Since we generally only discuss the new rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration in terms of their alleged doubtfulness or invalidity, I'm posting this article which seeks to defend them.  The author is primarily refuting Jenkins, but others as well.  I'm curious to see what theological rebuttals can be made against his arguments.

My own position is that I don't know if the new rites are doubtful or not, but because of that, I stay away from them.

Have at it!





In my last piece, I refuted Fr. Anthony Cekada’s attacks against the new episcopal ordinations. There, I provided my defense utilizing a close reading of Lumen Gentium. The approach I took was obvious, unlike sedes and other Rad-Trads, we respect the council enough to consider it, and the reading becomes obvious. I know it won’t convince someone who rejects the Council, but I respect the Holy Ghost enough to guide the Church to avoid a serious error.

In his article Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, William Jenkins attacks the change made in the new form of ordination. What’s the difference, well, compared to the last one, basically nothing [1].





The difference is negligible. While there is more of a difference in the ICEL English version, this does not raise any issue. As Pope Pius XII brought up, there are three things required

Quote the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects — namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit — and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense [2]

All three of these criteria are met in either of the above translations. The power of the order is either confirmed in “dignity of the priesthood”, the “dignity of the presbyterate”, the “second order in the hierarchy” and “as co-workers with the bishop”. The power of the order is signified, not just in one place, but arguably in two. The grace of the Holy Spirit is signified with “the Spirit of holiness” in all three. The sense in which they are accepted is given in Lumen Gentium

Quote In the revision of the rites of Sacred Ordination, however, in addition to the general principles by which the whole reform of the Liturgy ought to be governed, according to the prescriptions of the Second Vatican Council, attention should be paid especially to that wonderful doctrine on the nature and effects of the Sacrament of Orders which was proclaimed by the same Council in the Constitution on the Church [i.e. Lumen Gentium] [3]

If we read the docuмent, we see that priests are co-workers of the bishop, and offer the sacrifice of the Mass

Quote [priests] exercise their sacred function especially in the Eucharistic worship or the celebration of the Mass by which acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming His Mystery they unite the prayers of the faithful with the sacrifice of their Head and renew and apply in the sacrifice of the Mass…
…On account of this sharing in their priesthood and mission, let priests sincerely look upon the bishop as their father and reverently obey him. And let the bishop regard his priests as his co-workers and as sons and friends just as Christ called His disciples now not servants but friends[4]

The sense has not changed, they offer the sacrifice of the Mass, and they are co-workers with the bishop,and remain in the second rank in the three-fold ministry of the Church. So, with all that in mind, what is the issue? What possible complaint could Rev. Jenkins have?

Latin Issues?

Quote Close examination of the two Latin formulae reveals that the traditional form contains the word “ut”, which the new form deletes. Despite its small size, the Latin word “ut” carries a weight of significance-which significance the Church wished to convey by placing it in the traditional formula of ordination. The word “ut” establishes a relationship between that which precedes it in the sentence and that which follows it in the sentence. When it is used with a verb in the subjunctive mood (the verb “obtineant” is used in the formula in the subjunctive mood), then it shows that what comes before it somehow “causes” or is done “for the sake of” what follows it
For example, the Latin sentence Veniunt ut te videant means “they are coming for the purpose of seeing you” or “for the sake of seeing you,” and shows that their seeing you is the purpose and result of their coming. When one removes the “ut” (as in the new form), then the Latin reads yeniunt; te videant. The English sense is “they are coming; may they see you!” The “ut” in the first example shows purpose. Its omission in the second example replaces the idea of purpose with a mere exhortation…
the traditional form clearly conveys the understanding that the new infusion of the Holy Ghost is the cause of their obtaining the office of second rank in becoming priests, and that their elevation to the office of the second rank is the purpose and the result of this renewal of the Holy Ghost within them. By the deletion of the one word “ut” the new Latin form has destroyed any such causal relationship between the two supernatural events.[5]

This literally amounts to nothing. The office of the priest and the grace of the Holy Spirit is still signified, and arguably so if we completely removed the second half of the form altogether. Just for the sake of comparison, here is the form for the Maronite ordination of a deacon,

Quote Look, O Lord, upon thy servant and send down upon him the grace of the Holy Spirit;…and as thou didst give grace to Stephen, the first whom Thou didst call to this ministry, so grant that Thine aid from heaven may come down also on this servant [6]

The office isn’t even explicitly signified. Rather, it is implied given it is a ministry that was held by St. Stephen the deacon. Also, compare it to the ordination for the bishop,

Quote Perfect Thy grace and Thy gift in us and in this Thy servant and Bishop . . . and grant him, O Lord God, together with this imposition of hands, which today he receives from Thee, the influx of Thy Holy Spirit; and make him worthy to obtain mercy from Thee to perform his priesthood and offer Thee pure sacrifices. . .[7]

Here, there is no “so that”, but it’s understood that both the signification of the grace of the Holy Spirit and the office of the Bishop is still present. Of all the things Pope Pius XII listed, there is no request that the office or power of the order is oriented for a specific purpose. Only that it is signified.
As Michael Davies, himself explained in The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix XI,

Quote How did the ut come into the form? The answer is almost certainly through a copying error by a scribe, which was in its turn copied by other scribes and eventually became codified with the advent of the printed Pontifical…If, for the sake of argument, we lay aside the fact that the doctrine of indefectibility rules out any possibility of the new ordination rite being invalid, could it be maintained that the removal of ut from the traditional form justifies the allegation of a significant change of meaning?
I obtained the judgment of a number theologians and canonists competent to provide an expert opinion on the question, namely Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg, D.P., Dr. Philip Flanagan, Dr. Francis Clark, Dr. H.J. Jordan, Dr T.C.G. Glover, Father William Lawson, S.J., and also Professor Cristine Mohrmann, one of the world’s greatest authorities on Christian Latin. They all reached the identical conclusion, that the omission of ut did not change the meaning of the Latin form to the slightest extent, and did not cast even the suspicion of doubt upon the validity of the Latin form. Thus even if, per impossibile, a sacramental form approved by the Sovereign Pontiff could be invalid, there would be no case for alleging invalidity in the case of the form for the ordination of a priest in the 1968 Ordinal.[8]

The quibble about an “ut” is nothing to be concerned with, especially since it is doubtful it was in there in the first place, and it has the backing of a consensus of Latinists.
Presbyterate Issues

Quote Note as well the use of the word presbyterate to replace the word priesthood. As Mr. Davies keenly observes: “ .. .it is worth pointing out that the Latin word presbyter, used to denote priest in the Latin text of both the traditional and new ordinals, is translated as ‘presbyter’ in numerous places in the ICEL translation. At no time in any English-speaking country have Catholic priests been referred to as ‘presbyters’. The term ‘presbyter’ is also used in the proposed Anglican-Methodist Ordinal.”
Although these two English words-priest and presbyter-come from the same Latin root, nonetheless, they are not simply equivalent in their English meaning and usage. The Church had always employed the word “priest” in English-speaking countries to convey the Catholic concept of the mediator between God and man who offers in an unbloody manner the Sacrifice of Calvary [9].

Again, here we have the same issue with not understanding the important third element, the words must signify in ways “which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense”. It doesn’t matter how heretics use the word. Even Mormons use the correct form of baptism, but fail to give that form the right signification.
And yes, presbyterate is an acceptable Catholic phrase, even in the English language. My authority on this will be none other than Joseph Pohle, who writes the following in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia

Quote we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term “priest” without qualification is now taken to signify the presbyter. [10]

Both a bishop and a presbyter hold a priesthood, even the Maronite ordinal for a bishop speaks of the bishop holding a priesthood. In fact, in English, the presbyterate is a more exact way of speaking of the priesthood held by the second rank.

Priests; Co-workers to the Bishops?

The next issue is already dealt with by reference to Lumen Gentium. Jenkins writes,

Quote Now, the word “co-worker” is rendered in Latin as cooperator, and the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church does in fact consider priests to be cooperatores with the bishops. The problem with the word cooperator is not what it says, but what it does not say. The expression secundi meriti munus (office of second rank) definitely connotes the idea of subordination, which idea specifies the priest’s place in the Church. The word “co-worker” does not of itself signify subordination, and the phrase “co-workers with the Order of bishops” does not necessarily mean that the Order of priests is intrinsically subordinate to the Order of bishops. One laborer could refer to another laborer as a “co-worker”, although they are both equal in the dignity and performance of their task [11]

As stated above, the bishops and priests are co-workers, not because they are equal in dignity and task, but they share in a friendship as co-holders of the ministry of the priesthood. Jesus offers the same sentiment to his disciples,

Quote I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you — John 15:15 (DRA)

What other meanings it could have are irrelevant, so long as it is accepted and used by the Church in that sense. Furthermore, it is not even taken by itself, but in context with the rest of the form, the dignity of the priesthood is being given, not perfected, not completed, but given. Also, they are called co-workers “with” the Order of bishops, not “within” the Order of bishops. If they were equals, then it would just be an episcopal ordination.


Context be Damned

What’s rather funny is that Cekada dismisses context as irrelevant, whereas Jenkins goes on to attack the context in which words like “priesthood” can still be rendered null based on the surrounding context, irrespective of the form.

Quote Now, one might insist that despite the change, the new Latin form is still capable of expressing the essential meaning necessary to confer the priesthood. But even the form given in the later Anglican Ordinal (“Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest”) could express the essential meaning of conferring Holy Orders. Yet, it was pronounced invalid by Pope Leo XIII. The question is why.
The answer lies in the fact that the word “priest” lost its significance in the context in which it was used. “Since,” as Father Clark observes, “the meaning of words can be changed by human usage and convention, and the efficacy of sacramental words depends upon their meaning, it may happen that liturgical words which convey the sacramental symbolism in one context, do not do so in another.” Thus, in Apostolicae curae Pope Leo XIII declares that the Anglican form is invalid even with the added words “ … for the office and work of a priest,” since these words became, in the Anglican usage, “mere names, voided of the reality which Christ instituted [12]

Except for the fact that there are prayers in the ordinal which do signify the Sacrifice of the Mass. The “Bishop’s Charge” reads,

Quote In the same way you must carry out your mission of sanctifying the world in Christ. It is your ministry which will make the spiritual sacrifices of the faithful perfect by uniting them to the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice will be offered in an unbloody way through your hands. Understand the meaning of what you do; put into practice what you celebrate. When you recall the mystery of the death and resurrection of the Lord try to die to sin and walk in the new life of Christ [13].

Jenkins, following Davies’ critique from the first edition of his book, will lay stress that the Bishop’s Charge is optional, but Davies, later in the introduction to the second edition, provides us a critique even he goes on to accept.

Quote Father Brian hαɾɾιson, O.S. wrote to me stating that I have placed too much stress upon the fact that the Bishop’s Charge in the 1968 rite is not mandatory, but only a model homily: “It is perfectly clear that what is being presented as ‘optional’ at this point in the liturgy is not the doctrine expressed in the model homily, but only the choice of words with which the bishop may choose to express this doctrine.” I accept this as a valid criticism, and I have taken it into account in my comments on the Bishop’s Charge in Appendix IX [14]

While a bishop may opt-out of the prayer for the intention of downplaying the priest’s sacrificial role, in order for his intentions to be known, they have to be manifested in such a way where their intention is made obvious and in opposition to what the Church does. To give an idea of what that would require, here is an example from Simon Francis Gaine OP,

Quote on the question of the marriage of a Jew who accepts the reality of dissolution, he quotes Innocent III, and on the marriage of Calvinists Benedict XIV, both upholding the validity of such marriages despite erroneous belief concerning indissolubility. Gasparri concludes: ‘[A]ccording to the doctrine and the practice of the Church, even when heresy contradicts the essence of the sacrament it does not necessarily exclude the intention of doing what the Church does.’ He explains that intention is an act of will and that the correct intention can exist quite happily in the soul of the heretical minister who for example may give no thought to his heresies while administering the sacrament. Even if he thinks erroneously about his heresy at the time (for example, while baptising, thinking that baptism has no interior effect), this belief can happily co-exist with the intention to do what the Church does, this intention being in no way affected or undermined by the heresy [15]

It is simply not enough to conjecture why a bishop chooses to leave in or out an optional prayer, his private opinions are still private even if erroneous.
Was the Ordinal Ruined with Protestant Assistance?

Jenkins claims that given the assistance provided by the protestants consultants to Archbishop Bugnini, we see parallels to Apostolicae Curae where a point of evidence was brought against Thomas Cranmer, who received help from continental reformers [16]. I’ll grant the historical facts given by Davies and Jenkins for the sake of argument, but even then we have two overriding factors.

The first is that whatever sense they would have understood the ordinal, the spiritual head of the Church was Pope Paul VI, and the sense which he provided is what matters, not the composers. While an Anglican could make the same case about their ordinal, Cranmer and company composed their ordinal before any particular sense could be attributed to the ordinal by Parliament (which is important to note since the Anglican Church is a creature of government). Their sense is the only possible one we have in rendering a judgment on Matthew Parker.

The sense of the ordinal (especially in 1669) would be read through the lens of the Anglican formularies (the homilies, prayerbook, and the 39-articles), all of which deny explicitly the sacrificial sense of the priesthood.

The second issue is that unlike the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church is protected when she enacts and recognizes an ordination rite since she cannot bind someone to do something immoral and that extends to ordinal rites. This is covered under secondary infallibility. Catholics have an obligation to attend Mass, and therefore a right to know if their priest has proper orders. If the Church cannot recognize such a Mass, it makes no sense to recognize such an obligation.

This is the explanation traditionalist Michael Davies gives in his work concerning Pope Leo’s decree on the invalidity of Anglican orders. By defending Apostolicae Curae, he uses the same reasoning; and this reasoning can be reapplied to the validity and legality of the Mass.

Quote The most frequently cited argument used by those wishing to question the binding authority of the Bull is that it is not infallible. An infallible pronouncement, in the strict sense of the word, pertains only to what is contained in the deposit of Divine revelation, which is known as the primary object of infallibility. It is evident that Our Lord gave us no revelation as to the validity or invalidity of Anglican Orders. But there is a secondary object of infallibility which involves truths connected with revelation, including historical facts. It is an infallibly revealed truth that Our Lord instituted a sacrificing priesthood, but it is absolutely essential for the faithful to know who is or who is not a priest.
When a convert priest celebrates Mass his congregation has the right to know that his Mass is valid. Thus, when the Church pronounces upon the validity of the ordinations of any Christian communion, we can know with infallible certainty that its decision is true. Convert priests from Orthodoxy are accepted without reordination, but, because the Church accepts the validity of their orders, we need have no scruples about assisting at their Masses. Decisions relating to this secondary area of infallibility are what is known as dogmatic facts, and Apostolicae Curae comes into this category. There is no possibility that Pope Leo XIII was mistaken, and there is no possibility that his decision will ever be reversed. The verdict of the Bull is not simply final but infallible [17]

In the same way, I have a right to know if my priests are valid, and therefore the rite of ordination itself must be valid if it was approved. Jenkin’s objection would not just apply to a particular translation, but the Latin itself. It proves too much and can be disregarded.


Jenkin’s Refutations

Jenkins responds to the above objection concerning what the Holy Spirit would permit by saying,

Quote the Holy Ghost permitted Vatican II to occur and to wreak havoc in the Church. So it seems hard to predict exactly what the Holy Ghost will or will not permit. Besides, if the Holy Ghost Himself guarantees the validity of the new Ordinal, did He permit Leo XIII to err in deciding a parallel case, and thus to delude millions of Anglican laity and clergy-and the whole Catholic world as well? [18]

Infallibility extends to the Vatican II docuмents themselves, not how we take and understand them. In fact, by denying Vatican II, Jenkins would be rejecting universal ordinary magisterial teaching. Furthermore, Leo XIII’s judgment concerned an ordinal which was unauthorized by the Church, whose sense could only be read by their formulators’ own theology, whereas Pope Paul VI himself gave the sense in which these words are to be understood.

The next argument concerns whether or not the ordinal is accepted by the whole church,

Quote Regarding the second argument, Mr. Davies himself makes the excellent point that the text of the new ordination ritual has not been made generally available to the Catholic faithful. He remarks, “ .. .it is hard to see how it can be claimed that a rite has been accepted by the entire Church when it is deliberately witheld from 99.9 percent of the faithful. “ One might add the further comment that “acceptance” is a positive act, and that, far from having positively accepted the new rites”. One might add the further comment that “acceptance” is a positive act, and that, far from having positively accepted the new rites, many of the Catholic faithful seem to be bewildered by them and in a state of confusion, following along for want of any other obvious alternative. This certainly does not constitute an acceptance of the new rituals, but rather a hesitation over them-a suspension of judgment which is properly called a “doubt.”
Although these two arguments fail, perhaps some will claim that papal authority makes the otherwise defective form to be valid, as though such authority could impose extrinsic validity. This idea seems to contradict the whole complex of Catholic sacramental theology. While it is true that a defective intention can invalidate a form sufficient in itself, nevertheless, neither a sufficient intention nor any external authority can make valid a form and a rite which is of itself defective. Can that same authority guarantee the validity of a rite when that authority was applied to purge from the sacramental ritual all that clearly signified the nature of the sacrament? Evidently not.[19]

The Catholic Church is not a democracy, it is a monarchy where the Pope acts and has the power to act on behalf of the Church. His consent is all that matters as supreme pastor of the Church. Furthermore, Jenkin’s refutation involves shifting the goalposts, originally he claimed that the validity of the ordination rite was doubtful, now he is treating it as if it was defective. While the Pope could not make a defective rite a valid one, in cases of a doubt his judgment can be used to set them to the side and provide relief. Especially if he is providing the exact sense of the priesthood.


Conclusion

There is no reason to doubt the validity of priestly ordination. Jenkins goes further than Davies does, and by ignoring the cautions that Davies provides, he ends up with an argument with refutations already largely provided in his source material. I will echo what Cardinal Vaughn says concerning the power of Pope Leo XIII to determine what constitutes a valid rite, and fairly attribute it to Pope Paul V

Quote And if no one can give a final judgment as to what is and what is not valid administration of a sacrament, as to what is and what is not the Christian Priesthood and Sacrifice, in what a condition of inextricable chaos has Christ left His Church? [20]

There is no contradiction, Pope Leo XIII is ruling about an ordinal provided outside the Church, without the approval of the Catholic hierarchy, whose sense is given not just by the ordinal itself, but by various formularies which outright deny the priesthood’s sacrificial nature. Pope Paul VI gives us an ordinal under his authority as Pope, in the context of the 2nd Vatican Council. If he can’t trust the judgment of the Pope, then who can we trust?

Footnotes
[1]William Jenkins, Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, 8–9
[2] Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Order, 1947, paragraph 4.
[3] Pope Paul VI, New Rite for the Sacred Ordination, 1968
[4] Dogmatic Constitution on The Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964, Lumen Chapter 2, Paragraph 28
[5] William Jenkins, Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, 9
[6] H.A. Vaughan et el, A Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’, 48
[7]ibid
[8] Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix XI, 137, Link
[9] William Jenkins, Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, 10
[10] Pohle, Joseph. “Priesthood.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Link
[11] William Jenkins, Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, 10
[12] ibid
[13]Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix XI, 57, Link
[14] ibid, 9, Link
[15]Simon Francis Gaine, Page 15, Defect of Sacramental Intention: The Background of Apostolicae Curae.
[16] William Jenkins, Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, 12
[17]Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix XI, 57, Link
[18] William Jenkins, Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, 13
[19] ibid, 13–14
[20] H.A. Vaughan et el, A Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’, 5

If traditional Catholics were a schismatic group with heriheretical beliefs,  then this line of thought would have merit.
It's as if the last 150 years of the Modernism revolution never happened. 
Many if not all modern clerics hold public beliefs against Faith and morals.  The situation is very similar to the Anglican orders in that time increased in degrees the mutation of the Faith.
Individual investigation is the only safe course.  I couldn't think of a
reason why religous of good will wouldn't want certitude in such matters.

Article is complete trash.  Validity comes from signification of the Holy Ghost producing the Sacramental EFFECT.  "ut" in the Latin is precisely THE word to explains the EFFECT (meaning "so that") of the Holy Ghost.

Already explained on the other thread, but as per your usual practice, when you have nothing substantial to argue, you'll start a new thread.

And, as also per your usual style, you'll cite people whose fundamental premises you don't share so long as they arrive at the same conclusion, regardless of the principles they build it up on.  One of the fundamental principles, and the one cited also by Michael Davies, is that a legitimate Pope could not produce an invalid Rite of Holy Orders.  This is correct, and SVs all agree with this MAJOR premise; we just deny the MINOR premise that Montini was (and these other guys are) legitimate popes.  If I were certain that these guys were Popes, I would have to agree that the Rites must be considered valid for this reason.  But you don't agree.

So, Sean, do you accept this principle of the author?

Infallibility extends to the Vatican II docuмents themselves, not how we take and understand them. In fact, by denying Vatican II, Jenkins would be rejecting universal ordinary magisterial teaching.

Rest of the article is nothing but gratuitous assertions that the meaning does not change ... without any actual evidence that it does not change.

Bottom line is that the form that Pius XII designated as the essential from has changed, and if you hold that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is not certain, that suffices to establish POSITIVE DOUBT.  And that's all you need in order to consider the Sacrament invalid in the practical order.

But Johnson would quote Beelzebub and Satan and Anton LaVey and Elie Wiesel if they happened to come to the same conclusion that he holds even if the underlying reasons are Satanic.

I also point out the Johnsonian tactic of simply spamming in articles and declaring victory from the mere fact of spamming it in.  He's pasted in 10,000-word articles before and then demanded that people refute every single word of it.  And when people did, he would just ignore it and repeat his claim that the article hasn't been refuted, even when it has, and he's either too lazy or incapable of making a rebuttal of the arguments presented.

Yet another Johnsonian tactic, start using ad hominem attacks and charged language.  So, for example, on the other thread about this issue, he simply declared questions about the validity of the New Rite a product of "imagination".  Pretty soon he'll be attacking me over Flat Earth and the (obviously) fake Sister Lucy, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

I should probably make a formal list of fallacious Johnsonian and simply refer to them by number.  "Here you can see Johnson employing Johnsonian tactics 1,3,5,7,9."

Quote

Infallibility extends to the Vatican II docuмents themselves, not how we take and understand them. In fact, by denying Vatican II, Jenkins would be rejecting universal ordinary magisterial teaching.

This is no principle at all, but ignorance and confusion.


The very meaning of the word 'universal' is that the doctrine has been taught always and everywhere. How could the novelties of Vatican II constitute such teaching?

It is precisely this universality that gives to the Ordinary Magisterium its possibility of being infallible.

A Defense of the New Rite of Priestly Ordination.

Refuting William Jenkins

John Fisher

https://stjohnfisher.medium.com/a-defense-of-the-new-rite-of-priestly-ordination-bf0f5aa08007

In my last piece, I refuted Fr. Anthony Cekada’s attacks against the new episcopal ordinations.

Should I bother reading that "refutation" too?

Deb from Napoleon Dynamite: "'Cause for a limited time, glamour shots by Deb are only $9.99."

In other words, you just ignored the entire article, and then merely repeated your own nonsense.

Did you manage to reconvince yourself?

I read the article, Sean, and already rebutted it.

There are two major points:

1) Gratuitous assertion (without any actual analysis of the text) that "The difference is negligible. ...  It literally amounts to nothing."  I would be entitled to gratuitously deny that which is gratuitously asserted, except that I've explained why the ut is most certainly meaningful and not "nothing".

2) Appeals to the infallibility of the Church and of Vatican II, and numerous citations from Vatican II ... which I shouldn't have to refute, since we all here hold them to be of no value.

So what remains is nothing but gratuitous assertion that it means nothing ... which is utterly ridiculous.  If you wanted to make a concrete point why the sense of what remains in the New Rite is the same as that of the Traditional, then by all means.  I've already explained why this is doubtful at best.  Your arguments about from the example of buying rice at least made an attempt to to do that.  This article did nothing of the sort.

But instead of employing your typical spam tactic, why don't you pick out a point or two that you find persuasive and argue those points yourself, in your own words.  I'm not going to play your game where you spam in a wall of text and demand that it be refuted line by line or you declare victory.  That's a pathetic game you're playing.  Make the argument yourself and then we'll attempt to refute it, or, if your argument is persuasive, will agree with you.

"ut" cleary indicates cause and effect.  Juxtaposing two things one after the other does not.  Now whether the causality could be considered inferred or not, that's possible, but uncertain.  Your own example about the rice actually exposes this problem.

1) I bought rice to eat.
2) I bought rice.

NOM Ordination Rite actually goes a step beyond what you had:

1) I bought rice to eat.
2) I bought rice.  Let's eat.

In #1 you're clearly stating that the rice is intended for eating.  But in #2, you could have just returned from the store with rice for a later meal, but you're about to eat steak for today's meal.  Or you could have bought the rice to use in order to dry out a wet cell phone or for other purpose or intention, to give away to someone, to put away in long term storage, whatever.  There's no explicit indication that you're eating the rice.  It's your return from the store that then set up the conditions for you to eat.

Similarly, in the NOM Rite, there's ...

1) Invoke the Holy Ghost.  STOP.
2) May this man become a priest.

Since the Holy Ghost can be invoked for any number of matters, it's not unequivocally certain that the request is for the Holy Ghost to make this man a priest.  Holy Ghost could be being invoked to give him the necessary dispositions or some graces of state or for enlightenment or any of the charisms of the Holy Ghost, and not necessarily for Him to make the man a priest.  Holy Ghost is invoked at Confirmation, and even at the epiklesis at Mass, and in numerous other contexts.  We're encouraged to pray to the Holy Ghost before going to Confession to bestow upon us the proper dispositions, the contrition, proper knowledge of our sins, etc.

Is it possibly implied?  Perhaps.  But perhaps isn't enough to dispel positive doubt.

There's the other problem of why the ut was in the way of the destroyers.  Does it significantly impact making the translation more "modern" or make it more "understandable or relevant for the people of modern times?"  Absolutely not.  This suggests a deliberate intent, and if you believe (as many of us do) that much of the destruction was intentional and by design, this also factors into equation.

Sean, I don't even know where you're coming from anymore.  You over-analyze things which shouldn't be.  You put aside the bigger picture (infiltration/conspiracy) and instead minimize the attacks against the Church, Her liturgy, Her sacraments, etc.

You're doing +Fellay's work for him. 

I trace this all to Sean desperately carrying water for Bishop Williamson to justify his statements regarding the NOM "Eucharistic" "miracles" and other statements about why it might be OK for people to attend the NOM.  Sean kept arguing about how the NOM could be valid and could confer grace even though it's harmful and bad.  So I see this point about NO Orders as dovetailing with it.  If the NO priests are invalid, then the purported NO miracles would have to be fraudulent.

But, yes, he is on a trajectory toward justifying +Fellay's attitudes toward the Conciliar Church ... albeit certainly unwittingly, to the point that he quotes an article here that bases much of its argument on the "infallibility" of Vatican II and cites much Vatican II text as if it were of any value.  This article promotes precisely the +Fellay-ite view of Vatican II being "95% good".  But Sean doesn't care what principles are behind the argument, as long as the conclusion is the same.  He would cite Beelzebub himself if he happened to agree with him.

These are from the opening words of the article he posted:

There, I provided my defense utilizing a close reading of Lumen Gentium. The approach I took was obvious, unlike sedes and other Rad-Trads, we respect the council enough to consider it, and the reading becomes obvious. I know it won’t convince someone who rejects the Council, but I respect the Holy Ghost enough to guide the Church to avoid a serious error.

I've argued this exact point against Sean for untold thousands of words, where he was REJECTING the notion that the Holy Ghost guides the Church to avoid serious error.  Author of the article says that he "respects" the Council.  Yet this doesn't stop Sean from citing it, despite having fought tooth and nail against these very notions when I was promoting them.  He didn't even bother to distance himself from these bad principles.  By posting it without comment as if it were definitive, he implies his endorsement of its entire contents, including the stuff that I KNOW he rejects.  So it's completely dishonest and disingenuous.

It's similar to what Sean does with Siscoe & Salza, where he continues to promote them against SVism despite the fact that they apply the same principles to condemn ALL Traditional Catholics as in schism and outside the Church.  S&S consider Sean Johnson to be outside the Church, and yet that doesn't stop Johnson from continuing to support them.  We SVs pointed out the errors in S&S's principles right out of the gate, but we were ignored.  Then Salza turns on all Trad Catholics, including the ones who had been promoting their work.

I trace this all to Sean desperately carrying water for Bishop Williamson to justify his statements regarding the NOM "Eucharistic" "miracles" and other statements about why it might be OK for people to attend the NOM.  Sean kept arguing about how the NOM could be valid and could confer grace even though it's harmful and bad.  So I see this point about NO Orders as dovetailing with it.  If the NO priests are invalid, then the purported NO miracles would have to be fraudulent.

But, yes, he is on a trajectory toward justifying +Fellay's attitudes toward the Conciliar Church ... albeit certainly unwittingly, to the point that he quotes an article here that bases much of its argument on the "infallibility" of Vatican II and cites much Vatican II text as if it were of any value.  This article promotes precisely the +Fellay-ite view of Vatican II being "95% good".  But Sean doesn't care what principles are behind the argument, as long as the conclusion is the same.  He would cite Beelzebub himself if he happened to agree with him.

These are from the opening words of the article he posted:
I've argued this exact point against Sean for untold thousands of words, where he was REJECTING the notion that the Holy Ghost guides the Church to avoid serious error.  Author of the article says that he "respects" the Council.  Yet this doesn't stop Sean from citing it, despite having fought tooth and nail against these very notions when I was promoting them.  He didn't even bother to distance himself from these bad principles.  By posting it without comment as if it were definitive, he implies his endorsement of its entire contents, including the stuff that I KNOW he rejects.  So it's completely dishonest and disingenuous.

It's similar to what Sean does with Siscoe & Salza, where he continues to promote them against SVism despite the fact that they apply the same principles to condemn ALL Traditional Catholics as in schism and outside the Church.  S&S consider Sean Johnson to be outside the Church, and yet that doesn't stop Johnson from continuing to support them.  We SVs pointed out the errors in S&S's principles right out of the gate, but we were ignored.  Then Salza turns on all Trad Catholics, including the ones who had been promoting their work.

Sometimes you’re just plain stupid.

You accuse me of being on a trajectory of endorsing +Fellay’s attitude toward the conciliar church….just a week after I announce my forthcoming book promoting the resistance writings of priests denouncing +Fellay's plan for integration into the conciliar church.