If you consult the Wikipedia entry on Apostolicae Curae you will see that in some cases the participation by Old Catholic (and I have heard, also Orthodox) bishops in some Anglican ordinations acted to revive the sacramental line for some Anglican clerics such that an examination of the Anglican priest’s ordination lineage would be required to answer the question. Most notably Cardinal Hume ordained the former Anglican Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, conditionally given the lineage examination.
I think it’s pretty clear. Pope Leo is speaking of the Anglican communion. There have not been validly consecrated bishops in Anglicanism since the early 16th Century…
Are you referring to other groups? That’s an entirely other blog post, which I intend to tackle. Im writing a longer form article about sedevacantism, but it’ll be awhile.
No, I think you’ll find several instances post-Leo of Anglican bishops seeking valid but illicit ordination from Orthodox bishops and “episcopii vagranti” able to provide such. There’s also the case of Catholic priests leaving the Church for Anglicanism and Episcopalianism whose ability to administer valid sacraments clouds the question even more.
I agree that if a man has only received Anglican ordination from a bishop who was ordained and consecrated by Anglican rubrics alone, neither is exercising valid orders per Pope Leo’s. The reality is much more obfuscated.
I don’t think it’s a practice the Orthodox are keen on doing, or ever have been. They too have their “vagranti” bishops.
However, if an Anglican priest is an ex-Catholic priest while celebrating their liturgy, pronounces the right words of consecration with the full intent to consecrate, you think there haven’t been an actual consecration?
It’s more complicated and must be solved way above my pay grade.
I don’t mean to be a pest here playing devil’s advocate, but if the Anglian/Episcopalian celebrant’s intent isn’t sacrilegious, and the context visible to our senses isn’t either, why would it be?
If you consult the Wikipedia entry on Apostolicae Curae you will see that in some cases the participation by Old Catholic (and I have heard, also Orthodox) bishops in some Anglican ordinations acted to revive the sacramental line for some Anglican clerics such that an examination of the Anglican priest’s ordination lineage would be required to answer the question. Most notably Cardinal Hume ordained the former Anglican Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, conditionally given the lineage examination.
This is true (and horribly imprudent and illicit).
Yes but...how about those men who have received valid orders from validly consecrated bishops? This is a phenomenon that rose after Pope Leo’s decree.
I think it’s pretty clear. Pope Leo is speaking of the Anglican communion. There have not been validly consecrated bishops in Anglicanism since the early 16th Century…
Are you referring to other groups? That’s an entirely other blog post, which I intend to tackle. Im writing a longer form article about sedevacantism, but it’ll be awhile.
No, I think you’ll find several instances post-Leo of Anglican bishops seeking valid but illicit ordination from Orthodox bishops and “episcopii vagranti” able to provide such. There’s also the case of Catholic priests leaving the Church for Anglicanism and Episcopalianism whose ability to administer valid sacraments clouds the question even more.
I agree that if a man has only received Anglican ordination from a bishop who was ordained and consecrated by Anglican rubrics alone, neither is exercising valid orders per Pope Leo’s. The reality is much more obfuscated.
Regardless, the Anglican rites do not confect the Eucharist.
But I see what you’re saying. That is muddy. But there is nothing we can do about the Orthodox doing illicit things. Ha
I don’t think it’s a practice the Orthodox are keen on doing, or ever have been. They too have their “vagranti” bishops.
However, if an Anglican priest is an ex-Catholic priest while celebrating their liturgy, pronounces the right words of consecration with the full intent to consecrate, you think there haven’t been an actual consecration?
It’s more complicated and must be solved way above my pay grade.
I suppose that could happen! But it would be sacrilege.
Why?
I don’t mean to be a pest here playing devil’s advocate, but if the Anglian/Episcopalian celebrant’s intent isn’t sacrilegious, and the context visible to our senses isn’t either, why would it be?
See? It’s not a straight line.