No, since that concerns the subject for the sacrament, not the matter. The definition given was to settle some loose ideas as to the valid matter. Which for a long time was considered to be the porrection of the instruments.Until Pius XII spoke.Okay, I read the reference. Twice.
I wonder if the pope might have stated more concerning āmatterā had the ordination of women been at issue in his dayā¦
No. The agreement with the Old Catholics was made on the basis of the much earlier Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral which had been put forward as the Anglican Communionās model of unity, and it predates the papal bull by quite a few years.
Now, - I donāt know. Motley is the word. But then, as Apostoliae Curae points out, sacramental intent is internal, not observable. One therefore assumes valid intent if other sacramental aspects are valid. Unless there is something to permit a determinatio ex adiunctus. Which the use of the Edwardine ordinal taken to be.
And so I do.
Itās been my impression that Anglican Christians, as the decades go on (and I have no idea how many decades before my birth this tendency began), continue to become more patristically aware and more cognizant of Tradition.And of course, I donāt know either. Iām just some random layperson who cares a lot, not by any stretch of the imagination an expert. I know what I think, and I know that I know how to apply reason well, but I also know that Iām simply not educated enough on all the relevant factors to trust in my own opinion with any degree of unshakeable confidence.
GKC beat me to it.
Eh, itās not a bad source for a brief overview. GKC at least knows what heās talking about.
GKC sometimes knows what heās talking about.I think I often need reminders that sacramental intent is internal, not observable. I donāt know why itās not more obvious to me, though, since to suggest otherwise opens a highly unfortunate, pseudo-Donatist can of worms.
And so I do.
As such, I have no doubt that an Anglican cohort of noteworthy size does indeed share the same Sacramental and Eucharistic theology as all the apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.).
And of course, I donāt know either. Iām just some random layperson who cares a lot, not by any stretch of the imagination an expert. I know what I think, and I know that I know how to apply reason well, but I also know that Iām simply not educated enough on all the relevant factors to trust in my own opinion with any degree of unshakeable confidence.
GKC beat me to it.
Eh, itās not a bad source for a brief overview. GKC at least knows what heās talking about.
Of course, he doesnāt elaborate much but rather simply alludes to the many complexities involved, so you may have a de facto pointā¦
I am not in the TEC I am in the CEC and we have Apostolic Succession
In the Anglican view, Anglicans, Catholic, and Orthodox all have valid orders.
So as there is no definitive position from Rome, it is possible that there is some apostolic succession in the Anglican Church, and therefore some valid priests, and hence some valid Eucharists?
I think that further research may be worth undertaking before attempting to decide if Anglican holy orders are regarded as valid in the Catholic Church. I am inclined to think there is good grounds to think that they are not but I have not spent enough time fact checking to know.
Trust me on this. The RCC regards Anglican orders as absolutely null and utterly void, as pronounced in Apostolicae Curae, and more or less reinforced in the Doctrinal Commentary on *Ad Tuendam Fidem/I, written by (then) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The comment you addressed was aimed at the specific subject of the theoretical impact of the inter-communion/joint consecration between the OCs of Utrecht (and later the PNCC) and Anglicans; upon which no formal statement has been issued by Rome, AFAIK.
So it would logically seem. And if some, then many. But I make no assumptions. As an Anglican, I donāt really need to. But Iām interested.
You must be mindful that Anglicans and Lutherans actively pursue reunion with the Pope.
