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 

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.

No, the tutiorist approach does not require scruples.  It's easy to confound this with scruples.

Bottom line is that there's no positive doubt regarding most of the Thuc consecrations ... not the ones that can be traced clearly back to Thuc ... e.g. the des Laurier line (McKenna, Sanborn, etc.) nor the Carmona/Zamora line.  Some of them are shady ... with little proof they actually happened.  Anyone can set up shop and claim they derive from the Thuc line.

The standard or threshold for the mental competence to validly confer a Sacrament is very low.  You basically just have to know that you are a bishop doing this thing the Church does to make bishops/priests.  Unless Thuc were walking around with drool coming out of the corner of his mouth barely answering to his name ... the presumption is what he was mentally capable.  People who knew Thuc attested to his mental sharpness ... relating stories that he could switch seemlessly between modern languages in having conversations with groups of priests.

Having done something irrational ... such as the Palmar consecrations ... absolutely does NOT rise to the standard of establishing mental incompetence.  It was actually an SSPX priest who went to +Lefebvre first to ask him to do the ordinations/consecrations.  +Lefebvre was the one who then referred the priest to +Thuc.  So Thuc was persuaded to go, and he was evidently taken in by the preternatural phenomena on display at Palmar, and was persuaded that Our Lady wished the ordinations and consecrations.  Having been gullible and suggestible doesn't mean you can't validly confer a Sacrament.  Recall that this was BEFORE Clemente declared himself pope.  As soon as that happened, Thuc renounced the group and broke all ties with them.

So it's mainly if not exclusively the SSPV that created all this FUD regarding Thuc.  It is reported that Bishop Kelly made a statement to the effect that, "We can't tell people they're valid because then they might go to them."  Doesn't sound like an unbiased source.

NOW, ironically, the +Mendez consecrations DO rise to the level of creating doubt.  +Mendez had been hospitalized for a stroke very shortly before he did the consecrations, and family members who visited him in the hospital after that declared the +Mendez didn't recognize them.  So what kind of state was +Mendez in when he did the consecrations?  Stroke could in fact result in a mental impairment sufficient to invalidate the Sacraments.  I find it ironic that SSPVers have no problem going to Masses offered by Fathers Greenwell and Baumberger (Father Zapp relates that Mendez appeared to have almost deliberately garbled the pronunciation of the essential form and after the assisting priests told him to repeat it twice, the answer to Father Kelly's "Did he get it right that time?" was an "I think so.")  So they are OK with that but then create all kinds of stink about Thuc, whose issues were much less profound.

No one has been able to demonstrate that Thuc was mentally impaired.  Period.  Consequently, the validity of the Sacraments conferred by him is presumed.  No need for "tutiorism"  You could apply tutiorism to avoid priests ordained by +Lefebvre because of the ridiculous Tisserant-mason allegations.  But the questions is whether the allegations are real and well founded, and rise to the level of positive doubt.  They do not in the Tisserant allegation, nor do they in the allegations against Thuc.

Note, I do not frequent sedevacantist chapels, and you might know from my posts here that I practically detest the CMRI.  I have no personal ax to grind.  I'm just interested in truth and fairness.  I have looked at both sides of this, and the SSPV narrative is completely unconvincing and entirely self-serving (for political reasons).

And this, from the paragraph containing footnote 20 onward:

http://bishopjosephmarie.org/doctrine/invalidorders.html#thuc

Seems even some of those “consecrated” doubted their “consecration.”

And the fact that they doubted it means nothing.  Some of these are the serial consecrandi who receive 5 consecrations from 5 different lines out of a scrupulous need to make sure they're valid.

Note, I do not frequent sedevacantist chapels, and you might know from my posts here that I practically detest the CMRI.  I have no personal ax to grind.  I'm just interested in truth and fairness.  I have looked at both sides of this, and the SSPV narrative is completely unconvincing and entirely self-serving (for political reasons).

May I ask why you "practically detest" the CMRI?
If you don't want to answer here, a private message will do.

Looks interesting:

http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf

I read that book years ago.