I'm going out on a limb here... (the contrarian argument)

[GKMotley]

You seem to think I am arguing with the judgment. I am telling you that the assertion of how the changes to the 1662 form came about are incorrect.

What the RCC teaches on Anglican orders (and I really don’t think you doubt I know the story) is what any RC should affirm. As I always say.

 

[steve-b]

the assertion of how the changes to the 1662 form came about are incorrect.

OK, you’re not disagreeing that changes on the Anglican side happened, that invalidated ordinations.

SO

why does HOW the changes came about even matter?

 

[GKMotley]

No, I’m saying that the changes from the Pontificale Romanum were viewed by the RCC as invalidating the sacrament. Which is what you should say too.

And that the changes with respect to those words in the Ordinal, as reflected in the 1662 BCP, had nothing to do with the idea that some one, somewhere, in Anglican-dom had decided that the Edwardine ordinal was problematic

 

[steve-b]

No, I’m saying that the changes were viewed by the RCC as invalidiating the sacrmanet. WHich is what you should say too.

AH, so what you’re saying is, you don’t agree that the changes mentioned, did anything to the validity of the sacrament. Is that what you’re saying?

 

[GKMotley]

Go above. My last post was submitted accidentally.

 

[steve-b]

And that the changes with respect to those words in the Ordinal, as reflected in the 1662 BCP, had nothing to do with the idea that some one, somewhere, in Anglican-dom had decided that the Edwardine ordinal was problematic

Ah, you added the following after I responded to you?

“And that the changes with respect to those words in the Ordinal, as reflected in the 1662 BCP, had nothing to do with the idea that some one, somewhere, in Anglican-dom had decided that the Edwardine ordinal was problematic”

OK, That said,

Bottom line then, isn’t it the case, regardless of who did it in Anglicanism, that Anglicans went away from valid form for ordinations?

 

[GKMotley]

I corrected the spelling and added what I had intended to post, before I auto-posted.While, it seems , you were posting yourself.

No. There are Rites which have the same “defect”, which are considered by the RCC as validly conveying valid sacraments. Which is why, as I often, always, and inevitably point out, the question is an intertwined one of the form and the intention; neither stands alone.

NB: I’ve been postponing my afternoon pipe for a long while now. Long enough.

 

[steve-b]

I corrected the spelling and added what I had intended to post, before I auto-posted.While, it seelms , you were posting yourself.

No. There are Rites which have the same “defect”, which are considered by the RCC as validly conveying valid sacraments. Which is why, as I often, always, and inevitably point out, the question is an intertwined one of the form and the intention; neither stands alone.

We both seem to be adding to our posts after the other posts a response to our post.

This was an addition you probably didn’t see.

Further:​

To that point of ordination

see Q: 12 Here pastoral provision for Anglicans coming over to the Catholic Church priesthood.

As you can see, This is current understanding about Anglican orders.

GKMotley:

NB: I’ve been postponing my afternoon pipe for a long while now. Long enough.

I’ve got a project myself to do

enjoy

 

[GKMotley]

I did.

Why in the world would you think I’d think that the Pastoral Provision, or Anglicanorum Coetibus, would include sub conditione ordinations? I was predicting precisely the opposite, on line, 10 years ago, as Anglicanorum Coeitibus was making its appearance.

 

[De_Maria]

In my church - the Anglican church - we recite the same creeds as the RC’s, we have eucharist, sacraments, devotions, theologians and great writers, we gather in a church and say prayers and our worship looks pretty much the same. We even invoke the Holy Spirit for guidance. So why would the Holy Spirit be any less of an authority in my church then the RC church.

As to this question, the Holy Spirit’s authority is not in question anywhere, is it? So, maybe you want to rephrase.

As for the Anglican Church’s claim to authority. Wasn’t it started by some King who wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic Church would not give permission? Do you think that God would honor the authority of such a Church which was established to break away and reject a very powerful Doctrine of our Lord’s?

Matthew 5:32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

I’m not suggesting that Christ meant to found my denomination as it is today, but can we be certain that he meant the RC church to be the exclusive domain of revelation. The RC church teaches that it does - but to say otherwise would be to deny itself.

All we have to do is look at Scripture. The Bible describes the Catholic Church and no other.

I’m left uncertain then, that Christ meant to found a church that looks like the RC church.

Don’t let Satan confuse you. Come home to the Catholic Church.

 

[GKMotley]

started by some King who wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic Church would not give permission?

Decree of nullity.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

started by some King who wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic Church would not give permission?

Decree of nullity.

Right. But he didn’t get it, so he either divorced his wife or killed her or something and forced the Bishops to approve of his actions. And then he married whomever he wanted as he was now his own pope.

 

[GKMotley]

History helps here. He got a decree of nullity, from his Archbishop of Canterbury (no force necessary, Cranmer went along with it, all the way), and the wife -as-was lived for about 2 1/2 half years, before dying of cancer. His successor wife was executed, possibly on specious charges, possibly not, of dallying outside the Royal marriage bed, shortly after. This would have been treason.

Hank never got to the Pope level, not being in orders in any sense, at any time.

History books are full of the details. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII is highly recommended.

 

[De_Maria]

History helps here. He got a decree of nullity, from his Archbishop of Canterbury (no force necessary, …

So, the whole story about the martyrdom of Sts. Thomas Moore and John Fisher and others is a whole lot of hooey?

 

[GKMotley]

St. Thomas More.

No, they’re in history too. Scarisbrick, for example.

 

[Crocus]

There are Rites which have the same “defect”, which are considered by the RCC as validly conveying valid sacraments.

It was the Edwardine rite that was in error, because it lacked the proper intention to confer the sacrament.

While it was in use, no valid ordinations took place, meanwhile the apostolic line became extinct.

Changes to that rite (including sentiments more or less resembling the Catholic) a hundred or so years later, could not restore a valid succession that had been severed.

 

[GKMotley]

Rites don’t have intention. Sacramental intent inheres in the minister or recipient of the sacrament.
The Edwardine Ordinal was no different in the matter of the “defect” than a number of Rites recognized by the RCC as conferring valid Orders. Which, as I said, is why Apostolicae Curae intertwines the question of intent of the users of the Ordinal with the form.

Few people seem to recognize that I’m describing what AC says, not attacking it.

 

[steve-b]

I did.

Why in the world would you think I’d think that the Pastoral Provision, or Anglicanorum Coetibus, would include sub conditione ordinations? I was predicting precisely the opposite, on line, 10 years ago, as Anglicanorum Coeitibus was making its appearance.

Because I’m not clear on what your point is.

So again, and be specific, to take away the confusion on your point,

name the error(s) specifically you think happened or were introduced into AC (properly referenced)

and as an aside,

You’re claiming there are “rites” you have that are valid. I’m posting what I did to show the CC doesn’t recognize any rites Anglicans use as being valid. IOW, when one loses the power to ordain then it doesn’t matter WHAT rite is used. Ordinations then, are null and void

 

[GKMotley]

I have no idea why this is so hard to get across to you.

“This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate”.

No. It was done to settle an issue between the CoE and the Church of Scotland, with respect to a definition of the Episcopacy. Hence, those words in the Bull are incorrect. And the point also has no connection to the judgement, as I said. It was merely an erroneous assumption, that Anglicans had spotted a problem with the form. And is commonly known. As I said, Joe had mentioned it, in a footnote to one of his works at ACCIPE POTESTATUM

No, as to Rites. They are your Rites (broadly/historically considered, ranging back to the Ordinal of St. Hippolytus, the ordination rite in the Prayer Book of Saint Serapion, Coptic Ordinals, from the 5th century, the Missale Francorum, the Gelasian, Gregorian, and Leonine Sacramentaries, among them. All with the same defect in form, all used validly, in Rome’s eyes, to validly ordain.

That the Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession is the position of the RCC. And It is what I always suggest any RC affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. It is not something I argue with them about, on line. What I frequently do is correct erroneous assertions on the long, sad history of Apostolicae Curae, from the first meeting of Viscount Halifax and the Abbe Portal, , on the island of Madeira, in the winter of 1889-1890, to the last echoes of the Malines Conversations, in 1927. That will not change. Keep that in mind.

I always suggest (perhaps you do not recall this), three books to grasp what was going on during that period. Father John Jay Hughes’ two titles, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. The first is the best of all the books I’ve found, on the sad topic, for the history of who did what, when and why, and the second is a theological consideration, in depth. With these, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, by Francis Clark (then a Jesuit priest, later laicized at his request), for a very good look at the RC position, in depth.

Watched THE WESTERNER, two days ago.

 

[steve-b]

I have no idea why this is so hard to get across to you.

"This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate".

No. It was done to settle an issue between the CoE and the Church of Scotland, with respect to a definition of the Episcopacy. Hence, those words in the Bull are incorrect. And the point also has no connection to the judgement, as I said. It was merely an erroneous assumption, that Anglicans had spotted a problem with the form. And is commonly known. As I said, Joe had mentioned it, in a footnote to one of his works at ACCIPE POTESTATU

No, as to Rites. They are your Rites
[snip]

That the Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession is the position of the RCC. And It is what I always suggest any RC affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. [snip]

Your explanation I already covered HERE point being, which you didn’t address, "even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal; and, moreover, as the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining. "

GKMotley:

I always suggest (perhaps you do not recall this), three books to grasp what was going on during that period. Father John Jay Hughes’ two titles, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD. The first is the best of all the books I’ve found, on the sad topic, for the history of [snip]

IMV, big picture, It’s NOT just about losing valid orders, it’s also about being separated from Peter and all those in union with Peter.

Because When​

people don’t obey THIS and this happes, διχοστασίαι, = dissension, sedition, stand apart, divisions , which wrongly separate people into pointless (groundless) factions…

then as Paul warns,​

“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things ( example διχοστασίαι, ) shall not inherit the kingdom of God” [Gal 5:21]

Using the phrase of the Topic, "going out on a limb"

I can’t see how those divided from the Catholic Church, don’t see that prayer of Jesus and warning from Paul, and not only shudder, but run ASAP to fix their division.

GKMotley:

Watched THE WESTERNER, two days ago.

If Cooper was alive today he’d only be 118. Almost as old as you and I