Yes, the Polish Nationals have valid orders.
No.
That is the defective form that the Bull alleges. But, since the same defect exists in a number of Rites which the RCC considers as conveying valid orders, the issue also must consider intent. As I said, the intent is unclear in Apostolicae Curae, but the best conclusion is that it referred to the consecrators of ++Parker.
It alleged that the defect of form related to the omission, as it was seen, of the statement in the ordination rite of the power of the priesthood to offer sacrifice, and, in that of the bishops, a failure to refer to the episcopacy as the highest form of the priesthood. The assertion, particularly with respect to the form for a priest, was that this indicated that the sacrificing priesthood was not what was being intended or conveyed.
Yes there has. See if this link helps at all. It only covers The Episcopal Church, but it’s a start. And don’t let any negativity in this thread get ya down.There has?
That’s not the one I had in mind, but it’s useful.Yes there has. See if this link helps at all. It only covers The Episcopal Church, but it’s a start. And don’t let any negativity in this thread get ya down.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_Bishops_of_the_Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States
I have to agree, when I left the Anglican Church the ordination of women and blessing of homosexual relationships(I don’t think they’d yet performed a marriage) played a part. A.C. did not. It just isn’t an argument that works unless you already accept the voice of Rome, and if you already accept Rome, why would one be in the Anglican Church?The key is “illicit.” The Old Catholic churches, Episcopal Church, and many Anglican churches like the CofE and many ACNA churches have allowed great sin to penetrate their bodies, namely the disgusting heresy of “ordaining” women. It would be more productive for a Catholic to criticize the “illicit” futility of having apostolic succession if one isn’t in communion with the Church, thus allowing all sorts of sin and rot to penetrate the walls of the new church bodies. I think it’s a better road of criticism to go down to say “you guys may have apostolic succession but it’s not all one needs to make a Church. Your sinful heterodox women’s ordination and the rampant sympathy for homosexual marriage, abortion, divorce/remarriage and other sins has penetrated most quarters (not all) of Anglicanism, the Old Catholics, etc.” That’s a better argument than the invalidity route when arguing against Anglicanism I’d say. But that’s just moi.
The supposed “defects” of wording regarding the episcopacy in the Edwardine ordinal, if memory serves, were the same essential “defects” of earlier Catholic ordinals. I think it was in the Anglican rebuttal to Apostolicae Curae called Saepius Officio where Temple and Maclagan used the logic that if past Catholic ordinals that were worded essentially the same as the Edwardine, or at least didn’t express the explicit verbage that Apostolicae Curae claimed was necessary, then Catholic ordinations would’ve also been “null and void” centuries before the Anglican because the Anglican was very similar in what it said and didn’t say centuries before, right?
Cardinal Basil Hume, a Roman Catholic cardinal, said that the Dutch Touch and Polish Patting put Apostolicae Curae into some doubt.
Most Catholics in CAF aren’t aware of the PNCC and Utrecht interactions with the Anglican church so they only go off of A.C. by Leo XIII. GKC maintains that a Catholic should go off of A.C. as de fide and ignore historical developments to be a good Catholic. I disagree. I think a good Catholic can look at A.C. for what it was worth at the time but in light of historical developments maintain a private view that they’re probably valid but illicit.
The key is “illicit.” The Old Catholic churches, Episcopal Church, and many Anglican churches like the CofE and many ACNA churches have allowed great sin to penetrate their bodies, namely the disgusting heresy of “ordaining” women. It would be more productive for a Catholic to criticize the “illicit” futility of having apostolic succession if one isn’t in communion with the Church, thus allowing all sorts of sin and rot to penetrate the walls of the new church bodies. I think it’s a better road of criticism to go down to say “you guys may have apostolic succession but it’s not all one needs to make a Church. Your sinful heterodox women’s ordination and the rampant sympathy for homosexual marriage, abortion, divorce/remarriage and other sins has penetrated most quarters (not all) of Anglicanism, the Old Catholics, etc.” That’s a better argument than the invalidity route when arguing against Anglicanism I’d say. But that’s just moi.
When it comes to the orders that you are questioning here I have always been told the ruling from the Vatican is “valid but irregular” rather than “illicit.”The supposed “defects” of wording regarding the episcopacy in the Edwardine ordinal, if memory serves, were the same essential “defects” of earlier Catholic ordinals. I think it was in the Anglican rebuttal to Apostolicae Curae called Saepius Officio where Temple and Maclagan used the logic that if past Catholic ordinals that were worded essentially the same as the Edwardine, or at least didn’t express the explicit verbage that Apostolicae Curae claimed was necessary, then Catholic ordinations would’ve also been “null and void” centuries before the Anglican because the Anglican was very similar in what it said and didn’t say centuries before, right?
Cardinal Basil Hume, a Roman Catholic cardinal, said that the Dutch Touch and Polish Patting put Apostolicae Curae into some doubt.
Most Catholics in CAF aren’t aware of the PNCC and Utrecht interactions with the Anglican church so they only go off of A.C. by Leo XIII. GKC maintains that a Catholic should go off of A.C. as de fide and ignore historical developments to be a good Catholic. I disagree. I think a good Catholic can look at A.C. for what it was worth at the time but in light of historical developments maintain a private view that they’re probably valid but illicit.
The key is “illicit.” The Old Catholic churches, Episcopal Church, and many Anglican churches like the CofE and many ACNA churches have allowed great sin to penetrate their bodies, namely the disgusting heresy of “ordaining” women. It would be more productive for a Catholic to criticize the “illicit” futility of having apostolic succession if one isn’t in communion with the Church, thus allowing all sorts of sin and rot to penetrate the walls of the new church bodies. I think it’s a better road of criticism to go down to say “you guys may have apostolic succession but it’s not all one needs to make a Church. Your sinful heterodox women’s ordination and the rampant sympathy for homosexual marriage, abortion, divorce/remarriage and other sins has penetrated most quarters (not all) of Anglicanism, the Old Catholics, etc.” That’s a better argument than the invalidity route when arguing against Anglicanism I’d say. But that’s just moi.
I am not aware of this, as documented. Can you be specific? What RC bishops, aiding which Anglicans, when? Laying on of hands?
And, BTW, Nine_Two,
Yes, but did the Catholic Bishop have the intent of consecrating a Catholic Bishop? I have seen this mentioned previously - do you contend that having the Catholic Bishop lay hands on you during your consecration somehow gave you “dual orders” in the Anglican and Catholic Churches?
