There are arguments that merit the dignity of a response or rebuttal, and those which do not.

This rubbish belongs in the latter category.

The webpage looks like it was made in 1993. It's plain text on a white background. You know, anyone can create a "website" like that, even a complete moron. Don't believe (or respect) everything you read on the Internet.

But please rest at ease -- his rhetoric is nothing new. If it didn't shake the Trad world to its foundations 20 years ago when it was first disseminated, it's not going to make any waves now. The "Lienart" attack on Archbishop Lefebvre's validity is like a stupid joke that wasn't funny the first time, or the 100th time, or the 1000th time. It's the Trad equivalent of the "Russian collusion" charge against Trump. Both charges hold about as much water. But just like the "Russian collusion" propaganda, this one just won't go away. It's not like there's anything else they can even BEGIN to reproach the saintly Archbishop with...  In other words, the Archbishop with his saintly life doesn't give his detractors much material to work with! You pretty much have to make stuff up, violate the truth, violate reason, rely on common ignorance, etc. to come up with something.

I'm not going to promote such obvious error on CathInfo. Anyone who is against the whole "Traditional Movement" considering it illegitimate, sinful, etc. can promote their filth if they wish (it's a free country after all!), but I won't be helping them with my server resources.

Besides the obvious fact that I completely disagree, I also have a good reason in this case: CathInfo is a Traditional Catholic forum. Rubbish like the above link you posted is against the whole movement, or 99.99% of it, which amounts to the same thing. Usually such men have an agenda (such as: I'm the last legitimate bishop, your only choice -- fall down and worship me, and keep the money flowing!)

Hi Matthew, I agree that the article has many, many holes in it to those that know better.  However the danger is for those that don’t know.  I’m pretty uneducated when it comes knowing the theology and matter/form/intention requirements of Holy Orders (most laymen are) - this is why the article is confusing and subtlety dangerous.  Many people would read that sham article and think it's “scholarly” just because it quotes canon law and various popes.  Of course that just proves the author doesn’t know how to formulate correct conclusions or is dishonest.  

I’ll do some research about it all to try to help the person who asked me.  I know this isn’t the first time these ridiculous claims have been made and it won’t be the last.  I also know there have been discussions about the Thuc line on this site before, which is why I asked.  ...Not trying to stir the pot...