So how different are the old and new episcopal rites? The old rite includes all of the following though it is not all “required” for the proper form:
First of all in the old rite each candidate for bishop must confirm his belief in each and every article of the creed. The words spoken in the rite include the following: “A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms. . . anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church . . . Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit . . . Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair . . .” The actual valid essential form translated from the Latin is as follows:
“Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and downed in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”
As I am given to understand none of these things are required to be said in the new form of episcopal consecration. To clarify the meanings of the words in this passage we look to an article from approximately 2006 by Father Anthony Cekada entitled Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration. Father Cekada points out this old “. . .form univocally signifies the sacramental effects as follows:
(1) “The fullness of Thy ministry, “ “raiment of all glory” = power of the Order of episcopacy.
(2) “The dew of heavenly anointing” = grace of the Holy Ghost. Why is the fact that none of the form, reflected in the previous two paragraphs, a problem? Like I said I am but a laymen but I think Christ’s words were from Matthew 5:37 were “But let your speech be yea, yea: no,no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” Which more plainly says in modern parlance: say exactly what you mean, no more, no less. The old form does exactly that. The new form is as follows: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.” What power? It should clearly state the power of the episcopacy and it should specifically call out the Holy Ghost, not the governing spirit. The governing spirit could be any “spirit.” I can see a way that this “spirit” (if it were not capitalized which is not apparent as it is spoken) could mean the power of Peter to make infallible determinations with regard to confusing dogma. Though this is a needed power in the church, the important power of the episcopate that must be transferred is that of creating new priest so that the Eucharist can continue to be celebrated as well as create new bishops so new priest can be created. Without this power perpetuated, there can be no new priests or bishops. This appears to be a modernist trick like the one they used to authorize the taking of communion in the hand. Unfortunately, this trick is, to my laymen eye, intentionally aimed at creating an invalid episcopal consecration. (for arguments against the validity of the new episcopal consecrations see http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf and for arguments for the validity of the new episcopal consecrations see http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations.) The case of episcopal consecration is considered by some as just an “activation” of higher order powers for a man already ordained through holy orders as a priest. But if priestly ordinations are broken then episcopal consecrations can have no effect since the original holy orders were invalid (see https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/10_NewOrdination.pdf ). The point is, the above defense that episcopal consecrations being valid is based upon the fact that priestly ordinations are valid, ergo if priestly ordinations are invalid then the subsequent episcopal consecrations must be invalid, by the above argument.
Traditional Thomistic Catholic 