I value your opinion, JD.
But I must say, to equal Thuc and any schismatic bishop of an heretical orthodox sect, goes beyond me. I think to say so is wrong and just calumny. Thuc was not an heretic, nor a schismatic. He was a confused prelate, but not a non-Catholic.
You, nor Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins, have the authority and the right to declare someone to be excommunicated. Not only because they are not the interpretators of the law (the Pope is), but also because they themselves have also acted under Epikeia for their own bishop's consecration! Why blame others then?
In fact, given the history of Fr., now Bishop Mgr., Clarence Kelly: he ran away from the SSPX, broke with some other priests of the "Nine", and him having occupied SSPX property. Given that history, Bp. Mendez (?) of Alceribo (?) might have also incurred excommunication, because Fr. Kelly might have run away and started a homosexual sect?
I just can't follow the reasoning here.
And to doubt the validity because of the personal history of the Consecrator is wrong. I could doubt Fr. Kelly's ordination concerning validity, because Cardinal Liénart was the Consecrator of Abp. Lefebvre, and Liénart was a high ranking Freemason, and at least a very liberal modernist. Cardinal Rampolla - a Freemason - was the one who consecrated Cardinal Merry del Val, an excellent prelate and a great Anti-Modernist hero.
It is not required for VALIDITY and not even for LICEITY on part the consecrated cleric, that the consecrator be of a pure personal history without sins and excommunications.
After all, as the SSPV does not know what the status of the Papal See is at the moment, Abp. Thuc did repent from the consecrations at Palmar de Troya and of the homosexualist bishop, and he received the lifting of the excommunication from Pope Paul VI. So when consecrating the sedevacantist bishops Zamora, Carmona, Guérard des Lauriers, he might have been no longer under the penalty and at least had subjectively repented from his previous consecrations, if you grant that Paul VI had canonical authority according to Thuc in 1977. After that he came to the conclusion that the Papal See was vacant. And thus acting (again?) under Epikeia - after having received canonical freeing of excommunication by Paul VI - Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc validly and licitly consecrated Bishops.
Licit according to the Sedevacantist opinion at least. And some later Fr. Clarence Kelly took the same Epikeia argument to receive Consecration without a papal mandate from an other emeritus-bishop.
So what is the problem then about the post 1981 Consecrations of the Thuc line. Fr. Kelly took the same arguments as did Frs. McKenna and Vezelis to justify their consecrations.
So why is he mocking them and is Bp. Kelly constantly doubting the validity of the Thuc line with these most illogical and very emotional arguments? It's because he is in an intense emotional struggle with Fr. Anthony Cekada and the others of the Nine (1983), with whom he broke, and who subsequently broke with each other.
There are NO VALID arguments at all to call into doubt the validity of the Abp. Thuc line of Consecrations after 1981 (the Palmar de Troya line having been invalidated since ca. 1983 due to an invalid Palmarian "new rite" of Antipope Gregory XVII Gomez).
Why should I take them seriously then?
It is truly a disease among the Sedevacantists to call into doubt other groups' valid Sacraments and to claim right and authority to proclaim this and thus "lure" people out of those groups.
This is done by "Einsicht" (Germany) a publication in which Prof. Dr. Eberhard Heller constantly doubts the validity of Abp. Lefebvre's consecration etc. Why? Not because he would have doubted it under Pope Pius XII's pontificate. No, merely because he emotionally abhors from the SSPX's position and demands all-or-nothing Sedevacantism.
And the Mgr. Bp. Clarence Kelly arguments go along the same line. But then again they can be used again Kelly himself too.
It does not help the Sedevacantist Movement to constantly divide and get ruptured internally. But then again I am not really into Sedevacantism. At least not (yet) in my own convictions concerning the Most Holy Apostolic Roman See of Peter.
Both Bp. Kelly and the sedevacantist Thuc-line bishops are valid bishops, who have received consecration acting under Epikeia.
To end with: the sins of the Consecrator-Bishop are not "transmitted" to the consecrated, if the consecrated act under good intentions and good will in the spirit of Canon Law.