CathInfo.com

I was quoting the English translation.  But saying the sentence in question is required for signification, means it is required for validity, since validity requires that the form sufficiently signify the effect, which it won't do if it doesn't include that which is "required for signification."

SPelli, your point above is irrelevant. Of course, the quoted sentence is also required for validity. But this fact is not because Pius XII added the dependent clause with "ad valorum requisita" before the quoted sentence. No, rather the sentence quoted by Pius XII is necessary for validity simply because that sentence is in the "Preface." And the entire "Preface" is "the form" of the Sacrament. And the entire "form" is necessary for validity of any Sacrament. 

I will illustrate. Here is the words of Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis relating to the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

Denique in Ordinatione seu Consecratione Episcopali materia est manuum impositio quae ab Episcopo consecratore fit. Forma autem constat verbis « Praefationis », quorum haec sunt essentialia ideoque ad valorem requisita : « Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica ».

The words bolded above are part of the "Preface." In fact, it is the last sentence of the Preface. The "form" of the Sacrament consists of the entire Preface. Here is the entire Preface (last sentence bolded):

Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare, nos tibi semper, et ubique gratias agere, Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, honor omnium dignitatum, quae gloriae tuae sacris famulantur ordinibus. Deus, qui Moysen famulum tuum secreti familiaris affatu, inter cetera coelestis docuмenta culturae, de habitu quoque indumenti sacerdotalis instituens, electum Aaron mystico amictu vestiri inter sacra jussisti, ut intelligentiae sensum de exemplis priorum caperet secutura posteritas, ne eruditio doctrinae tuae ulli deesset aetati. cuм et apud veteres reverentiam ipsa significationum species obtineret, et apud nos certiora essent experimenta rerum, quam aenigmata figurarum. Illius namque Sacerdotii anterioris habitus, nostrae mentis ornatus est, et Pontificalem gloriam non jam nobis honor commendat vestium, sed splendor animarum. Quia et illa, quae tunc carnalibus blandiebantur obtutibus, ea potius, quae in ipsis erant, intelligenda poscebant. Et idcirco huic famulo tuo, quem ad summi Sacerdotii ministerium elegisti, hanc, quaesumus Domine, gratiam largiaris, ut quidquid illa velamina in fulgore auri, in nitore gemarum, et in multimodi operis varietate signabant, hoc in ejus moribus actibusque clarescat. Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.

The "validity" of the Sacrament requires the entire Preface. So, obviously, the last sentence of that Preface ALSO is necessary for validity because it is part of the whole Preface.

When Pius XII says "quorum haec sunt essentialia ideoque ad valorem requisita" he is simply saying that the last sentence in the Preface ("Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica.") is very important and essential for signification/meaning. He is not saying that the other words of "the form" are not necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. He is emphasizing the importance of the last sentence to understand the meaning/significaiton of "the form."

Again, if Pius XII intended the words "Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica" to be the complete "form" of the Sacrament, he could have said the following:

Denique in Ordinatione seu Consecratione Episcopali materia est manuum impositio quae ab Episcopo consecratore fit. Forma autem constat verbis : « Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica ».

But Pius XII did not say that. Instead he said (note the bolded part):

Denique in Ordinatione seu Consecratione Episcopali materia est manuum impositio quae ab Episcopo consecratore fit. Forma autem constat verbis « Praefationis », quorum haec sunt essentialia ideoque ad valorem requisita : « Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica ».

He said, clearly, that "the form consists of the 'Preface,' of which the following is essential and therefore required for signification/meaning."

Regardless, of all I said above, the New Rite of Episcopal Ordination does not even include the sentence "Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica." Pius XII said that sentence was essential for signification/meaning of the "the form" of the Sacrament defining the Episcopate, but it is no where to be found in the New Rite of Episcopal Ordination. Yet, you (and almost the whole world) says that Paul VI can just discard what Pius XII said and make up a new rite that replaces the traditional rite. This is ridiculous. 

The Paul VI New Rite of Episcopal Ordination can NEVER replace the Traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration because the NREO does not signify the conferring of the same graces as those conferred in the TREC. The two rites have different functions. 

But the NREO can be used, in some cases, as an additional rite for the elevation/appointment of a previously "consecrated" bishop to a higher office of Archbishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch. And this is why Paul VI legitimately added this new rite to the Roman Pontifical. The way is was added to the Roman Pontifical used sleight-of-hand to make people not paying close attention think that he did something that he did not do. And here we are 55 years later and certain people still refuse to acknowledge the Truth.