Friends, IN trying to discern whether a suffragan bishop of ours was validly consecrated, and thus whether I may be received and confirmed by him, I have taken to the ordinals. The Alternative Services (with which the Suffragan was consecrated) has the rubric: the archbishop and other bishops lay their hands on the head of the bishop-elect, and the archbishop says, "Send down your Holy Spirit upon your servant N., whom we consecrate in your name to the office and work of a bishop in the Church." If the sole bishop who pronounced the words of consecration was invalid, would the consecration occur? Would the silence of the other two bishops (whose hands are laid upon the elect's head) provide anything? Does the leading bishop speak for the other 2, or only for himself? Why does only one bishop (called the "archbishop") pronounce the sacred words? It is like this in the 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662 BCPs as well.
For anyone interested, here is the answer of a bishop: Dear X, 1) The chief consecrator at my Episcopal ordination was the Most Rev. ____, Archbishop of ____ and Metropolitan of ____. 2) The liturgy designated him as ‘chief consecrator’ he functioned in the role along with the other bishops present. It is my understanding that the use of ‘We’ in the liturgy applies to the collective of bishops present. It is not a ‘magisterial We’. While it is only the Archbishop who says the prayer of consecration, the other bishops present are essential to the consecration. They are not merely silent witnesses. I hope that this might allay your concerns. +N.
Ah! Sorry about that S.M. My fears have been 100% allayed and assuaged. The green light for Epiphany awaits the Bishop. It was something I had to do, given how strong the R.C. church's propaganda was about Anglican orders. We were taught not to have faith in God, but in Rome; anyone else was suspect. Sometimes it's hard to shake habits.