CathInfo.com

I understand the need for clandestine Bishops, especially behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold war, but what actually is the point of a clandestine Cardinal? Especially one from the UK or America? 
It's just a titled office to elect the Pope.

I understand the need for clandestine Bishops, especially behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold war, but what actually is the point of a clandestine Cardinal? Especially one from the UK or America?
It's just a titled office to elect the Pope.

I COULD see that, where, let's say a Pope Pius XII somehow got wind of the fact that they were planning on installing an Anti-Pope, or he received some private revelation, where he might create secret Cardinals.  But I doubt that actually happened.

There is such a thing as a Cardinal "in pectore", where somtimes the Popes would create Cardinals but not publicly announce it, and the reason sometimes was because they were behind the Iron Curtain.

But, this does make me question Dr. Coomaraswami's grasp of Sacramental theology here, when he states that he received the graces of ordination from a "double source".  No, if the first one was valid, the second one did not confer the grace of Orders, or vice versa.  And the conditional is a very simplified form of the Rite, so one couldn't say it's because of the other parts of the Rite.

In Picture 2 above, he does appear rather clearly to be touching his head.

So, my issues have nothing to do with his being marriged, or the +Thuc line in general ... but with +Lopez-Gaston, having derived episcopal consecration from a Duarte-Costa bishop and then conditionally from +Roux, the latter's consecration by +Thuc having been contested by quite a few people.  Then of course we have very little evidence that Martin was actually a bishop.

I suppose one COULD say that Martin did not want it known that he was a bishop, and that's why +Lopez-Gaston did the consecration, but then after the consecration decided to step in, since conditionals are generally somewhat low-key.