Ambrose -  Do you call Fr. Noel Barbara a liar?  Here is text from Sacred and Profane pg 77,78, quoting from Robert Mckenna - McKenna, "Thuc-Line Bishops," p. 6.

"Consecrating the Leader of a Non-Catholic Sect"

The Palmar consecrations occurred in January 1976. Thuc
consecrated D'Arnoux in July. The reconciliation with Paul VI,
whereby Thuc repented of "the grave scandal given to the faithful
and for the immense harm caused to the Church by placing in
danger its unity," was in September 1976. Yet, within a few months
Archbishop Thuc was at it again. This time he consecrated a man
named Jean Laborie, an Old Catholic bishop who was the founder
and head of his own non-Catholic sect and who was, according to
Fr. Noel Barbara, a known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. This "consecration" took
place on February 8, 1977. ^ Laborie was consecrated at least three
times and, according to Fr. Barbara, possibly as many as five times.
Fr. Cekada wrote about Laborie in his 1983 article on the
Thuc bishops. He said that Archbishop Thuc "raised to the
episcopate (for the 'umpteenth time') Jean Laborie, leader of a
schismatic 'Old Catholic' sect, the 'Latin Church of Toulouse.' He
also ordained another 'Old Catholic' from Marseilles named Garcia,
and a certain ex-convict named Arbinet who went on later to
become a Palmar 'bishop.'"

pg 60

However, later in the interview, in order to justify the fact
that Thuc consecrated non-Catholics, Hiller invoked Thuc's
poverty, his age and a lack of sufficient time to do complete and
thorough investigations.

I do not call Fr. Noel Barbara a liar.  

You still are not grasping what I am asking you.  What exactly did +Thuc know about the morality of these men at the time of their consecrations?

To make a mistake in consecrating one who is unworthy is a terrible thing, but it is just a mistake. The 1970's were a time of complete chaos and confusion, so with that as a backdrop, I think it is harsh to hold +Thuc's feet to the fire over this, unless you have real evidence to demonstrate that he knowingly consecrated unworthy men.  

PG, the evil/insane stuff is basically slander and you need to retract.

Even aside from that, the litmus test for the mental wherewithal to consecrate validly is simply that he knows what he's doing and is capable of intending to do what the Church does.  He basically would have to be so far gone that he didn't know who he was or what he was doing.  Lack of prudence or sound judgment or eccentricity etc. do NOT render someone incapable of validly consecrating.

I personally know someone who was at dinner with Bishop Thuc AFTER the consecrations of Bishop Guerard des Laurier and Bishop Zamora and Carmona.  Bishop Thuc was at the table with priests who spoke several different language and he was actually switching from one language to another and keeping track of each thread of conversation.  That is NOT a man who could not validly consecrate.

You could easily make the same case for Bishop Mendez, but I won't go into his personal issues.  What's interesting is that Bishop Mendez had a stroke not too long before consecrating Bishop Kelly, and one relative testified that Bishop Mendez didn't recognize him (or her, I can't remember) just days before the Bishop Kelly consecration.  When Bishop Mendez was ordaining Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger, Father Kelly had to ask him to repeat the essential words of ordination several times because he badly slurred the words.  In fact, one of the priests has said that Bishop Mendez pronounced everything correctly and then inexplicably sped up and slurred only the words of the essential form.  Bishop signed the letter of ordination with an alias name and then, when confronted about it by Father Peter Scott of the SSPX, he denied in writing that he had ordained Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger.

So, ironically, Bishop Kelly's arguments against Bishop Thuc can be turned right back on him.

Dr. Hiller and Heller do not canonically pass the test concerning witnesses to establish a fact!

That "canonical test" of competence for a witness doesn't exist.

You could easily make the same case for Bishop Mendez, but I won't go into his personal issues.  What's interesting is that Bishop Mendez had a stroke not too long before consecrating Bishop Kelly, and one relative testified that Bishop Mendez didn't recognize him (or her, I can't remember) just days before the Bishop Kelly consecration.  When Bishop Mendez was ordaining Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger, Father Kelly had to ask him to repeat the essential words of ordination several times because he badly slurred the words.  In fact, one of the priests has said that Bishop Mendez pronounced everything correctly and then inexplicably sped up and slurred only the words of the essential form.  Bishop signed the letter of ordination with an alias name and then, when confronted about it by Father Peter Scott of the SSPX, he denied in writing that he had ordained Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger.

So, ironically, Bishop Kelly's arguments against Bishop Thuc can be turned right back on him.

This has been going on for years now--the strategy has been to accuse others of precisely what they themselves are up to.

 But to be fair, it most certainly is not only Bp. Kelly who argues in favor of calumniating Archbishop Thuc and intimidating laypeople.  He just wrote a book but they all go along with it for various reasons.

 Greenwell used an alias at his secret ordination, also.  The Mendez story, if it ever leaked out...oh boy...

PG,

My answers in blue:

Perhaps all here have forgotten what the OP was about.  It was about "why wont they"(sspv and sgg).  In Cekada's article(I think the great excommunicator), he is condemning the SSPV for not allowing his parishioners to go to communion.  The division is enforced by the sspv. This is not about the CMRI!  This is about Sacred and Profane(and if anyone else, SGG)  

Ambrose - You have either not read Sacred and Profane(all of it), or you are ignorant.  Dr. Hiller and Heller do not canonically pass the test concerning witnesses to establish a fact!  That answers your question about what we can "know".

I have read it (Sacred and the Profane) cover to cover.  The book is trash, and I only keep it as a resource to deal with this type of discussion.

You still have not understood my question, and you still have not answered it.  I have asked you to prove that +Thuc knew that the men he was consecrating were unworthy prior to his consecrating them.  That was the question, and it remains unanswered.  

To address those who think that I am closed minded about this.  I have read Cekada's articles, and he uses manipulative and dishonest tactics.  

I don't trust Cekada either, so that is perhaps something we may agree on.  I do, however, trust Mario Derksen, and I believe that he honestly and thoroughly researched this issue.

And, no offense(and I mean that), but I won't address the CMRI, I agree with Sanborn concerning them, they need to dissolve/eradicate "all" of Schuckardt.

I have an opposite opinion on CMRI.  I think that their bad experience with Francis Schuckardt has actually helped CMRI to be vigilant against usurpation of lawful authority and insulating them against cult like practices.  

The CMRI are the only large group that actually shuns authority and behaves like emergency priests and not as the lawful pastors of the Church.  

I came across this [from 1991] when going through things.  Kind of funny in light of things nowadays...

Thank you All for your detailed and thoughtful responses.  I gather that it will be a hot day in hell before the three bishops reconcile.  

God bless.

monka966