CathInfo.com

Using this same logic, don't you think that the exact same argument could be made regarding the last few years of Bp. Williamson's life? In a way, even more so, since the internet made it far easier to make public certain statements about Medjugorje and Garabandal? Could HE +Williamson also be accused of senility with regards to his clerical actions in the last few years he was alive? Was he not performing Consecrations that were only made public after the fact and during a timeframe that he could have been accused of not having all of his wits about him?

Please understand that I have much respect for His Excellency, Bp Williamson. I only point this out to highlight that many of the same things used to slander Abp Thuc could easily be applied to Bp Williamson as well. And even though I'm just a crazy Sedevacantist, I would defend Bp Williamson in the light of him being a man likely recognizing that he was in the sunset of his earthly life, and intending to do as much as possible to preserve the priesthood, perhaps setting aside the prudence he may have once exercised here and there. And should there someday be some Kosik style characters claiming, years after his death, that they were consecrated by Bp Williamson, I would not take that at face value, but in respect to +Williamson, reserve any judgement until sufficient evidence had been produced.

Just wanted to mention that since, even though many that knew him have stated that Abp Thuc was not senile, but very sharp during the timeframe of his consecrations of +Des Lauriers/ +Carmona/ +Zamora, his mental state is still questioned. And I find that accusation particularly interesting from those who would never tolerate such a charge being brought against Bp Williamson.

Side note, I also find it pretty funny that Bp Kelly and the SSPV also sought out an elderly, retired bishop to maintain their line despite their objections to Abp Thuc, lol! The irony is pretty thick there. And btw, yes, I do consider the SSPV line valid. I just find that to be quite interesting.

You're right, the same argument could be made. And I would disagree, but I wouldn't object to the fact of it being made. I wouldn't say it's slander to Bishop Williamson, it's a valid question.

I think we just have different way of looking at fora, I remember reading once that in Suscipe Domine you had at some point a guy who was a sedevacantist who believed every Pope had been rightfully elected and enthroned but spirited away and replaced with a body double immediately after, and another who  believed Pius XII wasn't really dead but in cryogenic stasis, and another guy who thought the Avignon Obedience continued in secret and is being hunted by vampires under the command of a 600ish year old anti-christ.

To me that's a feature, not a bug, of fora, I would've found conversations with those guys quite interesting.

So to hate someone so much and clamor for their ban because they take one side on a notoriously controversial issue is very dumb to me.

And much less when people make fanfic about him going to hell, fantasize about beating him up or him being beat up or want to leak his personal info. That's just insane and acting like a child.

He's very abrasive but so are many people in this forum.

I don't really know what Tom's whole deal is with sedevacantists but I will say one thing, imagine if every time Lad tried to talk about sedevacantism a group of people downvoted him and cried out "You're saying that millions of Catholics follow an antipope usurper sent by Satan? That's slander and a great sin against fraternal charity! Repent!"
It would get old quite quick, especially given that they can just ignore him.

It also makes me think that many people aren't suited to fora, they should either stick to only certain threads or get on tight-knit discord servers and they'd have a much better peace of mind.

Hmm, I'm quite unfamiliar with the Resistance "sorcery" thing. I just take it with a grain of salt because I know how trads get, like that one time I mentioned how Tarot cards were actually just playing cards from the 1400s and they only started being used for sorcery in the late 1700s, and therefore one can take them as an interesting late medieval collection of archetypes, tropes and motifs. Most of the responses were unhinged things about it being contaminated or cursing kings by portraying the downfall of one.

Or I forget where it was but someone mentioned with great horror how in a certain place some Catholics drank water with some gospel fragment or blessing written on a piece of paper and dissolved, when that's a thing that european Catholics did for centuries, many saints did it.

Now if it's true that in Pfeifferville they're doing incontrovertible santeria and vodoo, that's horrible, but you understand I'm wary of such accusations.

Is this the evidence?

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/pfeifferville-is-a-warlock's-lair-(re-post)/

I'm sorry but it reads like it's written by someone struggling with mental illness ngl, I hope he got  the help he needed.

Though there's probably more to the story Pablo might very well be a sorcerer idk.