Please state your reasons why you believe that the Thuc and Mendez lines are doubtful. BTW: holding the sedevacantist position is not a reason for doubt.

Aside from the diminished mental capacity which must surely have come and gone for Archbishop Thuc (erratically consecrating anyone and everything along the entire spectrum of sects), there is this from Rome which also seems to evince some doubt:

"3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

That paragraph implies doubt about the validity of Thuc's consecrations: It announcec his "bishops" will not be recognized as bishops, and the "whatever about the validity of orders" statement evinces it is something too tangled for Rome to decipher.

Also noticeable is that Rome did not issue a similar promulgation in the case of the Lefebvre bishops, whose consecrations were unambiguously recognized as valid by the same Pope, using very different language.

Basically, Rome views them as Anglicans, and that itself suffices for positive and probable doubt regarding their validity.

I’m sure you agree that the one hand thing has been adequately refuted by Father Cekada. The +Lefebvre line also has the supposed taint of the “Cardinal Lienart being a freemason” nonsense. I’ve noticed that most of the people who like to attack the validly of certain orders, do so for ulterior reasons and ignore basic principles of sacramental theology.

See my response above

That’s a terrible reason to doubt their validity. You are a donatist. “The pope views them as Anglican’s” well the “pope” views Muslims as Catholics so

I shouldn’t call you a Donatism, rather: you are close to being a donatist

I guess you thought saying something stupid was better than saying nothing at all?

Well it really wasn’t stupid because the reason you give to doubt their validity sounds like Donatism. Do you understand the difference of validity and licitness?

"3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

That paragraph implies doubt about the validity of Thuc's consecrations: It announcec his "bishops" will not be recognized as bishops, and the "whatever about the validity of orders" statement evinces it is something too tangled for Rome to decipher.

Also noticeable is that Rome did not issue a similar promulgation in the case of the Lefebvre bishops, whose consecrations were unambiguously recognized as valid by the same Pope, using very different language.

Basically, Rome views them as Anglicans, and that itself suffices for positive and probable doubt regarding their validity.

Not so....According to JPII’s papal nuncio, Pio Laghi, in a letter to Father Berry dated September 28, 1988, he wrote: “In response to your inquiry of September 23, 1988, the episcopal ordination of Guerard des Lauriers, while valid, was gravely illicit.”

Aside from the diminished mental capacity which must surely have come and gone for Archbishop Thuc (erratically consecrating anyone and everything along the entire spectrum of sects), there is this from Rome which also seems to evince some doubt:

You are way off here. Aside, from the fact that the Archbishop was trusting his confrères, and I admit he impudently did so, this is not the evidence needed to prove he did not have the mental capacity to confer holy orders. To prove invalidity from “diminished mental capacity”, the bar is substantially higher.

Not so....According to JPII’s papal nuncio, Pio Laghi, in a letter to Father Berry dated September 28, 1988, he wrote: “In response to your inquiry of September 23, 1988, the episcopal ordination of Guerard des Lauriers, while valid, was gravely illicit.”

Could you please supply the Letter?

Could you please supply the Letter?

It was referenced in Father Cekada’s paper defending the Thuc line. To me, the conciliar church’s opinion on the matter is worthless anyway.