No problem. I’ve noticed that when you are proven wrong, which is quite often, you either retreat or resort to ad hominem attacks.

This is the soma taken by all sedes (and Feeneyites) who prefer to win by stamina rather than argument.

And “Rome” says the Paul VI is a saint. Yeah, I really care what the heretics in “Rome” determine.

Mmm...not so sure: It seems Rome doubted them enough to treat their priestly ordinations as invalid:

“Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in force until repentance.”

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

There are a number of very dubious and shadowy +Thuc lines for sure, but they don't get any more "quality" than +Guerard des Lauriers' line.  That man was the personal confessor to Pope Pius XII and helped draft the dogmatic declaration regarding the Assumption, co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention.  Then Bishop McKenna was no slouch either, and from there you get +Sanborn.  On the other side, +Carmona and +Zamora were also solid.  There's no question about either of these lines ... except Bishop Kelly's nonsense about the mental state of +Thuc because he made some bad decisions on whom to ordain.  In point of fact, however, imprudence is no indication that someone cannot validly confect the Sacraments.  You'd have to be so far gone that you didn't know what you were doing.  Witnesses testify that +Thuc, AFTER these consecrations, could sit at table with priests who spoke different languages and switch effortlessly between languages and keep track of separate conversations.  His autobiography (also written later) is very articulate and moving.  Basically, so long as he was aware that he was consecrating bishops, those were valid.  Nor is there any canonical requirement for there to be a witness who knows the essential form and can attest to the fact that it was correct.  If the Bishop was properly trained (and +Thuc certainly had been and had performed other consecrations prior to V2), the canonical presumption is one of validity.  Between +Thuc (who had advanced theology degrees) and +des Laurier, it's laughable to suggest that they didn't know enough about the consecration to determine whether it was valid.  Fr. Kelly made up requirements for validity out of thin air.  Derksen's books exposes him as totally dishonest, taking quotes totally out of context and even using strategic ellipses to make the quote say something different than what it originally did.

Mmm...not so sure: It seems Rome doubted them enough to treat their priestly ordinations as invalid:

Lad-

Logic much?

If they prescinded, but declare they will not recognize their orders, it necessarily means those ordinations are not certainly valid (ie., they are at least doubtful), since they could not refuse to acknowledge certainly valid orders (eg., Orthodox).