My "emotional bullying"?

You are the one who obsessively bullies sedevacantists. You are the one who fights traditional Catholics. You are the one who reads the interior forum of others (sedes and medical MJ patients included). You are the one who remote viewed my life.

A new troll invaded the forum and because he is an anti-sede, you lapped up his drool, ginned up a clowder of Cat Lady Karens, and have once again projected your own emotionalism and bullying on others.

You are a basket case.

Calling you out on your bad behavior here on this forum is "remote viewing?" There's no logic in that.

Since you are now getting very emotional, I'd better leave this thread for a while. There's not telling what you'll say. 

Thanks AMDGJMJ
who is the author of that book?

Sorry!  I miss-typed that.  The book was The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Thuc (not Archbishop Lefebvre).  It was written by Edward Jarvis. 

Sorry!  I miss-typed that.  The book was The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Thuc (not Archbishop Lefebvre).  It was written by Edward Jarvis.

Everyone should be aware the the works of Jarvis are academic, not polemical or popular (in the academic sense).

Neither pro-Thuc nor anti-Thuc partisans will be happy with what is contained in Jarvis' book on Msgr. Thuc, especially since Jarvis is a clergyman from both a "continuing-Anglican" and "Order-of-Corporate-Reunion-Anglican" background. That means that he is an Anglo-Catholic with doubtfully-valid Orders (Anglo-Papalist with valid Orders, maybe?), not invalid "Canterbury-Communion" Orders like the majority of Anglican clergy. Jarvis' writing is very much in the dispassionate style of the inter-War-years Oxbridge dons.

The real answer about +Thuc was that his episcopal lineage is both good and bad.  The schismatic sect in Spain is due to +Thuc's actions...Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, his lineage is tainted.  Some go to the extreme and say his ENTIRE lineage is bad, which is a horrible conclusion.


History says that +Thuc consecrated a LOT of bishops.  In the wild west days we're in, some turned out good and some turned out bad.  Should +ABL/+W be blamed for the actions of Fr Pfeiffer?  Of course not.  There are MANY good bishops who exist due to +Thuc.  There are many fruits of his actions, even if some bad apples.

The +Carmona/+Zamora and +Guerard des Lauriers lines of +Thuc consecrations are unimpeachable. Most sede bishops and clergy trace their Orders to these lines.

Careful studies of lines from consecrations by bishops other than Thuc will also turn up good and valid as well as doubtful lines.

Sacramental theology teaches that one always approaches a sacrament with the presumption of validity until one can morally determine a problem with matter, form (which also determines intention), minister, or recipent. If a problem does arise with moral certainty, then the sacrament is treated as doubtful.

No one may consider a sacrament to be invalid until the Magisterium has ruled it as such, and the Magisterium is currently in suspension. Therefore, no questions of sacramental validity arising post-Vatican II can be considered definitively invalid until the Magisterium is restored and rules such. This principle even applies to the Novus Order sacraments -- where form, matter, minister, or recipent has been altered, these must treated as doubtful until a restored Magisterium can rule. No one currently has the authority to declare them invalid.

I agree.  But we can't ignore the non-Trad lines of +Thuc, which is where most of +Thuc's criticism comes from.  Yes?

Yes. Although some are critical of eveything related to Thuc.

It seems to me that people use the Palmar sect as an excuse to say that Abp. Thuc is bad

That's my point.  It wouldn't be honest to simply ignore the Palmar sect and say "+Thuc did everything right".  I'm not saying I blame +Thuc, but it's obvious that most people blame him for Palmar, whether right or wrong.

Is it possible that what he and his family endured under the Communists contributed to his actions later in life?

No, I don't see how anyone's past life affects his future actions.  How would this be possible?

Archbishop Lefebvre did not have to deal with Communists, that I'm aware of. At least not the overt variety. 

Great story.