If a priest is doing a baptism, and before the ceremony he says that baptism does not wash away Original Sin because there's no such thing, and baptism is "just an initiation into the community", then even if the matter and form are correct, the "baptism" is invalid.

The point is that PPVI changed the matter and form of the sacrament in order to change the sacrament: "We thought fit to modify the sacramental formula in such a way that, in view of the words of Saint James, the effects of the sacrament might be better expressed."

In the new sacrament the priest asks no pardon of God for sins, you should ask: Why? It is because the focus is strictly on the body.

You should note that this change does not at all take into account the words of St. James who says: "and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."

If it is true that he changed the established matter and form to better express the words of St. James, then you tell me - why did they purposely remove asking pardon from sins?

You may not know that even after a long life of sin, Catholics who receive the sacrament of Extreme Unction with the appropriate dispositions go straight to heaven when they die - they enter eternity without having to go to purgatory! This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately.

This cannot be said for those who receive the NO sacrament of Anointing of the sick, that is not even it's purpose. The NO sacrament does not do this because their foundation is in their preaching, that everyone already goes to heaven.....except of course those evil traditional Catholics.

Ahh Boru, Boru, Boru, what are we going to do with you?
 
Just because PPVI did not come right out and say he was doing away with one sacrament and replacing it with another of his own invention, you do not believe that is what he actually did, he actually did that - and he gave it a new name as well, he called it The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

Now if you do not see this as two different sacraments, then I do not know what else to say.

The NO Breviary says:
The priest anoints the sick person with blessed oil.
"Free him/her from sin and all temptation" and in another place: "May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up."

In the Catholic Breviary it says:
Then, dipping his thumb in the holy oil, he anoints the sick person in the form of a cross in the parts here inscribed, adapting the words to their proper place; in this manner:
To the Eyes: Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed by sight.
To the Ears:Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned by hearing.
To the Nose:Through this holy Anointing and His most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned through the perfume.
To the Mouth: Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned in taste and speech.
To the Hands:Through this holy anointing and his most pious mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned by touch.
At the Feet:Through this holy anointing and his most merciful mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned in your walk.

Oh it's highly abbreviated alright, to the point that it means something different than what the Sacrament it replaced says. But, if only abbreviated it still means the same thing, which it doesn't, but if it means the same thing, then why change it at all? It HAS to mean something different.

Speaking of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, (I changed those references for the Sacrament we are discussing), Fr. Wathen puts it this way...
"The new forms (Latin and English) must be seen to say something different from the old - because it does. Furthermore, in view of what the other changes in the liturgical rites have connoted, we are compelled to be suspicious. We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive.

The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words anoint someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of the sacrament? Why did they touch the form at all?)"

I would also answer  - like I reminded Pax - Moderism is so insidious that a person - even Popes - do not realise that they are victims; they do not realise that they are leaning dangerously into error.

Boru's quote should have read as follows:

Moderism is so insidious that a person - even Popes even Boru - do not realise that they are victims; they do not realise that they are leaning dangerously into error.