CathInfo.com

Very different.

No, my friend, not different at all.  As I mentioned before, you have been a little brainwashed by the SSPV.  I walked away from SSPV after they released a video in the What Catholics Believe series (I used to help produce that) which ridiculed the Thuc line bishops and CMRI with completely unfounded nonsense.  Among other things, they ridiculed a case of exorcism performed by Bishop McKenna in which the possessed behaved not unlike a werewolf.  They continue to impugn the validity of the Thuc line when the Mendez ordinations and consecrations labored under the exact same difficulties.  People who knew Bishop Thuc testified that he was mentally competent, teaching himself Spanish so that he could teach Latin to Spanish-speaking seminarians ... after the core consecrations he had performed.  He would change language effortlessly when at dinner with priests who spoke different languages and track each conversation.  He devoutly offered Mass ... by all accounts.  There was no hint of mental impairment in him.  On the other side, Mendez had JUST had a stroke before consecrating Bishop Kelly, and family members testified that Mendez barely recognized them at the hospital, just days before the consecration.  Consecrating a "known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ"?  Well, Mendez did the same thing.  Nor is it known whether THUC happened to "know" that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  As for the Palmar ordination/consecrations, a priest who taught at Econe was the one who brought Thuc there.  He had first tried to get +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre told him to take +Thuc instead.  Sure, he was duped.  But, remember, this was before Clemente declared himself to be pope.  As soon as he did that, Thuc renounced the group and never had anything more to do with them.  It was a shameless tar and feather job against Archbishop Thuc, really a grave calumny.  Read Bishop Thuc's autobiography, and you'll see the story of a very devout and pious man, a devoted Catholic, and not the raving madman that the SSPV have falsely made him out to be.  Then-Father Sanborn heard then-Father Kelly state about the Thuc line, "We can't say that they are valid, or people might go to them."

Hmm.  I just noticed that the post on the top of this page here ---
https://cor-mariae.com/resources/thuc-consecrations.269/

is mine and was ripped off from CathInfo and posted on that forum.

Once they created the initial FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) about the consecrations, the average lay person was scared enough of even the POSSIBILITY that their Sacraments might be invalid that even the most solid refutation could not offset that. SSPV preyed on people's scruples and started by articulating the tutiorist principles in such a way as to fan the flames of negative doubt. What they did there was very serious. Bishop Sanborn quoted Father Kelly as once having said, "We can't say the Thuc bishops are valid, since people might go to them." So from that moment on, it was suspect whether Father Kelly was approaching this matter in the interests of ascertaining the truth. In fact, Dierksen cites cases where Father Kelly so badly distorted and misrepresented his sources (in out-of-context quotations) that it's difficult to believe those were simple mistakes and not done deliberately......

...the SSPV case against the Thuc line holds NO WATER whatsoever, and it was extremely irresponsible. Father Kelly quite literally pulled these made-up principles out of thin air and then found some out-of-context quotes to back them up.

This requirement that "competent" witnesses are required who can attest specifically to whether the matter and form were correctly applied simply does not exist. As long as the minister has been properly trained, e.g. a bishop like Thuc who had been a seminary professor and who had personally consecrated a number of men before Vatican II, the competence of the minister is presumed. During the Cold War, bishops were clandestinely consecrated with no witnesses present (to minimize the risk), and their validity was never doubted by the Church. In fact, +Thuc himself had one of these commissions to consecrate bishops clandestinely ... since he was operating in Communist territory. One could argue, even, that, if there were no legit popes since Pius XII, his permission to consecrate endured ... and one could even make a case that they were done with all necessary jurisdiction.

I mean, what if the priest had botched the Baptism Rite of a man who was being consecrated? Then he wouldn't be a valid bishop. Was there anyone present who could swear that the priest poured water correctly on the infant's head and said the proper Latin formula? Such testimony was never demanded by the Church. Even though it's theoretically possible that it was botched, the Church leaves it to God's providence to take care of such matters.

What if I'm assisting at Mass? Could I please get an altar boy trained in Latin to sign off that the priest got the words of consecration right before I go to receive Holy Communion? According to Father Kelly, I can never receive Holy Communion, then, since I would have to hold the consecration to be doubtful due to lack of sufficient witnesses.

It's utter nonsense.