57 Years Of Invalid New Order Bishops: A Catechism

Preamble: 

I shared the above infographic file which was posted by Under The Mantle as a short video on X with an accompanying note "57 Years Of Invalid Novus Ordo Bishops... Hard Truth". To Catholics that was an edifying post worthy of "like" and "share". On the contrary, to Modernist enthusiasts clinging to the Catholic name it was like poking at the hive of wild hungry bees. Yes. A number of Modernist enthusiasts, dazed by "the spirit of the council" and always ready to defend their masters, dashed to my timeline to do what they love doing best.  

Concerning the New Rite Of Orders introduced by the Modernist Papal Impostor Montini "Today in history", Fr. Anthony Cekada's scholarly intervention, "Absolutely Null, Utterly Void", remains a fundamental reference material. 

I present here the arguments put forth by those modernist enthusiasts and the conclusion drawn. Afterwards, there is a handy catechism on the the 1968 and a Catholic treatment of a few other questions implicated in their emotional outburst. 

The Modernist Enthusiasts' Takes:

The first to comment contended that:

The 1968 Prayer of Episcopal Consecration signifies the grace of the Holy Spirit (governing Spirit (given by the Father to Christ, that he gave to the Apostles), or Hegemonic Spirit in the Coptic Rite) and the Episcopal power, and is substantially the same as in the Coptic Rite.

He attached files to back up his statement. 

Another insisted: 

Except in matters of DOGMA A Pope cannot definitively bind the hands of future Popes in a way that would prevent them from exercising their full authority, particularly when it comes to matters of discipline and governance.

The same, quoted the Modernist 1983 code of Canon law to justify his argument:

Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity. Supreme Authority is the Pope.

The same, apparently the most eager in his modernist zealotry, said further:

Since November 30th, 722, St Boniface began the requirement that Bishops receiving the episcopal concentration must take an oath of allegiance to the Pope.

SEDES refuse that oath. SEDES invalid and illicit rituals (not consecrations)

Another came in with his protestation and accusation:

So you are saying Catholicism ended? More like 57 years of schism for you and rejecting Communion with the Body of Christ

Yet another:

Your magisterium is "in the mirror." No different than a Protestant...hard truth. I missed the part in Matt 16 where Jesus gave you the keys....

And another:

God wouldn't leave us without sacraments for so long. Don't you understand divine logic? 

To anyone with an informed Catholic common sense, these arguments, protestations, accusations are best appreciated for their capacity for a comic relief. 

The Catechism On The 1968 Episcopal Consecration Rite:

This catechism is based, not on unscrupulous and slippery emotion or any Modernism-inspired document, but the traditional Catholic sacramental theology. 

 Definition of the Sacrament of Holy Orders

Q. 1. What is the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

A. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament instituted by Christ by which bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church are ordained and receive the power and grace to perform their sacred duties.

Q .  2. Besides bishops and priests, who are the other ministers of the Church?

A. Besides bishops and priests, the other ministers of the Church are deacons and sub-deacons, who, while preparing for the priesthood, have received some of the Holy Orders, but who have not been ordained to the full powers of the priest.

Q. 3. Why is this Sacrament called Holy Orders?

A. This Sacrament is called Holy Orders because it is conferred by seven different grades or steps following one another in fixed order by which the sacred powers of the priesthood are gradually given to the one admitted to that holy state.

Q. 4.What are the grades by which one ascends to the priesthood?

A. The grades by which one ascends to the priesthood are (1) Tonsure, or the clipping of the hair by the bishop, by which the candidate for priesthood dedicates himself to the service of the altar; (2) The four minor orders, Porter, Reader, Exorcist, and Acolyte, by which he is permitted to perform certain duties that laymen should not perform; (3) Sub-deaconship, by which he takes upon himself the obligation of leading a life of perpetual chastity and of saying daily the divine office; (4) Deaconship, by which he receives power to preach, baptize, and give Holy Communion. The next step, priesthood, gives him power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and forgive sins. These orders are not all given at once, but at times fixed by the laws of the Church.

Q. 5. Where is the definition of the Sacrament of Orders definitively taught?

A. Pope Pius XII definitively defined the essential matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders in the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (30 November 1947).

 "Finally, it must be held as certain that the matter of the sacred orders of diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and the form is the words which determine the application of this matter, which unequivocally signify the sacramental effects—namely, the power of the order and the grace of the Holy Spirit." Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, DS 3859–3861

Q. 6. What are the effects of the Sacrament of Episcopal Consecration?

A. The effects are:

1. The conferral of the episcopal character (the fullness of the priesthood)

2. The grace of the Holy Ghost for the office of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying the Church

Matter and Form of Episcopal Consecration

Q. 7. What is the traditional form of Episcopal Consecration as defined by Pope Pius XII?

A. According to Sacramentum Ordinis, the essential form of episcopal consecration in the Roman Rite is:

 Latin: "Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica."

English: “Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and sanctify with the dew of heavenly anointing this Thy servant, adorned with the ornaments of all glory.”

Q. 8. Why is this form essential?

A. Because it clearly expresses the two necessary sacramental effects:

1. The conferral of the episcopal office (plenitude of the priesthood — summam ministerii)

2. The grace of the Holy Ghost — coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica

The 1968 Episcopal Consecration Rite

Q. 9. What is the new form introduced in the 1968 Pontifical?

A. The new form reads:

 Latin: "Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Iesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui."

English: “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 as Your sanctuary, for the glory and unceasing praise of Your name.”

Q. 10. Does this form clearly signify the essential sacramental effects?

A. No. The new form fails to clearly express:

1. The sacramental power of the order (plenitude of the priesthood)

2. The grace of the Holy Ghost specific to the episcopate

The phrase Spiritum principalem (“governing spirit”) is ambiguous, lacks precedent in Roman Catholic tradition, and does not clearly signify the episcopal power or grace.

Relation to the Anglican Ordinal

Q. 11. How does the defect in the 1968 form resemble the Anglican Ordinal?

A. The Anglican Ordinal was declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae (1896) because the form of ordination omitted any clear reference to the sacrificial priesthood.

 “In the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord… but… these were deliberately removed.” - Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, n. 30

Similarly, the Modernist 1968 form:

• Fails to express the specific grace and power of the episcopate
• Uses ambiguous or novel expressions

• Omits the traditional formula that signifies the summam ministerii, as defined by Pope Pius XII.

Thus, like the Anglican form, it does not manifest the intention of the Church, which requires the form to signify the sacramental effect.

Theological Conclusion on Invalidity

Q. 12. Can the 1968 form be considered valid?

A. No. According to the principles definitively fixed by Pope Pius XII, a valid form must unequivocally signify the sacramental effect—the episcopal power and grace of the Holy Ghost. The 1968 form does not do so.

Q. . What is the consequence of a substantial change in the form?

A. If the sacramental form is changed substantially, such that it no longer expresses the sacramental effect, the sacrament is invalid.

 “All know that the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is, over those things which, as the sources of divine Revelation testify, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.” - - Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, DS 3857

Therefore, it must be firmly stated that being a substantial change in the sacramental form, the Modernist 1968 episcopal form is invalid as such.

Summary

• The traditional Roman form of episcopal consecration, as defined by Pope Pius XII, is valid and confers the episcopate.
• The 1968 form fails to express the sacramental effect clearly and unambiguously.
• Its ambiguity, novelty, and parallelism to the Anglican defect render it invalid.
• Sacraments require clear form and matter to signify grace; thus, the 1968 rite does not fulfill the conditions laid out by Catholic sacramental theology.

Each Catholic conscience is bound to be duly informed that consecrations done using the 1968 form are invalid and do not confer the episcopate, and to reject it for what it is: absolutely null, utterly void. No hard feelings. 

Appendix I 

A Coptic Rite Substantially The Same? 

As already noted, the first comment read thus:

The 1968 Prayer of Episcopal Consecration signifies the grace of the Holy Spirit (governing Spirit (given by the Father to Christ, that he gave to the Apostles), or Hegemonic Spirit in the Coptic Rite) and the Episcopal power, and is substantially the same as in the Coptic Rite.

It has been shown in the catechism that the phrase Spiritum principalem (“governing spirit”) is ambiguous, lacks precedent in Roman Catholic tradition, and does not clearly signify the episcopal power or grace.

 Fr. Cekada explained that:

...Though the Paul VI Preface surrounding the new form contains many phrases found in the Coptic form (including “governing spirit,” which we shall discuss below), these phrases are missing.

This omission is particularly significant, because the dispute over the validity of the Paul VI form re-volves around whether it adequately expresses the power of the Order being conferred — i.e., episcopacy.

Don’t worry, it resembles something from the Copts? Surely Apostolic Succession hinges on liturgical guesswork and ecumenical flair then?! 

Well, any claim that the 1968 prayer is “substantially the same” as the Coptic rite misses the point: it is not what words resemble, but what intention, context, and theological clarity are provided. The Traditional Latin Church has never permitted ambiguity in the essential form of the sacraments. To entrust the Apostolic Succession to a doubtful rite is a grave departure from the Catholic duty to safeguard the sacraments.

Appendix II 

Sacramental Form: Simply A Question Discipline?

Recall that one of the arguments in defense of 1968 ordinal as already noted is that:

Except in matters of DOGMA A Pope cannot definitively bind the hands of future Popes in a way that would prevent them from exercising their full authority, particularly when it comes to matters of discipline and governance.

Here it must be noted even a Pope cannot redefine what Christ instituted. He can regulate accidental rites, but not alter the essential form and matter. That’s not “discipline”—it’s divine law.

And, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly:

 “The Church has no power to change what Christ the Lord has determined should be the substance of a sacrament.” (Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947)

Sacraments are not playthings of papal power - only a Modernist Papal Impostor could arrogate such right to himself. No Pope has the authority to institute doubtful rites or discard the essential form handed down by Tradition. Meanwhile, Catholics are bound to the Faith of all time, not to novelties in the name of "discipline."

Now,  it beats ones imagination how convenient is that the same Modernists who reject papal infallibility in dogma suddenly invoke absolute papal supremacy in discipline - as if a Pope can uproot immemorial rites, create ambiguous sacraments, and we must all clap because “future Popes aren’t bound.” By that logic, why not baptize with orange juice next century? It’s only “discipline,” right? Oops! 

Appendix III 

A Modernist Canon Law To The Rescue? 

As noted, in defense of the Modernist 1968 Ordinal, modernist 1983 code of Canon Law was quoted thus:

Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit, it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity. Supreme Authority is the Pope.

This is quite ridiculous: quoting modernist Canon 841 to defend modernist sacramental innovation is like quoting a counterfeit currency law to justify printing fake money. 

True, the idea that the Pope is the supreme authority is borrowed from Catholic theology, - the very authority despised by modernists and which they have sought to destroy it by redefining it.  But he is not the master of the sacraments - he is their guardian. Pre-Vatican II theology, especially as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Pius XII, and the entire scholastic tradition, is crystal clear:

 “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments.” — Council of Trent, Session 21, ch. 2; reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947)

So, invoking papal authority to justify dubious, vague, ecumenical rites that obscure or omit essential sacramental effects isn’t Catholic: it’s Modernist tyranny disguised as papal primacy.

The Pope’s authority exists to protect the sacraments, not to tamper with their validity under cover of “discipline.” That’s not Tradition. That’s treason.

Appendix IV 

Oat Of Allegiance: Proof of Validity, Licitness?

With a particular of show of Modernist zealotry, it is argued again:

Since November 30th, 722, St Boniface began the requirement that Bishops receiving the episcopal concentration must take an oath of allegiance to the Pope.

SEDES refuse that oath. SEDES invalid and illicit rituals (not consecrations)

It is no little irony invoking St. Boniface, Apostle of Germany, hammer of heretics and defender of Roman orthodoxy -only to weaponize his demand for fidelity to the Pope in defense of a Modernist, post-Vatican II rite that Boniface himself would have condemned as heretical ambiguity.

Now, 

• the oath of allegiance initiated under St. Boniface was a canonical safeguard, not a component of the sacrament. No oath has ever been required for the validity of episcopal consecration.
• Traditionalists (even sedevacantists) Use the Traditional, Pre-Vatican II Rite of Ordination. This is not “invalid or illicit ritual” but the very rite codified by Pope Pius XII, using the exact form he defined in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947). Traditionalists preserve what the Church always did—not some ambiguous hybrid cooked up in 1968 to appease Protestants and Eastern schismatics.
• Sedevacantists Do Not Deny the Papacy: they Deny Modernist Claimants who teach false doctrines, change the rites, and undermine the faith. The sacramental theology of Sedevacantists remains grounded in Tradition, unlike those who impose new, ambiguous rites under color of “obedience.”
• Now: “Obedience ceases to be a virtue and becomes a vice when it serves error and heresy.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, II-II q.104

So no: invoking St. Boniface to defend a Modernist rite while accusing those who preserve the Traditional Sacrament of “invalid rituals” is not only bad theology, it’s historically blind and liturgically ironic. If Boniface were alive today, he wouldn’t be defending the 1968 Pontificale—he’d be chopping down the Modernist tree it grew from. Let that sink. 

Appendix V 

Church Ended? Schism?

Another modernist enthusiast retorted:

So you are saying Catholicism ended? More like 57 years of schism for you and rejecting Communion with the Body of Christ

well, No: Catholicism didn’t end. Modernism hijacked the structures, gutted the sacraments, and built a counterfeit church. We didn’t leave the Body of Christ; we refused to follow the Modernist apostasy. Communion with heresy is not unity: it’s betrayal. 

To stay in communion with those who mock Tradition, confound truth, and sow doubt in the sacraments is not fidelity—it’s spiritual suicide.

We didn’t leave the Church. We stayed with what the Church always was—while you followed what she never could become.

Appendix VI 

Magisterium In The Mirror? 

Yes another modernist enthusiast roared: 

Your magisterium is "in the mirror." No different than a Protestant...hard truth. I missed the part in Matt 16 where Jesus gave you the keys....

Now, this is a classic irony! 

Clinging to what the Church always did is “Protestant,” but tossing it out for a 1968 committee rite is “apostolic.” Funny Sedevacantists  must have missed the verse where Christ gave the keys to a Modernist Consilium...

You see? We stand with the saints, the martyrs, the legitimate councils, and the Popes who actually taught the Faith of all time, not with those who dismantled it in the name of slippery aggiornamento.

So if it’s “hard truth” you want:

It’s not Protestant to reject a counterfeit church—it’s Catholic.

Appendix VII 

Modernism, Handmaid of Divine Logic?

According to another modernist enthusiast:

God wouldn't leave us without sacraments for so long. Don't you understand divine logic?

Well, we do divine logic. That’s why we reject the Modernist lie.

Now, God didn't leave us without sacraments—Modernists did. And He permits crisis to test fidelity, not reward blind obedience. Divine logic? He let His own Son be crucified by His perfidious priests. Why should we expect better?

God’s Providence is not a license for naïve complacency. It demands discernment. Christ founded a visible Church, yes—but also warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing, false shepherds, and even that the elect might be deceived.

When the sacraments are redefined, the Mass rewritten, and ordinations revised to the point of ambiguity—the real abandonment is pretending nothing happened.

Divine logic is not sentimental optimism—it’s cruciform realism. Just as Christ’s Passion seemed like defeat, so too now: the Church must suffer her Passion. The sacraments remain—not in the corrupted structures, but in the faithful remnants who have preserved the true rites, true Faith, and true priesthood.

We’re not without sacraments. We’re without illusions.