•Does one know that neither of the two co-consecrators (one of whom was personally consecrated by Pope
Pius VI) didn’t supply the necessary matter, form and intention like co-consecrators are supposed to?
•Does one know that even if Talleyrand invalidly consecrated
other bishops, that he didn’t mention this to someone before his death, thereby allowing the Church to take corrective action?
Because unlike Liénart, who died in the
false church he helped to create; Talleyrand actually died reconciled to the Catholic Church. He received the Last Rites and was in communication with Pope Gregory XVI shortly before his death. If he had done something so insidious as to have withheld his
Sacramental intention, upon which the validity of all of the bishops of France depended upon, don’t you think he would have said something to someone? To Pope Gregory XVI, to his confessor, to someone? To me it seems highly improbable that Talleyrand
would have gone through the public display of being reconciled with the Church and at the same time have kept silent about botching his consecrations, if indeed, he had botched them. As a bishop/priest, he knew that he could not withhold confessing such a
sin and possibly hope for forgiveness from God. It would have rendered his Confession invalid and have made reconciliation a farce. So unless we presume evil of the part of the publicly penitent Talleyrand, his reconciliation with the Church is strong evidence
that if there had been an invalidating issue concerning his consecrations of the Constitutional bishops, that the Church would have been made aware of it and therefore enabled to take any corrective measures it may have deemed necessary.
•Does one know that even if Talleyrand’s consecrations were questionable, that the Church didn’t quietly correct them?
These are but a few of the possible explanations as to why the Church didn’t require a public re-consecration of the Constitutional bishops.