Wrong. There is positive doubt in the new rite ordinations. The Modernists removed 1 word 'ut'. If it didn't change the meaning of the sacrament, why remove it?
Secondly, yes, there is positive doubt in regards to the vernacular and bad translations. Which is why Latin was always used.
Thirdly, the major doubt is in regards to new-rite "bishops". As in indult communities today, even if a new-rite, doubtful-bishop says the OLD RITE ordination, that ordination is doubtful, because the ordaining "bishop" is doubtful.
The problems with the new-rite episcopal consecration formula are MANY. It's almost certainly invalid, though obviously I can't say that with certainty.
If someone (i.e. new-sspx) is ONLY looking at ordinations from the standpoint of the ordination rite (and ignoring the problems with the new rite bishops), they are either highly stupid or they have an agenda.
No. it. is. not. A positive doubt is a positive doubt.
Yes, they can. Because the new rite changes are the positive doubt itself.
Go back to your diocese.
So, not only is there the "ut" problem, but read again Pope Leo XIII's
Apostolicae Curae, where he teaches quite definitively that even IF the Anglicans had "fixed" the essential form, the overall intention of the Rite invalidates their Orders ... not just renders them doubtful. What did Pope Leo XIII cite as evidence for the intention of the Missal? He explained how the Anglican Orders removed all references to the priest's power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in order to conform to the errors of the "reformers" (aka Prots). Look at the comparison between the old and the new Ordination Rites ... where the New extirpated all references to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the priest's power to offer it. So even IF one claimed that the new essential form minus the "ut" remained valid, the fact that the NO did exactly what Pope Leo XIII taught manifested the intention of their Ordinal and thereby rendered it invalid, even IF the essential form were correct. Trads know, and have had it for their talking points for decades, that main motivation here to remove these references to sacrifice was in fact to NOT OFFEND the Prots in their heretical views, to leave nothing behind that would differentiate the Catholic Rites from the Protestant, aka, to make them not run afoul of the very same errors of the "reformers" cited by Leo XIII. Of course, those of us who realize that various wicked infiltrators were involved who intended to destroy, surmise that they very well could have intended specifically to invalidate the Rites. While we cannot prove that intention, it's very clear that at the very least the intention was to conform the Catholic Rites to the errors of the "reformers".
Returning to the "ut", the SSPX constantly gaslight on the "two-letter word" thing. So, what? ... they don't teach Latin at seminary anymore? "ut" is perhaps one of the most significant words in Latin, and the one which causes the most consternation for students of Latin, given that it's often followed by the subjunctive mood. Now, "is" is a 2-letter word, and "not" is a 3-letter word, but both of them are incredibly significant from a logical standpoint. But maybe it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
"ut" means "so that", in this context, where what comes before is the CAUSE of what comes after it, i.e. what comes after it is the EFFECT of what comes before it. In other words, it expresses the relationship between cause and effect, the notion of which rests at the very foundations of Aristotelian and then Thomistic philosophy and theology.
Now, when Pius XII determined the essential form of the Latin Rite Orders, he stated that two things were necessary, 1) invocation of the Holy Ghost, and 2) the determination of the Sacramental EFFECT. See that word? EFFECT.
In the Old Rite, to paraphrase, you have ...
1) May the Holy Ghost come down IN ORDER TO (ut) make this man a priest.
... thereby linking the invocation of the Holy Ghost to the desired Sacramental EFFECT.
where in the New, you have ...
2) May the Holy Ghost come down. May this many become a priest.
By removing the "ut", you're severing the cause-effect. What is the Holy Ghost being asked to come down for? To make the man a priest? Maybe. But it's certainly not unequivocal. Perhaps He's being asked to give this man the correct dispositions to become a priest, or to become a good priest. We don't know, since it's not unequivocally stated. Now, it's easy to READ INTO it the meaning of the prior form, but if you had never seen the prior form and didn't know Catholic theology regarding orders or the teaching of Pius XII ... you most certainly would not know this to be true.
So while you could CLAIM that it's implied, it's not clearly stated, and that alone suffices to create postiive doubt.
And actually, the fact that it's "JUST" a "two-letter word" actually militates against those who maintain validity, because ... why did they have to remove it? Why was this tiny word in their way? Does the meaning get made so much more "modernized" and "relevant to modern man" by removing that word? Ridiculous. They removed it for a reason, probably because they recognized its potential to invalidate ... better than the Trads do who engage in intellectually dishonest wishful thinking due to political and emotional considerations.
Of course, now that decades have passed, and nary a bishop remains who has been consecrated in the Traditional Rite, one can't even look at Ordination on its own, since you can probably count within double digits the number of active Conciliar priests who remain that were ordained by a bishop who had been consecrated in the Traditional Rite. So that significantly compounds the doubt.
ONLY SOMEONE WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, DUE TO VARIOUS POLITICAL OR EMOTIONAL MOTIVES, CAN ASSERT THAT THERE'S NO POSITIVE DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATION. PERIOD.
Topic: SSPX Fake Priests (Read 7991 times)