Supposing "Bishop" Webster really did repeat the doubtful consecration in the sacristy after the first failed attempt at episcopal consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, and got the words right the 2nd time around, you'd still have this problem:


https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=283592004424463&set=a.130332296417102

Supposing "Bishop" Webster really did repeat the doubtful consecration in the sacristy after the first failed attempt at episcopal consecration of Fr. Pfeiffer, and got the words right the 2nd time around, you'd still have this problem:


https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=283592004424463&set=a.130332296417102

Despite all the lines, the picture can be simplified (and we discussed it here) to the one weak link of Terrasson's priesthood.  He was "ordained" originally by Laborie, who at the time had been "ordained/consecrated" through some Old Catholic  lines.  Now, Terrasson claims, and someone here presented a docuмent to the effect, that Dominguez conditionally ordained him before consecrating him.  So if that can be established, the problem with any ordinations / consecrations performed by Dominguez was that it's unknown whether the guy was proficient enough in Latin to have validly ordained and consecrated.  Perhaps because he was a Spanish speaker he had a better shot.  But that's the big question mark.  Terrasson's consecration, however, would likely have been valid, because in addition to Dominguez, a bishop +Puga, a pre-Vatican II priest who was consecrated validly by +Thuc, acted as a co-conserator.

So it all boils down to whether it can be established that ...
1) Dominguez conditionally ordained Terrasson after the doubtful Laborie orders.
2) Whether Dominguez could be presumed to have validly performed said conditional ordination.

Normally, a properly trained bishop is presumed to have validly ordained/consecrated, but I'm sure that I wouldn't stake my eternal salvation on Dominguez, an insurance salesman with unknown training in Latin, having validly (conditionally) ordained Terrasson.

So IF Dominguez performed a conditional ordination of Terrasson before consecrating him a bishop (as seems likely due to a docuмent I've seen) and IF he got the conditional ordination right, it's likely that +Webster is a valid priest and bishop.  But "likely" isn't good enough in the practical order.

That to me is probably as big a supposition as whether Dominguez got the conditional ordination of Terrasson right.  Fr. Pfeiffer was out the next day insisting that the first attempt was valid.  So then why the second attempt?  If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then he shouldn't have attempted the second.  If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then his judgment regarding validity is incredibly suspect, and we have only his word for the validity of the second attempt.

This 👆🏻

That to me is probably as big a supposition as whether Dominguez got the conditional ordination of Terrasson right.  Fr. Pfeiffer was out the next day insisting that the first attempt was valid.  So then why the second attempt?  If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then he shouldn't have attempted the second.  If he sincerely believes the first was valid, then his judgment regarding validity is incredibly suspect, and we have only his word for the validity of the second attempt.

.

Not to mention that if he really wanted to silence the critics and he was really sure the second one would be fine, why didn't he record it so people wouldn't have any doubt? Maybe he could say he doesn't care about people having doubt, but obviously he does since he repeated the essential form.

I'll tell you one thing:
It seems to me common sense, or a basic principle, that "The corrected version must be at least as public as the error".

You can't have a slander in the New York Post, and correct it by publishing in a small low-circulation newspaper in a small town.
You can't have an error on CNN and correct it by posting a correction on some blog with 100 viewers.
You can't have a highly-publicized, widely circulated video of Fr. Pfeiffer's "consecration", and then correct it with a private ceremony, without any video recorded whatsoever.

It's a question of STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE or PROOF
Until the "correction" matches the "error", in this regard, you have to consider the whole thing suspect. We can't just take his word for it.

Until then, it's OUR OWN EYES vs. Fr. Pfeiffer's words. Sorry, Father, but it's no contest. Our Own Eyes must always win out, as being more certain.

Pfeiffer: Common sense? :P nah, trust me bro we did it right the second time.

The Holy Sacrifice of Mass is incredibly important. It's a matter of our very eternal salvation, as are the Sacraments.

That having been said, it's NOT WORTH going off the path of prudence and sanity into these doubtful priests/bishops.

Better to have a valid Mass once every other month, than daily "mass" simulated by a non-priest!

I'll stick to the rock-solid episcopal lineage of Archbishop Lefebvre, thank you very much.

The Holy Sacrifice of Mass is incredibly important. It's a matter of our very eternal salvation, as are the Sacraments.

That having been said, it's NOT WORTH going off the path of prudence and sanity into these doubtful priests/bishops.

Better to have a valid Mass once every other month, than daily "mass" simulated by a non-priest!

I'll stick to the rock-solid episcopal lineage of Archbishop Lefebvre, thank you very much.

A thousand upvotes for that one Matthew!