Yes, the Novus Ordo apologists seem to be arguing that Paul VI screwed up (I'm sure it was an accident...not!) and misidentified the essential form and yet he still managed to give the Novus Ordo a valid sacrament despite the obvious intention to do exactly the same thing as the Anglicans and other "Reformers" did centuries ago which the Church has already ruled as invalid. Yeah, go ahead and stake your salvation on that but when you end up in hell, you'll only have yourselves to blame.
In conferring the Sacraments (as also in the Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion.
Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, London: Sheed & Ward, 1935, Volume III, page 27
Various Errors on Moral Subjects
Condemned by a degree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679
1. It is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal, or episcopal orders. (Denzinger 1151)
Innocent XI (1676-1689)
Source:
http://www.rosarychurch.net/consecration/probable_priests.html
Topic: Question about New Rite of NO (Read 17217 times)