I think you may have missed something important in what I was saying, probably because I was speaking in a Catholic way, using the Catholic meanings of the words. Using the Catholic definition of the terms, it makes no sense to speak of the "validity" of a consecration, since a consecration, unlike an ordination, does not have sacramental effets. Your comment would seem to indicate that you're using the word "consecration" to mean what a Catholic means by "ordination".
A simple consecration is neither valid nor invalid, since it does not impart any supernatural effects. That's the whole point of my article: that the making of a bishop is not a participation in any sacrament.
I used the word "consecration" because that's the term the Orthodox Church uses and there it is considered a Mystery or Sacrament if you will.
This is the tedious Catholic legalism that Orthodox theologians and representatives attending ecumenical gatherings with Catholics so often criticize.
"Bound Powers theory"? It sounds like something that would spring forth from a Harvard Con Law professor.