The doubtfulness of the Thuc line is all that matters. This is not addressed here.
How well formed the seminarians are, is beside the point.
"Bishop" Pfeiffer will always have doubt over all priests he attempts to consecrate. The whole situation is very, very sad.
It's not addressed here, but mentioned in passing, because there have been dozens of long threads about this. Some people, mostly of the SSPV mindset, consider them doubtful. I, on the other hand, have not seen anything that would suffice to establish any positive doubt. It is due entirely to SSPV propaganda that people have negative doubts about them. Meanwhile, the same people that doubt the +Thuc ordinations have no issues with the +Mendez ordinations and consecration ... despite the fact that it labors under the same difficulties. I don't have a problem with either line.
Now, there are some strange +Thuc lines that are very difficult to verify, but the main lines have little doubt about them, especially the +Guerards des Laurier->+McKenna, and the +Carmona lines.
Someone offline sent me a signed conditional ordination certificate for Terrasson, which would put that doubt to bed.
There's little doubt about the validity of the Clemente Dominguez line either per se, but I do have some questions about Clemente's training. He was ordained/consecrated with little training, and I would have some questions about whether he could competently perform an ordination or consecration. Part of the presumption of validity has to do with the assumption that a properly-trained priest or bishop can validly confect the Sacraments ... another reason why proper clerical training is so important.
It is my personal opinion, however, that Bishop Webster sufficiently botched the essential form during this consecration to render it positively doubtful. Had they not released this video, there would have been presumption of validity, but with this evidence, there's now positive doubt.
Topic: Bishop Pfeiffer (Read 30927 times)