CathInfo.com

Often the most humble thing we can do is simply say "we dont know" to things.

Since 2013 marked the point at which the SSPX started going wayward, it seems like they were just being impatient and wanted to pronounce quickly on the thing.

It will be sorted one day. When Rome gets back on it's feet.

As for your earlier points about validity. The mental state, messing around, all of that are contributing factors, but what we would be trying to establish, to be precise, from talking to Archbishop Thuc himself, is what exactly his habitual intention was in relation to the Sacraments from the point at which he did the Palmarian consecrations. Because by going directly against the mind of the Church a cleric may have changed his habitual intention in the bad way.

Honestly, it is unlikely, in my PERSONAL opinion that he had changed it. But when it comes to the Sacraments... "ah sure it's good enough" won't cut it. It just won't. But now we can never know. And Our Lord has already judged him, (in the final sense) so we must pray for his soul, and stick with what we do know for sure which is that we have been given a line that is certain in it's validity, and be happy with that.

Often the most humble thing we can do is simply say "we dont know" to things.

Since 2013 marked the point at which the SSPX started going wayward, it seems like they were just being impatient and wanted to pronounce quickly on the thing.

It will be sorted one day. When Rome gets back on it's feet.

As for your earlier points about validity. The mental state, messing around, all of that are contributing factors, but what we would be trying to establish, to be precise, from talking to Archbishop Thuc himself, is what exactly his habitual intention was in relation to the Sacraments from the point at which he did the Palmarian consecrations. Because by going directly against the mind of the Church a cleric may have changed his habitual intention in the bad way.

Honestly, it is unlikely, in my PERSONAL opinion that he had changed it. But when it comes to the Sacraments... "ah sure it's good enough" won't cut it. It just won't. But now we can never know. And Our Lord has already judged him, (in the final sense) so we must pray for his soul, and stick with what we do know for sure which is that we have been given a line that is certain in it's validity, and be happy with that.

Thank you for your answer and for the important reminder of humility, and the hope that Rome will once again possess the Faith.

According to Fr. Jenkins, when he and a few others interviewed the witnesses Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller in Germany (and apparently this is on tape), they related that +Thuc concelebrated the New Mass out of a feeling of gratitude to the Novus Ordo priest for allowing him to hear confessions in the cathedral, and that he withheld his intention during the consecration.

This is said at the very beginning of part 15 of the Jenkins-Cekada debate. Fr. Cekada conceded that +Thuc indeed did this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7revBetqUyA&list=PLmLF4fSj2HtLrwemAUApp9USPzoIK4dNn&index=15

I wonder if they have given the public access to this tape?

Regarding The Angelus June 1982 issue, is it not reasonable to suppose that Archbishop Lefebvre knew at the time that the article under dispute was published? Would he not have spoken out if they said something falsely about him? Because in the article, it not only claims +Thuc withheld intention, it also says that in his visit to America, +Lefebvre remarked that +Thuc appeared to have lost his reason, which is not something he would have said lightly right?