Why do people say the 1969 Rite of Ordination is not valid?

Another example: "The second of the two prayers in the Byzantine rite seems to be the earlier. It also displays strong similarities to the first prayer in the Melkite rite and also to a longer prayer in the Syrian Orthodoz rite, suggesting a commom source for all three. Unlike the equivalent prayers for a bishop and for a deacon, it does have an explicit petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit[…]

[…]Lord, fill this man, whom you have willed to undertake the rank of the presbyterate, with the gift of our Holy Spirit so that he may be worthy to stand blamelessly at your altar[…] (Rites of Ordination: Their History and Theology, Paul F. Bradshaw, highlights added)

You did. And ignored it. And then again. And again. I even gave you this very book to read and you ignored it is proven above.
You seriously cannot read.
Let me explain you a very basic sentence structure. "Very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions". Are changes (not "brief changes". What are brief are "additions" such as word "ut" in Old Rite) in itself are harmful? Not according to the text given. What they have to do? They have to "corrupt the meaning of expresion". Does comming back to orginal (without "ut") does corrupt the meainging? NO.

If, for the sake of argument, we lay aside the fact that the doctrine of indefectibility rules out any possibility of the new ordination rite being invalid, could it be maintained that the removal of ut from the traditional form justifies the allegation of a significant change of meaning? I obtained the judgment of a number theologians and canonists competent to provide an expert opinion on the question, namely Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg, D.P., Dr. Philip Flanagan, Dr. Francis Clark, Dr. H.J. Jordan, Dr T.C.G. Glover, Father William Lawson, S.J., and also Professor Cristine Mohrmann, one of the world's greatest authorities on Christian Latin. They all reached the identical conclusion, that the omission of ut did not change the meaning of the Latin form to the slightest extent, and did not cast even the suspicion of doubt upon the validity of the Latin fonn. Thus even if, per impossibile, a sacramental form approved by the Sovereign Pontiff could be invalid, there would be no case for alleging invalidity in the case of the fonn for the ordination of a priest in the 1968 Ordinal.

To repet this fo the xth time: the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.

If the form of rite:

I wouldnt encourage you to be a teacher of sentence structure. This isnt even the point of me quoting that statement by Pope Clement XIII. The point is that we need to stay alert for possible brief changes that can lead to perdition.
You keep repeating this part of the document as if it makes the part that you ignore disappear. The logic of the entire document goes like this:
Pius XII included "ut" in the group of words declared to be essential to the form, answering the question in the "step (2)". This is what is writen in the oficial Church document, in an Ex Cathedra statement. Claiming that an Ex Cathedra statement contains an error is different from claiming the same about official glosses. How can an infallible statement contain an error? This doesnt make sense also.
"The words are the more important element in the composition, because men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words. "Verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi" (St. Augustine, Christian Doctrine II.3; Summa Theologiæ III.60.6). It must not be supposed that the things used for the acts performed, for they are included in the res, remarks St. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III.60.6, ad 2) have no significance."
No Pope declared Ex Cathedra that "for" is essential to the form of the sacrament, as is the case with "ut".
What are you talking about? The common source of all three rites (Byzantine, Melkite and Syrian) contains "ut" in the exact same phrasing. The rite quoted from the Euchologion contains "ut" (so that), although in different wording, in the same context, meaning the essence of the words are the same. I even highlighted those parts.
The version found in the Leonine Sacramentary is much bigger. It cannot be considered a restoration if 90% of it isnt there. The new rite contains the phrase highlighted without the "ut", that is indeed in the Leonine Sacramentary. Here's the full prayer:(cont)

(cont)"Oremus dilectissimi Dm Patrem omnipotentem ut super hos famulos suos quos ad presbyterii munus elegit caelestia dona multiplicet quibus quod eius dignatione suscipiunt eius exsequantur auxilio per. Exaudi nos Ds salutaris noster et super hos famulos tuos benedictionem sci Sps et gratiae sacerdotalis effunde virtutem ut quos tuae peatatis adspectibus offerimus consecrandos perpetua muneris tui largitate prosequaris per. Dne sce Pater omp aeterne Ds jonorum omnium et omnium dignitatum quae tibi militant distributor per quem proficiunt universa per quem cuncta firmantur amplificatis semper in melius naturae rationabilis incrementis per ordinem congrua ratione dispositum. unde sacerdotales gradus et officia levitarum sacramentir mysticis instituta creverunt ut cum pontifices summos regendis populis praefecisses ad eorum societatis et operis adiumentum sequentis ordinis viros et secundae dignitatis eligeres. sic in heremo per septuaginta virorum prudentium mentes Mose spm propagasti quibus ille adiutoribus usu in populo innumeras multitudines facile gubernavit. sic in Eleazaro et Ithamar filiis Aharon paternae plenitudinis abundantiam transfudisti ut ad hostias salutares et frequentioris officii sacramenta sufficeret meritum sacerdotum. Hac providentia Dne apostolis Filii tui doctores fidei comites addidisti quibus illi orbem totum secundis praedicatoribus impleverunt. quapropter infirmitati quoque nostrae Dne quaesmus haec adiumenta largire qui quanto magis fragiliores sumus tanto his pluribus indigemus. da quaesumus Pater in hos famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem. innova in visceribus eorum spm scitatis. acceptum a te Ds secundi meriti munus obtineant censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuent. sint probi co operatores ordinis nostri. eluceat in eis totius forma iustitiae ut bonam rationem dispensationis sibi creditae reddituri aeternae beatitudinis praemia consequantur per."

Isnt it much more reasonable to assume that Pius XII condensed the essence of all this by keeping only the last part while adding "ut" to it, than to assume that an important Ex Cathedra statement contains an error in its most important part?

I didnt read it in the full yet, but I wouldnt mind if you could care to spoil to me how Michael Davies goes from this
>when the changes are considered as a whole it seems impossible to believe that any Catholic of integrity could deny that the parallel with Cranmer’s reform is evident and alarming. It is quite obvious that there are powerful forces within the Catholic Church and the various Protestant denominations determined to achieve a common Ordinal at all costs… The sixteenth century Protestants changed the traditional Pontificals because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. Archbishop Bugnini and his Consilium changed the Roman Pontifical in a manner which makes it appear that there is little or no difference between Catholic and Protestant belief, thus undermining Apostolicae Curae
to saying that the rite is indeed valid.

And New Rite do not do that.
Where in point (2) there is a mention that this form is only valid form? Fact that Leonine Sacramentary this form and this one exists disproves claim that form given by Pius XII is only valid form. Which is obvious since Pius XII stated that there is only ONE form: Form that signify matter and is accpted by the Church, no matter what specific words are used.
newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8
No pope declared that word "ut" is essential for the rite ethier. Fact that Leonine Sacramentary this form and this one exists disproves that claim.
Are you blind?
Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.

Lord, fill this man, whom you have willed to undertake the rank of the presbyterate, with the gift of our Holy Spirit so that he may be worthy to stand blamelessly at your altar.

We extend our hands, Master, God of the heavens, Father of the only-begotten, upon this man and pray that the spirit of truth might dwell upon him. Gift him with understanding and knowledge and a good heart. Let divine Spirit come in him so that he might be able to rule this your people, and to be an ambassador of your divine words and to reconcile your people to you, uncreated God. You who have given holy Spirit through the spirit of Moses to your elect ones, divide also to this (man) holy Spirit from the spirit of the only-begotten for the grace-gift of wisdom and knowledge and right faith, so that he might be able to serve you in a pure conscience

Be consistent with your own claims. Those ARE NOT the same wordings. Sure, they have the words "ut" in there but not in the same place. Not to mention that they are lacking in different words for exemple "almighty". Second rite after "ut" have no mention of "perseverance" and "leadership" and no "renewal" before it. Third have all-different set of gifts.
Ethier double down and procalim those two rites as invalid or accept judgment of the Church and accept them all (New Rite too) as valid, even though they DO NOT HAVE THE WORDS USED BY PIUS XII.
But the Preface is, and its essential core of the form. And preface IS IDENTICAL.

By having basic reading skills when it comes to reading Church documents (or anything really) and having true faith which always lead into bosom of the Church.

I have heard plenty of stories about NO priests abusing the freedom of the NO, no reason not to believe this also happens in ordinations.

"In other words, he argues as if the Church had the power, by virtue of an authoritative pronouncement, to make the words “The weather is fine today,” or “Two lumps of sugar please!” into a valid sacramental formula; and the plain fact is that she cannot. Our Lord gave his Church many powers and prerogatives, even over sacramental formulæ, but the power to change the meaning of language was not among them, as the Council of Trent made clear when, in defining the extent of the Church’s right to change sacramental rituals, it declared that this right was a qualified one which did not permit any change in those parts which are substantial. (Denzinger 931)" (Michael Davies - an evaluation, John S. Daly, highlight added)
>newadvent.org/summa/4060.htm#article8
So no more objections on the fact that the words are the most important part of the sacrament? Nice. As for the Summa: "The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above, we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid."
>the primary dictionary meaning of the word “ut” is “so that” or “in order that”. Continuing his article: For example, the Latin sentence ‘veniunt ut te videant’ means ‘they are coming for the purpose of seeing you’ or ‘for the sake of seeing you’ [or ‘in order to see you’ – J.S.D.], and shows that their seeing you is the purpose and result of their coming. When one removes the ‘ut’ (as in the new form), then the Latin reads ‘veniunt; te videant’. The English sense is ‘they are coming; may they see you!’ The ‘ut’ in the first example shows purpose. Its omission in the second example replaces the idea of purpose with a mere exhortation [or wish – J.S.D.]. (Emphases added – J.S.D.) By way of further commentary, another traditional Catholic priest (the late Fr. Philip Shelmerdine M.B., B.S.) succinctly summarized the point which Fr. Jenkins is making here by observing that there is a big difference between the sentence “I have a gun; you may die” (no “ut”) and the sentence “I have a gun in order that you may die.”
But no investigation is needed to assure that "ut" is essential, since a Pope declared Ex Cathedra that it is. What leads us to the next point
The fact that you still claim that Pius XII didnt declare that "ut" is essential is astounding. Arent those his words?: "And the form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity: ''Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.” Yes they are, as its documented. But you and Michael Davies are claiming that a scribe didnt paid enought attention to the most important part of the document, in an Ex Cathedra statement, exaclty on specific words that the Pope said to be essential. In other words, what you two are saying is that theres an error in an Ex Cathedra statement.
Why no response?
Could you please elaborate?

Bring a heretic doesnt make your ordination invalid

Nibba in your very same post you even said the pope can be wrong lmao

More input on the "univocally signify" point:
"Response: With this argument, Mr. Davies directly contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. In the constitution, the Pope declared with his Supreme Apostolic Authority that the form of the Sacrament of Order must UNIVOCALLY SIGNIFY THE SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS – THE POWER OF ORDER AND THE GRACE OF THE HOLY GHOST. The Jesuit moral theologian, Fr. Felix Cappello – an authority of considerable importance – holds that the Pope thereby ‘declared’ a truth which concerns the very nature of the sacrament …. After so declaring the necessary elements of all such forms, the Pontiff then said the following concerning the Latin Rite form of Ordination to the Catholic priesthood: ‘The form consists of the words of the preface, of which these are ESSENTIAL AND THUS REQUIRED FOR VALIDITY.’ And for the sake of brevity I interrupt Fr. Jenkins here to note that the pope then quoted the whole of the traditional Latin form (which I omit here as I have already quoted it at the beginning of this chapter) including the part which Davies claims to be inessential and not required for validity! Taking up Fr. Jenkins’s article again: Why did the Pope include these latter words as ‘essential and thus required for validity’? Because the first part of the form alone does not univocally express the two essential elements needed: the power of priestly order, and the grace of the Holy Ghost. ( …) The first part of the formula containing the equivocal word ‘priesthood’ is further specified by the second half of the formula which contains the expression ‘office of the second rank’. Furthermore, while the first part of the formula signifies the power of the priestly Order (as Mr. Davies’s theologians agree), the latter part specifies the grace of the Holy Ghost accompanying the order. Both of these are essential and required for validity. Indisputably, Fr. Jenkins has vindicated his position and proved that the 1968 rite of Ordination is, at the very best, of doubtful validity. Pope Pius XII expressly teaches to be essential the whole formula, including the words that have been changed. (Michael Davies - an Evaluation, John S. Daly)

Yes, and an ordinated person can err, on contrary of what you appear to suggest.
What are you refering to?

My tiggas,

Quit kvetching about the sacraments of the church.

On one hand you have valid but illicit in the traditionalist camp.

On the other hand you have invalid but licit in the main camp.

So you say.

But are (you) following the commandments in loving God above all else and doing unto others what you would have done unto you? Are (you) taking care of those sins that need your attention?

Attached: a8079005669ab4c7cf79640013f8ffc08b32ff501bd50080452a563557957d42.jpg (400x400, 12.91K)

Except for, you know, empirical data?

Strawmanning is still favorite Sedememe tactic I see.
No, you idiot. Words are important as much as they convey intention.
Also, again you are showing that you see word and do not see sentence. Look at your highlights.
< we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words:
>654995
The fact that you still claim that Pius XII did declare that "ut" is essential is astounding. Arent those his words?: "We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.” Yes they are, as its documented. But you and John S. Daly are claiming that a pope Paul VI himself erred in an Ex Cathedra statement, exaclty on specific words that the Pope said to be valid. In other words, what you two are saying is that theres an error in an Ex Cathedra statement.
Why no argument? How am I to respond to statement that makes no sense for sound catholic?
Read a book, nibber.

"The ultimate test of the validity of sacramental rites is not to be found in scholarship and liturgical research alone. When the sufficiency or insufficiency of a rite is in question, the decisive nonn is the acceptance or rejection of it by the Catholic Church."

No, on both sides we have valid and licit orders. Unless you claim that sediments are traditionals then your definition is off. FSSP are traditionals. Sedemeners, like all heretics, are novelties.
I am Catholic. Of course I do by definition. Him? Not so much - he is in schism at best.

What bloody empirical data is there?
Some strawpoll campaign noting all ordinations and then calculating if they're invalid?
Just face the facts; there is a lot of liturgical abuse in the novus ordo as it is applied today, and this means that it can also happen in ordinations of that rite.

Didn't suggest that at all. I strongly dislike how things have become irreverant after Vat2, that doesn't make them invalid.

You said Pius XII said the word "ut" is essential to ordination, and then say that the Pope can be wrong. The only thing I disagree with is a Pope being wrong on something doesn't automatically make him not Pope.

free will exists in any rite and since its the most prolific rite it has the most abuses i just need to state the obvious.

Dude. Learn to read what you answer to. I mentioned who tested it, to find it is really easy.
trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch-peter-dimonds-epic.html

The reason of all the abuses within the NO is because of the spirit of Vatican II.
There's much more freedom in the NO than in the Tridentine Rite, and because of the new modernist trend priests in NO parishes tend to do whatever they want.

The whole point of this thread is to see if priests ordained in the NO way are valid.
I say there will certainly be cases where priests won't be validly ordained because of the liturgical abuse inherent to the NO.
Since I have heard enough stories about invalid liturgies, have seen liturgical abuse myself and there are enough videos on Youtube showing liturgical abuse, one can conclude that the chance of invalidly ordained priests is there.

Yes, but why can't they be wrong? You can make a very good case on it changing the essensial meaning, as I posted earlier. Besides, "Davies says that he consulted, in its preparation, “the three theologians who helped [him] with The Order of Melchisedech” – and in the Introduction to that work these are named as Fr. William Lawson S.J., [the late] Mgr. Philip Flanagan and Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg. And anyone who knew a little bit more about these purported theologians than Davies sees fit to pass on to his readers would not find it very surprising that they defended the validity of the new rite of Ordination. Mgr. Flanagan, now deceased, used to say the Novus Ordo and was in good standing as a parish priest (“pastor” for Ameri- can readers) of the Conciliar Church; and Fr. Lawson, while he himself says the Tridentine Mass (though with the Canon and other secret prayers for some reason said aloud, in defiance of the rubrics), is quite prepared to encourage others to assist at the New Mass, even if said by a priest ordained in the new rites. As for Professor van der Ploeg, well, when Davies himself asserted formally that traditional Catholics “do not have the good fortune to possess a theologian of repute among our ranks”, why did he consider van der Ploeg excluded? Was it because the Dominican is in fact more of a Scripture scholar than a theologian ? Or because, although himself using the traditional Dominican rite, he was hardly what is normally understood by a traditionalist? Another authority by whom Davies says he was assisted is stated by him to be “a canonist”, and this must almost certainly be his friend the Rev. Thomas Glover J.C.D., who was professor of Canon Law at Écône, and who it is known that Davies does consult from time to time. To put any use by Davies of this “authority” in context, let alone the use of him as a judge of the validity of the new Ordination rite, it is surely not wholly irrelevant that Glover was himself ordained according to this rite! In this circumstance – his readers might have asked themselves, had Davies given them this information – might not Dr. Glover’s theological judgement on the validity of the rite be open to more than a suspicion of prejudice? And is not the fact of Glover’s Ordination in the 1968 rite – his readers might want to ask themselves now – one which Davies really ought to have told his readers who otherwise would have trusted him to choose as his advisers authorities who were not only competent but also without suspicion of bias? […] As Davies of course realizes, readers of Fr. Jenkins’s article in The Roman Catholic have all been informed – correctly – that since 1968 the form of the sacrament of Ordination as employed in the Conciliar Church has ceased to include the word “ut” and has therefore contained a definite change of meaning by comparison with the changed rite; and because they have been so informed – unless it is without motive and purely coincidence – he on this occasion evidently feels it necessary for him to give some show of logical support for his opinion and to explain how it is that the omission of this word leaves the validity of the sacrament definitely unassailable." (cont.)

(cont.)
But they are, user. "The words are the more important element in the composition, because men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words. "Verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi" (St. Augustine, Christian Doctrine II.3; Summa Theologiæ III.60.6)" Also, please dont act like this. "Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."
"We know that the essential form occurred somewhere in each ritual approved by the Church, but that is all we know; it may not have been in the same place in each case. Hence it is perfectly plausible that, in those rituals which omitted the word “ut” in the second sentence of the two which comprise Pope Pius XII’s essential form, other parts, and nota- bly the following sentence, also at that time pertained to the essential form. And the following sentence, in the rites which omit our “ut” contained a different but closely parallel “ut”: Sit probus cooperator ordinis nostri, eluceat in eum totius forma justitiæ, UT bonam rationem dispensationis sibi creditæ redditurus, æternæ beatitudinis præmia consequatur. (“May he be an upright co-operator with our order; may the appearance of all justice shine forth in him SO THAT he may render a good account of the dispensation entrusted to him and may obtain the rewards of everlasting happiness.”) If the truly essential point is that the rite should make explicit the causal connection between the sacramental grace and its stated effects, this requirement would be adequately fulfilled by this second “ut” found in the Sacramentaries which lack ours, so that the phrase containing it would have been essential at that time and in that particular sacramentary (when it was the only relevant conjunction of causality), although it would have been inessential in the Gelasian form of the Roman rite of priestly Ordination as found in the pre-Vatican II Pontificale Romanum, which contained both the “ut” designated by Pius XII as essential in his day and the second “ut” in the above words which it also retained. By contrast the 1968 rite of Ordination used in the Conciliar Church, although it could claim to be inspired by one or two early manuscripts of the Gregorian Sacramentary in omitting the word “ut”, does not follow the same Sacramentaries in the following sentence. Indeed at that precise point the text of the new rite abandons any pretence to follow any specific ancient rite and hence any possibility of establishing its validity on the basis of historical precedent evaporates altogether. So although historical proof of the validity of the 1968 rite would be provided if the relevant part of the 1968 rite were in fact globally identical to some rite previously approved by the Church, this is not in fact the case. In other words, the attempt to prove on historical grounds that the word “ut” is not essential in the sentence from which the 1968 rite omits it, though it proves this particular “ut” to be not always and in every context essential, totally fails to prove it to be inessential in the context of the 1968 rite, precisely because that rite had no historical existence, as an integral unit, before 1968, and what Paul VI identified as its essential form is not identical to the known essential form of any historical rite recognized by the Church as valid. And so the historical escape route for Davies and other defenders of the Conciliar Church is as blind as the hermeneutical one."

You did exactly as I said. You quoted (1) as if it made (3) vanish.
You do realise that this "reversing my argument" tactics don't work, right? I appoint an error claiming it goes against a previous Ex Cathedra statement. You appoint an error in this previous Ex Cathedra statement claiming that it was caused by lack of attention. Its not the same claim.
You could start by explaining why it makes no sense for sound catholics, instead of confortably ignoring it.
So you mention a book and recommend it, but when asked nicely to teach about its contents you answer with "read a book, nibber"? I mentioned a book and exposed its central points regarding the current discussion. I followed your advice and hope you do too.

Going from
to
is non sequitur though. And since New Rites are obviously valid, and in worst possible case (liberal, american bishops) rites are kept then to argue that chance is more than highly, highly improbable is stupid.
Except that this case is made by known sedevacantist. It's like quoting James White on Eucharistic Theology of Catholic Church.
The words are the more important element in the composition,
because
men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words.
Do you even Summa?
…Is bulding on assumption that "essential point is that the rite should make explicit the causal connection between the sacramental grace and its stated effects"
Which fact that Leonine Sacramentary, this form and this one exists disproves.
Because it does not fallow.
Nibber. Listen to me closely because you fail to grasp it for the xth time.
BOTH.
FORMS.
WITH.
OR.
WITHOUT.
UT.
ARE.
VALID
Pope Paul VI made ex cathedra statement without ut. Pope Pius XII made ex cathedra statement with ut. But NONE OF THEM MADE STATEMTN THAT OTHER FORMS OF RITE ARE INVALID.
On contrary really. Since there is only one form, just like there is only one form of baptism and eucharist. Form of this sacrament is as fallows: "the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense"
Because it implies that gates of hell prevailed against Church in form of Paul VI, Roman Pontiff, declaring ex cathedra invalid rite thus destoring any form of Magisterium and Curch itself since it destroyed five out of seven sacraments not to mention utter destruction of chair of Peter. And this is simply as impossible as change in divine nature or dissolution of hypostatic union.
You did not such thing though. You explicitly shown that you didn't read book in question, nor is willing to do so. Morover, you proceed to use strawman arguments made by sedememers, ignored data and most importanlty ignored most important sentence in apendix in question.

"The ultimate test of the validity of sacramental rites is not to be found in scholarship and liturgical research alone. When the sufficiency or insufficiency of a rite is in question, the decisive nonn is the acceptance or rejection of it by the Catholic Church."

Also, I do not read hertical books such as one of Daly since as shown by your exemple it leads to damnation by virtue of loss of faith.

It would be nice if you could actually try to argument against it instead of confortably dismissing it.
And you said that this statement was "BS".
Fact that you can conclude by looking at the Ex Cathedra statement and asking yourself "why the Pope put the word "ut" as essential. Your whole case rests in the possibility of this being an error in an Ex Cathedra statement. Not a strong case.
"Other forms of rite" are invalid if they lack what is essential to the rite. Pope Pius XII statement declared that the form, to be valid, must signify its essence. This essence is expressed by the words that he then proceeds to declare "essential". In other words, if the form contains the same essence that those words express, it's valid. "So although historical proof of the validity of the 1968 rite would be provided if the relevant part of the 1968 rite were in fact globally identical to some rite previously approved by the Church, this is not in fact the case." And since, as Michael Davies says, the new Catholic rite is shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying the essential powers of the priesthood, the "new rite" is not comparable with the full prayers of the early forms. "So that the phrase containing "ut" would have been essential at that time and in that particular sacramentary (when it was the only relevant conjunction of causality), although it would have been inessential in the Gelasian form of the Roman rite of priestly Ordination as found in the pre-Vatican II Pontificale Romanum, which contained both the “ut” designated by Pius XII as essential in his day and the second “ut” in the above words which it also retained." I have read your book but you refuse to read mine.
Only if you think that "sede vacante/anti-pope=hell prevailed", wich is obviously not the case as the see has been vacant other times. Leo XIII composed the St Michael prayer for a situation where "in the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety", meaning that a throne of impiety in the Chair of Truth doesnt mean that the gates of hell have prevailed.
How can you even say that when I'm constantly quoting said book. I didnt see you trying to debate the arguments in the book I quoted.
Not "alone", but in great part.
In the own words of Michael Davies, in the book: “I have also been reliably informed of a recent case in which one British bishop agreed to the request of some ordinands to be ordained in the old rite as they had grave doubts concerning the validity of the new one.” How can you say that the Church accept it?
I could also dismiss your book entirely claiming its heretical, but the point of a discussion is to try to prove the presented arguments wrong.