There has been some discussion about the validity of the Thuc consecrations here lately. As I've mentioned before, this issue is very near and dear to me because my mother is scheduled to receive Confirmation from Bp. Dolan in May. I am also set to be conditionally Confirmed. I emailed Bp. Williamson for advice and thought some of you would be interested in reading/discussing his response to me;


Dear Todd,

In answer to your question, I do not completely trust the judgement of Bishop Dolan, nor do many Catholics trust the validity of his episcopal Consecration down the line of Consecrations coming from Mgr. Thuc. Personally I am inclined to trust the Thuc Consecrations as being at least valid. I do not know for sure. God knows.

But in today's chaotic circuмstances, I think you are entitled before God and in the lack of certainly valid and reliable bishops to turn to Bishop Dolan for Confirmation for your family, counting on God to make up any deficiencies.

I am sorry not to be able to give you a more reassuring answer. May God look after you and all your family.


In Christ,                                  +Richard Williamson.

There you have it. SeanJohnson can now go to a CMRI or SGG chapel.

That's not what I got from Williamson's note.

Directly, Williamson's note attempts to ease some doubts without being fully "reassuring".

Indirectly, I think he's saying do your due diligence and take responsibility for your actions.

So if you think you need to get conformation from Dolan, then you've made a decision.

If it is really an emergency and you don't have access to any of the bishops of undoubted validity, just go for it.

Well, we at least know that Bp. Williamson believes that the Thuc consecrations are probably valid. (At least the line Bp. Dolan comes from). I agree with him, but I just hate that there's always a wee bit of doubt in the back of my mind because this is such a hotly debated issue. This crisis really sucks, doesn't it? 

When he fully comes out as a privationist he will be on deck for the Carmona line. Standard boilerplate RnR to say they doubt a Thuc line.

It does sound like Bishop Williamson is characterizing the any doubts about the +Thuc line as negative doubt.  Otherwise, except in danger of death with no other alternative, one cannot approach Sacraments that labor under positive doubt.

Or is this more of a subjectivist position similar to when he said that people could attend the NO Mass also?

Sometimes His Excellency is not quite clear about the principles in any scholastic sense.  I wish he would elaborate the principles sometimes, distinguishing between postive and negative doubt and explain why it would be OBJECTIVELY permitted vs. just putting a bit of a subjectivist spin on it.

And that has surprised me about Bishop Williamson, since of all the Traditional clergy, he has always been SPOT ON about railing against subjectivism, describing it as the chief error of Vatican II, picking up momentum from the Renaissance onward.

In any case, if I were a bishop, I'd be tracking down worthy candidates in every Metropolitan area with a reasonable amount of training.  There are probably former seminarians out there everywhere with enough Latin and theological training to be able to reliable confect the Sacraments  Many souls might be saved.  As I wrote in defense of Bishop Slupski earlier, he lived through this under Communism and probably had the right idea about what is to come.

It does sound like Bishop Williamson is characterizing the any doubts about the +Thuc line as negative doubt.  Otherwise, except in danger of death with no other alternative, one cannot approach Sacraments that labor under positive doubt.

Or is this more of a subjectivist position similar to when he said that people could attend the NO Mass also?

Sometimes His Excellency is not quite clear about the principles in any scholastic sense.  I wish he would elaborate the principles sometimes, distinguishing between postive and negative doubt and explain why it would be OBJECTIVELY permited vs. just putting a bit of a subjectivist spin on it.

And that has surprised me about Bishop Williamson, since of all the Traditional clergy, he has always been SPOT ON about railing against subjectivism, describing it as the chief error of Vatican II, picking up momentum from the Renaissance onward.

This is the main gist of my post as well.  Positive vs negative.    

In any case, if I were a bishop, I'd be tracking down worthy candidates in every Metropolitan area with a reasonable amount of training.  There are probably former seminarians out there everywhere with enough Latin and theological training to be able to reliable confect the Sacraments  Many souls might be saved.  As I wrote in defense of Bishop Slupski earlier, he lived through this under Communism and probably had the right idea about what is to come.

Right on Lads!

We’re in the global 2021 version of the Cristeros war.

It’s spiritual hand-to-hand combat now.

When thinking of Archbishop Thuc, look at the fruits.  

His family and country were targeted by communist revolutionaries.

He fought back, taking on the homo Jєω Pope, Paul VI.  He didn’t retire to an easy life.