CathInfo.com

So, Cabbage, despite your gaslighting, and your attempts to smear those who object to your behavior, we do not object because we're snowflakes and can't handle an argument, etc.

We object because ...

1) your obsessive slanders cause you to post one thread and one post after another that some of us feel the need to refute lest they seem credible somely for going unchallenged ... i.e. we feel an obligation to defend the good name of those you slander

and

2) you just obnoxiously spam in the same allegations over and over again, unable and unwilling to respond to refutations of your charges and, despite your being unable to rebut the refutations, you keep reasserting the unproven (and therefore slanderous) allegations.

What you're doing would be the equivalent of my starting thread after thread about how ...

"TomGubbinsKimmage has terrible body odor, so you don't want to sit next to him at the chapel."

... then you refute this, talk about how you wear deodorant, and that you've asked people, who have denied that you have any pronounced BO, and that since the poster doesn't know you, they can't possibly be in a position to know, but instead we have tesimony from people who do know you that the only odor you have is that of sanctity.


Then I ignore all of this simply repost the allegation, in a new thread, "TomGubbinsKimmage has terrible body odor, so you don't want to sit next to him at the chapel."

THIS is the equivalent of what you're doing.  Nobody's a "snowflake" that can't handle an argument, but the nuissance of having to refute the same gratuitous unproven assertion over and over and over again, ad nauseam, and to defend the good names of the vitcims ...



Nor does anyone here blindly defend any and all +Thuc-line bishops.  Most of us feel that Bishop Neal Webster botched the consecration of Father Joseph Pfeiffer, and that Bishop Slupski messed up that of Fr. Paul Petko, and that those two at least are to be considered doubtful.  Were there any ACTUAL evidence that Archbishop Thuc had been so bereft of his rational faculties that he could only doubtful confer valid Holy Orders, every defender of the +Thuc line, to a person, would avoid Sacraments coming from that line, and would call for a sanation of the doubts by those who did possess valid Orders.

If we bought the +Kelly-ite arguments, we'd also have to dispute +Williamson's consecrations of +Ballini, +Morgan, +Stobnicki, adn the conditional of +Vigano ... because not only were there no co-consecrators, but no qualified witnesses (no witnesses at all) ... but there's no grounds to reject those as doubtful, and likewise no grounds to doubt those confected by Archbishop Thuc.  Bishop Guerard des Laurier was expert at Latin, and had there been any irregularity where he needed to ask +Thuc to, say, repeat the essential form because he had botched it, that would have come out, either from +des Lauriers himself (who was an extremely honest man) or else from Dr. Hiller and/or Dr. Heller.  +Thuc was extremely well educated, had performed consecrations prior to Vatican II, had multiple advanced degrees from Rome, where exams were conducted in Latin, reportedly spoke fluent Latin and corrected Father Carmona when the two were conversing in Latin, was trusted to found seminaries, was trusted to consecrate in secret without papal mandate, and even after these consecrations was well known and respected by seminarians up at Bishop Vezelis' religious house, where they report that +Thuc still often challenged them to speak with him in Latin, and where he was also adept at a number of other languages, where he reportedly could keep his place in multiple conversations at table in different languages with priests who did not speak a common one.

Most of us feel that Bishop Neal Webster botched the consecration of Father Joseph Pfeiffer, and that Bishop Slupski messed up that of Fr. Paul Petko, and that those two at least are to be considered doubtful.

AND, this is difficult for me to say, because I had for many years been close friends with Bishop Webster, and thought very highly of him, and, while I didn't now Bishop Slupski, I thought very well of him by repetition also.  I knew Joe Pfeiffer as a semimarian and like him a great deal ... not sure what happened later (besides Pablo), and I also knew and very much liked Father Paul Petko.  I grieve for the men being ordained by +?Pfeiffer, and wish they were valid without the positive doubt.  Though I don't care for some of their attitudes, I would wish doubtful or invalid Sacraments on no one who professes the Catholic faith and who are trying to save their souls.

It's WITH ALL THAT SAID that I have no choice but to consider the consecration of Father Pfeiffer to be doubtful at best ... and certainly invalid if the only attempt was the one made in the video.  I do hope that it was rectified later, as +?Pfeiffer claims, but he was his worst enemy in that regard.  Why?  Because +?Pfeiffer insists that the first attempt was valid and labored under no doubt.  Consequently, he just shot his own credibility as being able to attest to the validity of the second attempt .. since if he claims that first one was valid, his criteria for assessing validity are highly suspect at best.

So, no, Cabbage ... there's no bias or ulterior motive or agenda in asserting that the +Thuc consecrations of +des Lauriers, +Carmona, and +Zamora were in fact valid.  If they had actually labored under positive doubt, I would absolutely be honest enough to admit it.  There's no way I would defend Sacraments that are of doubtful validity and thereby be complicit in their having received possibly-invalid Sacraments.  I could never live with that.  That's because I have a conscience, and I care about truth.  But, TomGubbinsKimmage, it's extremely clear to everyone that you do NOT care about the truth, are not objectively and honestly and in good faith seeking the truth.  I am happy to entertain sincere concerns or questions made in good faith.  But your nonsense I reject out of hand.