Which Non-Catholic Churches Have Or Claim To Have the Eucharist?

[commenter]

Maybe for any baptized men he ordained prior to attempting to ordain her… but wouldn’t have have excommunicated himself by trying to ordain her in the first place (due to invalid form)?

Even if he were Catholic and excommunicated himself from communion with the Catholic Church, that wouldn’t excommunicate him from being a bishop. He might still continue exercise a bishop ministry, validly but illicitly. The priests and bishops he (technically) ordains might still be valid in theory, but illicit, according to one argument.

The larger question is about the doubtful areas, which GKC said awaits a definition from Rome on validity of certain ordinations. Even if Rome has not been following up on Pope Leo’s original document, I think the flow of events has made a moot point of validity of ordinations within the C of E, and TEC, as well as perhaps the Old Catholics, since validity is based partly on Intent. For some years, there were TEC bishops who rejected the drift of the TEC on ordination, and other theological matters, as a temporary aberration. For awhile, it looked like it could go either way whether ordination of women, and other trends, would be lasting, or possibly reversed. So one might argue the ordinations of *these * men by these bishops a few decades ago were valid as to intent. They intended to bring men into the united presbyteriate, as part of and unity with the (then mostly orthodox) college of bishops.

That expectation does not hold today. Ordaining a man into the TEC, C of E, and perhaps Old Catholics, brings a man into something, well, irretrievably and irreversibly different, and the bishops now, know this. Because of the recent bishops’ knowledge of current realities - the current community of clergy and college of bishops - in my opinion there is no longer valid intent for those ordinations, even if the bishop himself is orthodox. Intent has been lost.
Some posters have judged validity of ordination only on the individual, but it should be asked “what body (of priests, or bishops) do I intend to graft this ordained person onto?” I think that affects the validity of intent, now more than before.

 

[GKC]

Even if he were Catholic and excommunicated himself from communion with the Catholic Church, that wouldn’t excommunicate him from being a bishop. He might still continue exercise a bishop ministry, validly but illicitly. The priests and bishops he (technically) ordains might still be valid in theory, but illicit, according to one argument.

The larger question is about the doubtful areas, which GKC said awaits a definition from Rome on validity of certain ordinations. Even if Rome has not been following up on Pope Leo’s original document, I think the flow of events has made a moot point of validity of ordinations within the C of E, and TEC, as well as perhaps the Old Catholics, since validity is based partly on Intent. For some years, there were TEC bishops who rejected the drift of the TEC on ordination, and other theological matters, as a temporary aberration. For awhile, it looked like it could go either way whether ordination of women, and other trends, would be lasting, or possibly reversed. So one might argue the ordinations of *these * men by these bishops a few decades ago were valid as to intent. They intended to bring men into the united presbyteriate, as part of and unity with the (then mostly orthodox) college of bishops.

That expectation does not hold today. Ordaining a man into the TEC, C of E, and perhaps Old Catholics, brings a man into something, well, irretrievably and irreversibly different, and the bishops now, know this. Because of the recent bishops’ knowledge of current realities - the current community of clergy and college of bishops - in my opinion there is no longer valid intent for those ordinations, even if the bishop himself is orthodox. Intent has been lost.
Some posters have judged validity of ordination only on the individual, but it should be asked “what body (of priests, or bishops) do I intend to graft this ordained person onto?” I think that affects the validity of intent, now more than before.

In general, I would agree with you here. But not precisely on the intent issue. The sacramental intent is that of the minister in the sacramental action. And, to be valid, must only be to do what the Church does, in that action. In the case of orders, it is to make a valid priest. That it does so, in a severely problematic setting (TEC, say) speaks to the liciety of the action, not the validity. That is, if a faithful (in the Anglican, orthodox sense) TEC bishop existed (and I have no reason to think any do, anymore), his intent merely to validly ordain a valid priest (assuming all other factors to be valid), would suffice for the validity of the sacramental intent. In the case of Apostolicae curae, the judgement on Anglican orders involved the intertwined factors of form and intent. That is, intent was judged invalid, by reference to another necessary sacramental factor for a valid confection: form. The concept of what other (TEC) bishops might be doing and what other types of individuals might be called priests, in TEC, (ISTM), wouldn’t affect our theoretical orthodox TEC bishop’s valid intent, necessarily.

Or so I read it.

GKC

 

[commenter]

In general, I would agree with you here. But not precisely on the intent issue. The sacramental intent is that of the minister in the sacramental action. And, to be valid, must only be to do what the Church does, in that action. In the case of orders, it is to make a valid priest. That it does so, in a severely problematic setting (TEC, say) speaks to the liciety of the action, not the validity. That is, if a faithful (in the Anglican, orthodox sense) TEC bishop existed (and I have no reason to think any do, anymore), his intent merely to validly ordain a valid priest (assuming all other factors to be** valid**), would suffice for the validity of the sacramental intent. In the case of Apostolicae curae, the judgement on Anglican orders involved the intertwined factors of form and intent. That is, intent was judged invalid, by reference to another necessary sacramental factor for a valid confection: form. The concept of what other (TEC) bishops might be doing and what other types of individuals might be called priests, in TEC, (ISTM), wouldn’t affect our theoretical orthodox TEC bishop’s valid intent, necessarily.

Or so I read it.

GKC

In just the last part of one sentence, we see “valid” used as an adverb, adjective, another kind of adjective, and a noun. CAF is educational. Plus, the reasoning is sound as well.

 

[GKC]

In just the last part of one sentence, we see “valid” used as an adverb, adjective, another kind of adjective, and a noun. CAF is educational. Plus, the reasoning is sound as well.

No use of motley, though.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

No use of motley, though.

GKC

The noun being “motley” (as in 'On with the …), the adjective being ‘motley’ (as in ‘Anglicans are …’), and the adverb being, um, “motleyly”

 

[GKC]

The noun being “motley” (as in 'On with the …), the adjective being ‘motley’ (as in ‘Anglicans are …’), and the adverb being, um, “motleyly”

Motleydom. Motleyish. Motleyest. Motleyer.

I got a tool kit of them.

GKC

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Maybe for any baptized men he ordained prior to attempting to ordain her… but wouldn’t have have excommunicated himself by trying to ordain her in the first place (due to invalid form)?

Not if he’s a non-Catholic, like an Anglican bishop.

And even if he were a Catholic bishop and were excommunicated, he would still Sacramentally be a bishop. So thereafter - unless he repents - for any man he ordains, the ordination would be Sacramentally valid but illicit.