Has the New Rite of ordination and/or episcopal consecration of the Novus Ordo changed within the past 12 years?

Back in 2007, before SSPX's courtship with Rome, they taught there is no positive doubt for Novus Ordo ordinations & consecrations. http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

I trust the SSPX's stance during this period (and before) because they were experts in Divine Liturgy, rituals, and rites. Nobody knew more about it than them.

Even Father Wathen's book, The Great Sacrilege, posits that the Novus Ordo missae and service was still valid, which made it that much more of an offense to the Lord God, because He's physically present during the sacrilege taking place.

The Book of Daniel prophesied the Continual Sacrifice (the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass) being taken away.

Many trad Catholics know that the current Novus Ordo service, and since 1969, is either 1) a prelude to the abomination of desolation where it eventually becomes invalid - the Divine Sacrifice ceases, or 2) the Novus Ordo has been invalid and it's the abomination of desolation since the first day it was instituted in 1969. 

I currently subscribe to camp 1, not 2, but I'm suspecting we might be in 2 or very close to it, which is why I presented my above thesis, "has the new rite [...] changed in the past 12 years?" There are several reasons why I've belonged to camp 1.  Firstly, I subscribe to the branch of privationism (sedeprivationism) where the only way Novus Ordo "bishops" and the so-called "pope" materially hold their offices is if the rite of ordinations and consecrations that made them priests and "bishops", respectively, are still valid. Without validity of these Rites, they cannot even materially hold their offices, much less their purported holy orders. In order to possess, at the very least, material offices, they must first possess holy orders. My understanding is that most privationism rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo Rites, therefore, according to them, the Novus Ordo priests are not valid priests but, somehow, if these "poser priests", the "bishops" (who are supposed to be priests), and the so-called "pope" (who is supposed to be a priest) converted to the Faith, then they would all formally hold their offices and holy orders. That doesn't make sense, if they were never valid priests in the first place.

Secondly, the timeline that is stated in the Bible about the abomination of desolation doesn't match the 50 years of the Novus Ordo. The NO far exceeds that timeline, so I logically conclude that for a great duration of the NO, it has been valid, albeit, still illicit and a sacrilege, hence, a PRELUDE to the coming abomination of desolation / Divine Sacrifice being taken away.

Now, there has been such a radical acceleration of apostasy spoken by Francis the Destroyer in his casual speech (which is still intended to teach people) and Church functions with Faithless religions, albeit, he hasn't attempted to do it from the Seat of Peter, ex cathedra.

I'm just wondering if this Antichrist spirit exhibited by Francis the Destroyer has been coincided with a change in the Novus Ordo Rite within within the past 12 years? If the answer is "yes", then I strongly consider that the NO rites are now invalid and their "Mass" is now ceased, hence, the public emergence of Antichrist is close, and Apocalyptic events will be more frequent and intense.

Quote from: Judith 15 Ten
Has the New Rite of ordination and/or episcopal consecration of the Novus Ordo changed within the past 12 years?

Back in 2007, before SSPX's courtship with Rome, they taught there is no positive doubt for Novus Ordo ordinations & consecrations. http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained

I trust the SSPX's stance during this period (and before) because they were experts in Divine Liturgy, rituals, and rites. Nobody knew more about it than them.

Even Father Wathen's book, The Great Sacrilege, posits that the Novus Ordo missae and service was still valid, which made it that much more of an offense to the Lord God, because He's physically present during the sacrilege taking place.

The Book of Daniel prophesied the Continual Sacrifice (the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass) being taken away.

Many trad Catholics know that the current Novus Ordo service, and since 1969, is either 1) a prelude to the abomination of desolation where it eventually becomes invalid - the Divine Sacrifice ceases, or 2) the Novus Ordo has been invalid and it's the abomination of desolation since the first day it was instituted in 1969.  

I currently subscribe to camp 1, not 2, but I'm suspecting we might be in 2 or very close to it, which is why I presented my above thesis, "has the new rite [...] changed in the past 12 years?" There are several reasons why I've belonged to camp 1.  Firstly, I subscribe to the branch of privationism (sedeprivationism) where the only way Novus Ordo "bishops" and the so-called "pope" materially hold their offices is if the rite of ordinations and consecrations that made them priests and "bishops", respectively, are still valid. Without validity of these Rites, they cannot even materially hold their offices, much less their purported holy orders. In order to possess, at the very least, material offices, they must first possess holy orders. My understanding is that most privationism rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo Rites, therefore, according to them, the Novus Ordo priests are not valid priests but, somehow, if these "poser priests", the "bishops" (who are supposed to be priests), and the so-called "pope" (who is supposed to be a priest) converted to the Faith, then they would all formally hold their offices and holy orders. That doesn't make sense, if they were never valid priests in the first place.

Secondly, the timeline that is stated in the Bible about the abomination of desolation doesn't match the 50 years of the Novus Ordo. The NO far exceeds that timeline, so I logically conclude that for a great duration of the NO, it has been valid, albeit still illicit and a sacrilege, hence, a PRELUDE to the coming abomination of desolation / Divine Sacrifice being taken away.

Now, there has been such a radical acceleration of apostasy spoken by Francis the Destroyer in his casual speech (which is still intended to teach people) and Church functions with Faithless religions, albeit, he hasn't attempted to do it from the Seat of Peter, ex cathedra.

I'm just wondering if this Antichrist spirit exhibited by Francis the Destroyer has been coincided with a change in the Novus Ordo Rite within within the past 12 years? If the answer is "yes", then I strongly consider that the NO rites are now invalid and their "Mass" is now ceased, hence, the public emergence of Antichrist is very close, and Apocalyptic events will be more frequent and intense.

Hi Judith-

Just a couple points of clarification here:

1) 2007 was not before the “SSPX’s courtship with Rome” (as you put it).  That “courtship” goes back to almost immediately after the Archbishop’s death (with Bishop Tissier noting in his famous Biography that the French District Superior was making overtures and entertaining discussions about regularization way back in 1992), and of course things really picked up in this regard with the “discrete but not secret” GREC meetings in the mid-1990’s.

I only mention this because, if your criterion or standard is to trust the SSPX positions prior to suspected politicization of those positions based on the Society’s pursuit of a canonical Agreement, then you will have to go back quite a bit further than 2007.

2) I presume your reference to 2007 is based on the Angelus article of the Avrille Dominicans, which concluded in the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration.

What is less commonly known about the background to that article are the following:

A) the contrary conclusion of the Rore Sanctifica;

B) The festering dispute between Avrille and Menzingen going back to 2001;

C) The relevance of the recent election of BXVI:

Avrille has been having troubles with Menzingen ever since the Campos affair.

Bishop Fellay was keen to get a deal already at that time, but was obstructed by objections from Bishop Williamson and Avrille (with the latter declaring they would oppose any such deal).  

This led to some internal strife with a number of friars who eventually in scandalous fashion abandoned the convent at Avrille and appealed to Menzingen for assistance, creating a quiet struggle and contest for control over these friars (Google “Steffeshausen Foundation” for this history).

So there were, by 2007 (ie., the time of the appearance of the Angelus article), already two distinct sources of friction between Avrille and Menzingen: the deal with Rome, and Menzingen giving aid to friars who canonically should not have even been allowed to wear the habit after 90 days away from the convent (incidentally, so strict are the Dominicans in this regard even until the present day, that Fr. Reginald, O.P., on loan from Avrille to Bishop Zendejas in the USA, wears a simple black cassock rather than the Dominican habit).

Amidst this hidden strife, a group of French laymen formed a think tank to study the issue of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration (an issue which was now pressing since the election of BXVI in 2005: The first Pope to be consecrated in the new Rite.).

The name of this group, which numbered many influential intelligentia among its members, called itself the Rore Sanctifica, and their study, which made waves in Europe at the time, concluded in the invalidity of the new Rite.

This was very problematic to the SSPX’s long reconciliation process: It could not afford to allow the Pope to think it questioned the legitimacy of his episcopacy (else how could he be Bishop of Rome?).

At this time, Fr. Pierre-Marie of Avrille had penned a confusing article in response to the Rore Sanctifica arguing for the validity of the new Rite, and it was this article which was translated for the Angelus in 2007.

Had Avrille caved in to pressure from the Society and written a partisan article to maintain good relations (something they held onto until 2014)?

Not sure.

What is sure is that the article is far from persuasive, and more or less paints an analogy between the form of the new Rite and that of the Rastern rites, as the basis of its argument (an argument several other well-known articles have refuted).

3) Meanwhile, at least as late as 1998, Bishop Tissier flatly declared the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be invalid, when he wrote:

“Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s ‘Le Drame Anglican.’  After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of Episcopal Consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.”  

He then gives his reasons, which you can read from His Excellency’s original handwritten letter here:

http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Tissier-New-Rite.jpg

I hold a slightly different spin on privationism.

While they certainly cannot formally exercise office without the requisite power of orders, they may materially hold the office, i.e. the designation to hold office.

So, for instance, if a conclave were to elect a layman, he could accept and be the pope-elect.  But he could not actually and formally wield the power of Bishop of Rome until he were ordained and then consecrated a bishop.  I believe that the lack of faith creates the same kind of impediment to formal exercise of authority that a lack of orders might.

I agree with everything here, but without valid rites in the NO for the last 50 years, the actual priesthood and episcopacy would be near extinction, and if the NO clerics and hierarchy decided to convert to the true Catholic Faith, they'd have to be ordained by the very few (compared to the mammoth size of the Conciliarists) valid bishops in the true Church (trad remnant). Is that logistically possible?

Yes, Judith:  Pope Leo XIII and Cardinal Manning were on to the understanding of heretical popes.  Sure! after what Pope Leo XIII saw between Christ and Lucifer!

Thank God Vatican I council took place! To define pope/infallibility.  The first time I ran across "Continual Sacrifice" was by the Redemptorist priest in their paper back books.
For shame I did not read it in my Bible and no one else do I hear bring it to the pulpit.  

We are in need to be advised how to prepare ourselves, the solutions and Our Lady has made Herself known and heard. Heard, maybe not, for we know how that is.

IMO we have had the Sacrifice of the Mass transitioned out.  Where do you put a time to it?  I don't think this is necessary to know and who would.  IMO many know of the traditional that the time of Lucifer is shorter than we know.  The AX is coming to Lucifer!  It will be joyful when Christ comes to put His Church on earth back on track, so to say.  But we have tribulation.  We all hope to do that.  Like Christ went to His death on the Cross, the Mass appears the same, BUT it is still with us, as Church/Christ Resurrects, the Mass as well.  Til that point, we do as Our Lady and apostles did, we will be looking as forming cenacles to the Holy Ghost til His coming.  

IMO then Our Lady will have Redemptorix as dogma, defined.  I think that is what Vat. I would have tried for, but Vat. I was not finished....war.

I understand that the last apparition that Sister Lucia had (1927?) in the chapel at the altar, was a part of the 3rd secret.  The Mass?  I think so.

Amidst this hidden strife, a group of French laymen formed a think tank to study the issue of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration (an issue which was now pressing since the election of BXVI in 2005: The first Pope to be consecrated in the new Rite.).

The name of this group, which numbered many influential intelligentia among its members, called itself the Rore Sanctifica, and their study, which made waves in Europe at the time, concluded in the invalidity of the new Rite.

This was very problematic to the SSPX’s long reconciliation process: It could not afford to allow the Pope to think it questioned the legitimacy of his episcopacy (else how could he be Bishop of Rome?).

At this time, Fr. Pierre-Marie of Avrille had penned a confusing article in response to the Rore Sanctifica arguing for the validity of the new Rite, and it was this article which was translated for the Angelus in 2007.

I think this is the main reason for the change in the position, but I thought Fr Pierre-Marie penned his article in 2005, the same year that Benedict was elected.

Saying that the Novus Ordo rites are doubtful is an understatement.  If the only change was the dropping of the “ut” we could say the rite was doubtful because it failed to meet the minimum requirements for validity set forth by Pope Pius XII in the 1940s.  But the changes were much more extensive and substantial than that.  Pope Leo found that the Anglican rites were “absolutely null and utterly void” (doubtlessly invalid).  Arguably the Novus Ordo is more egregiously deformed than the Anglican rites.  Read Fr Cekada’s response to Fr Pierre-Marie.  In fact when I read Fr Pierre-Marie’s article before reading Fr Cekada’s I was already convinced that it was invalid.  The first half of Fr Pierre-Marie’s article paints a horrifying picture of the Novus Ordo rite that nothing written in the second half was able to convince me it was valid.

Ok, I get your point, but why does your opinion matter?  You're not the Church, so it doesn't.  Even if 99% of the laity believed the same as you, it doesn't matter, because the Church isn't a democracy; the rules aren't determined by popularity or majority; She is a monarchy, which rules from top to bottom.  Until the Church says they are absolutely invalid, then all we can say is that they are extremely doubtful, and avoid them for that reason (which is reason enough).  No one outside of rome can say otherwise with any degree of authority or certainty.

If you're not a sede, Rome has spoken.  The NOM is valid.  End of discussion.  Your opinion doesn't matter.  The Church is a monarchy and the Pope has ruled that it is valid.  If you say they are doubtful you are making your own opinion greater than the Pope's decision.  But if you are a sede....

My point is that yes, I agree with you that there is MUCH doubt on the issue.  This doubt allows all catholics to avoid the issue, per canon law.  But we can't cross the line and say that they are "absolutely" invalid; only Rome can make this decision.  We can say that they are "more likely than not" invalid, but we can't say 100%.

Rome made the decision that it IS valid. 


Anyway, to OP: The only changes to the NO I know of are that they changed the translation of much of it, at least in English, but based on the wonky grammar and what I heard, apparently the new translation was CLOSER to the Latin than before. So I doubt it fits your criteria for the moment when the NO Mass will become the abomination.