Sounds good, ElwinRansom.  It would be nice to see him depart here or there from the SSPX party line.  Perhaps at some point intellectual honesty would motivate him to do so.

Start reading at "B. The Form:"

The bolded part is correct. The words of Canon 817/927 establish that it is possible for a priest to do the thing that is called "nefas," which means wicked, evil, forbidden. If the consecration was merely "invalid," the canon would have stated that.

Instead, the act is "wicked" because the consecration is valid and results in a mockery and abuse of the Eucharist. If the Eucharistic species wasn't actually confected, there would be no sacrilege. It would just be a simulation of the consecration. It would be irrelevant. And there would be no need for the Church to use such strong language warning about the wickedness of that act.

Can 927: It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the Eucharistic celebration.

Each sacrament is accomplished in three parts, that is, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If one of these three should be lacking, the sacrament is not accomplished. Council of Florence

Like with his preference for the pre-1955 Holy Week?

Oh, Sean, there you go again. Why must you resort to ad hominem over and over again? Why not just admit that your position makes no sense for a traditional Catholic?

Projection: You just got done dismissing Pohle because he knew a Jєωιѕн botanist.

As for the position, it is the one embraced by the great majority of traditional theologians.

You are supporting a change that the Roman Missal itself (through De defectibus) has stated for over 400 years is an invalidating change to "the form" of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. St. Thomas Aquinas explains why the change is invalidating.

St. Thomas is rejected by themajority of theologians on this point (including many Thomists).  This has been pointed out to you.

Do you also claim that the change from "for many" to "for all" was also unimportant?

 Attempting to change the subject.

You offer opinions of "authorities" who are either clearly Modernist or suspiciously agree with the Modernist program implemented in the Novus Ordo missal. These opinions contradict the greatest Doctor of the Church and the Saint Pope who promulgated the Tridentine Missal. But the best you can come back with is to claim that I'm "not even fit to have this conversation."

 Were St. Ambrose and St. Bonaventure among these modernists too?  Pohle wrote his manual during the time of Pope St. Pius X, and it was used in many of the Anglo countries (including by Fr. Feeney), yet he was never censured for what you imagine was modernism.  Could it be that you don't know what yo uare talking about?

I'm not the one making the primary argument Sean. St. Thomas and St. Pius are. You are arguing against them, not me. Do you not see that?

And they are in the great minority of theologians on this point.  Don't you get that?

It's because Sean follows people and not facts.  He has too friendly of a relationship with +W (whose view on the new mass is flawed), thus Sean defends +W's view blindly.  Sean consistently promotes/defends views of those he follows, without examining the reasons thereof.  He is biased on many topics.