words: “quae tibi offerimus pro…”. However, independently from this general sense, the phrase UNA cuм affirms that the Church [of Christ and of God: “your”], holy and Catholic, is “una cuм” [one with] the servant of God who is our Pope John Paul II. The phrase UNA cuм affirms, therefore, that, reciprocally, Bishop Wojtyla is “ONE, [together], WITH” [is the same thing with] the Church of Jesus Christ, holy and Catholic. Now, we have demonstrated it [2a γ], this affirmation is an error. Because, given that W. persists in professing and promulgating heresy, he cannot be the Vicar of Jesus Christ; he cannot, as proper “pope” [famulo Tuo papa nostro], be “one same thing with” the Church of Jesus Christ. The ‘una cuм’ affirms and proclaims, therefore, an error that CONCRETELY concerns the Faith.
This being so, we must conclude that the “una cuм” Mass is, “ex se”, objectively stained with sacrilege. The MASS, in fact, is the sacred action par excellence, since the Priest acts “in Persona Christi”. And if this instrumental role eminently concerns the consecratory act, it is equally realized, by derivation, in what precedes and prepares this act, or what immediately follows it. Now, everything that a sacred action includes must be pure, that is, in conformity with that which nature requires. A proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith must always be TRUE, taking into account Faith itself. It must be so, in a second sense, if it is done during a sacred action. Therefore, if a proclamation that immediately specifies the concrete exercise of the Faith is made during a sacred action, and if it is erroneous, it constitutes IPSO FACTO AND OBJECTIVELY A SIN, not only against the Faith but also against the sacred action. Such a proclamation is therefore tainted [weighed on] by a crime of the kind: “Sacrilege”: and this is so OBJECTIVELY AND INESCAPABLY, regardless of the sin committed by the participants [see 6].
[II.] That which is indirectly co-expressed by the formula “una cuм”. The crime of Capital Schism.
“Quae tibi offerimus pro…”. This is an offer that is made IN FAVOR OF. Here we have what is directly meant. For this reason, some [especially Dom Gerard Calvet, o.s.b.] have asserted that at the Te igitur we pray for the Pope and absolutely not WITH the Pope. This is a superficial view. In fact, one must observe that in this first part of the Te igitur, the Pope is considered AS POPE, since, precisely, he is mentioned as “una cuм Ecclesia”, “one with the Church” (2).
Furthermore, the application of the fruit of the Mass [“pro”] requested as aleatory in favor of private persons in the two Mementos, is requested in the Te igitur: IN AN EQUAL WAY, jointly [una cuм] in favor of the Church and the Pope, of course as FREE “ex parte Dei” (on the part of God), but as NECESSARY since CERTAIN “ex parte nostri” (on our part).
From this last observation, the following consequence emerges.
Let us remember that the “application” of merit is only necessary [or: “de condigno”] in two cases, namely: 1) This “application” is made by Christ Himself: He, and He alone, merits, BY RIGHT, in favor of others; 2) This “application” is made to the person who acquires the merit: each person merits “de condigno” for himself. Therefore, since the application of the fruit of the Mass is made BY RIGHT to a moral person which is JOINTLY and in an equal way [una cuм] constituted by the Church and the Pope, IT IS NECESSARY that this SAME moral person is at the beginning of the Sacrifice of which it has the RIGHT to receive the fruit. After all, it is commonly stated that, if the Mass is primordially the Sacrifice of Christ, it is equally and jointly the Sacrifice of the Church [That is why, although the Priest who offers the Sacrifice operates in Persona Christi WITH REGARD TO THE EXERCISE OF THE ACT, without the mediation of the Church, however, AS REGARDS THE SPECIFICATION OF THE ACT, the Priest can only operate IN THE MEDIATION OF THE CHURCH. Since only the Church has the divine capacity to guarantee with certainty: conformity to the Truth for the article that She promulgates in the Name of Christ; conformity to Reality for the rite that She prescribes in the Name of Christ. (The Priest that makes use of a rite, ipso facto adopts the intention of the authority who is responsible for this rite… and all the consequences of it can be glimpsed!)].
Moreover, in the orderly Church, through the mediation exercised by the Hierarchy, it is the Pope who ultimately confers the “mission” of celebrating any Mass. The Pope is, in the Church, the “Supreme Pontiff”. And it is because the Church and the Pope jointly [una cuм] command in the Church militant the offering of the Sacrifice peculiar to this Church, they have the RIGHT “in primis” to the fruit of this Sacrifice: in the CREATED ORDER, they are “in primis” regarding the END [that is the application of the fruit], BECAUSE THEY ARE “in primis” with regard to the ORIGIN [that is, the intimation of the celebration].
Thus one sees the true scope of the expression: “una cuм”. It does not only mean that, in celebrating the sacrifice of the Mass, one prays for the Church and for the Pope, as for [pro] this private person or such particular intention. “Una cuм” co-means, implicitly but NECESSARILY, that in celebrating the Mass, one celebrates IN UNION WITH and UNDER THE DEPENDENCE OF this moral person that the Church and the Pope jointly are; since this moral person has in primis the RIGHT to the fruit of the sacrifice; a RIGHT in primis that alone can metaphysically found the fact of participating BY RIGHT in primis to the act of Christ-Priest who offers this same Sacrifice.
From all this is derived the qualification that must be attributed to the “una cuм” Traditional Mass.
Such a Mass is valid [assuming the priest has been validly ordained!], due to the rite which, like the Deposit, remains divinely guaranteed by the Magisterium of the Church. However, whatever desire the celebrant may SUBJECTIVELY have, the act he carries out OBJECTIVELY and INELUCTABLY implies the affirmation of being in communion with [una cuм], and even under the DEPENDENCE of [papa nostro] a person in a state of capital schism. The act of such a celebration is therefore tainted with a crime of the kind: “schism”; and this, OBJECTIVELY AND INELUCTABLY, regardless of the sin committed by the participants: the celebrating priest, or the attending faithful [see 6].
 
6. Sodalitium: Can you clarify, please, the problems raised by attending  “una cuм” Traditional Masses?
Bishop des Lauriers: Problems raised by attending “una cuм” Traditional Masses.
These difficulties result from what we have exposed.
It is clearly necessary to set aside the cases in which attendance at such a Mass is necessary for an extrinsic reason [family reason, for example], it being understood that the person who attends such a Mass will definitely and ostensibly demonstrate that he is attending WITHOUT PARTICIPATING.
If this last clause [MANIFESTING THAT YOU ARE NOT PARTICIPATING] is not fulfilled, then, ex se, the mere fact of attending constitutes participation, a guarantee given to the celebration. And since it is OBJECTIVELY AND INELUCTABLY tainted with the crime of sacrilege and of schism, does it not follow that by participating in this celebration one incurs the guilt of these sins?
Bishop Guérard des Lauriers during his visit to the IMBC’s chapel in Turin, on June 14, 1987
The answer is, DE JURE, affirmative. It follows that, DE JURE, the faithful attached to Tradition must not attend the “una cuм” Traditional Mass. And this, taking into account: firstly themselves, and secondly the Testimony they must bear to others.
This answer, DE JURE affirmative, can be practically held in suspense by two considerations. The first is of a general nature, taking account of the rules of morality. A crime is only a sin if it is known to be such. Ignorance excuses guilt if it is candid; it increases guilt if it is calculated, etc… A good number of fait
hful attached to Tradition do not understand either the scope, or consequently, the gravity of “una cuм”. THEY MUST BE INSTRUCTED [see 10]. But, until they understand, they cannot be blamed for attending the “una cuм” Traditional Mass… ONLY GOD scrutinizes men’s innermost thoughts…
The second consideration that can keep the de jure norms in abeyance [that is: not attending the “una cuм Mass”] depends on the current situation. It may happen that the faithful have practically no other means of communicating than by attending a una cuм Mass. Now, while it is possible to live and progress in the state of grace without communicating, this deprivation is not without difficulties and sometimes dangers. And as the Church has always admitted that in danger of death one can resort even to an excommunicated confessor, is it not perhaps appropriate to resort to a una cuм Mass to participate in the Sacrifice and communicate? Pius XII recalled it with authority: in the militant Church, it is the salvation of souls that constitutes the finality of finalities. Assistance at the “una cuм Mass” can therefore be the subject of a “case of conscience”. Every case is a case: and must ultimately be resolved by the conscience of the interested person, but not without the advice and directives given by a “non una cuм” priest. Neither univocal rigorism, which does not take conscience into account; nor sentimental laxity: for example, a person who can communicate once every two weeks at a “non una cuм” Mass, has no reason and MUST NOT THEREFORE, in the interval, attend a “una cuм Mass”, much less communicate there (3).
 
7. Sodalitium: Excellency, in 1981 you were consecrated by Bishop Thuc. This Bishop was not always clear in his acts. Following this Consecration you were “excommunicated” by Cardinal Ratzinger. What are your thoughts on all this?
Bishop des Lauriers:  I received Episcopal Consecration on May 7, 1981 from Archbishop Martin NGO DINH THUC.
I affirm that this Consecration is valid, legal as much as it could be, perfectly licit.
We call “legal” that which conforms to the letter of the law. We call “licit” what conforms to the final ends desired by the law. The virtue of epikeia consists in neglecting the “letter”, if it proves contrary to the “ends”.
[I.] The Consecration is valid.
Given that: 1) the traditional rite has been fully observed [with the exception of the reading of the “Roman mandate”!]; 2) Archbishop Thuc and I had the intention of doing that which the Church does.
[II.] The Consecration is legal, as far as possible.
In fact, it should be known, that with a Brief dated March 5, 1938, Pius XI instituted Bishop Thuc as his Legate [“deputamus in Nostrum Legatum Petrum Martinum Ngó-Dhin-Thuc Episcopum titularem Saesinensem ad fines nobis notos, cuм omnibus necessariis facultatibus”].
Archbishop Thuc had therefore the power to consecrate Bishops WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY submitting the case to the Holy See, and therefore without the “Roman mandate”. Archbishop Thuc retained this SAME power when he was established as Archbishop of Huè by Pius XII. This is proved by the fact that it was Archbishop Thuc, and not the Apostolic Administrator, who selected and consecrated all the Bishops of Vietnam between 1940 and 1950 [Archbishop Thuc himself explained to me, and not without an insistent malice, the reason (hidden and true!). In this way the pensions and expenses of all these same Bishops in the event of retirement or illness become the burden incuмbent to the faithful of Vietnam; while if these same Bishops had been consecrated by the Apostolic Administrator, they would have been the burden of “Rome”]. Whatever is made of this “amusing” [!] “end”, it remains that from the strict point of view of the formal cause, “Rome”, DE FACTO, under Pius XII, had confirmed Archbishop Thuc in all his powers and prerogatives of Legate. Archbishop Thuc was aware of having conserved them, and he revealed this orally to several people : “when they will find these docuмents after my death…….!” . But these Docuмents were not brought to light, and in an “updated” version, until very late [they went through multiple and dangerous vicissitudes], so it was not possible to make use of them, as would have been appropriate. It is therefore with the greatest good faith and even in all candor, that Archbishop Thuc proceeded to carry out: Consecrations and Ordinations. He rightly thought he had the canonical right to do so: as this right had not been taken away from him.
Are the aforementioned Consecrations and Ordinations, made by Archbishop Thuc, “legal”: that is, do they comply with the “letter” of the law? For them to be perfectly so, it would have been necessary that AFTER having effecting the act [not “before”, because Archbishop Thuc legally had the power], Archbishop Thuc submitted the case to the Authority. But Archbishop Thuc believed, like myself, that there is no longer any Authority: though, paradoxically and unfortunately, he was keen to nonetheless remain in good relations with the “authority”. (4) [Read: Authority = the true Authority, of which there is currently a “formal vacancy”; while “authority” (in quotes) = PSEUDO-Authority that has been raging since December 7, 1965]. From all this, two consequences:
From an OBJECTIVE point of view, i.e. considering in themselves the Consecrations and Ordinations carried out by Archbishop Thuc, they were as very “legal” as could have been [and can be!].  Since, on the one hand, Archbishop Thuc had the juridical power to carry them out without the “Roman mandate”; and, on the other hand, it was and remains impossible to “report” these Consecrations and Ordinations to an Authority which, in practice and as such, does not exist. The “legality” of the aforementioned Consecrations and Ordinations is, like EVERYTHING currently in the militant Church, IN A STATE OF PRIVATION, due to the “formal vacancy” of the Apostolic See.
From a SUBJECTIVE point of view, i.e. considering the aforementioned Consecrations and Ordinations as one of the behaviors of Archbishop Thuc, one is obliged to observe that they were for him the “sword of pain” and the stone of scandal. These acts demanded that he break with “Rome”, and he did so in words: but he desired, for the “reasons of the heart”, to have some respect for “Rome”, and was caught in the trap where he met his death.
“Noli judicare si non vis errare”. Regardless of this intimate agony and the Judgment of God, the fact remains that the Consecrations and Ordinations carried out by Archbishop Thuc were as legal as can be, participating, according to their nature, in the state of deprivation that currently affects the entire Church militant, and,  distinctly, each of its components… The Church, Mystical Body, Bride of Christ, remaining virgin, even on earth, of any privation.
[III.] The Consecration is licit.
To better understand this we must remember that, in the militant Church considered as a human collective, EVERY PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL LAW [the vacancy of and the providing for the Apostolic See are part of this type of law], EVEN THOSE WHICH CARRY A LATAE SENTENTIAE SENTENCE, has executive force only by virtue of the Authority currently exercised. If it were otherwise, if purely ecclesiastical laws with executive force independently of the Authority could exist in the Church militant, it would be necessary that, at least for these laws, the Authority received its own mandate from the Church militant inasmuch the latter is a human collective. But this doctrine is explicitly condemned by Vatican I as erroneous [D.S. 3045]. Every purely ecclesiastical law is therefore, radically, a law of the Authority: which, by its essence, is monarchic [monós archè].
Bishop Guérard des Lauriers with Bishop Thuc, the day of his episcopal consecration
It follows that every purely ecclesiastical law can be subjected, and IS CURRENTLY SUBJECTED, to the same vicissitudes of human laws. On the one hand, the Authority that gives force to the law can fail: and this is what happens, due to the formal vacancy of the Apostolic See. On the other hand, it may happen, per accidens, that applying the letter of the law would harm, rather than achieve, the aim desired by the law. This is exactly what is happening currently. The need for the “Roman mandate”, a need strengthened by Pius XII, as a condition of every episcopal consecration, is aimed at better safeguarding and affirming the monarchical character of the Authority, which is exercised over each Bishop, and over all the Bishops of the catholicity. Now, under Karol Wojtyla, a “consecration” made with the “Roman mandate” entails: that, first of all, the “consecrated” person [assuming he is!] is ipso facto in a state of capital Schism, as is W. himself: secondly, that the “consecration” made according to the new rite, which is doubtful, is itself doubtful, and must therefore be considered practically as invalid. Fidelity to the “Roman mandate” therefore has the consequence, in the short term, that Wojtyla will be the absolute monarch of a world assembly whose members will take on the episcopal insignia for the occasion, although they are not Bishops at all, nor consequently successors of the Apostles.
“The letter kills, the Spirit gives life” [2 Cor III, 6; see Romans II, 27-29].
When the letter of the law [the prescription of the “Roman mandate”] has the effect of DESTROYING the end desired by the law [the unity, and therefore the very reality of the militant Church] then it becomes virtuous, the virtue of EPIKEIA, to take no account of the letter of the law, to the strict and only extent necessary to continue to ensure the end desired by the law. Acts that are placed, by necessity, against the letter of the law, with a view to ensuring the purpose desired by the law, such acts are called “licit”, although they are illegal. This doctrine has always been admitted by the Church.
We therefore affirm that the Consecrations conferred by Archbishop Thuc, as legal as they could be [II] since Archbishop Thuc was exempted from the “Roman mandate”, were and remain PERFECTLY LICIT; although, as we have explained [II], their “legality” remains mortgaged by the deprivation that currently affects the militant Church.
[IV.] “Cardinal” Ratzinger notified me [through the Parisian nuncio, and not the General of the Dominicans] that I had incurred “latae sententiae” excommunication. He encouraged me to “return”, assuring me of a warm welcome!
– I did not respond to this message, for the following reasons:
“Ex parte objecti”. The sentence is, in itself, deprived of any foundation: as we have previously exposed [II, III].
“Ex parte subjecti”: id est: Josephi Ratzinger, et “auctoritatis”. The only acts of “authority” that may not be LACKING FOUNDATION are exclusively those ordered to the materialiter persistence of the hierarchy in the Church: only MATERIALITER, since [see 2a], the “authority” has no power in the Church other than “materialiter” and not “formaliter”. Thus, for example, the act with which the “authority” would recognize the value and ecclesial scope of the Consecrations conferred by Archbishop Thuc: this act would be valid. While every act that is not expressly ordered to the permanence of the hierarchy [at least “materialiter”] is GROUNDLESS.
We must take no account of something lacking foundation, which is in vain: this is the counsel of Saint John (II John, 10-11).
– The message from “Cardinal” Ratzinger amused me and also cheered me up.  Of all the Bishops who fully profess the Catholic Faith, I am the only one who is “excommunicated” by W.’s “Rome”. As I am in no way in communion with that “Rome”, I give thanks that it has, at least on one point, declared what the Truth is.
 

8. Sodalitium: In 1984 and in 1986 you consecrated two Bishops, without Rome’s approval. Why did you do this? Do you think you should still consecrate Bishops and ordain priests?
Bishop des Lauriers: I consecrated two Bishops without “Roman mandate”, Bishop STORCK [April 30, 1984]; and Bishop MCKENNA [August 22, 1986].
[I.] It is necessary that the PURE OBLATION, the OBLATIO MUNDA [Mal. I, 11] persists on earth.
Some attribute to me the intention of wanting to “save the Church”. On the contrary, I “in directo” refuse to associate with those who profess this purpose. Since GOD ALONE, JESUS ALONE (see 11) will save his Church in the Triumph of his Mother. I am certain of this fact, it is not up to me to know the “how”.
However, I believe I must sacrifice everything, do everything in my power, so that the OBLATIO MUNDA may persist on earth. The Traditional Mass as celebrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests ordained by him, this Mass celebrated una cuм W. is, WHATEVER the DESIRE of the celebrant, OBJECTIVELY stained with a double impurity which belong to sacrilege and capital schism [see 5]. The Mass perpetuated by the “Society of Saint Pius X” is not, CANNOT BE, THE OBLATIO MUNDA. This DE JURE circuмstance is even further reinforced by the very aggravating circuмstance that follows: in order to [seem to] justify their celebration una cuм W., the Écônians do not hesitate to affirm and spread the error, that is to say that they corrupt the Faith of the faithful inoculating them with heresy. (5)
If Archbishop Lefebvre had not profaned the Traditional Mass, demanding it to be celebrated una cuм W., I would not even have thought of receiving, much less conferring, the Episcopate.
MISEREOR SUPER SACRIFICIUM! This is the primordial reason, compelling in itself for those who perceive it, for which I have agreed to receive and for which I propose to confer the Episcopate.
[II.] It is eminently fitting that the MISSIO instituted by Christ on earth endures (Matthew XXVIII, 18-20).
Bishop Guérard des Lauriers o.p. with newly consecrated Bishop Robert McKenna o.p.
The MISSIO certainly includes the offering of the OBLATIO MUNDA, and this, first and foremost. But it is broader: “Go, teach, baptize, educate”. It is entrusted to all the Apostles together, and to each one respectively. It is therefore really distinct from the SESSIO, that is to say the jurisdiction promised [Matthew XVI, 18-19] and then plenarily conferred to Peter alone [John XXII, 15-17]; communicated to others through participation in Peter and therefore only in the mediation of Peter. To the “faithful” priests who dispute the real distinction between MISSIO and SESSIO as if it were a “suspicious novelty”, I limit myself to ask a question. “You confess the faithful. You received this power at the moment of your priestly ordination. But this is, very precisely, the MISSIO, in the second of its functions [“baptize”, administer all the sacraments].
But, from whom, from which physical or moral person, do you hold the powers which, according to the Council of Trent, are required so that you can validly use the Power received at the moment of your ordination? No, you do not have ‘these powers’, much less, if possible, if you are from Écône, because then you officially recognize that you are ‘suspended a divinis’”. You reply: “the Church supplies”. But this “suppliance” is guaranteed only in the Church in order, by a purely ecclesiastical law: which, like all laws of this kind, is currently devoid of executive force. Therefore, there is no “suppliance”.
The Truth is that you can make use of Power, without having “powers”, because currently the Decree of Trent has no executive force. The Truth is, consequently, that you exercise the MISSIO, although you are deprived of the normally required participation in the SESSIO… for the reason that the entire Church militant is itself in this SAME state of deprivation (regarding the SESSIO) by which you find yourself affected. The MISSIO and the SESSIO are therefore, within the militant Church, two truly distinct co-essential parts, in law inseparable, in fact currently dissociated: the SESSIO is kept in abeyance by the formal vacancy of the Apostolic See [see 1]; the MISSIO persists, to the extent possible, in the priests and faithful who profess to be attached to Tradition: a MISSIO in a state of privation, we repeat.
In these conditions, here is the alternative that the faithful attached to Tradition must decide:
A) Either not to continue the MISSIO. Since, having been deserted by SESSIO, it finds itself in a state of deprivation, ipso facto abnormal, doomed to multiple dangers, starting with heresy and schism. The only possible, and certainly valid, sacrament would be Baptism. It is enough for God to give Faith and sanctifying grace.
This thinking is therefore, DE JURE, not impossible. This is what THE RAREST OF FAITHFUL get.
B) or continue the MISSIO. Because it is estimated that it is DE FACTO impossible to preserve sanctifying grace, and even Faith alone, without the sacraments.
In dubiis Libertas! You can choose: both A and B.  However: 1) that everyone respects the choice of others; 2) that each person rigorously conforms to the internal, ontological need of his or her own choice.
I chose B. I deeply respect the people who chose A:  God help them. But I protest that some of these people criticize, and judge with an “obsession” as if they were the Authority, the choice B which they are free not to make…even acting as if DE FACTO they had chosen B.
If you choose to continue the MISSIO, so that Faith and LIFE are preserved for the greatest number possible, it is evidently necessary for there to be Bishops. No Sacraments without Priesthood, nor Priesthood without Bishops (6).
MISEREOR SUPER TURBAM! This is the second reason why I agreed to receive, and why I propose to confer, the Episcopate.
[III.] The norms that govern these Episcopal Consecrations lacking the “Roman mandate”.
a. The norms which derive from Canon Law, as having force in the “Church in order”.
Laws, even purely ecclesiastical, are the expression of Wisdom. They always retain directive value even if, per accidens, they alienate their executorial force. It is therefore necessary to ensure that no action is taken that would contravene the inspiring Wisdom of these laws. In this regard, the following should be made clear:
1) The consecrations conferred by Archbishop Thuc are licit, and as legal as they could be.
The consecrations conferred by those Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc are licit, although illegal.
2) None of these consecrations, all of them licit, conferred jurisdiction on the Bishops so consecrated. No Bishop can have jurisdiction if not under the influence of an authentic Vicar of Christ. It is that which Pius XII wanted to rigorously reaffirm, reinforcing the censure placed against consecrations without the Roman mandate. It is an additional reason to maintain the jurisdiction’s relative character that is inherent in the Episcopate.
3) Relations between the Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc are good in themselves. But it must, it must be clearly declared that an eventual assembly of these Bishops does not enjoy, as such, in the Church, any jurisdiction. It could play the role of a ferment. It would not be able to restore Hierarchy.
b. The rules dictated by Epikeia: which establishes the fact that the said consecrations are licit.
Consecrations without a Roman mandate are currently and provisionally licit in view of the salus animarum; which is, according to Pius XII, the lex suprema of the Church militant. Two consequences follow:
The “positive” consequence. It is necessary to multiply these Consecrations, so that the OBLATIO MUNDA and the MISSIO exist throughout the earth. The main condition is that priests are capable and agree to assume this responsibility.
The “negative” consequence. The absence of reference to Authority [currently non-existent] must not lead to an anarchy which would be in contradiction with the very nature of the militant Church. Therefore all Bishops, consecrated without “Roman mandate”, proceeding from Monsignor Thuc must make the solemn and public commitment to submit unconditionally to the Pope if, during their lifetime, Jesus was to give one to His Church. I add that currently, now and whatever happens by divine solution [see 11], the unity between said Bishops cannot rest on a pseudo-hierarchy artificially forged between them. Unity can only rest on FAITH: specifying it, as regards the actual and concrete application, in accordance with the methods that have now been exposed… or those that a discussion based on all the OBJECTIVE data that the current situation entails would impose.

Hey Ladislaus and Giovanni Berto, maybe you can help here.

Did +Des Lauriers really teach that attending a Mass "una cuм" a wicked/heretical pope meant you were "one with" his errors and/or sins? I have a hard time believing that. I am under the impression that, like you said, he was a serious theologian the likes of which we don't see today, especially in Tradition.
Which is why I seriously doubt he could have held such an IDIOTIC idea.

Only a greedy, self-serving priest could come up with such a doctrine. It's an obvious play to "remove the competition" and "own" your flock more completely.