I ran into a Lutheran Woman Priest. Felt a little odd seeing her

[guanophore]

What does this have to do with the thread or valid/licit orders?

Popes commonly seized property. Were they ravenous wolves?

Yes. Popes, Bishops, priests. No one has been exempt from falling to temptation.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, if you wish to persist in thinking the Church of England was trying to get validity by the back door you will do so. I suggest you are misleading yourself.

What the two agreed after their discussions is easy enough to discover:

willibrord.org/bonn_en.html

Since the true Church is not Protestant nor the schismatic Greek Church, nor any combination of Protestants, Schismatic Greeks, Old Catholics and Catholics, the true Church must be the Catholic Church. It is the only one which claims infallibility. Besides the Catholic Church has all the marks of the true Church, unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity.

 

[guanophore]

Since the true Church is not Protestant nor the schismatic Greek Church, nor any combination of Protestants, Schismatic Greeks, Old Catholics and Catholics, the true Church must be the Catholic Church. It is the only one which claims infallibility. Besides the Catholic Church has all the marks of the true Church, unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity.

Who are the “schismatic Greeks”?

 

[Tomster]

It is not any more sacrilegious than Orthodox bishops ordaining Orthodox priests. They are fully recognised as Catholic by Rome, yet they are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

The Hierarchy of Orders (Spiritual power)

The Hierarchy of Orders consists of the bishops, priests, and deacons of the Church. The deacon is inferior to the priest, the priest to the bishop. The Council of Trent defined it infallibly.

The Hierarchy of Jurisdiction (Sacred authority)

Jurisdiction is authority to teach and govern. In every well ordered society, the degree of authority to be exercised by each official must be clearly marked out; otherwise, nothing but confusion would arise. In the Church all good order and efficiency would be at an end , if every bishop were to teach, make laws, and administer the sacraments in any part of the world he pleased; hence the necessity of a Hierarchy of Jurisdiction. As instituted by Christ himself, it consists of the bishops of the Church with the Pope at their head; the Pope is the successor of St. Peter; the bishops, not taken singly, but collectively and in union with Pope, are the successors of the apostles. The jurisdiction of a bishop is confined to his own subjects and diocese; that of the Pope extends to the universal Church. The Pope receives his jurisdiction directly from Christ; the bishop receives his jurisdiction from the same divine source, but through the Pope who appoints him, and who is, as it were, the channel through which it is conveyed to him.

The bishop retains his jurisdiction as long as he remains loyal to the Holy See and to its teaching; if he becomes schismatic or heretical, and is cut off from the Church by solemn condemnation, he loses all authority; such a one validly, though sacrilegiously, consecrates and ordains, but he cannot even validly administer the sacrament of Penance - he has no jurisdiction.

The bishop is the father of his subjects, and, as a father is head of his household, so is the bishop head of his diocese, its ruler and its authentic teacher on faith and morals. The clergy and laity are bound to obey the bishop because he has authority (1) to teach Catholic doctrine, and (2) to decide whether any particular question belongs to the sphere of faith and morals. To deny him this later power would be tantamount to asserting the Protestant claim to the right of private judgment.

The bishops of the Church in union with the Pope taken collectively constitute what is called the Church Teaching and are infallible. Certainly no Protestant minister of whatever stripe, no bishop in the Orthodox tradition and certainly no Old Catholic minister would ever make that claim. Hence, the Protestant claim to the right of private judgment reigns in varying degrees within these communions. Hence, the diversity of doctrine among them.

 

[Tomster]

It is not any more sacrilegious than Orthodox bishops ordaining Orthodox priests. They are fully recognised as Catholic by Rome, yet they are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Sacrilegious reception of the Sacraments

A person who knowingly and willfully approaches a Sacrament of the Living (the Eucharist, matrimony, confirmation and priesthood) in mortal sin (heresy and schism qualify), or a Sacrament of the Dead (baptism, penance and anointing of the sick) without proper dispositions, profanes what is most holy, and commits the grave sin of sacrilege. The holiness of a Sacrament is beyond our full comprehension; it is a source of grace, and grace is the fruit of the Precious Blood of Christ.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Since the true Church is not Protestant nor the schismatic Greek Church, nor any combination of Protestants, Schismatic Greeks, Old Catholics and Catholics, the true Church must be the Catholic Church. It is the only one which claims infallibility. Besides the Catholic Church has all the marks of the true Church, unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity.

Your premise and your conclusion appear to be the same, which is circular.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, if you wish to persist in thinking the Church of England was trying to get validity by the back door you will do so. I suggest you are misleading yourself.

What the two agreed after their discussions is easy enough to discover:

willibrord.org/bonn_en.html

Obviously you have never read Apostolicae curae clear through. The quotations I provided for you from Pope Paul IV are clearly referenced to by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical. The Church knew full well back in 1555 where the English reformers were going with this. The English Reformers detested the Mass and denied a sacrificing priesthood.

Your link just proves that somebody was trying to regain something that they had lost. They went about it the wrong way though. The reason was because they did not want to come under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The were self proclaimed reformers. The Old Catholics were just a bunch of Jansenists with valid but illicit orders who denied papal infallibility (among other things) and some Anglicans who had neither valid nor licit orders who were attempting to regain valid AND licit orders. All to no avail as both communions lost jurisdiction the moment they separated from Rome.

 

[Tomster]

When was the last time the Catholic bishop of your diocese give permission to an Orthodox priest to celebrate Holy Mass in your parish? The answer should be never. Ever wonder why?

 

[GKC]

Obviously you have never read Apostolicae curae clear through. The quotations I provided for you from Pope Paul IV are clearly referenced to by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical. The Church knew full well back in 1555 where the English reformers were going with this. The English Reformers detested the Mass and denied a sacrificing priesthood.

Your link just proves that somebody was trying to regain something that they had lost. They went about it the wrong way though. The reason was because they did not want to come under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The were self proclaimed reformers. The Old Catholics were just a bunch of Jansenists with valid but illicit orders who denied papal infallibility (among other things) and some Anglicans who had neither valid nor licit orders who were attempting to regain valid AND licit orders. All to no avail as both communions lost jurisdiction the moment they separated from Rome.

Historically, your last para is nonsense. Again, I suggest reading Moss/ OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, for the history of the interactions between Anglicans and the OCs/Utrecht, years before Apostolicae curae.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Obviously you have never read Apostolicae curae clear through. The quotations I provided for you from Pope Paul IV are clearly referenced to by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical. The Church knew full well back in 1555 where the English reformers were going with this. The English Reformers detested the Mass and denied a sacrificing priesthood.

Your link just proves that somebody was trying to regain something that they had lost. They went about it the wrong way though. The reason was because they did not want to come under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The were self proclaimed reformers. The Old Catholics were just a bunch of Jansenists with valid but illicit orders who denied papal infallibility (among other things) and some Anglicans who had neither valid nor licit orders who were attempting to regain valid AND licit orders. All to no avail as both communions lost jurisdiction the moment they separated from Rome.

The link proves nothing of the kind: it shows two groups of Christians agreeing on intercommunion. I understand why a Catholic would find that intercommunion inadequate; I don’t understand why you should choose to misinterpret it. Why should the Church of England seek a back door towards validity of her orders when she is more than satisfied (even if mistakenly) that her orders are certainly valid already?

If you accept your church’s view that the orders of the Old Catholics were, as you say, valid, how do you think Old Catholic bishops, stating clearly their intent to pass on the full meaning of their orders, failed to do so when they joined in consecrating Anglican bishops?

And yes, I have read it “clear through”.

 

[guanophore]

Sacrilegious reception of the Sacraments

A person who knowingly and willfully approaches a Sacrament of the Living (the Eucharist, matrimony, confirmation and priesthood) in mortal sin (heresy and schism qualify), or a Sacrament of the Dead (baptism, penance and anointing of the sick) without proper dispositions, profanes what is most holy, and commits the grave sin of sacrilege. The holiness of a Sacrament is beyond our full comprehension; it is a source of grace, and grace is the fruit of the Precious Blood of Christ.

You don’t seem to accept what your own Church teaches.

The CC considers the Holy Orders and other sacraments of the EO to be valid.

It is also against the teaching of your church to hold the sin of heresy and schism against Protestants.

 

[GKC]

The link proves nothing of the kind: it shows two groups of Christians agreeing on intercommunion. I understand why a Catholic would find that intercommunion inadequate; I don’t understand why you should choose to misinterpret it. Why should the Church of England seek a back door towards validity of her orders when she is more than satisfied (even if mistakenly) that her orders are certainly valid already?

If you accept your church’s view that the orders of the Old Catholics were, as you say, valid, how do you think Old Catholic bishops, stating clearly their intent to pass on the full meaning of their orders, failed to do so when they joined in consecrating Anglican bishops?

And yes, I have read it “clear through”.

Your last para repeats the essence of the issue, re: what happens when OCs, with proper sacramental intent, lay hands on Anglicans, to consecrate bishops, jointly. And the issue of liceity is not a player; OCs are not considered to possess licit orders, as all know.

But the question remains. And I am still curious.

I’ve read AC a couple of times, too.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Bigotry often overcomes charity.

I find it offensive as well.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Your last para repeats the essence of the issue, re: what happens when OCs, with proper sacramental intent, lay hands on Anglicans, to consecrate bishops, jointly. And the issue of liceity is not a player; OCs are not considered to possess licit orders, as all know.

But the question remains. And I am still curious.

I’ve read AC a couple of times, too.

GKC

Have you so? I rather suspected as much.

 

[GKC]

Have you so? I rather suspected as much.

Yep. And that book, by that whatsname, Hughes guy, title something about absolutely and utterly, I may have mentioned. Got some points in it on the Marian Restoration, and *Praeclara carissimi *and the follow-on Regimini universalis. Among the reasons I often mention that book. Whatever the title is.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yep. And that book, by that whatsname, Hughes guy, title something about absolutely and utterly, I may have mentioned. Got some points in it on the Marian Restoration, and *Praeclara carissimi *and the follow-on Regimini universalis. Among the reasons I often mention that book. Whatever the title is.

GKC

Never heard of it.

Looks like I may have to read it. Ignorance is annoying — and yet one has to accept that in most if not all things one is ignorant. No, certainly in all things.

Is Laud’s consecration relevant in all this?

 

[GKC]

Never heard of it.

Looks like I may have to read it. Ignorance is annoying — and yet one has to accept that in most if not all things one is ignorant. No, certainly in all things.

Is Laud’s consecration relevant in all this?

Possibly. See the unknown book, p. 24.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

Possibly. See the unknown book, p. 24.

GKC

Oh dear.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP

 

[Picky_Picky]

Return to the topic of the OP

Very well. The OP should come to visit me in England. Where I live the parish priest is a woman, the Methodist minister is a woman, the United Reformed minister is a woman. Only the little Catholic chapel persists In the value of masculinity.