Holy Orders And Sedevacantism

 

Every once in awhile, I read an article on sedevacantism that leaves me baffled as to where the author gets his information. One such article was written by "Brother"Alexis Bugnolo who declares himself "a Franciscan hermit who observes the Rule of St Francis by private vows with tacit permission of Pope Benedict XVI and written permission of the Congregation for Religious in 2006." Whatever that means. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Vatican II sect doesn't recognize him, and I have seen no proof of a recognition from the Modernist Congregation of Religious aside from Bugnolo's ipse dixit. Bugnolo recognizes the sect, yet is a sedevacantist of sorts. While he accepts Vatican II and the "popes" from Roncalli to Ratzinger, he believes Ratzinger remained pope until his death on December 31, 2022--thereby disavowing Bergoglio and making him a "Bennyvacantist." 

Then Bugnolo took it upon himself to hold a "conclave" in an airport with about five "electors." Whom did they "elect"? Jorge Bergoglio who then became pope on January 30, 2022. (I couldn't make it up if I tried). Now, he holds Prevost's election as invalid so he's back to his brand of sedevacantism. 

Bugnolo's website fromrome.info carried an article last month entitled "The Heresy of Classical Sedevacantism." He deems the position of those of us who reject Vatican II and all "popes" from Roncalli (or at least Montini) to Prevost as "classical." I label his form of sedevacantism as "Asinine Sedevacantism" (AS). I was wondering what a muddleheaded pseudo-brother thought was "heretical" about classic sedevacantism. As I suspected, the answer was as ridiculous as his "conclave."

Bugnolo writes:

But one of the core theological positions often found with classical Sedevacantism is that the ritual for the consecration of Bishops in the New Rite after Vatican II cannot validly effect the consecration of a Bishop...

He continues:

Their chief motivation for adopting this denial is to justify their conspiracy theories about invalid conclaves and invalid popes. They say, for example, that Pope Benedict XVI could not validly be a pope because he was never validly consecrated as a Bishop, even though his principle consecrator, Msgr. Josef Stangel, was consecrated a Bishop in 1957, in the “Old Rite”.

The rest of the article is an attempt to show the Pauline Rite of episcopal consecration to be valid. Personally, I don't know any sede who adopts sedevacantism on account of an invalid episcopal consecration. Ratzinger was not Catholic and heretics cannot attain to the papacy. Secondly, true sedevacantists are in no need of conspiracy theories (although many abound) to declare the See of Rome vacant. It's based on sound theological principles. 

(See my post: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2025/08/conspiracies-traditionalists-and.html). 

So I don't know who "they" are who allegedly think invalid episcopal consecrations validate sedevacantism. Nevertheless, I thought this was a good opportunity to write about the invalidity of the Pauline Rite of episcopal consecration. To be certain, Fr. Anthony Cekada (RIP) wrote a study entitled Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, which remains the gold standard in refuting the validity of Vatican II orders. The remainder of this post will be a recapitulation of the reasons the Pauline Rite is as useless to create a bishop as the Anglican Ordinal. I give full credit to the work of Fr. Cekada, and the myriad sources both in print and online for the material that follows next. I take absolutely no credit for myself, except for condensing the material into a terse and readable form.

The Requirements for Sacramental Validity in Episcopal Consecrations

Episcopal consecrations are essential for the Church to continue. All the sacraments but two (Baptism and Matrimony) require a priest or bishop. Only bishops can ordain men priests and consecrate priests as bishops. If episcopal consecrations are invalid, eventually the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will be no more, as would be the case with Holy Orders, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, the Eucharist, and Penance. 

As with all sacraments, there are five requirements for validity, and a substantial change in any one of these will make the sacrament invalid: Administer, Matter, Form, Intention, and there must be no obex (invalidating obstacle) on the part of the recipient. Each will be examined in relation to episcopal consecration.

Administer: Only a validly consecrated bishop can consecrate a priest as a bishop. Three bishops (a principal consecrator, and two co-consecrators) are employed, but only a single bishop as principal consecrator suffices for validity. 

Matter: The imposition of the hands of the bishop on the head of the priest being consecrated.

Form: These are the words that must accompany the matter to effectuate the sacramental sign. Christ specified certain sacraments in a precise manner - in specie.. Such is the case with both Baptism and the Eucharist where He gave the words to be used. With regard to the other sacraments, it is held that He only specified the form in genere - in a general way, leaving to the Apostles and their successors in the One True Church the care and power of determining them more precisely. Pope Pius XII established the words to be used in the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947. 

Intention: The bishop must have the proper intention. That is, he must intend to do what the Church does in the administration of the sacrament. Intention is usually seen as having both an external and internal aspect. The external intention is provided to the bishop by the rite he uses and it is assumed that he intends what the rite intends. His internal intention is another matter and can never be known with certainty unless he exposes it or makes it known. The Church, recognizing that She can never know the internal intention of the bishop, presumes it is the same as his external intention, (the intention which the traditional rite provides by its very wording) unless he himself informs the Church otherwise. 

No Obex: Only a validly ordained priest who intends to receive consecration to the episcopacy can become a bishop. Females can never validly receive Holy Orders. The attempted consecration of a deacon or a layman is dubious and must be treated as invalid in the practical order. 

(See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, 8:Part 1, pgs. 1-200 [1915]). 

Comparing the Form of the Traditional Rite and Pauline Rite

In Sacramentum Ordinis, para. #5, Pope Pius XII settled the matter and form for the episcopacy, priesthood, and diaconate definitively. He decreed:

Finally in the Episcopal Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.”

[“Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”]

Montini (Paul VI) issuing his Apostolic Constitution entitled Pontificalis Romani (June 23, 1968) in which he retains the matter - the laying on of hands - but in which he specifies that the form for ordaining bishops is to be:

"et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis apostolis, qui constituerunt ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indificientem nominis tui" - ["So now pour forth 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 found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing  glory and praise of your name."]

Why change the form of the sacrament when it was already settled? Montini was out to destroy the hierarchy.  There are here two forms, or more precisely two groups of "essential" words wherein the substance of the form is to be found, and both of which are stated to be required for validity. How  can one explain this apparent disparity? The Church has the right to change the wording of the form for Holy Orders, but only in so far as She doesn't change their "substance" or meaning. The problem to be resolved then, is whether both forms mean the same thing. They do not.

Pope Leo XIII and the Theologians on the Form of Holy Orders

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void." His Holiness based this decision on a defect of both form and intention--either one would render it invalid. Here, I will only deal with the form. Paragraph #28 states:

The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost, " not only were the words “for the office and work of a bishop”, etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God”, since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium .

It was taught by the pope, and explained by the theologians, that each grade of Holy Orders (deacon, priest, bishop) must (a) univocally state the order being given (deacon, priest, bishop) and (b) the grace of the Holy Ghost. If either is absent, the sacrament is not effectuated. As theologian Semple teaches:

It is not essential to express the word, "deacon," "priest," or "bishop," but the form must at least express some clear equivalent. Thus "the order of the Blessed Stephen" is a clear equivalent of the order of Deacon. It is not essential to express the main power of the priest or the bishop in the form, but if this main power were expressed, it too would be an equivalent. However, it is essential to express either the order or its main power, and if the main power is not only left out, but positively excluded, then the right name, though kept, is not the right name in reality but only a shadow. Now, the main power of a true priest is to offer a true sacrifice, and at least one of the main powers of a bishop is to make priests.

(See Anglican Ordinations, [1906], pg. 153).

The theologian who drafted the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Hurth, considers the definition of Pope Pius to be infallible, and has this to say: The words which fully suffice for the power and the grace to be signified are found in the consecratory Preface, whose essential words are those in which the ‘fullness or totality’ of the sacerdotal ministry and the ‘raiment of all glory’ are expressed.

(See Commentary on the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis,” Periodica 37, pg. 26; English translation). 

The Pauline Rite Does NOT Signify What is Necessary

The new form of Montini does not contain a univocal expression of the episcopacy and the grace of the Holy Ghost; the absence of either is a substantial change and invalidating defect. Once more:

So now pour forth 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 found the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing  glory and praise of your name.

The phrase "spiritum principalem" ("governing Spirit") is not to be found in any known ordination rite, as can be seen by referring to either Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolic Curae, by the Catholic bishops of England, or Bishop Kendrick's book on The Validity of Anglican Ordinations, both of which list all the known episcopal rites. The phrase is found in only one place in Scripture - Psalm 50, verse 14 - "redde mihi laeitiam salutaris tui et spiritu principali confirma me - restore unto me the joy of thy salvation and strengthen me with a governing (or upright) spirit.." The context is that of David asking God's forgiveness for his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and the strength to control his passions, and thus can be applied to any individual.

If "governing Spirit" refers to the grace of the Holy Ghost, where is the rank of bishop univocally expressed? If it refers to the order of bishop (never used before) where is the grace of the Holy Ghost expressed? 

Many apologist for the Vatican II sect have tried to analogize to the so-called "Apostolic Tradition of  Hippolytus." Hippolytus was a highly enigmatic person who lived in the third century. He was born about 160 and is thought to have been a disciple of St. Iranaeus. He became a priest under Pope Zephyrinus about the year 198 and won great respect for his learning and eloquence. After having doctrinal differences with the Pope, Hippolytus left Rome, found a bishop to consecrate him, and established a schismatic Church. He was subsequently excommunicated. He drew up his "Apostolic Traditions" while he was outside the Church, presumably to establish a "pontifical" for his schismatic sect. Later, after Maximus became emperor and instituted a new persecution against the Christians, both he and the reigning Pontiff (Pontianus) were arrested and sent to the mines in Sardinia. It was here, just prior to his death, that he became reconciled to the Church. Both he and the pope were martyred together and later canonized. The Hippolytic schism ended with this event.

The text written by Hippolytus as a "Pontifical" for his schismatic sect was named by him "The Apostolic Traditions." According to Professor Burton Scott Easton of Cambridge University, we can summarize what we know of this document in the following words:

The original Greek of the Apostolic tradition has not been recovered, except in small fragments. the Latin is generally trustworthy, but is incomplete. The only other primary version, the Sahidic, is likewise incomplete, and the results of the moderate abilities of its translator have been further confused in later transmission. The Arabic is a secondary text, offering little that the Sahidic does not contain. The only practically complete version, the Ethiopic, is tertiary and is otherwise unreliable. All four of these versions presuppose a common Greek original, in which two different endings have been conflated. The other sources, the Constitutions, the Testament and the Canons are frank revisions, in which the original is often edited out of recognition or even flatly contradicted. Under these conditions the restoration of a really accurate text is manifestly impossible.

(See The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, translated into English with an introduction and notes, [1934]; Emphasis mine). 

Without being sure the words are correct, Montini used them. Clearly we have no exact knowledge of the form that Hippolytus used, and just as clearly, there is no evidence that the form adopted by Paul VI was ever used to consecrate anybody. 

The Nail in the Coffin for the Pauline Rite: Matter and Form are NOT United

Matter and form must be united to produce the sacramental sign. To give an example, a priest cannot pour water over the head of an infant while having a coughing fit, and then say "I baptize thee..." a minute after the water has been poured; the baptism is invalid. 

 In the traditional rite, prior to the imposition of hands - the matter of the rite - the Consecrator took the open book of the Gospels, and saying nothing, laid it upon the neck and the shoulders of the Bishop-elect, so that the printed page touched the neck. One of the chaplains kneeled behind supporting the book until it was given into the hands of the Bishop-elect. After this the consecrator imposed his hands on the head of the ordinand, saying "Receive the Holy Ghost," and then proceeded with a short prayer and the preface which contained the words of the form. There was a moral continuity of action so that the form was not really separated from the matter.

In the new rite the principal consecrator lays his hands upon the bishop-elect in silence. Following this the principal consecrator places the open Book of the Gospels upon the head of the bishop-elect; two deacons, standing at either side of the bishop-elect, hold the Book of the Gospels above his head until the prayer of consecration is completed. Here the continuity of action is discontinuous which is to say that the matter and the form are separated by the imposition of the Gospels over the head of the bishop-elect.

 Matter and Form must be united or concurrent. As theologian Davis teaches:

The matter and form must be united - so far as union is possible - to produce the one external rite, and so to produce a valid Sacrament... However in Holy Orders, ...moral simultaneity is sufficient, that is, these Sacraments are valid though the proximate matter is employed immediately before or after the use of the word. What interval would suffice to render the Sacrament invalid cannot be determined; the interval of the recital of the 'Our Father' appeared sufficient to St. Alphonsus, but in such matters we should not rely on probabilities, we should make sure the matter and form are as united as we can make them. (See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:10-11, [1935]). 

Conclusion

The validity of episcopal consecration has nothing to do with sedevacantism, yet it has been shown invalid due to substantial defect of the essential form and the disunity of the matter and form. As of this writing, there remain only nine valid bishops in the Latin Rite of the Vatican II sect. The Modernists have succeeded in destroying the hierarchy in their sect. 

I guess it only makes sense that when you adopt Asinine Sedevacantism, like Alexis Bugnolo, all the rest of theology becomes equally mindless.