Any “opinions” should be based on traditional sacramental theology…and not the “opinion” that most people have…based on some common part of the human anatomy.
The question was about validity. The question of “being licit” is more complicated and gets into areas off this topic.
I’m the OP, and I was really just trying to inquire about opinions regarding the validity of the consecrations – are they real bishops? I’ve heard arguments from both positions on this. With regard to whether or not the consecrations were licit, I consider that another issue. Sure it’s related, but we can also discuss the validity of the consecratons without referring to it. Although they can’t be licit without being valid, they can be valid without being licit.
don’t have an opinion and if I did it would be worthless, as will any other opinion expressed here. The Church pronounced or will pronounce on the matter, and that is the only opinion that matters. total waste time to speculate unless poster personally would be affected, and if he questions validity of sacraments he should contact his own bishop for assurance.
I was actually hoping to get opinions from people who have some knowledge of the subject, so I wouldn’t consider the opinions worthless. As far as I know, the Church has NOT pronounced on this, but if you some info to the contrary, please share it.
They are probably valid. Thuc was validly ordained bishop and he used a valid rite of ordination. However, the validity of his intention comes under suspicion because of his personal history of mental illness and, breaking a centuries old tradition and legal requirement, there were no co-consecrating bishops. This tradition is designed to protect the sacrament from defects of intention. Those he ordained were no more than acquaintances to him: This also raises questions about irregularities and impediments that could, in theory, annul these ordinations.
The Church does consider the consecrations valid.