@Sean Johnson I don't see it.

If you oppose a rite to another for the question of validity, then it is useless.

The important thing in any rite of episcopal consecration is the laying on of hands because the Sacrament of the Order is transmitted by physical contact (same thing for the priesthood).

If all the those who claim that it is absolutely necessary to use the ancient Roman rite to consecrate a bishop were right, then there would be no bishop on the planet since the Apostles did not use this ritual.

Update: Looks like the SSPX deleted my refutation of Fr. McFarland's claim that only those ignorant of sacramental theology find doubt regarding validity in the new rite of episcopal consecration (i.e., stemming from the ambiguity of the phrase "governing spirit"). I pointed out that his accusation would then have to be applied to +Tissier de Mallerais, who has famously doubted the validity of the new form in writing, and also that Fr. Alvaro Calderon (longtime professor at the seminary in La Reja, Argentina also wrote a study which concluded that although the rite is "very probably valid" (i.e., doubtful), a shadow of doubt about its validity remains, and it should be revised. I guess the SSPX is more interested in a deal with Rome (i.e., therefore no longer permitted to question the validity of the new rite), than truth. Parading +Huonder around and permitting him to "consecrate" holy oils last year was the proof of it.

@Sean Johnson

A tiny group of people have doubts, but the New Rite is not doubtful for nearly all Catholic scholars and clerics.

They are judging the New Rite with pseudo criteria that are not applicable to the initial transmission of bishophood.

Matthias, the first bishop, validly received, without a formal ceremony of episcopal consecration, the bishophood/ministry previously given by Jesus to the Apostles (Acts 1:15-26).

They said a new Apostle was needed, they made a short prayer without knowing who will become a bishop/Apostle, ''then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.''

Perhaps you're familiar with a "Conditional Baptism".
Someone receives the Sacrament of Baptism just in case something went wrong, was missing, was defective or there is cause/reason to doubt the validity of the first ritual of Baptism. But if the original Baptism was validly performed, then the Conditional Baptism would have no effect. @All Saints So Conditional Baptism like Conditional Consecration is performed JUST IN CASE.