I did not live in the 70s and 80s, but it seems to me that Abp. Thuc was not really a "great divider and distraction". 

Any division or distraction regarding Archbishop Thuc comes from those who choose to cause division and distraction regarding him.

I did not live in the 70s and 80s, but it seems to me that Abp. Thuc was not really a "great divider and distraction". How many people even knew of his existence? He was not a leader of any group, he did not publish books or gave big speeches and sermons. Had he not done the consecrations, I doubt that many people would remember him by now.

The most significant part of his legacy is the bishops that he consecrated, and there are many people that should be very thankful for it, because they probably would have no access to the sacraments otherwise.

The Palmar sect seems to have relatively few followers, and they apparently have invented a (probably invalid) new rite of mass. So, his imprudence in consecrating those men has not brought that much evil.

He became a great divider and distraction in our time. Just look at the division it's caused in traditional circles, with dubious and doubtful ordinations, among other issues. Read this forum for another example. His divisiveness and those fruits occurred after his death.

You can’t blame Thuc if some of his lineage went off the rails.  

He became a great divider and distraction in our time. Just look at the division it's caused in traditional circles, with dubious and doubtful ordinations, among other issues. Read this forum for another example. His divisiveness and those fruits occurred after his death.

You could say that same about Abp. Lefebvre.

His lineage is causing division (Bp. Williamson vs. Bp. Fellay) and doubtful sacraments (neo-SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests without conditional ordination because Bp. Fellay signed a deal with the Modernists).

You could say that same about Abp. Lefebvre.

His lineage is causing division (Bp. Williamson vs. Bp. Fellay) and doubtful sacraments (neo-SSPX accepts Novus Ordo priests without conditional ordination because Bp. Fellay signed a deal with the Modernists).

The comparison between Archbishop Thuc and Archbishop Lefebvre is misplaced. While both were involved in controversial episcopal consecrations, their intentions, actions, and legacies are fundamentally different.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecrations were a direct response to the crisis in the Church following Vatican II, focused on preserving the traditional Mass and sacraments. His actions, though controversial, were driven by a clear theological vision and a commitment to safeguarding the Catholic faith as he understood it. Despite some internal disagreements within his lineage, such as those between Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay, Lefebvre’s legacy is marked by a cohesive defense of Tradition and the establishment of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), which continues to serve many faithful Catholics.

In contrast, Archbishop Thuc’s actions were characterized by a lack of prudence and coherence. His consecrations were often performed without clear criteria or discernment, leading to a proliferation of independent bishops, questionable ordinations, and the spread of sedevacantism. These actions have caused significant confusion and division within traditional circles, undermining the very Tradition Thuc claimed to uphold.

A more fitting comparison would be between Archbishop Thuc and Bishop Fellay, as both have, in different ways, departed from the principles of Tradition, resulting in substantial controversies and divisions. Archbishop Thuc’s erratic consecrations led to isolated confusion, while Bishop Fellay’s efforts to reconcile with Rome—particularly through the 2012 doctrinal preamble—have caused deep rifts within the SSPX. His willingness to accept priests ordained in the Novus Ordo without conditional ordination has introduced doubts and further divided the faithful.

Both Thuc and Fellay have contributed to a weakening of the traditional Catholic position—Thuc through his imprudent and isolated actions, and Fellay through a more systemic shift that risks compromising the very principles on which the traditionalist movement was built. However, the nature and impact of their actions differ, with Thuc’s causing scattered disruption and Fellay’s representing a broader challenge to Tradition.