CathInfo.com

Well, it's not considered part of the essential form of the Rite to enumerate all the powers of the priesthood.

I have more of an issue with the "minimally-changed" words of the essential form.  This is actually a red light to me that they only removed a single word.  Why?  How does the removal if this one word "improve" or "modernize" the form?  It doesn't.  So why did they do it?

That "ut" that was removed is very important.  Of the essence of a valid ordinate Rite is that the Sacramental effect must be indicated.

TRADITIONAL RITE:  "Renew within them the Spirit of holiness, SO THAT [i.e. with the effect that] they might hold the office"
NOVUS ORDO RITE:  "Renew within them the Spirit of holiness. [stop].  May they hold the office..."

In the Traditional, there's the invocation of the Holy Spirit to confer the office upon them.

In the NO, there's a generic invocation of the Holy Spirit.  But to do what?  Holy Spirit is active in all the Sacraments and in many other ways outside the Sacrament.  Then there's another prayer which says, "May they hold the office ..."

So in the one case you have an invocation of the Holy Spirit [in order] to confer the office.

In the second case, you have a generic invocation of the Holy Spirit, followed by a prayer asking (someone?  God? Holy Spirit?) that they might hold the office.  They are not asking the Holy Spirit TO confer the office upon them.

Why did they tamper with this one relatively harmless word, "ut", "so that"?  IMO it was deliberately done to invalidate the Sacrament, and they figured it would go unnoticed or would be trivialized as a "minimal change".  It's ONLY one two-letter word.  What harm could that do?  It completely changes the meaning of the essential form.

YES! The meaning is what counts and some people feel stupid saying a mere two-letter word changes the meaning but it DOES.

Why on earth would they remove this supposedly inconsequential word? No way they removed it just because, the only possible motive is to invalidate the sacrament.

Only Rome has the authority to approve an annulment.  Once given, it must be accepted. 

No, this is not correct. A decree of nullity is declared by a diocesan tribunal (court of the first instance) following investigation into a matrimonial case. Formerly, a case was sent to a court of second instance, usually the tribunal of another diocese within the same ecclesiastical province, often the metropolitan see itself. However, this second step of a secobd court was eliminated in the 1984 Code of Canon Law by procedural changes enacted by Bergoglio a few years ago. But, no, "Rome" does not alone have the authority to "approve" an annulment. This is a power of an ordinary (diocesan bishop or equal to diocesan bishop in jurisdiction) that is exercised through a canonically-constituted tribunal. The Roman Rota is a court of appeals for matrimonial cases for decisions rendered at the local level. It is not a court of first instance. Nor does the Holy Father serve as a judge of first instance, but only as an appellate judge (at least in canonical practice).