A video review about the book of the same title along with some commentary. I found it informative to an extent. The video mainly is about Archbishop Thuc's life, but also Sedevacantism in general. In fact, the person who made this is none other than Serp Kerp, who had an account on this site and made some posts years ago, from what I can tell. He once was sede, but now supports the Conciliar Church, and so keep in mind that he is talking from a seemingly conservative Novus Ordo perspective. He even claims, (though this is to be expected) that Sedevacantism is "different religion" than Roman Catholicism. Since he was previously a sedevacantist, his knowledge about the different variations comes into this discussion, so he is more educated than most NOers who touch this subject. Be warned: if you browse around his channel, you'll see that he has placed images of immodestly dressed anime girls in the thumbnails of quite a few of his videos. That alone says to me that he seems to have "gone off the edge". Although I am not a sede, it saddens me that someone who was "red-pilled" on the Conciliar Church and Vatican II could wind up drinking their Kool Aid, and so I ask you all to pray for him (I will do so myself). 

I'm curious to how Sedevacantists on this forum would respond to two of his claims/opinions that stuck out to me: 

He also makes the claim towards the end that Sedevacantism is something that is "harmful" to the Church since their arguments are utilized by members of false religions to try to "disprove" the Papacy. How do sedevacantists respond to this? 

Another claim he makes in his conclusion is that Sedevacantism will grow in numbers, and prove to be a serious challenge to the Novus Ordo Church, due to the overall superior Internet savvy of their movement, higher birth numbers, and the lack of the Newchurch providing serious apologetics against sede arguments. (Note: he talks about how this growth will continue "to the end of the century" presupposing that the Chastisement will not have happened)
What do sedes make of this? 

Also, if anyone here has a better source about Archbishop Thuc, it would be appreciated.

I did a long interview with the Youtuber Classical Theist on my experience as a Sedevacantist and my current views.  

I did a long interview with the Youtuber Classical Theist on my experience as a Sedevacantist and my current views.  

I watched the first 45 minutes of the video. It provides a good analysis of the problems with sedevacantism in its various forms.

The arguments for sedevacantism are mostly taken from Bellarmine and his theology on the papacy. That is a manifestly contra-protestant theological tradition.

Yes, true, but I think what he was getting at was not oppositional to St. Bellarmine or his theology, but the notion that laymen on their own accord would  use it subjectively/privately to declare the Holy See vacant.

Also often forgotten is that St. Bellarmine didn’t actually believe the situation of an heretical pope could ever arise, and his writing on the subject is therefore largely hypothetical (ie., Much like St. Thomas More’s “Utopia,” Bellarmine is discussing things he didn’t believe could happen, and giving his abstract thoughts for the sake of argument).

But would St. Bellarmine maintain his opinions in the real world when confronted with the conciliar papacies?

I wonder.

It also gets overlooked that St. Bellarmine’s opinion is one among several, and that the Church has not made it Her own.  This aggravates the rashness and boldness of those who would unilaterally declare the see empty.

And let’s not forget there is still an unsettled debate about what St. Bellarmine’s position really is (ie., Some say he still agreed with Cajetan/Jst/Suarez that the Church had to be involved in the process, at least so far as declaring the fact of the heresy, but opposed the aforementioned writers only insofar as they believed a second judgment of the Church was necessary that Christ had deposed their pope).

But the common sede rendition has it that at any time a layman thinks a pope has committed heresy, the see becomes empty.

It is difficult to believe Bellarmine would invent a doctrine so ruinous to Church unity (particularly over the course of three generations and seven papacies, and counting), and it is in this sense that the allegation of Protestantism is made (not against Bellarmine, but against those who wield and misapply him).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odz1fgTk0JA

I did a long interview with the Youtuber Classical Theist on my experience as a Sedevacantist and my current views.  

I only listened to a few minutes, at 3:35 you commented: "...until then, you had kind of this theory of papal positivism, where God would directly prevent anything remotely coming from there, basically the Holy Ghost would protect at all times even material [heresy] from happening....." - Fr. Fenton taught pretty much this same theory as though it is a dogma or teaching of the Church.

In your initial post, you said: "I am a former Sedevacantist who accepts Vatican II."

I wonder how much of a roll, if any, this theory in particular played in your decision to leave tradition to accept V2. 

As to Archbishop Thuc there are a few statements of his that are out there that are very BAD. These are docuмented and I will give the source so all of you will be able to find them. Let the Archbishop speak for himself.

 1. “ ‘Concerning the attraction of non-Christians to the Church.’ With great consolation I see present in these assem-
blies the delegates of the non-Christian Churches, to be witnesses of our fraternity, sincerity and liberty. But where are

the delegates or observers of the non-Christians? ...The scandal coming to the whole world from the absence of any
invitations sent to the chiefs of the non-Christian religions I expounded in the central commission—but in vain. I
earnestly begged the council to make good the omission, so that this most loathsome discrimination between some
religions may no longer be found. This absence of an invitation to the heads of the Christian religions confirms in a
certain manner that prejudice creeping through the Asiatic and African world: ‘The Catholic Church is a church for
men of white colour and not for coloured men.’” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 358-359)
2. “...it seems to me an extraordinary thing that in the schema concerning the people of God, express mention
is nowhere made of women, so that the Church appears totally masculine, whereas the reality is quite different. Do
not women constitute the greater part of the laity—even of ecclesiastical prescriptions? Of course I well know the
Church had to behave like this in order not to offend the prejudices of those ages. Thus, St. Paul imposed the veil
on women in Church, lest they displease the angels. So why must men proudly enter the church bareheaded which
is contrary to the custom of clerics today both in the West and the East? In the same way, silence was imposed on
women whereas in this Basilica the walls recently resounded to the voices of the Fathers. So too, nuns must obtain
the permission of churches to wash the sacred linens. And likewise this unjust discrimination appears here and now

in this conciliar hall... Why is it that in our atomic age, when almost everywhere in the world women have ob-
tained juridical equality with men, it is only in the Church of Christ that they still suffer these injurious discrimi-
nations... I eagerly seek... these discriminations against the most valiant sex be eradicated. Last, of all I shall be

grateful to him who can present me with a plain apodictic text of the Gospel which excludes the sisters of the
Blessed Virgin Mary from the sacred functions [i.e. the priesthood].” (Acta Synodalia Vaticani II, vol. 2, part 3, pp.513

Thuc is a complicated character, but there are two extremes that ought to be avoided.  On the one hand, people like Bishop Kelly (and his supporters) are utterly unforgiving and unreasonable in their assessment, acknowledging only the scuмmier of the Thuc consecrations, and only ever interpreting them as either a function of Thuc's insanity or unorthodoxy (when I would maintain the best interpretation is simply that he was conned).  On the other hand, some sedevacantists want to make him out to be the sedevacantist ABL, and this view also has to be very selective in its reading of history, because Thuc was not much of a leader and he made some mistakes that have to be acknowledged.
.
Thuc is a pitiable figure who I think did his best.  That includes providing three very good and capable bishops (Carmona, Guerard des Lauriers, and Zamora) who were strong leaders and who helped grow the traditionalist priesthood.  That also includes a lamentable level of credulity, especially early on, with the Palmarian consecrations; as well as a potential for being bullied and manipulated by those with power (e.g. his vacillations with the Vatican).  It is easy to understand why he is such a polarizing figure, given the highs and lows of his ministry, but a charitable approach will generate a more balanced view of the man and his life.

He was made an Archbishop by John XXIII who started Vatican Council II and was pretty close to Paul VI. Paul VI continued what John XXIII started.