SSPV

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I saw the issue of Einsicht from 1982 or '83 where it shows Abp Thuc saying Mass, ordaining priests, etc. I was able to find some of the photos, but not all. If anyone has the link, it would be appreciated if provided.

Abp. Thuc saying Mass



The episcopal consecrations of Bishops Zamora and Carmona

[crusaderfortruth3372]

No one is changing the topic. You and your SSPV gurus shoud know about character assassination. After all you are experts at it! Go fly a kite!

Good. You have no answers - as usual. Bp. Mendez was not the person portrayed by Kelly, Jenkins et al. I'm really only pointing out the inconsistencies "for the children" with the hope that another generation is not taken in by the bogus assertions of Clarence Kelly and his cult-like followers.

This.  And to add, funny how years ago Bp. Kelly asserted that as time went on he knew that more and more people would come to his conclusion.  I wonder why he hasn't responded to the fact that the exact opposite has happened and that he and a few SSPV clergy are the only ones clinging to this falsehood.

Actually, that is false. The local SSPX church in Northern Kentucky has also asked its parishioners not to frequent the sacraments of the Thuc lineage for the same reasons as the SSPV. Furthermore, the regional FSSP church in Ohio has asked the same of its parishioners for the same reasons.

Without any dialogue with the SSPV, they all see the same problem.

Wow, that is very interesting, I have never known that, especially about the FSSP.
I'll ask my spirtual director (FSSP priest) next week what he thinks about the SSPV with regard to all this and Bishop Kelly consecration..... I know he says it is perfectly valid to attend a SSPX mass, but never asked him about the SSPV, CMRI, etc.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Dear INPEFESS,
Could it be that the FSSP and SSPX advise their faithful not to attend Masses of Thuc line priests because they disagree on a certain issue?

[OldMan]

No one is changing the topic. You and your SSPV gurus shoud know about character assassination. After all you are experts at it! Go fly a kite!

Good. You have no answers - as usual. Bp. Mendez was not the person portrayed by Kelly, Jenkins et al. I'm really only pointing out the inconsistencies "for the children" with the hope that another generation is not taken in by the bogus assertions of Clarence Kelly and his cult-like followers.

This.  And to add, funny how years ago Bp. Kelly asserted that as time went on he knew that more and more people would come to his conclusion.  I wonder why he hasn't responded to the fact that the exact opposite has happened and that he and a few SSPV clergy are the only ones clinging to this falsehood.

Actually, that is false. The local SSPX church in Northern Kentucky has also asked its parishioners not to frequent the sacraments of the Thuc lineage for the same reasons as the SSPV. Furthermore, the regional FSSP church in Ohio has asked the same of its parishioners for the same reasons.

Without any dialogue with the SSPV, they all see the same problem.

I'm throwing the BS flag here:

For an actual copy the letter go to:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=51&catname=13

Transcript of Bp. Williamson's letter:
10-21-93
Dear Mr. Padula,
      Thank you for this letter, as [well as] for the booklet by Fr. Cekada on the Thuc Consecrations, which I had seen.
      I think that Fr. Cekada's arguments are good, such that I agree with him and not with Fr. Kelly or Fr. Jenkins as to the VALIDITY of the up-coming consecration.
      However, one must distinguish validity from licitly or lawfulness. A consecration can be valid, but unlawful, like eating a stolen apple. The eating is valid; it satisfies my hunger, but if the apple was stolen, then the eating is unlawful.
      Is the up-coming consecration lawful? Answer: if (a) the Cincinnati operation of these priests is lawful, and if (b) they need a bishop imperatively, then the consecration would be lawful.
      But as to (a), these Cincinnati priests are not ordinary traditional priests; they were Society of St. Pius X priests who broke with Society of St. Pius X positions to take up harsh and un-Catholic positions, out of line at any rate with Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking. Yet the future bishop on the flyer advertising his consecration leads one to think that there was no such split with the Archbishop. Conclusion: the Cincinnati priests' operation is doubtfully lawful.
      As to (b), if their operation is doubtfully lawful, then a consecration is at best doubtfully necessary.
      Conclusion: however much it would interest you to attend a consecration, you would best stay away from a doubtfully Catholic occasion.
      I hope this answers you question.
      Sincerely yours in Christ,
      + Richard Williamson

Last time I checked Bp Williamson was a member of the SSPX back in 1993 (and still is). As an aside he isn't the only clergyman in the SSPX to hold that opinion as I have heard it from several other priests over the years.

[INPEFESS]

No one is changing the topic. You and your SSPV gurus shoud know about character assassination. After all you are experts at it! Go fly a kite!

Good. You have no answers - as usual. Bp. Mendez was not the person portrayed by Kelly, Jenkins et al. I'm really only pointing out the inconsistencies "for the children" with the hope that another generation is not taken in by the bogus assertions of Clarence Kelly and his cult-like followers.

This.  And to add, funny how years ago Bp. Kelly asserted that as time went on he knew that more and more people would come to his conclusion.  I wonder why he hasn't responded to the fact that the exact opposite has happened and that he and a few SSPV clergy are the only ones clinging to this falsehood.

Actually, that is false. The local SSPX church in Northern Kentucky has also asked its parishioners not to frequent the sacraments of the Thuc lineage for the same reasons as the SSPV. Furthermore, the regional FSSP church in Ohio has asked the same of its parishioners for the same reasons.

Without any dialogue with the SSPV, they all see the same problem.

I'm throwing the BS flag here:

Yes, you do that a lot. You threw the same flag to Innocent XI earlier by reducing his concerns about participation in doubtful sacraments to "blah blah blah".

For an actual copy the letter go to:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=51&catname=13

Transcript of Bp. Williamson's letter:
10-21-93
Dear Mr. Padula,
      Thank you for this letter, as [well as] for the booklet by Fr. Cekada on the Thuc Consecrations, which I had seen.
      I think that Fr. Cekada's arguments are good, such that I agree with him and not with Fr. Kelly or Fr. Jenkins as to the VALIDITY of the up-coming consecration.
      However, one must distinguish validity from licitly or lawfulness. A consecration can be valid, but unlawful, like eating a stolen apple. The eating is valid; it satisfies my hunger, but if the apple was stolen, then the eating is unlawful.
      Is the up-coming consecration lawful? Answer: if (a) the Cincinnati operation of these priests is lawful, and if (b) they need a bishop imperatively, then the consecration would be lawful.
      But as to (a), these Cincinnati priests are not ordinary traditional priests; they were Society of St. Pius X priests who broke with Society of St. Pius X positions to take up harsh and un-Catholic positions, out of line at any rate with Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking. Yet the future bishop on the flyer advertising his consecration leads one to think that there was no such split with the Archbishop. Conclusion: the Cincinnati priests' operation is doubtfully lawful.
      As to (b), if their operation is doubtfully lawful, then a consecration is at best doubtfully necessary.
      Conclusion: however much it would interest you to attend a consecration, you would best stay away from a doubtfully Catholic occasion.
      I hope this answers you question.
      Sincerely yours in Christ,
      + Richard Williamson

Last time I checked Bp Williamson was a member of the SSPX back in 1993 (and still is). As an aside he isn't the only clergyman in the SSPX to hold that opinion as I have heard it from several other priests over the years.

Bp. Williamson is not the same priest operating in Northern Kentucky.

Look, I don't mean this to be rude; I am genuinely curious. I don't think you mean anyone any true harm, and I don't think you're incapable of being reasonable. But being reasonable, objective, and intellectually honest require your willingness to do so.

But what are your intentions here? You do not seem interested in objective debate, knowing the truth, understanding the other side of the issue, separating yourself from your personal biases and contempt for the SSPV, or even considering what the parishioners at St. Gertrude the Great had to find out the hard way: that not everything Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan say is true.

You pop on the thread every once and a while to take pot shots at Bp. Mendez, Bp. Kelly, and everyone else with whom you disagree. If you have something of substance to say that actually addresses the points of the topic (which directly concerns the distribution of sacraments) I have provided in this thread more than just your conclusions (without providing any support for them), opinions, personal convictions, unsupported claims, and disdain for the SSPV, then please post it. My suspicion is that since you will not, you cannot. If you cannot, then everything else that you post here is of no value in this discussion. If you do not show some sign of intellectual honesty, I will not continue to take out more of my time than has already been consumed by the circularity of the opposing view to respond to you. 

May God be with you, OldMan.

[INPEFESS]

Dear INPEFESS,
Could it be that the FSSP and SSPX advise their faithful not to attend Masses of Thuc line priests because they disagree on a certain issue?

That is not what the priests have stated. I assume they are telling the truth.

[INPEFESS]

I saw the issue of Einsicht from 1982 or '83 where it shows Abp Thuc saying Mass, ordaining priests, etc. I was able to find some of the photos, but not all. If anyone has the link, it would be appreciated if provided.

Abp. Thuc saying Mass



The episcopal consecrations of Bishops Zamora and Carmona

Bp. Kelly, the SSPV, and many parishioners, including myself, have all seen these pictures many times, but you posting them only seems to indicate that do not know what the issue is here. I don't fault you for this, however. You may not know what is required for sacramental validity, which is the only thing that concerns this discussion.

Yes, there is no doubt that Abp. Thuc offered Mass.

Yes, there is no doubt Abp. Thuc was involved in what is presumed by many to be a valid episcopal consecration, and these pictures show that he was indeed present. That is not disputed.

But this issue concerns validity, which is contingent upon matter, form, and intention. The Church requires proof that the sacrament was indeed valid. What these pictures don't show is what is required by the Church to establish validity.

Because the pictures don't show anything, we need something else. Rev. Woywood says that qualified witnesses can provide the proof we need:

“The deposition of one witness does not constitute full proof, unless he is a so-called qualified witness who testifies as to things done in his official capacity (e.g., a pastor in reference to his pastoral duties or functions). If two or three absolutely trustworthy witnesses testify in court under oath as to some affair or fact, and do so of their own personal knowledge and their testimony is strictly concordant, it is considered sufficient proof. If, however, in view of the very serious nature of an affair or because of indications which create doubt as to the truth of things asserted, the judge believes it necessary, he may demand more complete proofs (Canon 1791).” [8]

[8] Rev. Stanislaus Woywood, O.F.M., LL.B., A Practical Commentary On The Code Of Canon Law, vol. 2, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith, O.F.M., J.C.L. (1962) p. 354.

But there were only two "witnesses" (who were actually doctors) present at the so-called consecrations who were interviewed by (at the time) Fr. Kelly, Fr. Jenkins, Fr. Cekada, and Fr. Sanborn. Not only were the doctors unsure of what constituted validity (which is required for one be considered a witness at all, which means that these two cannot even be considered witnesses and hence cannot fulfill the Church requires for proof), but, once told what the matter and form of the sacrament were, they also didn't know if Thuc had observed the matter and form of the sacrament. In fact, only one of the "witnesses" responded to the question. And he didn't know. He guessed that it was valid, but not only did he not know what made essential elements made it valid but he also didn't know whether they had even been done. The other refused to answer and said he couldn't be expected to remember such a detail.

Referring to parts of the matter or form of the sacrament as just details goes to show that these two did not even know that the imposition of hands is one of the few essential elements of the sacrament. They could have been asleep through the whole thing and only paid attention to the very few essential elements and the sacrament would still be valid, but, as they acknowledged, they didn't even know what constituted the sacrament. These can hardly be considered witnesses. For as Woywood said, for proof we need (1) two or three (2) absolutely trustworthy witnesses (3) to testify in court under oath as to some affair or fact, (4) and do so of their own personal knowledge and (5) their testimony must be strictly concordant.

Even then he goes on to say that "in view of the very serious nature of an affair or because of indications which create doubt as to the truth of things asserted, the judge believes it necessary, he may demand more complete proofs".

This is a matter for an ecclesiastical tribunal of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. We cannot just throw our hands up and say, "We need a bishop, and we have no other choice, and my personal subjective conviction is that the consecrations were valid, so therefore we are justified in basing the fate of countless souls on our subjective presumption."

According to Henry Davis, "[t]o do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely, an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments, there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary, there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion.”

[15] Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3: Sacraments (1), 3d ed. (1938) p. 27. 

The testimony of these witnesses was recorded on audio cassette and is in possession of the SSPV.

All of this information is available in post #51 where all of this was explained. 125 posts later, it is still ignored.

[OldMan]

No one is changing the topic. You and your SSPV gurus shoud know about character assassination. After all you are experts at it! Go fly a kite!

Good. You have no answers - as usual. Bp. Mendez was not the person portrayed by Kelly, Jenkins et al. I'm really only pointing out the inconsistencies "for the children" with the hope that another generation is not taken in by the bogus assertions of Clarence Kelly and his cult-like followers.

This.  And to add, funny how years ago Bp. Kelly asserted that as time went on he knew that more and more people would come to his conclusion.  I wonder why he hasn't responded to the fact that the exact opposite has happened and that he and a few SSPV clergy are the only ones clinging to this falsehood.

Actually, that is false. The local SSPX church in Northern Kentucky has also asked its parishioners not to frequent the sacraments of the Thuc lineage for the same reasons as the SSPV. Furthermore, the regional FSSP church in Ohio has asked the same of its parishioners for the same reasons.

Without any dialogue with the SSPV, they all see the same problem.

I'm throwing the BS flag here:

Yes, you do that a lot. You threw the same flag to Innocent XI earlier by reducing his concerns about participation in doubtful sacraments to "blah blah blah".

For an actual copy the letter go to:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=51&catname=13

Transcript of Bp. Williamson's letter:
10-21-93
Dear Mr. Padula,
      Thank you for this letter, as [well as] for the booklet by Fr. Cekada on the Thuc Consecrations, which I had seen.
      I think that Fr. Cekada's arguments are good, such that I agree with him and not with Fr. Kelly or Fr. Jenkins as to the VALIDITY of the up-coming consecration.
      However, one must distinguish validity from licitly or lawfulness. A consecration can be valid, but unlawful, like eating a stolen apple. The eating is valid; it satisfies my hunger, but if the apple was stolen, then the eating is unlawful.
      Is the up-coming consecration lawful? Answer: if (a) the Cincinnati operation of these priests is lawful, and if (b) they need a bishop imperatively, then the consecration would be lawful.
      But as to (a), these Cincinnati priests are not ordinary traditional priests; they were Society of St. Pius X priests who broke with Society of St. Pius X positions to take up harsh and un-Catholic positions, out of line at any rate with Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking. Yet the future bishop on the flyer advertising his consecration leads one to think that there was no such split with the Archbishop. Conclusion: the Cincinnati priests' operation is doubtfully lawful.
      As to (b), if their operation is doubtfully lawful, then a consecration is at best doubtfully necessary.
      Conclusion: however much it would interest you to attend a consecration, you would best stay away from a doubtfully Catholic occasion.
      I hope this answers you question.
      Sincerely yours in Christ,
      + Richard Williamson

Last time I checked Bp Williamson was a member of the SSPX back in 1993 (and still is). As an aside he isn't the only clergyman in the SSPX to hold that opinion as I have heard it from several other priests over the years.

Bp. Williamson is not the same priest operating in Northern Kentucky.

Ah, yes, but the SSPX is trying to make nice with the Modernists, so anything they say today is suspect in my book. As I pointed out before, the Novus Ordo excommunicated Abp. Thuc for his episcopal consecrations - something that isn't done to someone who has a diminished capacity to reason. You're grasping at straws.

Look, I don't mean this to be rude; I am genuinely curious. I don't think you mean anyone any true harm, and I don't think you're incapable of being reasonable. But being reasonable, objective, and intellectually honest require your willingness to do so.

But what are your intentions here? You do not seem interested in objective debate, knowing the truth, understanding the other side of the issue, separating yourself from your personal biases and contempt for the SSPV, or even considering what the parishioners at St. Gertrude the Great had to find out the hard way: that not everything Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan say is true.

You pop on the thread every once and a while to take pot shots at Bp. Mendez, Bp. Kelly, and everyone else with whom you disagree. If you have something of substance to say that actually addresses the points of the topic (which directly concerns the distribution of sacraments) I have provided in this thread more than just your conclusions (without providing any support for them), opinions, personal convictions, unsupported claims, and disdain for the SSPV, then please post it. My suspicion is that since you will not, you cannot. If you cannot, then everything else that you post here is of no value in this discussion. If you do not show some sign of intellectual honesty, I will not continue to take out more of my time than has already been consumed by the circularity of the opposing view to respond to you. 

May God be with you, OldMan.

Feel free to be rude. The facts of the validity of the Thuc consecrations have been more than competently presented by Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn and many others over the years. So I refuse to "cut & paste" them for you. I'm sick and tired of the mudslinging and hand-wringing of the SSPV, so there is nothing to debate. Facts are facts and you are unwilling to face them. Mendez/Gonzales was a fraud and prevaricator. Personally I believe that he was hoodwinked into the proported episcopal consecration due to diminished mental capacity.

Let's get one thing straight. This is not a disagreement. It's hate driven by the SSPV and its apologists who are hell-bent on trying to destroy anyone not in the cults orbit - it's a personal vendetta by Kelly & Company against Bp Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, and any other priest that dared disagree. I'v seen all your "facts", as I've been in this battle from its inception, and in my opinion they don't amount to a hill of beans!

The Kellyites have failed miserably over the past twenty years to convince anyone with a modicum intellectual honesty to agree with them. Just keep repeating the same lies and distortions over and over again and you might convince yourself - but you won't convince me.

[INPEFESS]

No one is changing the topic. You and your SSPV gurus shoud know about character assassination. After all you are experts at it! Go fly a kite!

Good. You have no answers - as usual. Bp. Mendez was not the person portrayed by Kelly, Jenkins et al. I'm really only pointing out the inconsistencies "for the children" with the hope that another generation is not taken in by the bogus assertions of Clarence Kelly and his cult-like followers.

This.  And to add, funny how years ago Bp. Kelly asserted that as time went on he knew that more and more people would come to his conclusion.  I wonder why he hasn't responded to the fact that the exact opposite has happened and that he and a few SSPV clergy are the only ones clinging to this falsehood.

Actually, that is false. The local SSPX church in Northern Kentucky has also asked its parishioners not to frequent the sacraments of the Thuc lineage for the same reasons as the SSPV. Furthermore, the regional FSSP church in Ohio has asked the same of its parishioners for the same reasons.

Without any dialogue with the SSPV, they all see the same problem.

I'm throwing the BS flag here:

Yes, you do that a lot. You threw the same flag to Innocent XI earlier by reducing his concerns about participation in doubtful sacraments to "blah blah blah".

For an actual copy the letter go to:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=51&catname=13

Transcript of Bp. Williamson's letter:
10-21-93
Dear Mr. Padula,
      Thank you for this letter, as [well as] for the booklet by Fr. Cekada on the Thuc Consecrations, which I had seen.
      I think that Fr. Cekada's arguments are good, such that I agree with him and not with Fr. Kelly or Fr. Jenkins as to the VALIDITY of the up-coming consecration.
      However, one must distinguish validity from licitly or lawfulness. A consecration can be valid, but unlawful, like eating a stolen apple. The eating is valid; it satisfies my hunger, but if the apple was stolen, then the eating is unlawful.
      Is the up-coming consecration lawful? Answer: if (a) the Cincinnati operation of these priests is lawful, and if (b) they need a bishop imperatively, then the consecration would be lawful.
      But as to (a), these Cincinnati priests are not ordinary traditional priests; they were Society of St. Pius X priests who broke with Society of St. Pius X positions to take up harsh and un-Catholic positions, out of line at any rate with Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking. Yet the future bishop on the flyer advertising his consecration leads one to think that there was no such split with the Archbishop. Conclusion: the Cincinnati priests' operation is doubtfully lawful.
      As to (b), if their operation is doubtfully lawful, then a consecration is at best doubtfully necessary.
      Conclusion: however much it would interest you to attend a consecration, you would best stay away from a doubtfully Catholic occasion.
      I hope this answers you question.
      Sincerely yours in Christ,
      + Richard Williamson

Last time I checked Bp Williamson was a member of the SSPX back in 1993 (and still is). As an aside he isn't the only clergyman in the SSPX to hold that opinion as I have heard it from several other priests over the years.

Bp. Williamson is not the same priest operating in Northern Kentucky.

Ah, yes, but the SSPX is trying to make nice with the Modernists, so anything they say today is suspect in my book. As I pointed out before, the Novus Ordo excommunicated Abp. Thuc for his episcopal consecrations - something that isn't done to someone who has a diminished capacity to reason. You're grasping at straws.

Look, I don't mean this to be rude; I am genuinely curious. I don't think you mean anyone any true harm, and I don't think you're incapable of being reasonable. But being reasonable, objective, and intellectually honest require your willingness to do so.

But what are your intentions here? You do not seem interested in objective debate, knowing the truth, understanding the other side of the issue, separating yourself from your personal biases and contempt for the SSPV, or even considering what the parishioners at St. Gertrude the Great had to find out the hard way: that not everything Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan say is true.

You pop on the thread every once and a while to take pot shots at Bp. Mendez, Bp. Kelly, and everyone else with whom you disagree. If you have something of substance to say that actually addresses the points of the topic (which directly concerns the distribution of sacraments) I have provided in this thread more than just your conclusions (without providing any support for them), opinions, personal convictions, unsupported claims, and disdain for the SSPV, then please post it. My suspicion is that since you will not, you cannot. If you cannot, then everything else that you post here is of no value in this discussion. If you do not show some sign of intellectual honesty, I will not continue to take out more of my time than has already been consumed by the circularity of the opposing view to respond to you. 

May God be with you, OldMan.

Feel free to be rude.

There is rarely a reason to be. Frank and straightforward, yes. Rude and condescending, no. We are adults. Let us reason like adults.

The facts of the validity of the Thuc consecrations have been more than competently presented by Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn and many others over the years. So I refuse to "cut & paste" them for you.

Exactly. You don't know so you use Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, et al. as a crutch. You are a grown man. Think for yourself.

The presentations of Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, et al. are the same presentations I am challenging. So to appeal to them to prove yourself and thereby by-pass having to think for yourself is the fallacy of petitio principii.

I'm sick and tired of the mudslinging and hand-wringing of the SSPV, so there is nothing to debate. Facts are facts and you are unwilling to face them. Mendez/Gonzales was a fraud and prevaricator. Personally I believe that he was hoodwinked into the proported episcopal consecration due to diminished mental capacity.

Let's get one thing straight. This is not a disagreement. It's hate driven by the SSPV and its apologists who are hell-bent on trying to destroy anyone not in the cults orbit - it's a personal vendetta by Kelly & Company against Bp Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, and any other priest that dared disagree. I'v seen all your "facts", as I've been in this battle from its inception, and in my opinion they don't amount to a hill of beans!

The Kellyites have failed miserably over the past twenty years to convince anyone with a modicum intellectual honesty to agree with them. Just keep repeating the same lies and distortions over and over again and you might convince yourself - but you won't convince me.

Nothing but the same calumnious vitriol, wild speculations, unsupported claims, and brash opinions.

Have a good day, sir. May God go with you.

[OldMan]

No one is changing the topic. You and your SSPV gurus shoud know about character assassination. After all you are experts at it! Go fly a kite!

Good. You have no answers - as usual. Bp. Mendez was not the person portrayed by Kelly, Jenkins et al. I'm really only pointing out the inconsistencies "for the children" with the hope that another generation is not taken in by the bogus assertions of Clarence Kelly and his cult-like followers.

This.  And to add, funny how years ago Bp. Kelly asserted that as time went on he knew that more and more people would come to his conclusion.  I wonder why he hasn't responded to the fact that the exact opposite has happened and that he and a few SSPV clergy are the only ones clinging to this falsehood.

Actually, that is false. The local SSPX church in Northern Kentucky has also asked its parishioners not to frequent the sacraments of the Thuc lineage for the same reasons as the SSPV. Furthermore, the regional FSSP church in Ohio has asked the same of its parishioners for the same reasons.

Without any dialogue with the SSPV, they all see the same problem.

I'm throwing the BS flag here:

Yes, you do that a lot. You threw the same flag to Innocent XI earlier by reducing his concerns about participation in doubtful sacraments to "blah blah blah".

For an actual copy the letter go to:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=51&catname=13

Transcript of Bp. Williamson's letter:
10-21-93
Dear Mr. Padula,
      Thank you for this letter, as [well as] for the booklet by Fr. Cekada on the Thuc Consecrations, which I had seen.
      I think that Fr. Cekada's arguments are good, such that I agree with him and not with Fr. Kelly or Fr. Jenkins as to the VALIDITY of the up-coming consecration.
      However, one must distinguish validity from licitly or lawfulness. A consecration can be valid, but unlawful, like eating a stolen apple. The eating is valid; it satisfies my hunger, but if the apple was stolen, then the eating is unlawful.
      Is the up-coming consecration lawful? Answer: if (a) the Cincinnati operation of these priests is lawful, and if (b) they need a bishop imperatively, then the consecration would be lawful.
      But as to (a), these Cincinnati priests are not ordinary traditional priests; they were Society of St. Pius X priests who broke with Society of St. Pius X positions to take up harsh and un-Catholic positions, out of line at any rate with Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking. Yet the future bishop on the flyer advertising his consecration leads one to think that there was no such split with the Archbishop. Conclusion: the Cincinnati priests' operation is doubtfully lawful.
      As to (b), if their operation is doubtfully lawful, then a consecration is at best doubtfully necessary.
      Conclusion: however much it would interest you to attend a consecration, you would best stay away from a doubtfully Catholic occasion.
      I hope this answers you question.
      Sincerely yours in Christ,
      + Richard Williamson

Last time I checked Bp Williamson was a member of the SSPX back in 1993 (and still is). As an aside he isn't the only clergyman in the SSPX to hold that opinion as I have heard it from several other priests over the years.

Bp. Williamson is not the same priest operating in Northern Kentucky.

Ah, yes, but the SSPX is trying to make nice with the Modernists, so anything they say today is suspect in my book. As I pointed out before, the Novus Ordo excommunicated Abp. Thuc for his episcopal consecrations - something that isn't done to someone who has a diminished capacity to reason. You're grasping at straws.

Look, I don't mean this to be rude; I am genuinely curious. I don't think you mean anyone any true harm, and I don't think you're incapable of being reasonable. But being reasonable, objective, and intellectually honest require your willingness to do so.

But what are your intentions here? You do not seem interested in objective debate, knowing the truth, understanding the other side of the issue, separating yourself from your personal biases and contempt for the SSPV, or even considering what the parishioners at St. Gertrude the Great had to find out the hard way: that not everything Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan say is true.

You pop on the thread every once and a while to take pot shots at Bp. Mendez, Bp. Kelly, and everyone else with whom you disagree. If you have something of substance to say that actually addresses the points of the topic (which directly concerns the distribution of sacraments) I have provided in this thread more than just your conclusions (without providing any support for them), opinions, personal convictions, unsupported claims, and disdain for the SSPV, then please post it. My suspicion is that since you will not, you cannot. If you cannot, then everything else that you post here is of no value in this discussion. If you do not show some sign of intellectual honesty, I will not continue to take out more of my time than has already been consumed by the circularity of the opposing view to respond to you. 

May God be with you, OldMan.

Feel free to be rude.

There is rarely a reason to be. Frank and straightforward, yes. Rude and condescending, no. We are adults. Let us reason like adults.

The facts of the validity of the Thuc consecrations have been more than competently presented by Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn and many others over the years. So I refuse to "cut & paste" them for you.

Exactly. You don't know so you use Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, et al. as a crutch. You are a grown man. Think for yourself.

More hot air. Woo woo hullabaloo! Who do you think you are? Perhaps you fashion yourself as another Aquinas? You, sir, are no match for the afore mentioned bishops and priests. You want me to believe you? Fat chance.

The presentations of Fr. Cekada, Bp. Sanborn, et al. are the same presentations I am challenging. So to appeal to them to prove yourself and thereby by-pass having to think for yourself is the fallacy of petitio principii.

More BS. You are not challenging anything. Just slinging more manure as Kelly apologist. You haven't presented one shred shred of new evidence.

I'm sick and tired of the mudslinging and hand-wringing of the SSPV, so there is nothing to debate. Facts are facts and you are unwilling to face them. Mendez/Gonzales was a fraud and prevaricator. Personally I believe that he was hoodwinked into the proported episcopal consecration due to diminished mental capacity.

Let's get one thing straight. This is not a disagreement. It's hate driven by the SSPV and its apologists who are hell-bent on trying to destroy anyone not in the cults orbit - it's a personal vendetta by Kelly & Company against Bp Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, and any other priest that dared disagree. I'v seen all your "facts", as I've been in this battle from its inception, and in my opinion they don't amount to a hill of beans!

The Kellyites have failed miserably over the past twenty years to convince anyone with a modicum intellectual honesty to agree with them. Just keep repeating the same lies and distortions over and over again and you might convince yourself - but you won't convince me.

Nothing but the same calumnious vitriol, wild speculations, unsupported claims, and brash opinions.

Public records. No speculation here.

Have a good day, sir. May God go with you.

I thought you weren't going to waste anymore time responding to me. Obviously I've struck a nerve.

You are the epitome of arrogance. What makes you more qualified than a priest to pass judgement on theological and moral issues? You are not qualified. The research has been done by competent clergy and all you are doing is  simply regurgitating the pap from Kelly and Company. I've done my research - twenty years ago and don't need to explain anything to you. I have no interest in debating you or anyone else, as the facts of the case are well known. By the way, you still haven't explained to my satisfaction how an insane person is able to be excommunicated... 

As for me I will keep warning unsuspecting Catholics of the dangers of being caught up in the anti-Thuc propaganda machine of the sectarian SSPV.