Quote from: SeanJohnson

My (mis?)understanding was that there was a question as to the validity of Thuc orders, based on his mental state.

Your understanding (not misunderstanding) is correct.

It's a question, not a conclusion.

Basically, Rome's position is that it does not know whether or not the consecrations are valid, nor does it see any point in investigating the question. This is because Rome judges the consecrations to be of such an illicit nature as to prevent Rome from allowing those possessing these orders to exercise them should they reconcile with the Church.

And also to point out that if he is an indultarian, he ought to be spending his time helping us R&R types defend the legitimacy of the recent popes, rather than voice his judgment on the superiority of sedevacantist arguments (which tends to reaffirm them in their error).

Well, given the last posts by Pete and Centro, I think we can safely eliminate all Thuc pedigree from the list of available "saviors" of the Church.

Who does this leave standing in the sedevacantist orb for bishops?

Just the SSPV?

Quote from: J.Paul

If Pete is an indult man, then he too is in the R&R camp, although in its milder form.

To say that the Indult is a more mild form of R&R would be to assume I am resisting: a) the post-conciliar papacies; and/or b) Vatican II, and/or c) the Novus Ordo.

I am not.

I accept each of the above as valid AND licit, although - obviously - I prefer the TLM personally, and support it. But this should not be interpreted as resistance to the Novus Ordo, and/or the post-conciliar papacies, and/or Vatican II.

In fact, I have come to appreciate and view Vatican II quite differently after studying the history and Tradition of our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. For those interested in understanding the Second Vatican Council through the eyes of Eastern Catholic Tradition, I would highly recommend the following book:

https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.

Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?

Sean, not sure if you followed the French debates over sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism), or whether you have read Mgr des Lauriers' "cahiers de Cassiciacuм", but essentially the debate between ED/SP trads and sedes has always come down to the issue of religious liberty.

This is unlike both groups debate with the R&R, which is essentially over ecclesiology.

But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.

So yes, it comes down to this one work authored by Dom Basile Valuet, a traditional Benedictine ordained personally by Mgr Lefebvre. The great irony is that he originally set out to write his doctoral thesis from the R&R position of attempting to prove a rupture between Vatican II definition of religious liberty and Apostolic Tradition.  

Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right and I cannot fail to express my hope that it will be upheld throughout the Middle East and the entire world. The right to religious freedom “includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship… [it also includes] the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public”

Quote from: SeanJohnson

In other words, forget about the 50 other sedevacantist arguments.

Solve apprehensions about Dignitatis Humanae, and they will all come back?

Yep.