CathInfo.com

The SSPX article attempts to carefully build the case that the new rite is identical to (and not in any artificial way) the Coptic and Western Syrian Rites of episcopal consecration. It also attempts to claim that the new rite is not like the Anglican Rite and does not share in the problems that it had. It goes on to make the claim that the new rite (as published by the Vatican) is valid and because it is a rite of the Church that intention must be determined by the externals.

The sspx can make the claim that the new rite is similar to the Coptic/Syrian rite all they want, but the problem is that Pope Pius XII spent a GREAT deal of time/energy to define SPECIFICALLY the EXACT words necessary for ordination.  And the new rite does not follow Pius XII's formula.  So, since Pius XII declared that the Latin Rite MUST use this formula, then if the new rite doesn't, then it's invalid.

Fr Hesse says clearly that the new rite doesn't follow Pius XII's formula, and the sspx obviously admits this since they try to compare it to the other rites.

To bypass this problem, Fr Hesse makes the following (contradictory, in my opinion) claims:
1.  Paul VI's new rites were INTENDED to make priests and intended to be valid, therefore they are, even if he didn't follow Pius XII.  
   a.  Comment:  ??  Words matter.  If something is changed, after a previous pope said an exact formula must be used, I find this problematic.

2.  Similar to the sspx, Fr Hesse argues that the "essence" of the prayers are similar to the old rite and similar to the Western/Coptic/Eastern rites, therefore they are valid because the form is catholic.
   a.  Comment:  Again, they are side-stepping the problematic change of the ordination formula, and arguing the change doesn't matter.  If this is the case, then why did Pope Pius XII spend so much time/energy to research and layout EXACTLY the formula that must be used (for the Latin Rite only)?  It seems rather impulsive and imprudent to brush aside a specific order of a previous pope.

3.  Fr Hesse then contradicts himself when he says that Pope Pius XII's formula only applies to the latin rite and since Paul VI's changes and V2's changes are NOT the latin rite, but a NEW, schismatic rite that Pius XII's rules don't apply.
   a.  Comment:  SAY WHAT?!  THIS MAKES NO SENSE, because earlier (in pt 1 above) he argued that Paul VI's intention for the new rite to make priests was important.  You can't have it both ways, Fr Hesse.  Either Paul VI's new rites are part of the latin rite or they're not.  Paul VI INTENDED for the new rites to be part of the Latin Rite, therefore he had to follow Pius XII's rules/decision.  Since the new rites don't follow Pius XII's rules, they are invalid, by definition - or at least sinful.  (I can't say they aren't valid - I'm not an expert.  But certainly, they are illegal).

4.  Fr Hesse then says that because the new rites are NOT the latin rite, then we just have to look at the essence of the prayers (and compare to the Coptic/Syrian) rites to make sure they get the formula "in general".
  a.  Comment:  So I guess this means that a schismatic rite has a LOWER threshold to meet, sacramentaly, than the actual Latin rite?  I don't know - this makes no sense.  This is like saying that a protestant baptism which takes 1 minute to say the valid, biblical formula is just as good as the full, liturgical rite of the Church, which includes the exorcisms and additional blessings.

The only exception they make is with translations and adaptations which they clearly say can have defective intention and thus render the sacrament invalid or at least doubtfully valid.  At several points, they make the claim that conditional ordination is still a prudent precaution (I would have to go back and read the article more closely to pick out if they say in every case, many cases, or just some cases).
Here is a link to their article: http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations

What do you think of the arguments they present in this article?
Are they valid arguments? Are they sound/truthful?
Thank you again for all the comments. God bless.

The sspx doesn't list out their process/investigation in detail so there's nothing to comment on.  Anyone would need the details of what they do to make a decision.

"If these new rites were promulgated by the true Authority of the Church, it would be impossible for them not to be in conformity with the Faith (or invalid), since they would be guaranteed by the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, if these new rites essentially are not in conformity with the Catholic Faith, they could not possible have been created by the true Authority of the Church, because this Authority cannot give the Church an evil Law (Denz. 1578, nor a contemptible Rite (Denz. 856). Therefore, in the practical order, they (Novus Ordo Sacraments, regarding Orders, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction ) must be considered invalid".


https://www.holyredeemerchapel.org/blank-2

Hi Stubborn,
Just want to say I appreciate your points on the ordinations debate.  Thanks for posting the Fr Hesse video.  Maybe I'm too hard on the sspx (in this area)...they've just frustrated me so much over the last year with all their changes and slow, steady walk towards rome.  So I can't lump EVERYTHING they do into the "modernization" bucket; that's just wrong and that's me being intellectually lazy.  Sorry about that.  And then, I enjoy playing devil's advocate in order to challenge the other side (in this case, you) but I don't mean it personally, just want to find the best answer possible.

I suppose the answer is that the new rites are valid (if followed correctly, which the sspx tries to investigate properly).  I still don't trust the training/knowledge/doctrine of former novus ordo priests, but that's another issue...