So far the only evidence of senility you've provided is just multiple people saying "He made consecrations we didn't agree with!". That isn't proof of senility at all, or even an indicator of it.

LMAO:

I am going to send someone to your house tonight to tell you that the BVM sent him to fetch you to bring you to the Congo.

If you go, would you be sane?

But wait, there's more!

Shortly thereafter, I'm going to apologize and concelebrate the new Mass.

Then 3 weeks later, I am going to "consecrate" des Lauriers.

Then I'm going to consecrate ANYONE who asks to be consecrated.

Then I'll repent again, then I'll revert again, and on and on.

Am I senile, or just plain evil?

LMAO:

I am going to send someone to your house tonight to tell you that the BVM sent him to fetch you to bring you to the Congo.

If you go, would you be sane?

But wait, there's more!

Shortly thereafter, I'm going to apologize and concelebrate the new Mass.

Then 3 weeks later, I am going to "consecrate" des Lauriers.

Then I'm going to consecrate ANYONE who asks to be consecrated.

Then I'll repent again, then I'll revert again, and on and on.

Am I senile, or just plain evil?

“I am going to send someone to your house tonight to tell you that the BVM sent him to fetch you to bring you to the Congo.”

It wasn’t the Congo, it was Europe. Nice exaggeration though. As for the rest, at least he saw that there was a problem in the Church. Yeah, I might not have acted the way he did, but then again I wasn’t an Archbishop who experienced the havoc that Vatican II and the arch heretic Montini was doing to the Church. 

Oh?

How do you explain this:

I explain this by the fact that all of the testimony you cited is nothing more than what +Kelly does, speculate that he was unstable due to the unpredictable nature of his activities.  He would do something, then recant, then do something similar.  None of it speaks to the basic fact of whether he knew what he was doing.  Did +Thuc know what a bishop was and what Holy Orders are?  There's no question that he did.  His being a weak man who could be easily manipulated has no bearing on this simple fact.  +Mendez too was clearly and obviously being manipulated by +Kelly.  +Kelly is just a self-serving hypocrite, since all the issues with +Thuc apply even more to +Mendez.  There were people who know him at the precise time of the consecrations who explicitly stated that +Mendez was in a frail mental state and was manipulated emotionally by +Kelly into performing the consecration.  And that doesn't matter either ... in terms of validity (except +Kelly thinks it's material the +Thuc case while gratuitously dismissing it in the case of +Mendez).  In the case of +Thuc, his mental lucidity is corroborated by many people who know him well during the time.  Mental Lucidity and being suggestible and easily manipulated are two different things.

It's the same kind of Modernist subjectivist reasoning that's applied these days to engineer all these fake marriage annulments.  I didn't REALLY want to do it.  I had cold feet.  I was under a lot of pressure due to my dad having already paid for the wedding.  etc. etc. etc.  NONE OF THAT MATTERS.  Unless you were explicitly co-erced and/or had no idea what marriage was, or were half-unconscious on drugs so that you didn't know where you were and who you are during the ceremony, the valid intention is presumed to exist.

Same thing with +Thuc.  That Rite of Episcopal Consecration is NO TRIVIAL matter, and the mere fact that +Thuc was able to perform it and to properly read the text suggests that he was in possession of his faculties to the point that he knew what he was doing.

PS: I notice every time I rebut you, you become the emotional woman Loudestmouth is known for.

This is laughable, coming from the most emotionally-driven little girl here on CI.  Even Matthew called you out for acting like a baby.  So it's not just me.

You didn't "rebut" anything.  You provided a couple pieces of evidence which must be weighed against all the other evidence.  Rebuttal implies an argument.  All you've done is try to make a case for a certain fact based on some testimony ... which is contradicted by other testimony.  But then you have next-to-no grasp of logic, so you routinely confound your little temper tantrums with "rebuttal".

There were several times where you had your ass beaten with logical argument, where you stormed off the thread, and then started a half dozen spam threads in your fits of temper.  One time you even announced publicly that you were leaving CI due to Matthew's toleration of heretics.  Within days you were back posting in the Anonymous forum, and then when you were outed, returned with your tail between legs ... and not holding fast to your prior blustering.  At least once you created a fake new account so that you could pretend that you hadn't caved.  Both childish and effeminate.  You start blustering like this when you feel that your beat-down is imminent and when you have nothing else rational to add.

From the link I shared above:

Your Excellency’s claim that the Thuc consecrations must be considered doubtful because Bp. Thuc may not have been in a mental state sufficient to have the necessary sacramental intention totally leaves out of account the fact that the minimum-necessary intention for conferring a valid sacrament is based on the minimum necessary for a human act, which is an act proceeding from knowledge and free will. “Mental imbalance,” if such should have been the case with Bp. Thuc, does not nearly suffice to prevent one from engaging in a human act. There is no evidence that Bp. Thuc was insane, much less habitually so, and such would have to be proven clinically anyway, as any court of law, ecclesiastical or civil, would require.

THIS ^^^

LMAO:

We are witnessing another epic meltdown on the part of Johnson here.

I see Mrs. Loudestmouth has vomited out a string of 11 2-sentence posts.  Again.  

:baby: