Not quite. The judgment in Apostolicae Curae involved an intertwined finding of an invalid form in the Edwardine Ordinal, and invalid sacramental intent. Intent inheres in the sacramental action itself and is the intent of the minister in the action. The logic of Apostolicae Curae was that, in using what was judged an invalid form, the minister (usually taken to be in the case of the consecration of Archbishop Parker, see Clark/ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENT) demonstrated invalid sacramental intent not* facere quod facit ecclesia.* Parker being a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy, the judgment was that Apostolic Succession was lost.It’s also important to remember that the Anglicans invalidated their own orders with the intent. After the Anglican removed intent to actually confer a sacramental priesthood, they lost their orders. The Orthodox carry the intent.
That’s simple. You need an ordained bishop to ordain someone. If there is no unbroken succession from the apostles then somewhere in the line someone did not get ordained and the unordained can’t ordain. But they can pretend to be ordained and have their own denomination recognize it.I did some research and fond out that the orthodox don’t use the words priest sacrifice in their ordainations.they are regonize by the Catholic church. Why was the Anglicans void an null? I also heard that Catholics didn’t use these words either at the begining. So why do Catholics say that Anglicans have no real sacraments?
I know this has bee bought up before but what if the ordaination took place with the bishops of the Old Catholic Churches? The Anglican priest would be valid. Some of them don’t have to pretend.That’s simple. You need an ordained bishop to ordain someone. If there is no unbroken succession from the apostles then somewhere in the line someone did not get ordained and the unordained can’t ordain. But they can pretend to be ordained and have their own denomination recognize it.
It’s more complicated than that. As most things are. No Anglican priests have been ordained by OC bishops, AFAIK. What has occurred, since the inter-communion agreement between the OCs/Utrecht, and Anglicans (Agreement of Bonn), in 1932, are joint consecrations of Anglican and OC bishops. Logically this would infuse valid but illicit orders into Anglicanism, which would be further spread as the Anglican bishops performed their own episcopal functions (including ordinations and consecrations). But there has been no RC comment on the matter, AFAIK.I know this has bee bought up before but what if the ordaination took place with the bishops of the Old Catholic Churches? The Anglican priest would be valid. Some of them don’t have to pretend.
How come the RC don’t comment on it? You’d think they’ll be glad it would be a step towards christian unityIt’s more complicated than that. As most things are. No Anglican priests have been ordained by OC bishops, AFAIK. What has occurred, since the inter-communion agreement between the OCs/Utrecht, and Anglicans (Agreement of Bonn), in 1932, are joint consecrations of Anglican and OC bishops. Logically this would infuse valid but illicit orders into Anglicanism, which would be further spread as the Anglican bishops performed their own episcopal functions (including ordinations and consecrations). But there has been no RC comment on the matter, AFAIK.
GKC
I’m not the one to ask.How come the RC don’t comment on it? You’d think they’ll be glad it would be a step towards christian unity