CathInfo.com

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.