Absolutely. I can’t recall the year, perhaps another poster knows, but it was done because the RCC claimed that the CofE had lost the validity of its orders. The CofE disputed that but had the bishops re-consecrated anyway in order to remove any doubt.Hasn’t this already happened with certain Anglican bishops through Old Catholic bishops?
This has been an interesting thought that popped into my head thinking about the Anglicans, China and Orthodox Christians. Does anyone know if this has happened? I
I don’t think you were paying attention.This ordination id INVALID and ILLICIT. The Anglicans have their own bishop, why would a Catholic bishop be ordaining?
I am confident that the Catholic bishop will be EXCOMMUNICATED.
I know. Part of what you wrote is correct, most is not.Absolutely. I can’t recall the year, perhaps another poster knows, but it was done because the RCC claimed that the CofE had lost the validity of its orders. The CofE disputed that but had the bishops re-consecrated anyway in order to remove any doubt.
Thereafter, the RCC accepted the validity of Anglican orders for a time and then began rejecting it again.
The bishops in questions were not RCC, but Old Catholic/Utrecht and Polish National Catholic, both Churches being considered as possessing valid, but illicit (schismatic) orders.
This ordination id INVALID and ILLICIT. The Anglicans have their own bishop, why would a Catholic bishop be ordaining?
I am confident that the Catholic bishop will be EXCOMMUNICATED.
Traced back to valid, but illicit orders, in Rome’s eyes. But, again, while the logic follows Ott, there is no formal RC pronouncement on the effect of the joint consecrations, if any.What you are talking about has, for all intents and purposes, already happened. It would not be easy these days to find an Anglican priest that did not have orders that could be traced back to valid Catholic orders. Look up “Dutch touch” and “Polish Pat” to find out about this.
Yes. I figured you would put us all in good order in this thread eventually!Traced back to valid, but illicit orders, in Rome’s eyes. But, again, while the logic follows Ott, there is no formal RC pronouncement on the effect of the joint consecrations, if any.
GKC
You are referring to the stated logic behind the stated conclusion in Apostolicae Curae. It rested on the intertwined judgments of form and intent, as you suggest (and technically, they had to intertwined), and I pass over the details because I feel like it). Save to note that the form in question was the Edwardine ordinal, and that intent is a complicated topic. But such was the bottom line of AC.In that we consider ordination to be a Sacrament, both form and intention must be correct. If Anglican ministers do not consider the episcopacy (or indeed the position of the Priesthood) to be Holy Orders, then the intention must be faulty.
Between Edward VI and Charles I (correct me if I’m wrong) the Book of Common Prayer contained prayers for the “creation of Priests and Bishops” that were phrased in such a way that meant that the form was also faulty. Therefore there is almost a century of invalid ordinations, and so anglican orders may bell be null and void.
I note that xixxvmcm85 mentioned Old Catholics, who are recognised as validly ordained (as the Archbishop of Utrecth was a validly-appointed Archbishop when he decided that he didn’t like the outcomes of the 1st Vatican Council).
The Old Catholics now have extremely questionable views (same-sex marriage, women priests) but this doesn’t invalidate their orders, though it brings into question whether or not they can be in full communion with the Vicar of Christ. However, it can be clearly demonstrated that apostolic succession is valid and their priests are, probably, able to administer the sacraments.
Further to this, however, appointing bishops without a papal mandate is grounds for automatic excommunication so it may be the case that the Old Catholics aren’t really that much of a powerful force.
I’d do my best.Yes. I figured you would put us all in good order in this thread eventually!
As I said, current OCs (and there are more than one flavor) seemed to be, generally, on the same road to disaster as much of the developed Anglican world.Having spoken to some modern Old Catholics, I have noted that they can have an understanding of sacraments, including ordination, that is very much outside the orthodox western (or Eastern) understanding. It seems to me that if Anglican history brings up questions regarding intent, so should theirs. I find it weird that the orders of an Old Catholic priest who thinks that Jesus was a metaphor and the priesthood is largely meaningless are valid while an orthodox Anglican’s are not.
This would presume the use of a valid rite of ordination. I do not think that the Church views the Anglican rite of ordination of a bishop as a valid rite.An aside: validly consecrated bishops, though later excommunicated, still can transmit valid/illicit orders. See again Ott, p. 458.
In general, that is not known. The judgment on the Edwardine Ordinal was as to its form in approximately 1559. The supposed defect was cured in 1662, during a small set-to between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England; the form of Anglican consecration/ordination since that date has not contained the supposed defect.This is the sort of thing that is fuzzy, in that the RCC has not commented formally on the OC/PNCC question.This would presume the use of a valid rite of ordination. I do not think that the Church views the Anglican rite of ordination of a bishop as a valid rite.
I know the Church does not view the Eucharistic rite as valid as they are current making changes to it in England for the ordinate to use and in the United States the Book of Divine Worship of the Anglican Use (and possibly for use by the US ordinate) is a modified version of the Book of Common Prayer that was used here.
You agree, then, that the RCC’s reasons for rejecting the validity of Anglican orders are weak?The RCC never made any official comment on the impact of such co-consecrations, certainly never treated Anglican orders as valid again, because of it. However, the logic, as found in Ott, suggests that such actions would impart valid but illicit orders.
I don’t agree with the words or the conclusions. But the argument is not a contemptible one.You agree, then, that the RCC’s reasons for rejecting the validity of Anglican orders are weak?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, just asking.