The answer to my question is that the New Rite of Ordination cannot be considered invalid solely on grounds that there is no "traditio instrumentorum".

From Pope Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis:

…every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence [Denzinger 701], in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

Also, in the Latin Rite, the traditio instrumentorum is considered "partial matter" of the sacrament, completing the matter of the imposition of hands (source).

Do you know the words of ordination?  Those that give ordination, are they with a valid ordination?  Those will answer your questions.  I say the answer to validity is still no.  There is no such thing as "new".  What Christ instituted is true like math and does not change and can not be renewed.

I'm just speaking of the matter.


Also, regarding the tradition instrumentorum, Pope Pius XII defined it is not necessary:

4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and 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. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.

The bigger issue is the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  Are the bishops really bishops?  If not, then it doesn't matter what the New Rite of Ordination looks and sounds like.

You beat me to it.

The sense of the form of the sacrament for priestly orders seems to me to be the same.  It is generally stated that the difference is the removal of the word "ut", or, "so that", which seems to be replaced by a semi-colon (at least in the versions I've seen.  It seems to me that the sense for the form from the traditional rite and the new rite are the same, or can easily be considered to be the same.  Thus, there is not much of a concern over the validity of the new rite though there are other problems with it--mostly because those receiving ordination and those doing the ordaining generally don't really interpret the mission of the priest according to the mind of the Church.

But it doesn't matter how valid the ordination rite is if the man ordaining the priest is a layman.  The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration has been completely changed and Father Cekada's condemnation of it is much more compelling that the SSPX's defense.  And these are the only two commentaries I've read that actually have any merit.

If the new consecration rite is valid then, it seems to me, there is no valid reason the Anglican rite is not valid.

I recommend the article "Purging the Priesthood of the Catholic Church" by Fr. Jenkins.  It about the new ordination rite, and it can be found on novusordowatch.  

Wow.  The article can be found at:  http://www.novusordowatch.org/purging-priesthood.pdf

I doubt any Ordinations in the Novus Ordo are conducted in Latin, so we would have to look at the official ICEL "translation".  While similar, the translation clearly doesn't really have the same meaning as the Latin form.

I don't know when they started ordaining in English, but this article casts grave doubts upon the validity of any ordination ceremony conducted in English.

However, I still believe the overriding concern should be the invalidity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/purging-priesthood.pdf

Interesting
thanks

The New Rite of Ordination does imprint a Priestly Character.

Assuming, of course, a valid bishop doing the ordination