Many Catholic commentators – no small number being so-called “conservatives” – have expressed outrage over reports that Jorge Bergoglio, CEO of Conciliar Church, Inc., is moving to change the Lord’s Prayer from “lead us not into temptation” to “do not let us fall into temptation” in the Third Edition of the Roman Missal [sic] in Italian (non abbandonarci alla tentazione, more literally, “do not abandon us to temptation”).
Fair enough, there are many reasons to find the Chief Error Officer’s actions in the matter objectionable; not the least of which is the fact that it shows utter contempt for Catholic tradition, Sacred Scripture, and what’s more, the very words of Our Lord. (Though, let’s not feign shock as this has been his modus operandi since day one.)
That said, what has not been given nearly enough attention in these same circles are reports that Bergoglio also plans to retain the erroneous translation per tutti (meaning, “for all”) of the Latin pro multis in the updated Italian Missal in the words of consecration.
In 2006, the Holy See under Benedict XVI instructed that “for many” is to be used in the vernacular translations of pro multis.
In November of 2017, Jorge (or “Francis” as he is widely known), stated in a homily:
The first reading expresses a powerful hope in the resurrection of the just: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2) … The “many” who will rise for eternal life are to be understood as the “many” for whom the blood of Christ was shed. They are the multitude that, thanks to the goodness and mercy of God, can experience the life that does not pass away, the complete victory over death brought by the resurrection.
These comments were taken by some as an indication that Francis was of one mind with Benedict on the matter, but if what is being reported is true (and there is good reason to believe that this is the case), one might well wonder what’s going on.
Is it simply a matter of bowing to the wishes of the Italian Bishops Conference, or is he answering to a higher authority? [HINT: It isn’t Almighty God.]
The Italian edition isn’t going to be published and made available for several months, finally putting to rest speculation on the pro multis translation that will be used. What deserves our utmost scrutiny today, nonetheless, is the fact that “for all” was ever approved by Rome, for use in any place, at any time, in any language.
The use of “for all” instead of “for many” and the effect this may have on the validity of the rite itself has long been a subject of intense debate.
It seems to me that Fr. Greogory Hesse summed it up best, when in light of reasonable doubts concerning whether or not the use of “for many” renders the consecration of the Precious Blood invalid, thereby meaning that the rite in which this took place was not truly the Mass, he said:
I have come to the conclusion that the Mass in the vernacular [when “for all” is used] is invalid, however, I cannot give you scientifically irrefutable proof for what I say. Neither could you altogether give me scientifically irrefutable proof that the new Mass in the vernacular is valid. Therefore, we face certainty on doubt.We have the proof that the new Mass is doubtful and that’s why we are not allowed to go to the new Mass. Blessed Innocent XI condemned the following sentence: “For pastoral reasons you may approach sacraments according to the probability as to its validity.”
In other words, it does not matter which side of the argument one favors in this debate; the point is that reasonable doubt among people of good will obviously exists.
Some Novus Ordo attending readers may feel compelled to say, Oh, but this doesn’t pertain to me. My vernacular edition reads ‘for many.’ Others, who wouldn’t be caught dead at a Novus Ordo, might also believe that this matter is of little personal import, but both would be very much mistaken.
The real issue (one that all “conservatives” and “traditionalists” of good will should be able to agree upon) concerns the undeniable fact that a doubtful Mass with doubtful Sacraments vis-à-vis the Novus Ordo was ever instituted in the first place.
Unless one is sinfully complacent – that is, exhibiting as an act of the will the lukewarmness that Our Lord explicitly condemned – a faithful Catholic simply must prayerfully ponder the following questions and implications; both for one’s own good and for the good of others.
So, from where did this doubtful rite come?
Well, Saint Paul VI, of course!
This naturally leads to more questions:
Would a real “Saint” inflict such a rite upon the entire Church? For that matter, would any churchman be able do so and still maintain his membership in the Church?
The Council of Trent has this to say:
If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn [Page 56] administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones;let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon XIII) [Emphasis added]
Even if one wishes to insist that the so-called Mass of Paul VI is in some sense defensible, there can be no denying that relative to the abovementioned received and approved rites of the Catholic Church it is an “other” and a “new” rite. In fact, the very phrase “Novus Ordo Missae” (New Order of Mass) was given to the rite by Paul VI himself.
Would not promulgating such a rite have rendered Giovanni Battista Montini anathema according to the Council of Trent?
After all, the Fathers of Trent explicitly placed this condemnation upon every pastor, without exception, who would even just say that the Mass could be changed or made new. Paul VI did something far more egregious than this!
Now, I do realize that simply by posing these reasonable questions and offering the common sense observations that naturally follow will be enough to incite many readers to promptly hit DELETE rather than engage their intellect in search of the truth, which is precisely the purpose of this exercise.
In any case, for those who are still with us, I’d like to take the focus off of the pope and place it on the Church.
Can we really say that the Novus Ordo Missae itself is a “received and approved rite of the Catholic Church”?
In other words, did Holy Mother Church herself promulgate a rite of doubtful validity, and worse still, one that contains grave theological error in the official text of the Missal itself, and not simply via translation errors?
The answer to this question is obvious. But if the Novus Ordo – with its doubtfulness and its errors – did not come to us from Mother Church; then from what and from whom did it come? Again, the answers would seem obvious.
The only real question for most individual readers to answer is for themselves:
Am I willing to apply my intellect to this terrible reality, or am I too afaid of what I might discover?
And let’s not forget this whopper of heresy give to us by the Novus Ordo.
Let us pray
For the Jewish people,
The first to hear the word of God,
That they may continue to grow in the love of his name
And in faithfulness to his covenant.
“Am I willing to apply my intellect to this terrible reality, or am I too afaid of what I might discover?”
Eh, Mr. Matt?
Quite ironic that “Fr” Hesse did not have any doubts about his own ordination in the new rite. The new rite leaves out one word. But he was sure that the new rite was valid because he “felt” his priesthood. His words, not mine. Remember, the Arian heresy was over one letter in one word. Iota. It changes the essense of the creed. The new ordination rite removes one word, UT. That can be said to change the essence of the form of the rite. The other principal to observe is that doubtful rites produce doubtful sacraments. Catholics should avoid these doubtful sacraments like one would avoid the plague. BTW, the new episcopal ordination rite contains even more doubts than the new priestly ordination rite. But we can leave that for another day. A simple layman like ourselves cannot proclaim anything in the Church valid or invalid. We have no authority. But we can act upon our doubts. If fact we are required by our conscience to act upon our doubts when it comes to sacraments.
It’s a hallmark of liberalism to never settle any issue. There is always another “problem” ahead.
The concoction of the Bogus Disordo was a tremendous victory for the devil, as was the devil’s council that spawned it.
John Lane wrote the following in 1998:
“Sacraments signify what they effect, and effect what they signify. The chief thing which must be signified, according to Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae, is the “res tantum” – the “reality”, the “grace proper” of the sacrament. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist this “reality” or “grace proper” is the unity of the mystical body. (The Real Presence is “reality and sign” or “res et sacramentum”, not the “res tantum”).
This signification is found in the words “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” – the “you and many” refer to the members of the Mystical Body, and the “remission of sins” is the cause of their unity. The Novus Ordo says “for all” and consequently fails to signify the Mystical Body or its unity. Hence the Novus Ordo fails to signify what it is meant to effect, and is by definition invalid. That is, it is no sacrament at all.”
Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Therefore, he is in the “Catholic” driver’s seat. Until he is ejected from that seat, he will continue to do or say whatever he wants. Oh, I forgot…Cardinal Burke will come to the rescue. Right?
So, one doesn’t have to be a Catholic to be the Vicar of Christ. Is the office potentially open to anyone?
“In other words, did Holy Mother Church herself promulgate a rite of doubtful validity,”
According to Fr. Gregory Hesse, no, Pope Paul VI only recommended the “New Novel Rite,” he never actually promulgated it!
Yet recommending it would constitute “changed” with a “new one” so the anathema of Trent would still apply!
Oh, come now! That is a wholesale misrepresentation of Fr Hesse’s argument for the validity of his own orders. You may not LIKE or AGREE with the explanation he provides in explicit detail in numerous of his publicly available and quite easily obtained videos, but that does not give you the right to mischaracterize his position as if he concludes the validity of his orders based on an irrational emotion. That is borderline malicious deception.
Great article Louis
You nailed it Papal Subject. A New Zealand priest Late Fr Pierre Denzel Meuli
wrote a thesis entitled “Res Sacramenti” on point . He proved the Paul Sixth Bugnini version of the words of consecration did not confect the sacrament. The words for all implied universal salvation and the deletion of the “mystery of faith ” further affirmed no intention to follow Our Lords words.
Fr Meuli was inspired by late Patrick Henry Omlor in his “Robber Church” tome a brilliant study of the demolition of the Old Mass replaced by the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place.
As it has been on the Second Jewish temple site in Jerusalem with that Dome of the Rock occupied by that false religion..so it appears in New Rome and nearly every holy place where Modernism holds forth….until Christ the King comes again.
Woe to the nation’s of the earth.
The manner in which “Fr” Hesse talked about the man whom he considered to be Christ’s Vicar on earth is yet another reason to be leery of anything the man had to say. Of course the man was going to say NO ordinations are valid because he received one. He was not exactly an impartial judge on the matter.
Here is his talk on the subject. Judge for yourself.
Louie has indeed expressed many of the same sentiments about JPII and the rest of the gang over the years. It makes me wonder why you seem to so eagerly consume his opinions if maybe, he too is one you ought to be “leery” of. Your assessment of Fr. Hesse’s disposition, again, has no bearing on his own arguments, so thank you for posting the link below
“In other words, it does not matter which side of the argument one favors in this debate; the point is that reasonable doubt among people of good will obviously exists.”
It is not a matter of “reasonable” doubt, but positive doubt. When dealing with sacramental doubts we speak of positive and negative doubts. Don’t have the time to look for a resource, but it’s out there.
I have heard the arguments both pro and con re: NO sacraments and I am left with the fact that neither pro or con side has any authority in this matter no matter their competency. So I am left with doubt. So I avoid and urge all Catholics to avoid NO sacraments out of prudence. That is why I find “Fr” Hesse dangerous to souls, since he pronounces one NO sacrament invalid while pronouncing the other valid. Prudence dictates to avoid all things NO.
In the eyes of the Catholic world—and the world in general– the man who lives in the Vatican, is wearing white, and is referred to as Pope, doesn’t have to be truly Catholic because they are fooled by these impostors. Bergoglio is the current imposter who followed other imposters. How will this end?
Great catch pigg0214.Just further proof,as far as I can see, that the conciliar church is just another arm of the synagogue.
I would understand it like this:
If someone is dually ordained, he publicly intends to do what the Church does unless he personally states publicly before the sacrament that he doesn’t intend to do what the Church does. Even if the rite does not state in it what the Church does, he does what the Church does if he is dually ordained and has not stated publicly beforehand that he doesn’t intend to do what the Church does. A rite does not have to state in it, what the Church does, for the sacrament to do what the Church does.
Question is, if one says publically he is an Arian or an Athiest before the sacrament, is he stating he does not intend to do what the Church does?
Something to consider. What are the conditions of a defrocked priest giving last rites or absolution to a sinner on a sinking ship? They get supplied jurisdiction, but not if they are an Athiest?
I should have said (publicly professed) Athiest in the last sentence.
We cannot make intent into form, and form does not require a statement of intent. The form of the N.O. is illicit and schismatic, but is it actually invalid?
He could easily have had a conditional consecration performed if he hadn’t sound reason behind his judgment. I don’t follow the logic of “nobody, even competent relevant parties, has any authority in this matter,” it sounds like just another excuse to detach from serious intellectual engagement, but okay, that’s your prerogative. Good day.
NO is a rotten tree. Only someone who does not have the FAITH would not see that (or choose not to see it). Doesn’t take a theologian to understand this simple truth.
Pepe, if you do not follow the logic of no one has any authority in this matter, then tell me who has authority in this matter and we can go ask him.
One principle to apply is that defects of form are not fixed by intention. If the form is defective, the Sacrament is not valid. Also, intent must be explicit, meaning the minister must externally demonstrate his intention not to confect the Sacrament.
I believe we know that any passage in Sacred Scripture, any dogmatic teaching of the Church, any teaching of the ordinary Magesterium, or any encyclical, exhortation or other papal teaching in the past that does not comport to the New Order religion has no validity to the majority calling themselves Catholic. Vatican II is their only council. JPII’s catechism of Modernism/Ecumenism in their New and Improved Bible and his Canon Law is the supreme law of the New Order.
The so-called “Second Vatican Council” IS the false god of conciliarists. They worship that which was fashioned by human hands.
The Novus Ordo Missae is itself invalid:
Shall we ignore what Sacred Scripture actually teaches?
13 *Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who enter by it.
14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way, which leadeth to life: and few there are who find it!
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes off thorns, or figs off thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the bad tree bringeth forth bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot yield bad fruit, neither can a bad tree yield good fruit.
19 *Every tree that yieldeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.
It is a historical fact that Pope Francis desired the same change in the Our Father as did Marcel Lefebvre and so one could say they are two peas in an Our Father Pod.
No one knows how this will turn out. Eventually God will draw good from this evil. Considering the scope of the evil, the good He will somehow draw out of it will be stupendous. In the meantime, St Paul orders us in 2 Thessalonians to “hold fast to tradition”, which is a Divine command, not an option. Interestingly, that command is in the very chapter where he talks about the man of sin and the great delusion. Whether or not this is that time, I don;t know, but I do know how to hold fast.
You should read Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, Ratio. It clearly teaches on the importance of the Rite surrounding the Form and Matter of the sacrament of Orders.
A Catholic rite, says the Pope, is one which expresses the essential nature of the Sacrament being conferred.
He declares that the change in the Anglican rite of Orders manifests a contrary intention to do what the Church does, and therefore the Anglican rite is null and void. A bad rite cannot rectify a good intention. The exception is Baptism, because the Form and Matter were given by Our Lord “in specie” – specifically – so anyone who pours water and says the right words manifests the right intention, even if he’s an atheist or a Jew.
Holy Orders is given by Our Lord “in genere” – in general. He left it to the Church to formulate the exact form and matter with the correct intention. It is easier to mess up and invalidate.
Apostolicae Curae is not a long or difficult read, and it’s easily available online.
Agreed Tom. I have seen way too many assert subjective ways that intention can invalidate a sacrament.
Patrick Henry Omlor was a giant and a pioneer.
The form is illicit and schismatic and because it’s schismatic it’s form does not have the same standard as a licit sacramental form would have when determining validity, that is what I understand Fr. Hesse to be basically saying.
“A Catholic rite, says the Pope, is one which expresses the essential nature of the Sacrament being conferred.”
“He declares that the change in the Anglican rite of Orders manifests a contrary intention to do what the Church does,”
Since the Church has more than one Rite of ordination, change itself is not what manifests a contrary intention. Since not all sacramental rites explicitly state their intention, explicit mention of intention is not necessary for validity. So what change in the Anglican Rite manifests a contrary intention? There has to be one! What change in the New rite of ordination manifests a contrary intention? Why is it not manifest to Catholics (except to Sedevacatists) that those who have been ordained by it, are not priests? An Anglican will agree what Catholics do is superstition. Who has the authority to define what manifests contrary intention?
The Anglicans have stated publicly that what the Church does at Mass is superstition, therefore they do not do what the Church does at Mass and therefore they are not doing what the Church does when ordaining someone to offer Mass. They are ordaining someone who does not do what they claim is superstitious, but what we claim is the very reason we ordain them in the first place.
The new rites have altered the form of many of its Sacraments. Who knows what the new conciliar church intends to do with their new sacraments. That is why you should avoid them. Even if you could convince me 100% that all their sacraments are valid, why on earth would I associate with heretics when worshipping the True God? I really do not know why anyone is still making a case for NO validity when it really doesn’t matter. Avoid them all. They are not Catholic. If they have any valid sacraments, its because they stole them from the Catholic Church.
Read Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis.
Read Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae.
Compare the traditional rite of Orders with the new rite of Orders in light of what Pius and Leo say.
It makes no difference what you think of Paul VI.
Just look it up for yourself.
The essence of this debate is not whether YOU personally should engage with the new rites. I think we all already agree that they OUGHT to be avoided in prudence, for they are certainly illicit rites. The question is whether they are also indeed INVALID. There is no good reason to presume their INvalidity based on a comparison with Roman rites, since we recognize them as rites distinct from the Roman rites. Fr Hesse and others make succinct and legitimate arguments that intent of the new rites, although illicit, indeed preserve the outward form and INTENT of the sacraments. This question is of extreme import to the state of the Church, however you like to dismiss it I think is unwise and unproductive. This question might not be of any import to you personally, if you perhaps consider that the sacraments cannot be validly conferred for lack of legitimate ministers, regardless of the validity of the form of the rites themselves. That would be a separate question in essence altogether.
Pepe, yes a good argument can be made that NO sacraments are all valid, while a good argument can be made that several NO sacraments are invalid. It will be settled eventually, but without authority it is simply a debate. I would argue that INTENT is one of the reasons why the new sacraments are invalid. The understanding of the sacraments in the NO is ambiguous and grows more so as time goes on. Whether you judge a rite as Roman or schismatic is irrelevant if the essence of the form changes significantly that it renders the meaning of the form ambiguous. It can be said that the new ordination rites have more than one meaning. I have read the new and the old and eastern rites of ordination and I can see why some people think there is doubt, especially in the episcopal rite. I can also see why many people accept the new priestly ordination rite because it only removed one word (though that can change the entire meaning). Add it all up and I think there is sufficient doubt to avoid at all costs the NO and insist on conditional ordination of any NO cleric coming to tradition. A future Pope will have to declare on this matter at some point if God deigns to give us another Pope one day.
In other words, Tom: Better to be safe than sorry.
What Pope Leo explained and what the English Bishops further detailed in their “Vindication Of Apostolicae Curae” is that it isn’t the variation in the rite, as long as the rite expresses the same reality. But by the introduction of changes in a traditional rite, at the same time, eliminating those elements which clearly manifested the Catholic concepts of the sacrament; clearly indicated a non-Catholic intention of those who authored the changes. Pope Leo: “To say nothing of other reasons which show such prayers, occurring in the Anglican rite, to be inadequate for the purpose suggested, let this one argument serve for all: [B]namely that these prayers have been deliberately stripped of everything which in the Catholic rite clearly sets forth the dignity and functions of the priesthood. It is impossible, therefore, for a form to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses that which it ought distinctively to signify.”[/B]and further he adds: [B]”they corrupted it in many respects to bring it into accord with the errors of the Innovators. As a result, not only is there in the whole Ordinal no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood (sacerdotium), of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but, as We have already indicated, every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated.[/B]
Msgr. Lefebvre was commenting on the phrase in the Our Father: “and lead us not into temptation”: This is a literal translation of the Latin: “Et ne nos induca in temptationem”. Which while being literal, conveys the wrong idea that God “leads us into temptation”; Msgr. Lefebvfe stated that many of the translations in the vernacular translated it as: “Do not let us fall into temptation”; which is what the Catechism of the Council of Trent explained is the correct meaning of the phrase: “What We Pray For In This Petition:
What, then, do we pray for in this Petition ? We pray that the divine assistance may not forsake us, lest having been deceived, or worsted, we should yield to temptation; and that the grace of God may be at hand to succour us when our strength fails, to refresh and invigorate us in our trials.
We should, therefore, implore the divine assistance, in general, against all temptations, and especially when assailed by any particular temptation.”
This is an excerpt from the Vindication of the Bull, Apostolicae Curae, by the Catholic Bishops of England, in positive response to that Papal Bull, which declared the Anglican rite of Orders “absolutely null and utterly void”.
“In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Catholic Church has always followed.”
That is what the Church has always done, until Vatican II.
In my mind the last sentence of that quote – ‘this is what the Church has always done” – is the key. When we look at what Paul VI did, we can safely say, “The Church doesn’t do this. It is most likely a counterfeit of the Church acting. Beware and stay away.”
The source is his Letter to confused Catholics posted at the SSPX Propaganda Palace.
ABS has posted it here three times but the comment has not appeared
Why do you talk about yourself in the third person? It makes you look odd. If you want to make a point that people take seriously, then just speak normally.
From what I have read it appears to me that he was not looking for a change to the words of the Our Father within the liturgy of the Latin Mass (otherwise he would not have mentioned the French vernacular). On the other hand, it is my understanding that Bergoglio wishes to change the words of the Our Father in the Novus Ordo service. If this is the case, these are two very different changes. Of course the Novus Ordo is already in the vernacular, so there’s that.
I thought that was strange too. I also find it odd that he tried to post the same thing three times and it wouldn’t post? It shouldn’t be that difficult.
The Papal Subject agrees…
LOL. 2Vermont is happy to hear that.
It is weird. Every time ABS tries to post a link to the source where Mons Lefevbre advocated changing the Our Father decades before Francis did , the link does not post.
ABS started doing that years ago as a lark and that lark refuses to be caged.
You do know, don’t you “The Papal Subject,” that you are not the only Papal Subject but, rather, a papal subject and, further, ABS is not speaking in these posts; he is writing.
That aside, ABS was born in Vermont and such natives are different than others
Well that explains it!
I’m not sure randoms online like me get the joke, like not many The Great Stalin joke when he posts here and elsewhere.
Yes, I am a lowly Papal subject, but its meaning is two fold: a Catholic is a subject of the Pope, and there is also the subject of the Pope in our time which holds the key to how to stay safe and Catholic. So posting under my clever online name, it assumes a third meaning, a proper noun, which I call myself to remain anonymous. I wouldn’t want anyone to know my real name, Anthony Roberts now, would I? [not my real name]
Dear TPS You lost ABS at “Great Stalin”
“Any Christian who has an instinct for God, a respect for Him, must be shocked by the manner in which prayers are said now. Learning prayers by heart, as we did, is now denigrated as “parrot-fashion.” Children are no longer taught the words nor do they appear now in the catechisms, except for the Our Father. And even that is in a new version, of Protestant inspiration, which makes the child address God as “tu”.2 To do this systematically is not a sign of great reverence, and is foreign to the spirit of our language, which offers us a choice of styles according to whether we are addressing a superior or a parent or a friend. And in the same post-conciliar Our Father, one asks God not to “lead us into temptation,”3 an expression that is equivocal, at least; while our traditional French version is an improvement upon the Latin, which is rather clumsily based on the Hebrew. What progress is there in this? The familiar style of speech has also invaded the whole body of vernacular liturgy: the new Sunday Missal makes it exclusive and obligatory, though one can see no reason for a change so contrary to French style and custom.”
Here is the link and the portion of the Letter I believe ABS was referring to. I actually find ABL’s words here confusing.
There’s a guy who comments here and around the traps who uses the name “The Great Stalin”. It’s a joke name but it confuses a lot of people, so he often has to explain it.
Response to Mr. Michael Wilson
“eliminating those elements which clearly manifested the Catholic concepts of the sacrament;”
What if Pope Leo XIII when saying that, was engaging the authentic fallible magisterium and is refuted by the fact that there exists in approved Catholic sacramental rites, sacraments that do not manifest the Catholic concept of the sacraments with implicit words. Are you not then the heretic that needs to be avoided? I say that only because Tom A is having a hard time understanding why we spend so much time on this subject, but because it’s why the bishops at general councils argue over every last word and why we take the time to do the same now that the bishops are not interested in their job.
The problem with the non-Catholic intention of the modernists in the N.O. is that it is occult or secret and not the intention of the Church as manifest by the conservative Catholics who really do believe the same as you and I concerning the sacraments. A manifest publicly expressed intention manifest the meaning of eliminating implicit words, but if implicit words are eliminated without a public manifest of intention and without a need for implicit words expressing the intent of the sacrament, then the sacrament is valid.
“It is impossible, therefore, for a form to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses that which it ought distinctively to signify.””
But let us keep the sacraments separate in our minds and discussion. Fr. Hesse said the N.O. rite of ordination had a better distinctly signified intention then the Roman Rite. That is, your argument works better to prove an invalid Novel Rite Mass then an invalid ordination.
Angelico also finds it weird that the link doesn’t show up.