.
Yet another reason that H.E. was not tolerable among the Menzingen-denizens. Can you imagine +Fellay writing anything close to this today? Can you imagine him writing anything close to any of the EC's? And yet, when asked, +F could not give a single example of any error or point of doctrine that any one EC contained that he thought was inappropriate.
Notice also, +W doesn't say that any Newpriest is obviously not a priest because of any specific defect. He says there is a reason for doubt. And the conditional re-ordination removes the doubt.
There is something else he doesn't get into in this short treatment.
When a priest with doubtful ordination hears confessions and gives absolution, is it valid, or is it rather doubtful? When he later gets conditionally re-ordained then what about all the previous absolutions he had been giving before that time? Don't they have to be called into question? Wouldn't each penitent have to come and re-confess their sins and obtain a repaired absolution? What if all the penitents could not be found? Would they have been absolved inadequately and then had gone ahead for perhaps years receiving the Eucharist with mortal sins and not knowing it? How would that not be another sin, even if it was not deliberate? How could it be "wrong" without being a sin?
There is another question to be addressed. When, in the history of the Church, has any tribunal found that a particular sacerdotal ordination in the past had been invalid? Can anyone find one case of one invalidly ordained priest, ever, in any century?
.