From the point of view of those already outside the Roman Catholic Church because of this (or related) issues, it doesn’t matter. Rome would not consider anyone deriving their orders from a female bishop to be valid (however genuine the intent is, and I think we should at least give credit that the intent is genuine). But the Old Catholics who are already outside the fold of Rome presumably aren’t going to be bothered; ditto the Anglican Communion (the parts that ordain/consecrate women anyway), and other denominations.
Since we don’t know what you said in your email to the campground, we can’t really offer a response to her email to you – at the very least, we can’t respond to her jab that you don’t know the faith as well as you think you do.
This might be the reasonable point at which to enter into discussion.
I would just leave this alone. “I don’t want to debate with you” and “let me bait you into conversation” should be mutually exclusive… but apparently, they’re not. Just let her do her thing, and pray for her.
Please Re-read my OP. She quite clearly claims to be a Catholic Priest. She then reiterates this position and specifies that she is a RCIA Priest in her response to my inquiry.
Your OP states “Catholic woman priest” and “open communion”. All practicing Catholics know that such things don’t exist in the real Catholic Church. If the pamphlet said “communion service” by a “Catholic priest” and I got there are found something different, I would feel I had a legitimate complaint. Did you attend the service expecting a real Catholic priest? I wouldn’t have.
She does not merely repeat. She attempts to clarify. She uses the words “though illicitly ordained”, and it seems clear to me that the word “though” signals an acknowledgement of a deficiency rather than anything that is either neutral or positive.
She wasn’t “ordained” at all. There’s no such thing as a licit ordination of a woman, so there’s no such thing as an illicit ordination of a woman.
She claims that she was. We are talking about an event in the past, so it is possible to ask her what she remembers. If we assume that she is either lying or remembering a hallucination, then we are in the same position as those who insist that the hypothesis that miracles have never occurred has more weight than observations or eyewitness testimony.
It is possible a validly consecrated bishop attempted to ordain her into the priesthood; however, valid minister, matter, form and intent are required for a sacrament to be valid. And in this case, that she is a female means it cannot be valid, no matter what the intention of the “ordaining” bishop may have been.
Anybody can do that.
It might have been an event, but it wasn’t an ordination. There might have been a guy in a pointy hat with a crozier, and that guy might have really been a Bishop, and he might have extracted promises and said words and oiled her head and hands (mmmm - balsam!), but it wasn’t an ordination. Because, even if the guy in the pointy hat was really a Bishop, he has no authority to confer priestly Orders on a woman.
Yes, but not everybody can persuade the management of an RV park to include, at the bottom of a sheet of paper providing check-in instructions, an invitation to attend Sunday morning events associated with the claim of having been ordained.
