This concern is voiced by the best traditional sedeplenist sacramental theologians (e.g., Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; Fr. Calderon; Fr. Scott; Archbishop Lefebvre; Bishop Williamson; et al).

The questions surrounding the doubtful validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration do not emanate from the mere fact that there was a material change in the form, but from the fact that the form of the new rite may not sufficiently (i.e., unambiguously) signify the power being conferred.

This concern is voiced by the best traditional sedeplenist sacramental theologians (e.g., Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; Fr. Calderon; Fr. Scott; Archbishop Lefebvre; Bishop Williamson; et al).

Lefebvre has opined that not all acts of ecclesiastical discipline are covered by infallibility, and there have been countless threads on this forum alone regarding the idea that the entirely new "species" of sacramental forms, canonizations, etc. may not necessarily amount to dogmatic facts, as they once did (i.e., because their novelty relegates them to the level of the merely "authentic magisterium," which is a teaching promulgated by one with the authority to teach, but which has no basis in tradition. either temporally or universally, as opposed to acts of the ordinary magisterium, which are binding because contained in the perennial teaching of the Church).

Which is all another way as asking, "How can a novelty represent a dogmatic fact?"

This preclusion seems to be a built-in protection for indefectability (i.e., all novelties, regardless of the solemnity of their "promulgation," are by definition non-magisterial, and therefore not dogmatic facts).

And to go back to CatholicMonarchists subsequent comment, this is but one possible explanation as to why sedevacantism is not compulsory in one who questions the validity of the new rite(s).

Here's where I'm confused though.  Sedeplenists at this point don't just have to deal with the  fact that Pope Paul VI made a mistake of this magnitude.  That I could accept at least as hypothetically possible, being not a trained theologian.

The more obvious problem to me here is that Benedict XVI and Francis simply were not bishops, if the new rite of episcopal conseration is invalid.  I know of no way a non bishop could be the bishop of Rome, so it seems to me that if the rite is carte blanche doubtful, it is similarly doubtful that we've had a Bishop of Rome (a Pope) since *at least* 2005.

Honestly if I were persuaded that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was either doubtful or invalid, this seems like a much stronger argument to me for Sedevacantism than the conjecture of "this Pope is a heretic" which seems hard to prove from a formal standpoint.  Anybody can say stuff that sounds sketch, and we can quibble all day long about how culpable they are for it, but that's not nearly as clear cut as "that guy just isn't a bishop."

So it seems to me that *if* *all* new rite episcopal consecrations are doubtful, than *at least* the last two popes are too.  By contrast if *some* new rite consecrations are doubtful, but the B16 and Francis ones aren't, I'd need a reason for that (is the Church somehow infallible in its near unanimous recognition of a Pope, but *not* similarly so with other bishops?)

I honestly want to learn.  What am I missing here?

If they weren't bishops, then that means they were still the pope-elect, but just not fully pope.  You could be elected tomorrow, as a layman, non-priest, non-bishop, and you'd still be the pope (in the material, governing sense) but not the pope in the formal (spiritual sense).  You would only attain the formal part of the office once ordained/consecrated, and then you'd have the full office.

While the doubt would preclude one from the reception of sacraments depending upon valid orders, the matter of the legitimacy of the pope is not directly a sacramental issue, but a juridical one.

Consequently, one cannot be accused of logical inconsistency for recognizing the legitimacy of the pope, but refusing to attend his Mass because of doubt.

Regarding this issue of legitimacy, one instead refers to the opinions of the same theologians cited above: The validity of the new rite is probable.

One would not logically reject the legitimacy of a papal claimant universally recognized because of a doubt regarding the validity of the rite of consecration, where the same authors noting the doubt declare it outweighed by probable validity, because regarding the pope as pope is not a sacramental matter.

As regards the possibility regarding the doubt that BXVI/Francis are not real bishops, and therefore not real popes, I note the more common opinion of Billot (et al) that once a pope is universally recognized, all defects regarding his legitimacy are healed in the root.