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.

Yes, according to them, the men consecrated in the Paul VI Rite are certainly valid bishops. 

I am aware of the Fr. Cekada reference.

I am trying to validate it.

Can you please produce the alleged letter?

Why is this letter so important to you? 

Ladislaus,
If you don’t mind me asking, where do you receive the Sacraments?

MOSTLY at the chapel of an old Independent priest ordained pre Vatican II.

Sanborn wrote Mendez a letter saying he thanks him for the ordination of two priest. The argument that Mendez was in a faulty mental state is unfounded and unprovable. Why would Bishop jelly get doubtfully consecrated if he was so against the doubtful thuc bishops. The mental state of thuc can be questioned however because of his entering of John Paul II name during the consecration, his changing stance on Rome, and his previous actions such as consecration a known homo. I really am not trying to debate right now I just want to make this list.

Garbage.  +Sanborn's argument was ad hominem -- see the previous post.  Those arguments about making poor judgments and decision are garbage and have no bearing on the mental state required for validity.

I’m sure you agree that the one hand thing has been adequately refuted by Father Cekada.

Absolutely.  I actually sent Father Cekada a copy (when this accusation first surfaced) of the page in the Rituale Romanum where only the right hand was used for ordinations ... for a couple of centuries in the Roman Rite (if I recall the 11th and 12th centuries), and one hand has always been used in the Eastern Rites.  That argument was nonsense, just like all the nonsense against the Thuc consecrations.  HANDS plural in the Romanum is actually a reference to the fact that other bishops and even priests would lay on hands.

Absolutely.  I actually sent Father Cekada a copy (when this accusation first surfaced) of the page in the Rituale Romanum where only the right hand was used for ordinations ... for a couple of centuries in the Roman Rite (if I recall the 11th and 12th centuries), and one hand has always been used in the Eastern Rites.  That argument was nonsense, just like all the nonsense against the Thuc consecrations.  HANDS plural in the Romanum is actually a reference to the fact that other bishops and even priests would lay on hands.

If you could post the reference I would appreciate it. When I debated this in the past with a certain bishop, I showed him what Regatillo and Cappello say on the subject  and he basically ignored it. Regatillo goes so far as to say that he knows a bishop who went to the Holy Office on an ad limina visit and asked the question because he himself did some ordinations with one hand. The HO replied that they get that question often and that ordinations with one hand are valid. The bishop I was debating replied with: ‘who is this unknown bishop’?!
Ridiculous.

Why are you so threatened by my request?

No offense, but I think your argument has no merit because the opinion of the conciliar church is worthless in my eye. I just pointed out the reference because of your claim.

That's because you are a solipsist who believes he can unilaterally declare the church empty.  But then if the Church is empty, what good does it do you or Fr. Cekada to quote a non-Catholic from a letter of unproven existence?

I don't think the Vatican is saying the thuc consecrations are certainly invalid, but just that they're doubtful.  But I could be wrong.

With regards Ladislaus' comment, I have a hard time believing that fringe bishops who may or may not actually be straight in the head, and have no oversight, are what the Church has in mind when she says we presume the validity of ordinations.  And I find it strange that such would be presumed in a case like Thuc, but not for Novus Ordo ordinations.