I think some very large pieces of humble pie need to be served up to quite a few members of this forum...
On the contrary, +?Pfeiffer has CathInfo to thank for finding the defect. I wrote in my earlier posts that the result of this finding should be that he seek conditional consecration, that he should be grateful that we uncovered this defect while he was in a position to remedy it. And the fact that he had this done only confirms our assessment that the original consecration was doubtful at best.
If I wanted to be nasty about it, I would have said nothing until Bishop Webster had passed away, and then would have sprung it on him. But this needed to be brought out into the open out of charity, both for him and also for those who might receive episcopal sacraments from him in the future.
Unfortunately, +Bishop Webster's statement that a conditional confirmation was done does not suffice to remove doubt, because he botched it so badly the first time, it is equally possible that he had similar difficulties the second time.
Also, another reason to doubt the integrity of the conditional is +?Pfeiffer's own subsequent statement where he clearly misunderstands the requirements for a valid form. Consequently, his assessment that the subsequent conditional consecration was valid has little weight with me.
Nor does a phone conversation suffice for any canonical standard of establishing validity. Bishop Webster needs to issue a docuмent stating as much.
Topic: Webster Confirms Conditional Consecration (Read 5621 times)