Does anyone believe that Father Jenkins's argument is correct?
 

Fr Jenkins and other priests including Frs Cedaka and Sanborn visited Germany to investigate and the video is something of a summary with pertinent remarks. Fr Jenkins offers examples of consecrations of people not Catholic including a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist and beer salesman, with a strong suggestion that money changed hands, of how the two witnesses had no expertise in what they witnessed (knowledge of Latin but none of a consecration), of how Fr Guérard des Lauriers OP had to repeatedly remind Abp Thuc not use the name of JP2 in the Rite, after having assured the priest that he rejected JP2 as Pope, yet close in time to that, concelebrates a Novus Ordo in the Cathedral of the Conciliar Bishop giving him shelter. Fr Jenkins suggests that there is just too much doubt that a Catholic consecration took place (of Fr Guérard des Lauriers OP), even if it was perhaps valid, and I would think the evidence he offers is formidable. Fr Jenkins notes the Cekada-Sanborn volte-face, and suggests that Bp Kelly's Sacred and the Profane says all that needs to be said. Fr also suggests that Mario Dierksen has not the standing or training to make his claims, that there isn't the time for the SSPV to deal with lay bloggers when there are souls to be saved. The fact that is no paper work for the consecration of Fr Guérard des Lauriers OP and just poor photocopies for others raises further doubt. I cannot see whether his overall argument is correct, but it is a strong argument.

Consider here how Fr Jenkin's Superior Bishop Kelly has full docuмentation available online for anyone to read:

Docuмentation on the Consecration of Bishop Kelly

P.S.  Some have had this idea: Bishop Kelly could (conditionally) consecrate the worthies of this line, and thus end this controversy.  After as, like Prayerful reported above "there isn't time ... when there are souls to be saved."

First of all, Bishop Kelly is not going to do this because he condemns the Thuc line bishops in order to keep people away from them.  He doesn't want to work with them nor does he want to end the controversy.  Frankly, I doubt any Thuc-line bishop would even want Bishop Kelly's conditional consecration.

Secondly, every argument the SSPV claims invalidates the Thuc-line bishops applies equally to his own consecration.  If the Thuc-line bishops are invalid bishops, then his line is also invalid.

Well, the SSPV tend to conflate allegations regarding different unbecoming or unsavory aspects of the +Thuc line with considerations regarding the validity of the consecrations per se.  That's dihonest, and they clearly have an agenda.

Biggest argument they have regarding the "des Laurier" line is that the two witnesses did not have sufficient knowledge of the Rite of Episcopal Consecration to verify its validity.  But nowhere in Canon Law does it stipulate that witnesses to any Sacrament need to have such knowledge.  So, for instance, when someone witnesses a marriage or a Baptism, it's not a requirement that they be intimately familiar with what's required for validity.  In fact, Bishop Guerard himself had enough knowledge of the Rite to have been "correcting" +Thuc during the Rite.  That itself shows he was paying attention.

Ironically, many of the same criticisms of the +Thuc consecrations can be brought against the +Mendez consecration of +Kelly.

Father Sanborn points out that all the criticisms of the +Thuc consecrations apply equally to the +Mendez consecration.

http://www.geocities.ws/orthopapism/mendez.html

As we shall see, however, by uncanny irony Fr. Kelly himself has emerged from an alleged consecration that labors under these very problems: one that is difficult to prove, one in which the consecrator was neither traditional nor of high reputation, and whose mental capacity at the time of the alleged consecration is called into doubt by his own family members and religious order.

I'll never understand why all these clerics can't get along.  That goes for sspx, sspv, etc, etc.  "Blessed are the peacemakers!"  They cause more confusion and discord than what comes from Rome.  I wouldn't want to be them on judgement day...  

Quote from: Barry

P.S.  Some have had this idea: Bishop Kelly could (conditionally) consecrate the worthies of this line, and thus end this controversy.  After as, like Prayerful reported above "there isn't time ... when there are souls to be saved."

I suggested this years ago.  Let +Kelly and +Sanborn/+Dolan, etc. conditionally consecrate one another's lines (for pastoral reasons) and then have the respective Bishops conditionally ordain the priests in their lineage.  Problem solved.  That's what one would do if one were sincerely interested in the good of souls.

Not very likely to happen when it is a matter of personal egos and rivalries.

Human passions, rather than a true zeal for the salvation of souls, are behind all these animosities.  

None of these clowns are valid, they should all check in
to their local diocese and ask to submit to the authority
of their real bishops, who can decide what to do with them.