Maybe someone who goes to Saint Gertude's and who was at the consecration of Bishop Charles Mcguire can help answer a few questions I have about it? 

The whole video is about 4 1/2 hours long but the relevant part can be found at:
2:15-2:35.



(Bishop Charles McGuire Consecration by
Bishop Rodrigo de Silva)


Question #1: Who were the men sitting on the stools? 

Question #2: Were they co-consecrators? (I noticed that they put their hands out for the imposition of hands when Bishop de Silva did and went to the altar and said with him the  "Accipite" for the consecration.

Question #3: If they were bishops why did they wear black barretas and not wear the proper purple caps or mitres.

Question#4: If they were priests why did they do the imposition of hands and stand in as if they were bishops?

I don't mean to criticize anything done.  I am just confused.  I went to the Consecration of Bishop Zendejas and so I am a bit familiar with what is going on but couldn't quite figure this out and it keeps bothering me.  Maybe I am just looking for too many answers to everything but I figured it was worth asking in case anyone might know the answers and save me from extreme puzzlement.  😅

1) Who were the men sitting on the stools?

Answer: Fr. Carlos Ercoli and Fr. Vili Lehtoranta

2) Were they co-consecrators?

Answer: They were co-consecrator "fill-ins"

3) Question 3 is answered by Answer #2

4) If they aren't Bishops why did they act like Bishop's?

Answer: In the absence of two true co-consecrators (who would obviously have to be Bishops) Priests are supposed to fill in and perform the Liturgical functions of co-consecrating Bishops. Not being Bishops themselves they do not wear Pontificals.

What is the point of having "fill-ins"?  Obviously their laying-on of hands did not impart any sacramental character.  And is this standard practice where, for whatever reason, three bishops aren't available to consecrate the new bishop?

1) Who were the men sitting on the stools?

Answer: Fr. Carlos Ercoli and Fr. Vili Lehtoranta

2) Were they co-consecrators?

Answer: They were co-consecrator "fill-ins"

3) Question 3 is answered by Answer #2

4) If they aren't Bishops why did they act like Bishop's?

Answer: In the absence of two true co-consecrators (who would obviously have to be Bishops) Priests are supposed to fill in and perform the Liturgical functions of co-consecrating Bishops. Not being Bishops themselves they do not wear Pontificals.

Thank you for answering all of my questions!  😅

This is the first time that I have ever heard of a priest filling in for a bishop for a consecration.  Will have to look it up.  😊

Just guessing, they functioned more like witnesses?

This is fill-in is also done in Baptisms when the appointed Godparents are not available.

Interesting idea.  That would make sense to me but it still seems weird that they would do the act and words of consecrating if they were not actually doing it and just witnesses.  🤔

At least for godparents and marriages witnesses can be any lay person.  😅


I have heard that only one bishop is needed in missionary country cases, but I have never heard of the priest fill-ins before.  Maybe I just haven't been to enough consecrations.  😜

Like why would the priests pretend to consecrate if they really can't or are they merely trying to show their approval and support?

They are both easy to locate and contact.  Ask them.

This gives a brief explanation:

https://archive.org/details/commentaryonnewc0004bach/page/417/mode/1up

Good to know.  I had always just assumed, based upon a facile interpretation of the matter (as well as assuming I knew more about the matter than I did, wasn't the first time, won't be the last), that three bishops were used to ensure that there could be no question about the apostolic succession, no question about the validity of the consecration, a kind of redundant "quality control", if you will.

I reasoned that it was the same as what I do when I go on a trip, and check the oven and rangetop burners twice, to make sure they're not on.  That's not OCD, that's wanting not to return to a BDH (burned-down house).

Good to know.  I had always just assumed, based upon a facile interpretation of the matter (as well as assuming I knew more about the matter than I did, wasn't the first time, won't be the last), that three bishops were used to ensure that there could be no question about the apostolic succession, no question about the validity of the consecration, a kind of redundant "quality control", if you will.

I reasoned that it was the same as what I do when I go on a trip, and check the oven and rangetop burners twice, to make sure they're not on.  That's not OCD, that's wanting not to return to a BDH (burned-down house).

I think in normal times it was still required to have three bishops some of reasons you mentioned, and no one could abstain from doing so without a dispensation.  Yet, God allows extreme measures for extreme situations.  

It was also probably easier to have fill-ins from priest for the mere ceremonial aspect of things to remain the same even though they bestow no power than to have no one stand in and there be confusion of what to do.

A friend was telling me last night that apparently there is a thing called "stick subdeacons" where you can still have a solemn high Mass without a subdeacon and a seminarian taking his place if one is not available.  The "stick sub-deacon" would do everything a subdeacon would do but just abstain from certain things that only a subdeacon had the order/power to do.

Glad I asked here about all of this!  Thanks everyone!

I think in normal times it was still required to have three bishops some of reasons you mentioned, and no one could abstain from doing so without a dispensation.  Yet, God allows extreme measures for extreme situations. 

It was also probably easier to have fill-ins from priest for the mere ceremonial aspect of things to remain the same even though they bestow no power than to have no one stand in and there be confusion of what to do.

A friend was telling me last night that apparently there is a thing called "stick subdeacons" where you can still have a solemn high Mass without a subdeacon and a seminarian taking his place if one is not available.  The "stick sub-deacon" would do everything a subdeacon would do but just abstain from certain things that only a subdeacon had the order/power to do.

Glad I asked here about all of this!  Thanks everyone!

*"Straw Subdeacons"

Sorry!  Wrote the wrong title for it.  😅