The satanic, anti-catholic modernists aren’t dumb.  They removed the “ut” for a reason.  50 yrs later, we see why…

Fr. McFarland thinks the removal of "ut" is a big nothing burger.

But of course he does.  That's SSPX politics.  Perhaps he needs a bit of a refresher in Sacramental theology and Latin.

That's coming from the neo-SSPX mentality where these changes were made by well-intentioned yet misguided individuals, who sincerely believed they were trying to improve things, rather than enemy infiltrators bent on destroying the Church.

It's precisely because it SEEMS as if it WOULD be a "nothing burger" that makes it highly suspicious.  What exactly would a "sincere, well-meaning" motivation be to remove something that was of such little consequence?  Hey, it's just two letters.

Well, the difference between Catholicism and apostasy was ONE letter, an iota.  Homoousios vs. Homoiousios.

Father should take a refresher on Latin I, where the meaning of "ut" is explained.  "ut" joins a cause to its intended effect.

1) Renew in them the Spirit of holiness.  May they receive the dignity of the priesthood.
2) Renew in them the Spirit of holiness so that they might receive the dignity of the priesthood.

In the first case it's a generic request to bring the Holy Spirit on them.  Holy Spirit can have many effects.  Then there's a second prayer, addressed to God, that they might receive the priesthood.

In the second case, it's invocation of the Holy Spirit TO bring the priesthood onto them.

1) Ask God to send down the Holy Spirit.  Ask God to do something.  What something?  To make them holier?  Who knows?  There's no indication that the Holy Spirit will CAUSE the ordination.  These are two separate and logically disconnected requests.
2) Ask God to send down the Holy Spirit SO THAT ["ut"] the Holy Spirit might do something.  This is a single request for God to send down the Holy Spirit in order to do something specific.

These are two completely different things.  They're not even close to having the same meaning.  Only someone who's intellectually dishonest can claim that these have the same meaning.  It's like the tortured logic of those who claim that "for all" and "for many" mean the same thing.  It's done only by the apologists of Anti-Church.

Michael Davies:

So, in this, Michael Davies agrees with the perspective of the sedevacantists.  I agree with this as well.  If I had no doubts whatsoever regarding the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants, I would hold that these new rites cannot be invalid.  While I still would not claim that the form with and without "ut" mean the same thing, I would have to hold that there's enough there (or close enough) to ensure its validity.

I certainly agree with you about the ordination rite being doubtful due to the change, but I think the much stronger argument has to do with episcopal consecration, in which the sacramental form was entirely re-written, and does not come anywhere close to meeting the criteria of Pius XII for validity. Since nearly all trad priests in the Novus Ordo church were ordained by a bishop consecrated in the new rite, or have that new episcopal rite somewhere in their lineage, that makes nearly all of them invalid anyway, even if they themselves were ordained using the traditional words.

In general, I think the episcopal form is much more clearly invalid than the priestly form.

I would use the language "doubtfully valid" rather than "invalid" until such time that a restored Magisterium rules on the questionable nature of the 1968 episcopal Ordinale.

I agree with this sentiment. Especially because as laymen (and please correct me if I'm wrong) with no teaching authority in the Church, I don't know if we're qualified to say whether a rite of the Church is valid or not. Doubts, yes. Not only in the language of the Rite, but how they're presented; not as celebrants of the Holy Sacrifice, but as presiders of an assembly. But to claim it as invalid, I don't know.