The Anglican Communion and Apostolic Succession

[manualman]

All of which is true, and, some of which I’ve pointed out. However, the RCC has made a general statement as to the ability of schismatic, heretical, or excommunicated (but otherwise valid) bishops to consecrate/ordain. They do so validly but illicitly. See Ott, p. 458.

GKC

Funny how they’ve defined ONE and in another place defined another ONE, but have conspicuously refused to conclude that one plus one equals TWO.

That’s what usually happens with knotty questions and an infallible hierarchy. When they sense something is askew, but can’t put a convincing explanation to it, they just let it lie apparently neglected until the answer is clear. Infuriating, but typical.

And as you know, I know better than to argue with Ott.

 

[GKC]

Funny how they’ve defined ONE and in another place defined another ONE, but have conspicuously refused to conclude that one plus one equals TWO.

That’s what usually happens with knotty questions and an infallible hierarchy. When they sense something is askew, but can’t put a convincing explanation to it, they just let it lie apparently neglected until the answer is clear. Infuriating, but typical.

And as you know, I know better than to argue with Ott.

I just report 'em.

But I found the whole subject of considerable interest.

GKC