But if I'm a priest and I go into the sacristy and put on my vestments, and then go out there at the time schedule for Mass in the bulletin, and peform the Rite of the Church ... which I intend to DO "internally" ... I could think in my head all I want that "I don't intend to consecrate.  I don't intend to transubstantiate." and it matters nothing.  You still intended to DO what the Church does, i.e. to PERFORM the Rite that the Church prescibes, wherein the CHURCH intends to consecrate.  Valid Mass regardless of any such schizophrenic mindgames.  It's very similar to the loaded gun above.  If you pull the trigger on the loaded gun, you absolutely intended to DO what it takes to KILL the man, even if in your head you keep reiterating the mantra "I do not wish to kill him.  I do not wish to kill him."  No, you intended to DO that which WOULD almost inevitably kill him, so you intended to kill him.  Of course, even if, say, the gun jams, you're still formally guilty of attempted murder ... but that's a separate issue.

OK. So in a Novus Ordo ordination, the intent is probably there, it's the invalid form, matter and minister which makes the ceremony doubtful? 

OK. So in a Novus Ordo ordination, the intent is probably there, it's the invalid form, matter and minister which makes the ceremony doubtful?

Ah, you're definitely opening up cans of worms.  So the question about intent in the NO (and there is a question of intent there also) has to do with the fact that normally when you intend to DO what the Church DOES, that which the Church does, aka the Rite, sufficiently expresses (at least outwardly) the intention of the Church.

When Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Ordination invalid, he stated that the intention of the Rite was defective, and that the intention of the minister (their bishops) could not override the defective intention of their Rite, and that this was not changed by a correction they made to the essential form part, where they fixed the essential form but the entire Missal and the entire context for it and rationale behind it was so defective that it remained invalid even with this correction of the essential form.

Sounds a lot like the NOM, where initially they vitiated the essential form ("for you and for all") ... strangely, in every vernacular translation ... as if it were a coordinated effort (which of course it was).  Then they "fixed" the essential form, but the rest of it and the context were still dubious, especially in their destruction of the Catholic Offertory, the chief part of the Mass that indicates what the intent of the upcoming Canon is.  By itself, you could simply view the Canon as a re-enactment of the Last Supper, an "Institution Narrative" as the NO like to call it, vs. a sacrifice.  With the original Catholic Offertory, that was absolutely clear.  Not so much in the NO.

Similarly for the NO Ordination, there's hardly ANYthing in the NO Rite that has any mention of the Catholic notion of priesthood (whereas the Traditional Rite was filled with it).

In any case, I hold that the NO Rites, including Ordination and the Mass, are so vitiated in the intention expressed by the Rite that the minister's intention to do what the Church does cannot override it.

Now, the SSPX line has been that the intention of the Rite is ambiguous and there's no Catholic intention unambiguously expressed anywhere in it, and so the validity depends upon the intention of the minister being correct and his correct understanding of what the Rite SHOULD intend (even though it doesn't do so by itself).  I disagree and find that this contradicts Pope Leo XIII on the Anglican Orders, because the Pope taught that an internal intention of the minister to do what the Church INTENDS to do in Ordinations does not somehow supply for or override the defective intention of the Rite.  He didn't say that, well, we should investigate each bishop to see if he believes correctly about the nature of Ordination to determine on a case-by-case basis whether it's valid or not.

But, yes, the NO changed essential form of Ordination to Priesthood and Episcopal Consecration to the point that the essential forms are also dubious.

Yes, the form/prayer is doubtful, because it does not follow Pius XII's strict rules.  Also, it's illicit because it violates Pius XII's strict rules.


Many pro-V2/indult people argue that the form/prayer is valid because...it's similar to other rites (i.e. orthodox).  Ok, but that's still a guess.  It's not certain.  Pius XII gave us the "certain" form for the Latin church.  Without any other pope officially changing the form (not even sure if that's possible) then the form is the form.  And any deviation from the form is, by definition, doubtful.

Yeah, so the argument about episcopal consecration from the no-doubter crowd is that it resembles an ancient Maronite Rite.  Problem, as Fr. Cekada found, is that the Rite in question was actually the installation of a Patriarch, which already assumed that the one being elevated was a valid bishop ... and was not their actual consecration Rite, and so it's expressing a conferral of jurisdiction or authority rather than Holy Orders.  We see in the NO Rite that it's vaguely talking about the "authority" of the Apostles.  But not all bishops who are consecrated actually receive the authority or jurisdiction, and most are in fact auxiliary bishops before they then get appointed to specific Sees and endowed with authority and jurisdiction.  So that exposes this fraud right there.

But, as you said, it's a substantial change and CERTAINLY rises to at least the level of establishing positive doubt.  There's something concrete you can point to that changed, ergo "positive" not negative.  Until the Church intervenes like Leo XIII did for Anglican Orders, we can't be certain of invalidity, but for all practical intents and purposes, positive doubt requires us to avoid the priest as if the invalidity were certain, with the single exception that in danger of death if a doubtful priests is the only one available to you, you may attempt to receive the Sacraments from him.

we can't be certain of invalidity, but for all practical intents and purposes, positive doubt requires us to avoid the priest as if the invalidity were certain

THIS IS THE KEY.  If only this were preached from the pulpits from every Trad priest.  This is the true answer, based on canon law.  It's not an opinion; it's not a guess; it's canon law.

Ah, you're definitely opening up cans of worms.  So the question about intent in the NO (and there is a question of intent there also) has to do with the fact that normally when you intend to DO what the Church DOES, that which the Church does, aka the Rite, sufficiently expresses (at least outwardly) the intention of the Church.

But, yes, the NO changed essential form of Ordination to Priesthood and Episcopal Consecration to the point that the essential forms are also dubious.

Thank you for your summary which I will need to reread and digest a number of times. 

I have come to the same conclusion because logic dictates that if something perfect needed to be changed, the intention can only be to make it imperfect. That conclusion was enough to flee the Novos Ordo Sacraments and priests ordained by conciliar bishops. 

I am assuming though that you have no positive doubt concerning your own baptism.

A positive doubt is one that is based on some verifiable, specific fact or problem.  Example:  You watch a baptism being performed and priest says all the correct words/form, but you notice that he pours the water on the baby's neck, instead of the forehead.  You ask the priest later about it (and the godparents agree with what you saw) and he says "it's fine, no problem".  But you later research and find that this MIGHT be invalid.  The point is, your doubt is based on two facts....
1) you witnessed the pouring of the water done in a non-normal way, 
2) the priest and godparents agreed it was non-normal, but said it wasn't a problem.  

This is a positive doubt because it's based on evidence, with eyewitnesses.  In other words, this doubt is not just your imagination; something "odd" did happen.


A negative doubt is just an anxiety, a worry, or a wondering.  It is not based on anything, except your own imagination or fear.  You cannot point to anything which is non-normal or odd.

You may know this, but I wanted to clarify.