As I said before, the Anglicans may claim it; the “Old Catholics” may claim it. But it does not mean a hoot if the Catholic Church does not acknowledge it. After all, the goal is reunification with the Catholic Church, is it not? Show me an official church document that states it. Otherwise, your claims are as valid as the the Baptist minister who claimed he had no physical limitations on the distance involved in the laying on of hands.
As I said, whether you understand it or not is not all that important. I don’t claim it. The RCC states it, and for exactly the same reason they state that the Orthodox have valid orders.
Perhaps it would help if you understand more of what the RCC teaches about the transmission of orders. It is the Augustinian tradition, as opposed to the Cyprianic (which the Orthodox teach). You can see it at work, in the definitions stated in Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458. I assume you are familiar with Ott.
Ott states that every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite. Ott cites the relevant paras in Denzinger.
The last two points, intention and rite, may sound familiar in this discussion. They should.
So, if a bishop is validly consecrated, even if he becomes schismatic, heretical, etc, as long as he uses the proper form, and has the proper intention (
facere quod facit ecclesia), he dispenses valid (but illict, as Ott shows a para down) orders. And the orders received by a bishop consecrated by such a bishop are also valid, and transmitted, in turn, in the same fashion.
It was certainly true that the English bishops, as of the 1530s, were validly consecrated. Just as it was true that the Old Catholics were also, as of the mid 1800s. But something was different about the two groups. Rome said the Anglican Orders were invalid and that Old Catholic orders were valid, but illicit (yes, this is correct). Why?
Remember the intent and form issue, as stated in
Apostolicae Curae. It was the form, stated to be invalid, for a technical reason, which was constructed by Anglicans, and used as the Edwardine Ordinal. And the intent of Archbishop Parker’s consecrators, in using such a constructed form, was taken to be invalid itself, as deliberately not
facere quod facit ecclesia. Hence the judgment that the consecration of Parker was invalid, that the Anglican line of Apostolic succession was broken, and that by the time the form of the Ordinal was cured, in 1662, there were no valid Anglican bishops to consecrate others, and pass the succession. Hence Anglican orders are and remain invalid.
What’s different with the Old Catholics? They did things differently. They didn’t construct a new form, eliminating (as Rome said of the Anglicans) a portion relating to the sacrificing authority of the priests, or of the highest form of the priesthood, with respect to bishops. Hence the Old Catholics form and intent were not in question. Hence, even though they are schismatic, they retain Apostolic succession and valid, though illicit orders. Just like the Orthodox. The same is true for the Polish National Catholic Church. For the same reason. If the Anglicans, instead of writing a new form for consecration/ordination, had continuing using the
Pontificale Romanum, the entire logic of
Apostolicae Curae would have disappeared, and Anglicans, like Old Catholics and Orthodox, would have been considered by Rome as possessing valid/illicit orders.
I’ve occasionally stumbled on a statement of this, here and there, and if I find it again, I may post it. But if you accept it, or don’t it’s fine with me. In summary, the reason that the Old Catholics retained valid orders is the same as the reason the Orthodox did. Schismatics with valid orders don’t lose validity, just liceity. Take a look at Ott.
GKC
