New Rite of Episcopal Consecration: Valid?

[awkward customer]

Here is Fr Cekada on the Traditional form for consecrating bishops.

F. Episcopal Consecration in Particular

In the same document, (Sacramentum Ordinis), having laid down a general principle, Pius XII then declared that the following words, contained in the consecratory Preface for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, were the essential sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy:

"Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify
him with the dew of heavenly anointing."

This 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.

The question is whether the new form does the same.

Fr Cekada claims that the new form  does not convey the power of Order or the grace of the Holy Ghost.

The Paul VI Form

Paul VI designated the following passage in the Preface as the new form for the consecration of a
bishop:

"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."

The expression 'governing Spirit' is not univocal — that is, it is not a term that signifies only one thing as Pius XII required, according to Fr Cekada.  In fact, 'governing Spirit' can mean quite a few things.  Neither is the power of Order (potestas Ordinis) of the episcopacy present in the new form.. The expression governing Spirit does not even equivocally connote the Sacrament of Holy Orders in any sense, he claims.

[awkward customer]

It seems obvious enough to me.

The Novus Ordo rite for the Consecration of Bishops is invalid.

 

[Bataar]

If Paul VI was a valid pope (I don't believe he was, but for the sake of this argument, let's assume he was), would he have had the power/authority to change the form of the consecration from what Pius XII said was required to its current form?

[Bonaventure]

If Paul VI was a valid pope (I don't believe he was, but for the sake of this argument, let's assume he was), would he have had the power/authority to change the form of the consecration from what Pius XII said was required to its current form?

No pope can change anything, however if he were pope, the thought process would be since he is a pope, he and his magisterium are acting with the protections of infallibility and indefectibility and as such this is free from error.