I don't think the Vatican is saying the thuc consecrations are certainly invalid, but just that they're doubtful.  But I could be wrong.

With regards Ladislaus' comment, I have a hard time believing that fringe bishops who may or may not actually be straight in the head, and have no oversight, are what the Church has in mind when she says we presume the validity of ordinations.  And I find it strange that such would be presumed in a case like Thuc, but not for Novus Ordo ordinations.

That the Vatican doubts the validity is precisely my position.

I read the Vatican not as expressing any type of doubt but of not having an opinion, "regardless of whether it's valid, it's illicit" or "it doesn't really matter because they're not authorized".  Now, the Vatican probably would not doubt a Lutheran "ordination", or that of a Baptist preacher, so their opinion one way or another is worthless.

I read the Vatican not as expressing any type of doubt but of not having an opinion, "regardless of whether it's valid, it's illicit" or "it doesn't really matter because they're not authorized".  Now, the Vatican probably would not doubt a Lutheran "ordination", or that of a Baptist preacher, so their opinion one way or another is worthless.

If you reread the announcement, the Vatican firstly discusses liceity, then passing to validity, states, “whatever about the validity,” and proceeds to announce it does not recognize the “ordinations.”

In other words, Rome is not still discussing liceity, or limiting/directing its non-recognition to not recognizing their jurisdiction, but to not recognizing the ordination (consecration) itself.

It is as though with the dismissive phrase “whatever about the validity,” Rome considers the matter too complex and murky to render a certain opinion/judgment, and therefore simply proceeds to announce it will not recognize them as bishops.

But if that is a correct reading of Rome’s announcement, it is the same thing as saying “we consider the matter doubtful, or capable of question.”

If you reread the announcement, the Vatican firstly discusses liceity, then passing to validity, states, “whatever about the validity,” and proceeds to announce it does not recognize the “ordinations.”

In other words, Rome is not still discussing liceity, or limiting/directing its non-recognition to not recognizing their jurisdiction, but to not recognizing the ordination (consecration) itself.

It is as though with the dismissive phrase “whatever about the validity,” Rome considers the matter too complex and murky to render a certain opinion/judgment, and therefore simply proceeds to announce it will not recognize them as bishops.

But if that is a correct reading of Rome’s announcement, it is the same thing as saying “we consider the matter doubtful, or capable of question.”

I think the way it's expressed clearly means negative vs. positive doubt at best.  Again, if there's a Latin version we could perhaps eliminate any ambiguity that could be due to translation.

Sorry, but I don't have it anymore.  I dug through the old books' collections at The Catholic University of American and went backwards through Rituale Romanums.  In the 11th and 12th centuries the rubrics clearly stated that the bishop should impose the right hand on the ordinand.  I sent Father Cekada photocopies of the relevant pages.

I’ll ask Father Cekada if he still has it, but thank you anyway. What a shame that some traditionalist organizations do so little research in sacramental theology and when they are proven wrong, they simply ignore it.