I don't generally consider people who debate the niceties of sedevacantism to be the type of people to fabricate a complete hoax, down to imitating the handwriting of some bishop to attribute ideas to him. I can easily believe, though, that what Bp. des Lauriers said is being misconstrued or misinterpreted, though, which is why I'm trying to get at his actual words so I can look at them and see what he said for myself.

You know, normally I would agree with you ... except even if not a "complete hoax", we could be talking about a significant amount of "spin" ... but have a look at this link regarding some of the "niceties" being debated here.

https://www-sodalitium-biz.translate.goog/grazie-monsieur-louis-hubert-remy/?_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

We would like to publicly thank M. Louis-Hubert Remy:  not only of the insults (ignoble, liars, dishonest, slanderers, blasphemers, gurus, sewer of impurity, smokers, etc. etc.) and of the wishes (Don Ricossa is destined to be vomited by God and to make a bad death)

So, given this degree of rancor, let me just say that I doubt we're dealing with honesty and objectivity.

But, to your point, IF the note is real and was produced by a +des Lauriers who was still of sound mind, it does not categorically retract the Thesis, just says there are "enormous errors" in it.  For someone as meticulous as +des Laurier, that could be some technicality or small detail for the rest of us.

Finally, to me it really doesn't matter.  Both with the cult of +Lefebvre and here with these guys playing tug-o-war over +des Lauriers, the personalities don't matter to me.  We're in search of truth and not personality cults.  I agree and disagree on different issues with nearly all the leaders of the Traditional movement.

Apart from the fact that there's no "study" ... just a number of disjointed memos ... one of the criticisms Bishop Ricossa et al. made of the alleged note ... no, I don't have time to track down a bunch of studies, because it doesn't honestly matter that much to me.  I've long held that the precise status of the pope, no pope, partial pope, impounded pope, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, imposter pope, etc. is the wrong issue and doesn't really matter.  It'll be decided by the Church in good time.  What matters is whether the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.  Rest of this has always been disputed and argued about, and certainly won't be resolved by us here on CathInfo.  So I view it as an academic disagreement that I engage in because it helps my understanding of the nature of the Church and the papacy, but not to the point of my being motivated to track down and analyze this Donyelle's "study".

Well, this thread isn't about debating over whether the CT is true.  It is about whether Bishop Deslauriers retracted it.

Your initial posts in this thread concluded that it was an obvious falsehood because a dogmatic sede was responsible for asserting it.  You have yet to show where you got that accusation from.

Servus has since posted a linked study whereby an expert in writing analysis has determined that the letter in question was written by the same person who wrote the other 3 letters [also supposedly written by Bishop des Lauriers].

Yes, we can debate ad nauseum what he meant by "enormous errors" but at the very least it does appear that the letter in question was NOT false.  At the very least this study shouldn't be dismissed outright.   

 

Your initial posts in this thread concluded that it was an obvious falsehood because a dogmatic sede was responsible for asserting it.  You have yet to show where you got that accusation from.

I provided a link, and then another poster provided three links that give details about how said what.

Allegedly.  I saw the samples that were being compared and they looked nothing alike but was focused on the "pressure" at the start of each word ... which is higher for pretty much everyone at the start of each word.  In any case, when you have the one group accusing the CT group of being "sewers of impurity" and "blasphemers" and wishing that Bishop Riccosa be vomited out by Our Lord and have a "bad death" (aka go to Hell), excuse me if I'm going to be remain skeptical and question any "evidence" produced by this group.  They could easily be taking this study and taken SOME points of similarity out of context and extrapolating from that (while ignoring the actual final conclusion made by the "expert").

It appears the expert is independent, qualified and certified:

On the 25th (Twenty-fifth) day of the Month of August of the year of 2022 (Two Thousand Twenty Two), at the city of Maceió, State of Alagoas, the expert in Graphotechnics Bruno Francisco Siqueira Silva , Civil Register No 3009101-2 SSP/AL, Graphotechnician expert of the Regional Labour Court of the 19^ Region, Judicial expert of the Court of Justice of the State of Alagoas, registered on the National Register of Particular Experts under inscription No 1964, in conformity with the legislation and the current regulatory provisions, by express request of the client Mr. Yuri Maria Timotheo Guimaraes de Almeida Baranhuk, | was charged to proceed to the expert exams in order to fulfill his request.  

Why would we dismiss his conclusions out of hand?  

I just want to point out one thing about the "Paul VI double" theory, that Bp. des Lauriers expresses support for in that letter. To us here in the 21st century it sounds certifiably insane, and objectively yes, I'd say it is, but at the time it was being discussed, in the 60s and 70s, the people that adhered to it did so for reasons that were actually pretty reasonable.

Here's how it's been explained to me. They were faced with a seemingly insoluble problem in the 60s and 70s -- someone apparently the pope, teaching heresy. This had never been seen in 2,000 years of Church history. So they couldn't figure out how to explain it without violating Catholic theology, except for the idea that Paul VI wasn't a free agent, or wasn't even himself at all, but had been kidnapped and replaced with a double. They would probably have agreed that the idea sounded crazy by itself, but would have said that it would be even crazier to assert that a real pope could be responsible for the changes of Vatican II.

So I don't consider the people who thought this (which included Bp. Thuc, actually) to have been completely nuts, although they are regarded that way today. They just hadn't heard the concept of sedevacantism, maybe, and it certainly took some time for people to research what all the theologians have said about the papacy and heresy.

All that being said, I do think it would go against the indefectibility of the Church for a pope to be replaced by an imposter, since if it were possible, we wouldn't be able to know if it had happened or not, which would call every act of every pope into doubt. Theoretically it would be possible that every pope since St. Linus had been replaced by a double, and it could be claimed that it was only at Vatican II that the true popes broke free from this bondage and began preaching the true gospel of Christ, which had been Bergoglianism all along. Obviously this is absurd.