It's not a calumy to criticize Mr. Vennari's writing.

Mr. Vennari seems like a nice man (I always thought Catholic Family News was a good read), but this is a hack-job, especially considering the importance of the topic

Bringing up the issue of an imprimatur for the "superb" 100 years of Modernism in the same list as the question to whether future superior generals would be like Archbishop Lefebvre shows something on an egological ontology, (or perhaps the hopelessly parochial and mindless confusion of someone stuck in the SSPX orbit)

The actual fundamental disagreements on theology and philosophy are secondary to a purely formal recognition and a meaningless imprimatur?  And a meaningless imprimatur ranks up with the question as to who will lead the society and how will bishops be consecrated?  

There is no sense of proportion in this essay, but anyone who would follow the SSPX wherever they go cannot have any sense of the relative importance of things.

Quote from: Gregory I

Caminus, the 1968 order of episcopal consecration can be deomnstrated as invalid based on this fact:

1. They used an "eastern form."
2. This "eastern form" come from the maronite rite of the enthronement of a patriarch.
3. A patriarch is already a Bishop!

Therefore, the rite has, at its basis, prayers which are substantially different and not the same as prayers of episcopal consecration.

Therefore the rite cannot be valid.

A scrament must signify what it effects, and effect what it signifies (Pope Leo XIII). None of the essential prayers signify the effect: The elevation of a man into the episcopate and its duties.

Therefore, it is invalid.

If you want a detailed answer, say so.

I'm not even sure if this merits a response.  

Caminus, if anything the sedes here should be saying that to you... YOU are not really worthy of any responses due to your dishonesty in this argument and in general towards promotion of the SSPX.

How dare you say that Gregory's valid topic and post is not worthy of a response.

FLUB

P.I.O., why did Fr. Cekada write such a long and detailed essay attempting to demonstrate the invalidity of the ordination rite when he could have easily proved it by a three sentence syllogism?  Does that make sense to you?  Neither you, nor Gregory, understand that which you speak about.  

Then explain to me, why am I WRONG?

Your disdain is neither the magisterium, nor is it proof. It is just the sounding of a gong, and the clanging of a cymbal, as are the words of all who presume and have not charity.

Prove me wrong.

G-1, never mind that Wojtyla prayed with and for pagans. He opened Church property, including consecrated chapels, for the use of these heretics in their false religions.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_JP2_photos.php

The funniest thing I have read in a VERY long time, however, had to be that quote from Ratzinger about how the Vat-2 types embrace the entirety of tradition.

HA!

So, that little "oopsie" in Quo Primum, you know, the one about the Tridentine Mass being irreplaceable and VALID FOR ALL TIME AND NEVER TO BE ABROGATED... does Joseph Ratzinger embrace THAT, too? I hardly think so.

Fellay is going to play whatever political games he needs to in order to stay afloat. The only thing he should be having 'dialog' with Ratzinger about is Ratzinger's confession of the heresies he has promoted, the crimes he guilty of and the multitude of other offenses he is party to because of his status in the NO.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.