I consider every consecration done by a man who believed the Blessed Virgin sent a stranger to fetch him to consecrate some other strangers he had never heard of, and whose only level of introspection in the matter was to request sufficcient time to pack his bag, to be doubtful.

Consecrating bishops is the most important thing a bishop can do, and he apparently did it with little to no forethought as though he suddenly had an impulse to turn the TV channel.

To me, that makes the condition of his psyche open to question.

You're absolutely making this up.  You have no idea how much forethought went into the consecrations.  He could have been considering the facts all the way down to Palmar and then made up his mind after witnessing the events there.  You have zero proof that he did it with the same forethought as a sudden impulse the turn the channel.  Now you are revealing yourself as intellectually dishonest.

Before running your mouth constantly, I invite you to dig up and read his autobiography.  In it you will find a very gentle, humble, and completely lucid individual, a faithful Catholic.  You and the SSPV's campaign against him is tantamount to slander.

Oh?

How do you explain this:

"Cardinal Jose Castillo Lara and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc

Cardinal Lara, former President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, raised questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc in a way that gave the impression that Thuc's "mental imbalance" was a given fact. He stated quite categorically that Archbishop Thuc was mentally unbalanced, and because of this, his actions - from a canonical point of view - did not have the same consequences as those of Archbishop Lefebvre. For if a man is not mentally competent when he breaks the law, he does not actually incur the penalty because he is not responsible. In a letter to John Beaumont, dated May 26, 1993, on the subject of the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Lara wrote:

'Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.8'
8 Cardinal Jose Castillo Lara, quoted in Fidelity 13 (March 1994), p. 37."


(See p. 88 here: http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf)


or this from the same work, pp. 87-88:


"Bishop Barthe and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc

Bishop Gilles Barthe of the diocese of Frejus-Toulon in France raised questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc. Bishop Barthe concelebrated the New Mass with Thuc on Holy Thursday, April 16, 1981, three weeks before the consecration of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers. He later called into question the validity of Fr. des Lauriers' consecration, as well as that of Fr. Moises Carmona, to whom "Bishop" Dolan traces his orders. His reason had to do with questions about the mental competence of Archbishop Thuc. The concelebration took place on April 16, 1981. The consecration of Fr. des Lauriers was on May 7, 1981. Carmona and Zamora were consecrated on October 17, 1981. The statement of Bishop Barthe questioning the validity of these consecrations was published in La Docuмentation Catholique on February 21, 1982 - No. 1824. In it he said:

'Certain Catholics are asking me what must be thought of the clandestine ordinations by Monseigneur Ngo Dinh Thuc. Here is that which I can respond:. . .

I voice the most express reservations about the value [valeur] of these ordinations: because of the person of him who did them. Already one time before, on January 11, 1976, Monseigneur Thuc proceeded to some ordinations of this type at El Palmar de Troya. On order from Rome, the apostolic nuncio of Spain immediately recalled "after attentive examination of the facts relative to the presumed episcopal ordinations" that the consecrating prelate was excommunicated, as well as those ordained themselves. Monseigneur Thuc left Italy where he resided, to come to live in the diocese where we received him fraternally; but I avow that the way in which he explained his "mistake" has never been very clear. It is even less so for the ordinations done in his house at Toulon. It is permitted to ask oneself up to what point he was well aware of the acts which he did and to what point his liberty went. What to think, today, of the affirmations of his regrets and of his promises?7"

7 Quoted in Rev. William W. Jenkins, The Thuc Consecrations: An Open Appeal To Fr. Donald Sanborn (Oyster Bay, N. Y.: The Society of St. Pius V [1993]), p. 16.


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

You are grasping at straws:

If they know a bishop is senile, they don't need to be at the consecration to hold it doubtful.

It is presumed doubtful because of the senility, since the senile cannot confect a sacrament.

Yes.

PS: Can I know my Uncle Louie is senile if I am not a doctor?

You are grasping at straws:

If they know a bishop is senile, they don't need to be at the consecration to hold it doubtful.

It is presumed doubtful because of the senility, since the senile cannot confect a sacrament.

Damn right, QVD, anything but schismatic, heretical sedevacantism.

Now back to the topic:

I don't care if you know 30 people with letters from their mommies who say Thuc was steady as a rock.

When bishops and cardinals, sedes, and trad priests say he was off kilter, your buddies' opinions don't amount to a hill of beans.