Agreed.
Maybe he still will get consecrated. But, it will be even better now because he is NOT with the SSPX any longer.

Right.  I noticed the typo after it was too late to edit he thread and decided not to bother because people know what I meant.  Just mechanical habit, 99% of the time when I type SSP it's followed by X. 

You’re using articles from a man who hates ALL real Traditionalists to attack the Society. Pathetic

A broken clock is right twice a day. Voris might be in the new order, but his isn't the first expose. There were Swedish journalists whom also busted the SSPX for harboring sɛҳuąƖ predators. These are the rotten fruits of recognizing the new order religion to be the Catholic Church, and of holding heretical doctrine on the papacy as the Society of St Pius X does.

I really like Fr Jenkins.  That would be great.  I just wish he'd change his tune on the Thuc consecrations.

What's so wrong about his position on the Thuc consecrations? We don't know proof positive of what actually occurred. That's not to say his consecrations were valid or invalid. We just don't know. Which is the same reason why we need to avoid the new order. That is Fr Jenkins' view on the Thuc consecrations. They are also most CERTAINLY illicit even if we were to say they are valid. Abp Thuc was an excommunicate for consecrating Palmarians, and FIVE Old Catholic schismatics.

No, like them, you're fanning the flames of negative doubt.  Similarly, we don't "know proof positive of what actually occurred" with regard to the Mendez ordinations and consecration either.

Yeah we do. There were priests present at Msgr Kelly's consecration. The only people present at Thuc's "consecrations" were two laymen, Drs Hiller and Heller. These same laymen even testified under oath what happened during the consecrations, and both of them didn't even know the proper form of consecrating a bishop [when asked by then Frs Sanborn, Kelly and Jenkins]. There is also the point from Fr Barbara that Abp Thuc was co-celebrating the new order "mass" in Toulon during the time of his consecrations, and very well could have used oils that he obtained from the new order church in Toulon [which could pose a problem with the validity]. Furthermore, you are clearly dodging a bullet at the fact that Abp Thuc was a complete schismatic. His lineage is no option for any Catholic to approach. Period. Yes, Bishop Alfredo Mendez was a liberal: he did advocate for lay deacons, he did contribute to sex scandals in the new order, and he did support other horrendous things. Archbishop Thuc clearly did far worse things though to the point of schism.  

Then the Sede priests of the RCI would still have to hold Fr des Luariers' consecration to be illicit. Why? Well, according to the testimony of Hiller and Heller, Abp Thuc placed the name of John Paul in the canon. 

Every consecration of a Sede has been illicit, since they all lacked the legal requirement of a papal mandate.  Not to mention that most were performed by a bishop of a false church, such as the Old Catholic church, or one who was already excommunicated.   What is amazing to me is that you sedevacantist heretics actually think your Catholic. 

Every consecration of a Sede has been illicit, since they all lacked the legal requirement of a papal mandate.  Not to mention that most were performed by a bishop of a false church, such as the Old Catholic church, or one who was already excommunicated.   What is amazing to me is that you sedevacantist heretics actually think your Catholic.

According to canon law the principle of Epikeya justifies the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate [i.e. in cases of extreme necessity]. There are Sedevacantist organizations which derive their lineage from the Old "Catholics", but as Ladislaus said, not all Sede institutions have received their lineage from those schismatics. What is "amazing to me" is that you actually consider a man like "Pope Francis" to be the pope. A man whom: openly teaches that adulterers can receive holy communion, says that Protestants and the Eastern Schismatics don't need conversion, says that non-Catholics can lawfully receive holy communion, says that Jews are the "chosen people of God", says that atheists can get to heaven, believes one can be saved simply by "following their conscience", believes that Protestants are in the Church of Christ, says that Muslims worship the same God, prays and worships with non-Catholics [that includes neo-pagans], says that there is "no Catholic God", awards pro-choice politicians with medals, gives the right to investiture to a secular Communist dictator, etc.

What amazes me is how a modernist liberal heretic like yourself can recognize a man like "Paul VI", an antichrist who promulgated the heretical and blasphemous teachings of Vatican II, to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. What amazes me is how you can recognize an apostate like "John Paul II" to be saint. That's what is "amazing to me".

Arnaldo, if you truly love Jesus [and I am not saying you don't as I don't know your heart], then you would look at these facts and reject Bergoglio as a man of Satan.

So?, the SSPX bishops were also consecrated without a mandate.  

And they too were illicit.

And it is absolutely false (a lie) that most were consecrated by a schismatic Church such as the Old Catholic.  Most sedevacantist bishops derive from either Archbishop Thuc or Bishop Mendez, who were both Catholics.  

I said most were performed by an Old Catholic bishop or excommunicated bishop. 
What's more, Archbishop Thuc actually did hold a papal mandate from Pius XII that had not been revoked to consecrate whenever he saw fit.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Notification*

 
 
His Excellency Mons. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, in the month of January 1976 ordained several priests and bishops in the village of Palmar de Troya in Spain, in a way which was completely illicit. Consequently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 September of the same year, issued a decree (cf. AAS LXVIII, 1976, p. 623), mentioning the canonical penalties incurred both by himself and by the others who were thus illicitly ordained by him.


Later the same Prelate requested and obtained absolution from the excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See which he had incurred.


It has now come to the knowledge of this Sacred Congregation that His Excellency Mons. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, since the year 1981, has again ordained other priests contrary to the terms of canon 955. Moreover, what is still more serious, in the same year, disregarding canon 953, without pontifical mandate and canonical provision, he conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin. Subsequently Moises Carmona in his turn conferred episcopal ordination on the Mexican priests Benigno Bravo and Roberto Martínez, and also on the American priest George Musey.


Moreover, His Excellency Ngô-dinh-Thuc wished to prove the legitimacy of his actions especially by the public declaration made by him in Munich on 25 February 1982 in which he asserted that "the See of the Catholic Church at Rome was vacant" and therefore he as a bishop "was doing everything so that the Catholic Church of Rome would continue for the eternal salvation of souls".


After duly pondering the seriousness of these crimes and erroneous assertions, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, by special mandate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, deems it necessary to renew the prescripts of its decree of 17 September 1976, which in this case is applied fully, namely.


1) Bishops who ordained other bishops, as well as the bishops ordained, besides the sanctions mentioned in canons 2370 and 2373, 1 and 3, of the Code of Canon Law, incurred also, ipso facto, excommunication most specially reserved to the Apostolic See as stated in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of 9 April 1951 (AAS XLIII, 1951, p. 217 f.) The penalty contained in canon 2370 applies also to assisting priests, should any have been present.


2) In accordance with canon 2374 priests illicitly ordained in this way are ipso facto suspended from the order received, and they are also irregular should they exercise the order (canon 985, 7).


3) 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 forceuntil repentance.
Moreover, this Sacred Congregation deems it its duly earnestly to warn the faithful not to take part in or support in any way liturgical activities or initiatives and works of another kind which are promoted by those mentioned above (1).
Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 12 March 1983.

Even if you disagree with the sedevacantists, at best it would make them materially schismatic (if they're wrong about papal legitimacy) and not heretics.  But in reality at worst they are simply misapplying St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching regarding popes who are manifest heretics.

The aren't just wrong about papal legitimacy, they are wrong in claiming that the entire Church defected.   They are formal schismatics and every sedevacantist have have corresponded with has also been a heretic.