Only God knows.  I'd still say it is doubtful.

People need to understand that just because the new rite of episcopal consecration is obviously, indisputably invalid that doesn't make the new rite of ordination valid.

The new rite is certainly invalid per Apostolicae Curae and because 'ut' was removed from the form.

Excerpt from - https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/new-rite-of-ordination-invalid/




Dear reader, these things described above by Pope Leo XIII as the downfall of the Anglican Rite of Ordination – the systematic removal of every reference to the sacrifice of the Mass, consecration and the true sacrificing priesthood – are exactly the things that occurred in the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI! In his book The Order of Melchisedech, despite his false conclusions on this and other matters, Michael Davies is forced to admit the following stunning facts:

The “missing ut = invalidity” argument is a figment of your imagination.

Ut is basically a conjunction with no inherent meaning in context.

Translated literally, ut means “in order that.”

So here is a sentence comparison, with and without it:

1) I bought rice, in order that we can eat.

2) I bought rice to eat.

The presence or absence of ut makes no difference to the meaning.

The concern regarding the new rite of priestly ordination lays elsewhere.

Your example is not analogous.

A better example would be

1) I bought rice, in order that we can eat.

2) I bought rice, eat.

The connection is lost.



Here's the new translation that proves it. Also, none of the new ordinations are done in Latin anyway so we should look at the new translation which clearly destroys the link 'ut' established.

No.

In Latin, you would translate the sentence "We bought rice in order that we can eat" as "Nos emit rice ut manducare possumus."

You would translate "We bought rice to eat" as "Nos emit rice manducare."

You would also translate your construct (i.e., "We bought rice, eat") the same way (i.e., Nos emit rice, manducare.), because the "to"  in "We bought rice to eat" is implicit (just as the "ut" is implicit).

The absence of an explicit "to" does not separate the buying of rice from the purpose of eating it, just as in the new form, the absence of "ut" does not separate or disconnect the preceeding from the subsequent (i.e., because it is implicit).

The meaning is exactly identical, depite the absence of "ut," which is superfluous (i.e., beyond what is required or sufficient).

An excerpt from this article: https://stjohnfisher.medium.com/a-defense-of-the-new-rite-of-priestly-ordination-bf0f5aa08007

"As Michael Davies, himself explained in The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix XI,

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."

An excerpt from this article: https://stjohnfisher.medium.com/a-defense-of-the-new-rite-of-priestly-ordination-bf0f5aa08007

"As Michael Davies, himself explained in The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix XI,


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."

So he asked Novus Ordites whether their sect has defected, what answer did he expect...

No.

In Latin, you would translate the sentence "We bought rice in order that we can eat" as "Nos emit rice ut manducare possumus."

You would translate "We bought rice to eat" as "Nos emit rice manducare."

You would also translate your construct (i.e., "We bought rice, eat") the same way (i.e., Nos emit rice, manducare.), because the "to"  in "We bought rice to eat" is implicit (just as the "ut" is implicit).

The absence of an explicit "to" does not separate the buying of rice from the purpose of eating it, just as in the new form, the absence of "ut" does not separate or disconnect the preceeding from the subsequent (i.e., because it is implicit).

The meaning is exactly identical, depite the absence of "ut," which is superfluous (i.e., beyond what is required or sufficient).

Your rice example is a complete red herring. Do you not see the comma turned into ';'? Do you not see that the new translation literally ENDS THE SENTENCE THERE!?!? 

Do you admit that Spiritus sanctitatis is cut off from the rest of the sentence in the new version or not?

Do you admit that at least the English translation cuts off the Spirit of holiness by ending the sentence there?

I admit that the “ut” you imagine to be essential is an accidental transcription error, and consequently, it’s omission could not possibly be invalidating.

Ignorant as usual ... and driven by your agenda.

Certainly the omission of "ut" could be invalidating.  As Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form, there are two things required, the invocation of the Holy Ghost to produce the Sacramental effect.

Traditional Rite:
Invoking the Holy Ghost to make the man a priest.

Novus Ordo Rite:
Invoke the Holy Ghost.  Ask (God?) that he be made a priest.

Problem is that the Holy Ghost can be invoked for any number of things.  What's missing here is the notion that the Sacramental effect is being caused by the Holy Ghost.

If you hadn't been asleep in Latin class, the "ut" is very significant gramatically.  It is not simply a random two-letter word.  What follows the "ut" is the effect of the first part, "so that ...".  This speaks directly to the link between the Holy Ghost and the Sacramental effect, which is severed by its removal.  And the Holy Ghost causing the Sacramental effect is what Pius XII described as the essence of validity.

Now, it's POSSIBLE that it could be implied, but the problem is that it's not unequivocal.  Holy Ghost could be asked to cause the proper dispositions in the priest, etc. or for any other reason than to effect the ordination.

So it's highly likely that this invalidates.

Also, just ask yourself, WHY did they remove this tiny little (as you claim insignificant) word?  Did it somehow improve the Rite, make it more "Modern"?  No, the nefarious sinister agents behind all of the V2 deformation of the Church did this ON PURPOSE.  There's no other rational explanation for why the "ut" was in their way.

But then your view of the Crisis is that it was just a weakness of faith rather than a deliberate destruction by design.

Ignorant as usual ... and driven by your agenda.

Certainly the omission of "ut" could be invalidating.  As Pope Pius XII taught about the essential form, there are two things required, the invocation of the Holy Ghost to produce the Sacramental effect.

Traditional Rite:
Invoking the Holy Ghost to make the man a priest.

Novus Ordo Rite:
Invoke the Holy Ghost.  Ask (God?) that he be made a priest.

Problem is that the Holy Ghost can be invoked for any number of things.  What's missing here is the notion that the Sacramental effect is being caused by the Holy Ghost.

If you hadn't been asleep in Latin class, the "ut" is very significant gramatically.  It is not simply a random two-letter word.  What follows the "ut" is the effect of the first part, "so that ...".  This speaks directly to the link between the Holy Ghost and the Sacramental effect, which is severed by its removal.  And the Holy Ghost causing the Sacramental effect is what Pius XII described as the essence of validity.

Now, it's POSSIBLE that it could be implied, but the problem is that it's not unequivocal.  Holy Ghost could be asked to cause the proper dispositions in the priest, etc. or for any other reason than to effect the ordination.

So it's highly likely that this invalidates.

Also, just ask yourself, WHY did they remove this tiny little (as you claim insignificant) word?  Did it somehow improve the Rite, make it more "Modern"?  No, the nefarious sinister agents behind all of the V2 deformation of the Church did this ON PURPOSE.  There's no other rational explanation for why the "ut" was in their way.

But then your view of the Crisis is that it was just a weakness of faith rather than a deliberate destruction by design.

What a moron!

Only in the delusional world of Loudestmouth can a transcriptionist’s mistaken addition of ut become part of the essential form.