CathInfo.com

I consider this simply an academic disagreement, since in the practical order, the consequences are the same.  I also disagree that the Rite is certainly INvalid, as some hold, since I would need the Church's authority for certainty, but I do think that it's probably invalid and not probably valid.

Do you need a declaration from the Church to know that the form: "I baptize you in the name of the God of surprises." is invalid? No? Well then you don't need a declaration to know that a form which does not signify the sacramental effects is equally invalid.

If you can't say which part of the form signifies the fullness of the priesthood and which signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost then the form is certainly invalid. Cekada has addressed every possible objection and it comes down to that simple fact.

Considering Fr. Calderon's conclusion, and that he is still part of the SSPX, I would like to ask him a very simple question:

"Would you confess a mortal sin to your fellow SSPX priest, who was ordained by a Novus Ordo bishop?"

I know I will never really ask any priest this question, but it is still very pertinent as a speculation.

https://dominicansavrille.us/validity-of-the-sacraments-reformed-by-paul-vi/

+ Changes of form

The two changes affecting the form are (in the original Latin text)⁸:

1. – Deleting a “ut”.

This gives: “Pour into their souls the spirit of holiness, may they obtain from you the office of second merit“. (i.e. priestly character); instead of: “Pour into their souls the spirit of holiness in order that they may obtain from you the office of second merit” (translation of the traditional formula). The new expression better expresses the power given, which is distinct from the spirit of holiness.

Uhm, yeah, I'll have to strenuously disagree with this one here.  As Pope Pius XII taught in Sacramentum Ordinis, the essential components for the validity of the rites entail an invocation of the Holy Spirit to produce the Sacramental effect (the power given).

"spirit of holiness" is in fact the reference to the Holy Spirit here, so it should really be "Spirit of holiness" (capitalized) and the "office of second merit" the Sacramental effect.

By removing the "ut", you're actually severing the causality between the Holy Spirit and the sacramental efffect.

TRADITIONAL:  "May the Holy Spirit come down to make this man a priest."
NEW: "May the Holy Spirit come down.  May this man become a priest."

It MAY be implied in the revised/new rite, but it's equivocal.  You could be invoking the Holy Spirit to give the ordinand the proper dispositions or the graces necessary to faithfully carry out the office.  It's not clear and unequivocal that you're invoking the Holy Spirit in order for the Holy Spirit to make the man into a priest.

Verdict:  POSITIVE DOUBT about the form ... and IMO probably invalid.