[wideawake]

the Church considers those valid, but illicit bishops

I've never seen a scintilla of evidence to back that assertion. I have asked Thuc-line supporters who make this claim to present some documentary evidence from the Holy See supporting these claims, and I've seen none.

[nickcarraway]

The excommunication decrees against Archbishop Thuc, and those he ordained/consecrated never questiond the validity of the Holy Orders. If the consecrator is a valid bishop, uses a valid right, and lays their hands on the candidate, the Catholic Church considers it valid. The celebrant would have to publicly declare they had an intent other than what the Church intends to intends it to mean, for it to be invalid. I'm not saying I like it, but that's what the Church goes by. The curia has a registry of all these bishops, to keep track of Apostolic Sucession.

Another prrof that these are valid, but illicit is the case of Rev. Alfred Paul Seiwert-Fleige. He was ordained by Archbishop Thuc, then he was consecrated by a Thuc bishop.

In 2001, he reconciled with the Church and concelebrated a Mass with Pope John Paul II. He was regularized as a priest, but he was never even conditionally ordained. Today he serves as a priest in Germany, and he was asked to act as a priest for canonical reasons, though technically he is recognized as a bishop.

If the Church, doesn't recognize the Thuc line as valid, how could John Paul II except a layman acting as a priets?