CathInfo.com

.
I've read it and agree with it.  I was essentially agreeing with Ladislaus, that the criteria used to evaluate Thuc would seem to render ABL's orders equally doubtful, and I was pointing out to you that the fact that there were co-consecrators accompanying Leinart is totally irrelevant since if Leinart's intention is doubtful then Lefebvre was never a priest in the first place, and you can't be made a bishop unless you're a priest first.

Disagree.

The criterion regarding intention yields a different conclusion when applied to Lefebvre’s ordination than it does when applied to Thuc’s consecrations:

The criterion being:

Is there anything in the EXTERNAL FORUM which evinces either a counter-intention to do what the Church does, or, an inability to form that intention?

In the case of both Lefebvre and Thuc, their respective ordinations/consecrations were performed according to the rubrics, and in that respect earn a presumption of validity.

But was there anything in the external forum surrounding the ceremonies in question of either which could evince an inability to form the intention which is usually presumed to exist?

Not in the case of Lienart/Lefebvre.

But as regards Thuc, given the circuмstances surrounding his arrival at Palmar (recounted above), testimony regarding his mental state by others at the time, and the questionable caliber and fitness of some of those he “consecrated,” I would say it is reasonable to at least question his psychological capacity  (as many have in fact done).

And if that shadow of uncertainty (and therefore validity) exists, then...

And if that shadow of uncertainty (and therefore validity) exists, then...

What does that term "shadow of uncertainty" even mean?  That sounds almost like the very definition of negative doubt.

Were it not for the antics and propaganda of the SSPV, no such uncertainty would exist.

Let me ask, do you consider the +Mendez ordinations/consecrations to be similarly doubtful?

the questionable caliber and fitness of some of those he “consecrated,” I would say it is reasonable to at least question his psychological capacity  (as many have in fact done).

And Bishop Williamson ordained most of the Society of St. John pedophile society, despite warnings received beforehand not to do so.  I believe he also ordained Benedict VanderPutten.  Well, even if he didn't directly lay on hands, as rector he was the one who approved their ordination.  Bad judgements to not constitute mental incapacity.

Nobody questioned Thuc's mental capacity until the SSPV propaganda campaign started, and onto this wagon latched all the scrupulous types who cave to every least suggestion of negative doubt.  SSPV did nothing but fan the flames of negative doubt.

Oh, yes, by the way, this was the SAME SSPV that claimed Bishop Dolan and Bishop Williamson and others were invalidly-ordained to the priesthood by +Lefebvre and were forcing their people to be conditionally re-ordained and to redo confessions made to these priests.  Why?  Because +Lefebvre reportedly had only laid on one hand (instead of the two prescribed) when conferring the ordination.  So you're really going to accept primarily the word of these same people when it comes to judging validity?