We've dealt with most of this here. I think we were the first to point out the problem with the form pronounced by Bishop Webster. Also, since Father Pfeiffer demonstrated that he's not a reliable witness, we can't simply take his word for it that Bishop Webster got it right on the "do-over" on the following day, since Fr. Pfeiffer's notion of what suffices for validity disqualifies him from being a competent witness. And we don't know who else was there who could competently testify that it was done correctly the second time.
What's new here, to me at least, was that Bishop Slupski, when "consecrating" Father Paul Petko never laid his hands on him ... and so Petko was not a valid bishop. This puts in to doubt other consecrations and perhaps even ordinations performed by Bishop Slupski (unfortunately). That may be what that one cryptic clown was referring to who came on here one time but refuse to name names and details.
In terms of Bishop Webster's priestly ordination via the Terrasson line, the weak link is his conditional ordination to the priesthood. While Dominguez did lack the qualifications to perform consecrations where they should be presumed valid, he was assisted by a pre-Vatican2-ordained priest who had also been consecrated by +Thuc and served as the co-consecrator. So Terrasson's consecration could be presumed valid. Not so sure about his prior conditional ordination however.
Topic: Of Doctors and Bishops (Read 3731 times)