The implication is that the condemnation of the Ordinal was definitive, and even the 1662 changes to the BCP would not make a difference. But that is one of the points that I am thinking of when I’ve discussed the Dutch Touch/Polish Pat matter, and say that a definitive and clear statement from the RCC would settle things, easily. For the RCs,anyway.
And yet is does happen. I have the pictures to prove it from the recent reception of a Catholic priest into the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego from the Diocesan website… Which is why the question had to be asked since they do subsequently celebrate the Eucharist.
Which would seem to back the notion that a Catholic priest can still validly, if illicitly, perform sacraments in the Catholic view even if excommunicated or even laicized under normal circumstances. Since they can do so licitly and validly even when laicized when someone is in danger of death.
Yep.
Some sacraments. He could not validly grant absolution, as that requires faculties from a bishop. If someone were in danger of death, then said priest is temporarily granted faculties to grant absolution in that instance.
It is already settled for Catholics. Even if the Vatican were to rule that Anglicans have valid orders from DT/PP, what would change for a Catholic? It would still be a mortal sin to receive an illicit but valid Eucharist, unless the Catholic were in danger of death. Nothing would change on your end either.
I agree mostly with that last. But my curiosity remains.
That was not my point; “mostly” covered the RC side. Though, on reflection, what would change for a RC would be the judgement of the Church as to the current status of Anglican clergy affected by the DT/PP. An intellectual point, if nothing more. But not what I was thinking of. Personally, it would satisfy an intellectual itch I have on the subject: in the light of the position on consecration/ordination as found in Ott, loc.cit., how does the DT/PP relate to the logic of Apostolicae curae. And, for Anglicans affected by such a finding (and not all would be. There is the issue of a valid subject to receive the sacrament of Orders, a point affecting some Anglicans), what might be the impact of such a decision on something like the application of section 3 of Canon 844.
If this is a lay person moderately well read on this subject, I would wonder what someone who does this **a lot **would look like.
Re: authority, it should be pointed out that many, not GKC, confuse the authority of a bishop with the authority of an ordinary. The licit status of some sacraments, I believe, depends on unity with a valid ordinary - Eastern or Latin.
Either with the Ordinary, or some other religious authority in circumstances that are cloudy to my understanding. Licity is certainly a more complicated issue than merely confecting. And intent would also be a possible issue, as I mentioned, since the circumstances would make it difficult to determine whether it was facere quod facit ecclesia. But in short, assuming all such factors were valid, it appears that a Mass confected under such circumstances would be valid/illicit.This seems to be Aquinas’ view. I think.
Thanks for the reply G_C.<<<Like the respect I give your name?
Which is the.sort of thing that a statement from the RCC could say, denying per saltum consecration as applicable,and ending the speculation. Sure, no need for such a statement to be issued and no expectation of there being one. And speculation continues. And I agree that subject/recipient can be a valid (so to speak) consideration. Hence, for a female subject, no further elucidation is needed. Invalid.Thanks for the reply G_C.<<<Like the respect I give your name?
Always a pleasure to converse with you.
In my opinion (and it is worth more than the proverbial two cents, but not much more), what the most important point is: was DT/PP performed on valid subjects? If not, then an investigation into DT/PP would be a waste of time. It certainly cannot be considered normal to skip a step in the ordination process.
I think unless a group petitions Rome for a ruling on the subject, that Rome sees (as do I), no reason to rule on said subject. GK, would you accept such a ruling as binding on you, no matter how Rome rules? Of course not. And as I said before, for a Catholic, no matter how Rome rules, nothing would change for them. The only way I could see Rome getting involved is if corporate reunion could be accomplished. History has shown that while corporate breakaway is not altogether uncommon, corporate reunion, on the other hand, is the rarest of birds.
I would certainly say that such a ruling would be binding on RCs, and, as much as Apostolicae curae is, binding on me. IOW, I would stop speculating, and get to strike one particular point off my list of posting hobby horses. I certainly accept that, per Apostolicae curae, the RCC has judged that Anglican orders are null and void. I say so constantly, and likewise state that all RCs should accept and affirm that, at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Given any further ruling, I’d say the same. And no, I don’t expect the RCC to make any comment on the particular question (DT/PP). So one is left with opinions and conclusions. Mine,yours, guy next door, if he gets interested. And hence, questions. Curiosity on many subjects has led to those 30,000 books on hand. Unlikely to stop. I get these itches.
But that is precisely not the understanding of the Roman Catholic Church. Once a priest, always a priest.