In all of this mess of the past 50+ years, one thing that troubles me and won't go away, is whether the orders of priest and bishop in the Novus Ordo are valid, whether in the Latin editio typica, or in the vernacular.  Needless to say, this matters.  No bishops, no priests, no sacraments, no Mass.  And I still don't get why one word --- "ut" --- got omitted from the rite of priestly ordination.  It's almost as though someone was trying to make the sacrament doubtfully valid.

I am probably being lazy at this point, by not doing the research myself, but what does Bishop Williamson have to say about this matter?

The Catholic Church likes certainty. Especially when it comes to that normal conduit of grace, Holy Orders.

If a priest -- or layman -- has a choice between "certain" and "doubtful", one is OBLIGATED to choose the "certain". It would be sinful to go with a doubtful matter, minister, etc. when a certain one was available.

This principle is one of the pillars and foundations of the whole Traditional Movement.

In 2008, the SSPX took the position that Novus ordo ordination rites were valid.

They spent two issues in the Angelus magazine to make their point.  Not sure if Bishop Williamson objected at this time?

Bp. Fellay needed to remove this obstacle from his campaign to be in union with newChurch.  

This was a marked change and could be said to be the beginning of the Resistance movement.

It's my understanding that it was 2005.  The same year Ratzinger, consecrated in the New Rite, was elected.  

I don't know exactly what +Williamson has to say, but I do know that in the past, both he and +Lefebvre said the NO ordination of at least one priest, Fr. Hesse, was valid.

In one of his talks posted on YouTube, Fr. Hesse is quoted as saying: "...I have been ordained, unfortunately in the New Rite of Ordination, but thank God in Latin, everything strictly by the book and +ABL said that would be valid, +Fellay said it's valid and Fr. Franz Schmidberger who is my present superior in Austria says it's valid and +Williamson said there's no need for conditional ordination...."

In previous discussion on the matter, I called the SSPX and posted what the man told me here.


Read Chapter 15 in Who Shall Ascend? (also attached below) where Fr. Wathen touches on the subject, here is a snip....

"...It is not our purpose in these pages to decide whether the new ordination rite is invalid, though, as we shall see, the argument is substantial enough that we are bound to allow for this possibility. Furthermore, we must see the issue in the context of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church, such as was set in motion at the Council. In view of the fact that, since the Council, the priest's role has been in the process of being modified, as we said, to that of a Protestant presbyter, there is every reason to deduce that the new ordination rite sabotages the Sacrament of Holy Orders according to
the explicit program and purposes of those now in power. (The reader is reminded that the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful.)..."

Thanks so much.  This is precisely what I was looking for.  I did take a look at your comment in the other thread (which I did not know existed) and can see that much has to do with intention --- in a nutshell, the new rites can be understood as either conferring valid orders, or not conferring valid orders --- and this is to be contrasted with the pre-Vatican II understanding that the traditional rites have proper intention "hard-coded into them".

Thanks so much.  This is precisely what I was looking for.  I did take a look at your comment in the other thread (which I did not know existed) and can see that much has to do with intention --- in a nutshell, the new rites can be understood as either conferring valid orders, or not conferring valid orders --- and this is to be contrasted with the pre-Vatican II understanding that the traditional rites have proper intention "hard-coded into them".

This is interesting given the fact that sooooo many marriages are declared null these days due to lack of proper intention.
So both sacraments were seriously weakened by the same kind of loophole.

Here's the SSPX study showing the New Rite of Consecration is valid. Iirc, His Excellency Bishop Williamson endorsed this SSPX study. It was done by the Avrille Dominicans, and both Bp. Williamson and those Dominicans were with the Society at the time. This was during the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI.

"
Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid
Introduction
This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid."
https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

I believe the New rites in general (true for Baptism, Holy Orders, the new Mass etc) are Valid but Inferior, i.e. they confer the essential sacramental effect, but less Grace, and much more weakly. Thus, to take Baptism, for instance, so long as the words "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" are said when the water is poured on the head, the Sacrament will be valid, but when the exorcisms etc are abolished, the Power of the Sacrament will be reduced, and the Grace conferred will be less. Likewise, in the Priestly Rite, the essential form remains largely unchanged (except, as was noted, for the word "ut"), but, as Michael Davies docuмents in Order of Melchizedek, many of the Prayers surrounding the essential form have been removed from the traditional rite in the new rite, especially those relating to the essential Powers of the Priesthood, to absolve sins in persona Christi, and to offer Sacrifice for the living and the dead. Hence, I believe they confer the Priesthood validly, but less Priestly Graces. 

Here’s an SSPX bishop declaring the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration doubtful.

Of course, this was pre-ralliement (1998).

Once the ralliement was underway, and ramped up under BXVI, the SSPX began reforming its positions (episcopal consecrations, abortive ναccιnєs, etc.):

http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/


“Bp. Tissier on Bishops Ordained in the New Rite

As I pointed out at the beginning of Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, Abp. Lefebvre personally told me in the mid-70s that he regarded the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration as invalid because of a change in its essential sacramental form (=the one necessary phrase in a rite that makes it “work”).

By 1982, however, once Lefebvre undertaken another of his periodic bouts of negotiation with the Vatican, he changed his position, apparently under the impression that Paul VI form was used in the Eastern Rites, and therefore unquestionably valid.  (The basis for his impression, it seems, was a “study” by Fr. Franz Schmidberger, who favored reconciling with John Paul II. According to a seminarian who later asked to read the study, it turned out to be nothing more than a single page in a folder!)

Surprisingly, it seems that no one in the traditionalist movement had attempted to analyze the new rite in any great detail until Rama Coomaraswamy published his own study in the early 1990s. This focused on the phrase spiritus principalis in the essential form. What did it mean? Was it sufficient to signify the order of bishop, and thus effect the sacrament? Dr. Coomaraswamy concluded that it was not.

Even though Abp. Lefebvre had changed his position to favor validity and even though a bishop ordained in the new rite, Mgr. Salvador Lazo Lazo, had worked with the Society and confirmed under its auspices, some in the organization were now willing to consider the possibility that the new rite was doubtful or invalid — i.e. that it did not therefore make real bishops.

Someone passed Dr. Coomaraswamy’s study along to Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who was then residing at SSPX headquarters in Menzingen Switzerland. In a August 12, 1998 letter, the bishop replied:

Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “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.

The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.

As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.

Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,

+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

PS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!

Bp. Tissier’s letter was finally published in December, 2000, several months after Mgr Lazo’s death.

Here, once again, the conclusion is clear: Bp. Tissier believed that the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration was doubtful – which means that in the practical order, one must treat it as invalid.”

Just admit it, you're a slacker

But the removal of one word, "ut", is not the show stopper nor what makes the NO ordinations questionable, rather, this is more a matter of what the NO priest has become, both in practice and in the mind of the Conciliar Church. Which is why it is more a question of not merely the consecrator's intention, but the intention of the New Rite itself.

As Fr. said in Ch. 15 you should download and read: "...The Conciliar priest more and more is the "presbyter," whom
traditional Protestant commentators see in the pages of the New Testament, and whom the fashioners of the new Conciliar rites have envisioned.

In the Liturgy, he is only the "president," or the presider at the Eucharistic Meal. He is one with little or no authority or special
power, and the coordinator of parochial activities. In the confessional, he is a counsellor, and a sympathetic ear-and the eraser of vestigial Catholic consciences..." He goes on into a little more detail, but I think you get the drift.

After 40 years of busting my b***s first in university, then in the secular world of work (much of this in a hostile employment situation tinged with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and middle-managed by females, surely a devil's brew if there ever were one, trapped with no way out other than retirement), I think I've earned a little slack, and add to that, I have taken up a "second career" of being a full-time stay-at-home dad and homeschooler in all subjects, as well as providing 24-hour-on-call care for my disabled parents.  I had been up and down all night helping my father, who can no longer walk or talk, with various needs of nature.  So I get sleep when I can.

But no offense taken, I've been called worse , you're good.  But I still think the removal of "ut" was bogus, probably not invalidating, but at the very least, yet one more example of how the post-conciliar maniacs just had to put their little "Kilroy was here" on everything they possibly could.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" --- it wasn't "broke" before, but boy-oh-boy, it sure is "broke" now!