This will
probably be of interest to only a few people, but as part of my research into
sacramental theology and related topics, one has studied a bit about the Thucepiscopal consecrations and related issues (see this paper by Mario Derksen who
argues rather persuasively that, in light of Catholic sacramental theology, the
ordinations [1] did happen and [2] did produce “true” [sacramental] bishops).
One topic has been the debate about the qualifications of the witnesses to the
1981 consecrations. In a book from 1908 addressing the witnesses of sacramental
marriage (true, not the same as episcopal consecrations, but it is still a
sacrament in Catholic theology), we find the following discussion about
witnesses:
Both the Council of Trent and the Decree of
Pius X make it a condition necessary for the validity of marriage that it take
place in the presence of two witnesses in addition to the parish-priest, who is
the testis auctorizabilis or qualificatus. Neither law, however,
requires any special qualities or qualifications in these two witnesses over
and above those natural attributes which go to make the capacity of adverting
to what is being done and of bearing testimony to it, such as, the use of
reason and of senses, etc. Hence, men, women, children who have the use of
reason relatives, the clergy secular and regular, nuns, infidels, heretics, the
excommunicate, persons of ill fame, etc., may all validly act as witnesses to
marriage, though of course there are many whom it would be unbecoming, and
unlawful without grave reason, to use in this capacity. Hence in many places
local statues exist regulating the selection of matrimonial witnesses. These
laws, however, affect only the lawfulness, not the validity of the marriage.
Similarly, the Holy Office, 19 Aug. 1891, when asked if it was permitted to
make use of heretics as witnesses to Catholic marriages, replied: “Nonesse
adhibendos; posse tamen ab Ordinario tolerari ex gravi causa, dummodo non adsit
scandalum” . . . From what is said above it follows also that the merely physical or material presence of the witnesses does not suffice or the validity
of the marriage. An intellectual or moral presence is also necessary; that
is they must be present humane modo,
as theologians say, so that they perceive that a marriage is taking place
between two persons and that the mutual consent of the contracting parties is
given to the marriage, and their knowledge of this must be sure, so that they
can afterwards testify with certainty to the fact of the marriage. Hence a
person who is intoxicated (so far as not to know what he is doing), asleep,
unconscious or otherwise without the use of his senses, cannot be a valid
witness to matrimony . . . The loss of one sense, however, does not render him
incapable of witnessing marriage. If he is deaf, he can make sure of the fact
of the marriage from the signs and actions that take place during the ceremony
and which signify the mutual consent of the bridegroom and bride: if blind, his
hearing will serve him, if he can recognize the voices of the contracting
parties and there is no danger of deception; so that his testimony would in
such a case be accepted . . . A person who is both blind and deaf cannot be a
valid witness of a marriage . . . (Charles J. Cronin, The New Matrimonial Legislation: A Commentary on the Decree of the
Sacred Congregation of the Council, Ne Temere, published on the 2nd of August 1907, by order of Pope Pius X, on
Betrothal and Marriage [Glasgow: R&T Washbourne, Ltd., 1908], 81-84)
