I think it would benefit everyone to look over this docuмent in the Denzinger.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma24.php

If it takes you to the title page, then go to the very last page before the appendix.

The most compelling things in this entire docuмent, to me, were these phrases:

Since these things are so, invoking divine light by Our supreme apostolic authority and certain knowledge We declare, and, according as there is need, decree, and determine that the matter of sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and this alone, is the imposition of the hands; but that the form, and likewise alone, is the words which determine the application of this matter, by which the sacramental effects are signified with but one meaning, namely, the power of orders, and grace of the Holy Spirit, and which as such are accepted and applied by the Church. Hence it follows that in order to do away with all controversy and to preclude the way to anxieties of conscience, by Our Apostolic Authority We do declare, and, if ever it has been otherwise lawfully arranged, decide that the tradition of the instruments at least for the future is not necessary for the validity of the sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate.

But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: In the ordination of deacons the matter is the one imposition of the bishop's hand, which occurs in the rite of that ordination. But the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and so required for validity: "Send forth upon him, we beseech, O Lord, the Holy Spirit, by which for the work of faithfully performing your ministry he may be strengthened by the gift of Thy sevenfold grace." In the ordination of priests the matter is the first imposition of the bishop's hands which is done in silence, but there is no continuation of the same imposition by an extension of the right hand, nor the last to which these words are joined: "Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, etc." But the form consists of the words of the "preface," of which the following are essential and so required for validity: "Bestow, we beseech, almighty Father, upon this thy servant the dignity of the priesthood; renew in his vitals the spirit of sanctity, that he may obtain the gift of good merit acceptable to Thee, O God, and may by the example of his conversation introduce rigid judgment of morals." Finally, in the episcopal ordination or consecration the matter is the imposition of the hands by the consecrating bishop. But the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and thus required for validity: "Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent." . . .


Now, what prayer was RatZINGer made a "bishop" with?

Why, the "Paul VI prayer" changes that were made in 1968.

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/texts/pontrecognitio.txt

In his SLIMEY language, he says this:

Among the other docuмents of the magisterium pertaining to sacred orders, we consider one worthy of particular mention, namely, the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis published by our predecessor, Pius Xll, 30 November 1947. In
this Constitution he declared that "the sole matter of the sacred orders of diaconate and presbyterate is the laying on of hands; likewise the sole form is the words determine, the application of this matter, which unequivocally signify the sacramental effects--namely, the power of orders and the grace of the Holy
Spirit and are accepted and used as such by the Church." [9] After this, the docuмent determines which laying on of hands and which words constitute the matter and form in the conferring of each order. It was necessary in the
revision of the rite to add, delete, or change certain things,  :confused1: in order to restore the texts of the rite to the form they had in antiquity, to clarify expressions, or to bring out more clearly the effects of the sacraments. We therefore think (YOU THINK?!  :cussing:) it necessary, so as to remove all controversy and avoid perplexity of conscience, (MORE LIKE YOU WANT TO CONFUSE :really-mad2:) to declare what are to be held as the essentials in
each revised rite. By our supreme apostolic authority (As if you had any you commie jerkface!!!  :sad: )we decree and establish the following with regard to the matter and form in the conferring of each order:

Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying of hands on the
head of the bishop-elect by the consecrating bishops, or at least by the
principal consecrator, that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer;
the form consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the
following belong to the essence and are consequently required for validity:

"So now pour out upon this chosen one
that power which is from you, the governing Spirit
whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ,
the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles,
who founded the Church in every place to be your temple
for the unceasing glory and praise of your name."

Okay, so one of two things is true here. Either you accept what Pius XII said, and he was correct, or ANY BISHOP MADE IN THE TRADITIONAL RITE AFTER 1968, ACCORDING TO PAUL VI, IS INVALID.


Clearly there is a problem here.

What I'm saying is if you accept this change, then you have to accept that the old prayer is invalid because "Paul VI" says here...

"By our apostolic authority we approve this rite so that it may be used in the future for the conferral of these orders in place of the rite now found in the Roman Pontifical."


He nullified the old rite. So either you accept the new prayer as the only valid one... (remember...)

Finally, in the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying of hands on the head of the bishop-elect by the consecrating bishops, or at least by the principal consecrator, that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer; the form consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belong to the essence and are consequently required for validity:

(The Paul VI prayer here)

OR...

You accept what Pius XII said when he said....


Finally, in the episcopal ordination or consecration the matter is the imposition of the hands by the consecrating bishop. But the form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and thus required for validity: "Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry, and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent." . . .

Satan tries to ape things. This is a CLEAR example.

From reading this, WITH NO PERIL WHATSOEVER to my OWN conscience, I can safely say, that "Paul VI" was an antipope. Whether Gregory XVII was, I'm still undecided, but I am certain that "Paul VI" WAS INDEED JUST from reading these CLEARLY conflicting "decrees."

I would believe that the SSPX bishops are real bishops before I would accept that RatZINGer was a bishop, which I don't.

The SSPX were ordained with the words prescribed by Pope Pius XII, and RatZINGer was made a bishop with the words CHANGED by "Paul 6."