If a “priest” is “ordained” by a “bishop” “consecrated” in the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration of Paul VI, then it will be pointless for the SSPX, in its investigative process of considering the validity/invalidity of the ordinations of “priests” desiring to join its congregation, to focus that investigation on an evaluation and analysis of the “consecrating” “bishop’s” sacramental intention:
If it were determined that the presumptive “bishop” possessed the requisite sacramental intention to consecrate a priest (and barring any manifestation of a contrary intention in the external forum, such intent must almost always be presumed to exist, according to the maxim “a negative doubt is to be despised,” whereby only positive and probable doubt would suffice to call into question said intention, such as would be the case if the “bishop” contrived a new sacramental form, etc.), then the “priestly ordination” is presumed in the SSPX to be valid.
But what if that “bishop” were no bishop at all, and consequently, the evaluation and investigation centering on his intention were irrelevant?
That is to say, what if the sacramental form of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, which the SSPX today taked for granted, were itself invalid?
The following articles by Fr. Anthony Cekada (which should be read in the order in which they are presented) are excellent critiques regarding the sacramental form of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration, and conclude in its invalidity:
They can all be found on this website toward the bottom of the page: http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/
Absolutely Null and Utterly Void (Original Study - 2006): http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
Why the New Bishops are not True Bishops (Condensed Version - 2006): http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NotTruBps1.pdf
Still Null and Void (Reply to Fr. Santogrossi, OSB, Fr. Kergorlay, OP, and Fr. Calderon, SSPX - 2007): http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf
New Bishops, Empty Tabernacle (A reply to Fr. Celier - 2007): http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpCelierWeb.pdf
Saved by Context? (Reply to an Objection - 2012): http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/06/21/saved-by-context-the-68-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-2/
Here is an excerpt from the first article which sets the debate within its historical context, and brings us to the heart of the debate:
“In the summer of 2005, a French traditionalist publisher, Editions Saint-Remi, published the first volume of Rore Sanctifica, a book-length dossier of documentation and commentary on the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration. The study, featuring on its cover side-by-side photos of Ratzinger and SSPX Superior General Mgr. Bernard Fellay, concluded that the new rite was invalid. This naturally caught the attention of higher-ups in the SSPX in Europe, who were by then negotiating with Benedict XVI to obtain special status in the Vatican II church. How could SSPX’s superiors rally traditionalists to a pope who may not even be a bishop? The Dominicans in Avrillé, France, a traditionalist religious order in the SSPX orbit, immediately took up the task of trying to make a convincing case for the validity of the new rite. One of them, Fr. Pierre-Marie OP, produced a lengthy article in favor of it that the Dominicans published in their quarterly, Sel de la Terre. Thilo Stopka, a former SSPX seminarian in Europe, challenged Fr. Pierre-Marie’s conclusions, and in turn published a great deal of valuable research on the Internet to refute them. Meanwhile, the SSPX’s official U.S. publication, The Angelus, promptly translated Fr. Pierre-Marie’s article into English, publishing it in two successive issues (December 2005, January 2006) under the title “Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid.” I find it ironic and particularly sad that such an article appeared in The Angelus. In August 1977 I visited an old-line traditionalist in Upper Michigan, Bill Hanna. He passed along a favorite quote from Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, a Capuchin who worked with SSPX and would later edit The Angelus: “Once there are no more valid priests, they’ll permit the Latin Mass.” Father Carl, it seems, had a bit of the prophet in him. In his Angelus article, Fr. Pierre-Marie argued that the Paul VI Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid because it uses prayers to consecrate bishops that are virtually the same as those (a) used in the Catholic Church’s eastern rites, or (b) once used in the ancient Church.”
Is it true?
Fr. Cekada makes a persuasive argument against the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration, rebutting the likes of Fr. Celier (a key SSPX figure who pops up wherever the ralliement is threatened: Former GREC participant, publisher of the book "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, which did so much damage to the SSPX in selling the ralliement, and whose Foreword was written by a blaspheming Freemason who has written publicly about his contempt for Archbishop Lefebvre!); and now here defending the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration once again to sell the ralliement), Fr. Calderon, Fr. Pierre-Marie, and others.
These articles disputing the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration seem to me to make the matter of its validity at least questionable (and on that basis, supply the positive and probable doubt regarding defect of form, to shun any and all “priests” and “bishops” stemming from said Rite.
I do not conclude definitively in the invalidity of the new Rite, but believe the matter certainly capable of doubt, and consequently, since it is not permitted to receive doubtful sacraments, keep my distance from all such persons.
Your own conclusions and position may differ.