CathInfo.com

5 years ago, in a debate with conciliar canonist Pete Vere, it was observed by him that Thuc "clergy" reconciled with the Vatican are always accepted according to the station they were in before receiving Thuc "orders."

I asked Pete why that was, and this was his response:

"It likely has to do with initial questions surrounding Archbishop Thuc's mental state during the Palmar de Troya consecrations. Reportedly he agreed to perform them after being convinced that Pope Paul VI had been taken prisoner in the Vatican and replaced with a fake Paul VI. The information was allegedly relayed to an intermediary through an apparition of the Blessed Mother. 

A friend of mine who is a Vietnamese priest and a canon lawyer knew Archbishop Thuc, and helped bring about his eventual reconciliation with Rome. He claims that Archbishop Thuc was definitely showing signs of weakened mental state around the time of these consecrations, likely due to the combination of advanced years and the amount of human suffering and trauma he had suffered during the communist revolution in Vietnam.

In terms of the quality of ordinands, I would agree that the Palmar de Troya consecrations were absolutely scandalous. But at the other end of the spectrum, Mgr Guerard des Lauriers (who incidentally was the doctoral adviser of my former indult pastor and professor of theology) was of such a quality as to far surpass the four candidates consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre. So one sees both ends of the spectrum here."

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/calling-out-pete-vere/30/

If I was tempted by sedevcantism, this would scare the hell out of me, and indicate my course of action was extremely reckless if I was heading in that direction for a solution to the crisis in the Church.

The "alternative" seems to be the secret "consecration" of "Bishop Kelley" (only revealed two years after the fact by questionable evidence).

Sedevacantism is a dead-end.

What I mean to say is that, if we are obliged to take a turiorist approach when it comes to the validity of sacraments, I am not sure how the Thuc line is an option.

Even if one of wants to make the argument that though Thuc was of questionable mental state at the Palmar consecrations, but not during various other consecrations (eg., des Lauriers), I don’t know how the subjective interpretation of evidence gets one back to a tutiorist state of moral certitude on the matter, when the (modernist) Vatican itself suggests the matter incapable of yielding a certain judgment, in light of the strange circuмstances.

And if one would dismiss the (modernist) Vatican’s uncertainty as partisan opposition, they will need to explain why this same partisan opposition did not cause them to render the same judgment in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre.

https://magnuslundberg.net/2016/05/11/schism-at-palmar-palmarian-bishops/

Arch. Lefebvre gets a mention