The Church of England General Synod has voted to ordain women bishops. Yes, they have decisively severed their Catholic roots.
What was surprising to me was that they have voted to ordain women bishops without significant safeguards for traditionalists.
The Church of England has reasserted its identity as a Protestant Church. Whether it will be a liberal or conservative Protestant denomination remains to be seen.
H/T to A Concord Pastor Comments for the heads up on this breaking news.
You can read Damian Thompson’s comments here via the Telegraph.co.uk
You can read The Daily Telegraph report here.
You can read the comments of BBC readers (primarily British) here: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5066&edition=2&ttl=20080708083901
You will hardly find a more wonderful Catholic theologian that Rev Sarah Coakley, or a better bishop than Rev Jefferts-Schori. So this talk of Catholic identity is just bullying. The glory of Anglicanism is that it is both Protestant and Catholic at one and the same time. This is the failure of the Anglo-Catholics fleeing to Rome and the Evangelicals in Africa and Australia — their inability to sustain the richest Christian chord — the chose that unites Catholic and Protestant, the Fathers and Scripture.
oops, chose shd be chord.
After the tragedies of sectarianism and intolerance that have besmirched European history, should we not have learned to celebrate and honor our sister churches? Really, I am disappointed in Vox Nova.
“Safeguards” ? In case someone gets scared of women ? :) They can always hold each other. When you have female priests, female bishops are logical. The celibate (in theory) male culture that’s been pushed through against immense resistance for over a millennium in combination with the vanishing act of women isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Of course, the Church of England lacks the necessary fanaticism, guilt mechanisms and weirdness about sex/hostility towards women/homosexuals to be successful as a religion. If you don’t keep the flock scared, they’ll stop coming. Cake or death ? Cake, please.
Silly Anglicans. There’s a church where women and married men don’t have a say right around the corner. And! They’ll even let you keep your wives as a special bonus, dispensing from the usual rule. Not just no female priests let alone bishops but a declaration that women are ontologically unfit. Who can ask for anything more!
Any form of Protestantism is not a “sister church”. As was made abundantly clear, they are “ecclesial communities”. With this news, maybe we will finally have a large scale conversion back to Catholicism and away from the screwy latitudinarianism that made it possible for people who were basically Catholic in their belief to be in the same group and folks like “Bishop” Spong.
I say good, the CofE shows its true colors in an unabashedly explicit way so that those who have seen bits of the light can recognize the errors of Protestantism and maybe swim the Tiber already.
Yes, they have decisively severed their Catholic roots.
I would be interested in hearing that proposition by someone with a public record of accepting the Catholicity of the Church of England prior to this action. In my experience, it is the same people who hold up Apostolicae Curae who repeatedly annouce the Church of England has lost its Catholicity (birth control, divorce, ordaination of women deacons, women priests, the new Prayer Book, intercommunion with the Lutherans). Is Catholicity like virginity — it grows back after a few years?
One can certain see that this action puts a barrier towards closer communion with the Roman Catholic Church. For those Catholics contra to Apostolicae Curae who want to assert valid Anglican Orders up until now, it presents an additional problem. But one can well admit that female bishops would not cause every other article of the Christian faith held by Anglicans to fall. Ultraconservatives have overplayed the centrality of the male episcopacy. Most likely, this can be seen as something as problematic as the Anglican rejection of the Immaculate Conception.
It is a sad day in many repsects. THe Anlgican Communion was about to go boom before this and this just added to it
Gerald, let me guess – you dissent on the ordination of women as well?
Yes, Gerald, it’s all motivated guilt, repression and phobias.
I’m not sure how you managed to perform psychiatric exams for millions of people via DSL, but I’m sure it’ll be a fascinating blog post.
That said, it’s rather late in the game for Anglican “traditionalists” to start getting their boxers in a wad. The line drawing should have started much, much earlier, around the time the tragic James Pike started serving up his cack-handed anti-Christian theology in the 60s. Really, that bloviating nitwit Spong is far, far more destructive than women with croziers.
In the Catholic Church, progress re: women meant that they were allowed to sing in the choir :-P
…and that they no longer have to stay away from communion during menstruation and don’t need a purification ritual after having given birth. So, I wouldn’t much worry about women’s ordination.
The decisively severed their roots when they lost the apostolic succession. This has nothing to do with it.
Gerald I don’t think the Purification ritual ritual as you call it but what was know as Churching was deogratory toward women
Typo in the above I mean’t to say” not deogratory”
Morning’s Minion — good point. I think I (falsely) held out hope that they could turn back to Rome until now.
Here is something I just read, “Damian Thompson reports today that one of the traditionalist Anglican bishops, Andrew Burnham, is preparing to lead Anglo Catholics to Rome en masse. He is already in discussions with the Vatican about the ways forward. They seem to want to come in with their Anglican churches and congregations.”
This was part of some morning reads today.
Nothing says metanoia like “Things are getting too inclusive round here, let’s go where women still are in their proper place and gays intrinsically disordered in the closet”. “A Communion of resentment”. A great alternative to ‘all are welcome’. for church signs. Or maybe slogans like…
“From the folks who brought you Kinder Kueche Kirche”,
“Where an abomination is still an abomination”.
“Led entirely by men who don’t have sex”.
“TLM – the place to find submissive women”.
“Guilt – we invented it”.
“Got guilt ?”
“Party like it’s 999″
“Where sin is original”
“Now with 50% more lace”
Someone needs to lay off the crack pipe…
Aside from that, I do think that the traditionalist Anglicans really needed to start paddling long before this women bishop thing happened. Where were they when women were “ordained” deacons and priests? I know that some of them took the logical step and broke off to form their own group not in communion with Canterbury. However, how does it make sense to stay in a group that allows women priests (thus ‘invalidating’ the Eucharist and other sacraments that a priestess attempts to celebrate) and stil maintain they have the real thing there? If nothing else, Anglicanism is certainly fascinating.
However, how does it make sense to stay in a group that allows women priests (thus ‘invalidating’ the Eucharist and other sacraments that a priestess attempts to celebrate)
Was the Eucharist valid before women priests? Is baptism and marriage invalid when celebrated by a woman? Why the insistance on the dergatory term ‘priestess’? Why do conservative Catholics just become irrational, silly, sarcastic and mean-spirited when the issue is women but have scholarly, civil, polite discussions on the Articles of Religion, the Immaculate Conception or the question of faith and works?
Because sexism (and homophobia) are more entertaining – and most people think the immaculate conception is a football term :P
Btw – Augustine and others thought that sex transmitted ‘original sin’. And, egads, Joachim and Anne had sex! This view didn’t vanish until the 18th, 19th centuries. Some say this is why the dogma came so late.
Jesus was pretty down with the ladies, but after him it was downhill fast, until they’d banned them from everything, even the choir (cutting boys’ balls off = preferable) and barred them from communion during menstruation and after child birth – and the sanctuary at all times. Gee, I wonder how this could have produced a strongly homosexual culture. Someone who really is into women, gets along with them, is attracted to them is not likely to become a priest. So you end up with a ruling caste consisting of ‘eunuchs for the kingdom’, a great many of whom aren’t interested in the ladies to begin with. Celibacy is a major factor in their lives, it’s been viewed as superior to the, ahem, ‘lusts’ that ‘lure’ even in the married bed, for centuries. Men who love women and were married to them have long been eradicated from the clergy – granted, it took some 1500 years. Why would anyone expect much re: women or sex ? You have these monks like Aquinas writing about how married people should have sex (oral sex was considered worse than murder in many medieval pentitentials) – missionary position, in case you were wondering – woman on top nuh uh- oh noes, the lust, the lust ! Not to mention the prevailing notion that women aren’t all that to begin with and should obey and give birth to 256 children.
That the ideal woman, Mary, is supposed to have given birth and remained a virgin through the process, and is supposed to never have had sex thereafter either, is rather telling. Btw, Aquinas would have given me 1 chance to repent, the second time he would have insisted on my death.
It’s a trainwreck. What all of that has to do with a simple Jew named Jesus, who knows.
Btw, don’t read Uta Ranke-Heinemann’s “Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” if you want to keep a good opinion on sex & Catholicism. It’s one giant J’accuse! I think anyone would be baffled by just how insane things used to be. NFP & every sperm is sacred is downright liberal compared to the old days.
No, “Anglican” Eucharists were not valid anyway. However, if you’re an Anglican who does believe you have valid orders (and some do through other means), then you should balk only a bit more at women bishops than priestesses. Baptism can be administered even by pagans and marriage is between the man and the woman primarily.
The term “priestess” is the femine version of priest. When we refer to non-Christian woman priests they are refered to as priestesses.
As to Ranke-Heinemann’s book, that is why you have to be solidly grounded before trying to read any heretical materials or not read them at all.
Facts are stubborn things.
No, “Anglican” Eucharists were not valid anyway. However, if you’re an Anglican…
Well, I’m not. Nor are you, I understand. Nor are any of the others commenting here. So from a Roman Catholic standpoint, this new action is not the loss of Anglican Catholicity that existed yesterday. I can only read this as some individuals giving Anglicanism a status they never believed it had, only to knock it down.
The term “priestess” is the femine version of priest. When we refer to non-Christian woman priests they are refered to as priestesses.
Yes, well even lacking Catholicity, the Anglicans are certainly Christians. The Church of England does not have the term ‘priestess’ for their women priests. The name of the office they hold is simply ‘priest’. Now, you can question Anglican Orders (bringining us back to point #1) but most polite people follow the example of the Holy Father and refer to clergy of communities we lack full communion with by their chosen titles — priest, archbishop of Canturbury, Elder (presbyterian), deacon (Baptist), bishop of Durham, Presiding Bishop, Moderator, Stated Clerk, Bishop of the Baltimore Conference, etc.
So except for those ‘more Catholic than the Pope’, one is not compromising any theological principle by following the Pope’e example of civility and politness. Which brings me back to the question as to why this issue brings out incivility. Mr. Naus seems to have answered that question.
Well, I should have specified, I don’t agree with Mr. Thompson about the Anglicans “loosing” their Catholicity. I’d say they lost it when Henry VIII split from Rome. After this, they held to visages of Catholicism, more in Henry VIII’s days, much less in Edward’s days and a little bit more after Charles II.
You wouldn’t refer to them as “priest” anyway. It would be Rev. Dr. or one of the other titles they have.
As to what the Pope chooses to call non-Catholic ministers, it is his personal preference not dogma. Thus, if one chooses not to use clerical titles for non-clerics, they are not trying to be “more Catholic than the Pope”.
Losing, not loosing. Priestesses is a derogatory expression, since it is intended to recall pagan priesthood rather than the Christian presbyterate, It is an insult to fine women priests and women bishops. It betokens sectarianism and misogyny. At least is it not as bad as priestettes, which I have seen freely used on Catholic websites.
The Anglicans have the apostolic succession, since they made a point of having their bishops consecrated by Old Catholic bishops.
Paul VI made a point of calling the Anglican Church “Our Sister Church” — recent reactionary notes from the CDF cannot undo this memorable witness.
“Anglican” Eucharists were not valid anyway. However, if you’re an Anglican who does believe you have valid orders (and some do through other means)”
If the orders are valid, so is the Eucharist.
In any case, according to the principle of “ecclesia supplet” defects in form can be compensated for, and I would also invoke “Christus supplet” to argue that wherever two or three intend to celebrate the Lord’s Supper He supplies all that is needed. ,
“Facts are stubborn things.”
Yes, they are. And they elude Ranke-Heineman with metronomic regularity.
Oh, and yes–”priest” is the one word where inclusive language proponents insist on the masculine.
“Priestess,” of course, inconveniently highlights the revolutionary disconnect the proposal involves, so it can’t be permitted.
Until after the revolution ends. Then, who knows?
Spirit of Vatican II-hail, O Zeitgeist, once thought invincible and omnipotent but already self-imploding since circa 1965.
Yes, in a way it is I suppose since female priests (good point Dale, can’t make that term gender inclusive, can we?) are totally foreign to the Church of God, they really aren’t a Christian concept anyway.
Pope Leo XIII made it clear that Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession in “Apostolicae Curae”. After that, SOME more “Romish” sympathizing Anglican clergy got themselves “reordained” by schismatic but validly ordained Old Catholic bishops and supposedly even some Eastern Orthodox bishops. Some, not all. Also, since Apostolic Succession isn’t all about the “magic touch”, those Anglican bishops who were validly ordained by schismatics might have passed on Orders for a while only to have them lost by more Evangelical/Protestant minded successors. Not a single Anglican clergyman has been accepted into the Catholic priesthood with anything less than being ordained sub conditione and the vast majority ordained under the Pastoral Provision are unconditionally ordained.
Pope Paul VI was also dealing with a much more sane and sensible Anglican Communion back in the ’60s. Back then, the mainstream Anglican Communion was much more akin to the trad Anglo-Catholics than they are today and there was legitimate hope of a reunion of Canterbury to Rome. Besides, the musings of a Pope have no doctrinal authority that cannot be corrected by the CDF and other Successors of Peter.
If the Orders are invalid (which they are and doubtful Orders are to be treated as invalid) then the Eucharist is most certainly invalid. Maybe the TAC and some more “orthodox” sections of Anglicanism have valid Orders but it is pretty safe to assume that they do not. Rome will dilligently look into the matter.
The Church supplies, but it doesn’t supply to those who cut them off from union with Rome and thus from the Ark of Salvation. Neither does Christ give out to every Dick and Jane what He exclusively gave to His Church through Apostolic Succession. You need a valid priest to have a valid Eucharist. You need wheat bread and grape wine. Lacking one of these things? Then you just have laymen committing what is objectively sacrilege and ending up with nothing but bread and wine (or coffee cake and grape koolaid as the case may be).
Oh, and yes–”priest” is the one word where inclusive language proponents insist on the masculine.
No. Dropping belittling suffixes to wrds to indicate women has become standard English. It is in keeping with standard English, not contrary to it.
“Priestess,” of course, inconveniently highlights the revolutionary disconnect the proposal involves, so it can’t be permitted.
Until after the revolution ends.
I appreciate your honestly. The postion you hold and that I reject is not the Catholic teaching per se on women’s ordiantion. It is that this matter is something far beyond other doctrinal differences with the Anglican Communion. The differences over the Immaculate Conception, divorce, faith and works, the 39 Articles of Religion, Transubstation, the Petrine Ministry are all in a different and lesser catagory than the ordiantion of women, which is revolutionary and a total break with the Christian faith. The assertion is it is not something that we simple have regreatable differences with these non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, but is offensive and anti-Christian far beyond any other doctrinal disputes. It is so revolutionary that it justifies sarcasm, condemnation and justifies a dispensation with Christian charity.
[...] Ordaining Women: Ought Implies Can A post yesterday at Vox Nova on the Anglican Church’s decision to ordain women bishops provoked some predictable comments [...]
[...] Ordaining Women: Ought Implies Can Yesterday’s post on the Anglican Church’s decision to ordain women bishops provoked some predictable comments [...]
Kurt:
No, it hasn’t become standard English. Off the top of my head, Hollywood will not be handing out the Best Actor Award to a woman this year or next. “–ess” is still alive and kicking: Host/hostess, prince/princess, count/countess, enchanter/enchantress, waiter/waitress, etc. Oh, and deaconess.
No, priest is insisted upon for reasons which are primarily pragmatic, and only secondarily theological.
And please stop putting words into my mouth. Show me where I said or even implied that I regard transubstantiation, the Petrine ministry, etc. as less important issues. In fact, I said the opposite *in this very thread* when I called Spong a more destructive force than women bishops. At least be fair enough to acknowledge that much.
WO can still be–and is–a revolutionary break with Christian tradition, especially as it has come as part of a package of staggering heterodoxy in every communion that has authorized it. It is much more than merely regrettable, although I will acknowledge that it is more symptom than cause for the decline of those communions.
Dale,
A quick Google search showed me no evidence of the term’ priestess’ being used in anything else than as a pejorative or for a non-Christian. The Anglican Church refers to their clergy as deacons, priests or bishops. If you want to insist as a Catholic they are all laypersons, fine. See them as laity or apply the courtesy the Holy Father does and use their chosen title. Inventing a term they have not claimed is at best rude, and at worst indicates sinful view of the dignity of women rather than any theological orthodoxy.
WO …has come as part of a package of staggering heterodoxy in every communion that has authorized it.
Because women by their very nature promote heterodoxy when assuming Christian leadership? The Holy See has spoken of very real progress towards Christian unity in modern times in part from the bilateral dialogues with the World Lutheran Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and even with the Pentecostal bodies as well with bodies now ordaining women as deacons such as the Church of Greece and the Armenian Apostolic Church. One might say there have been advances in some matters and retreats on other, but a move to “staggering heterodoxy” seems at odds with the Holy See’s statements.
Personally, if you first accept the understanding of the Eucharist most Protestants have held since the Reformation, I don’t see why women in Eucharistic presidency is a revolutionary act, unless one’s real issue is not women in Protestant Eucharistic presidency, but a problem with the social equality of women.
Kurt, I’m not particularly interested in continuing along with a goalpost mover who (1) lacks the good grace to admit mistakes about another’s position, (2) insists on psychoanalysis (“a problem with the social equality of women”?) and (3) cherrypicks what I write (I also called WO more a symptom of the problems). Your method of dialogue is less Socratic than prosecutorial, with all that entails.
I’ll simply end with pointing out that Cardinal Kasper is not remotely as sanguine about the impact of women bishops on ecumenism, calling it “a breach from the apostolic tradition of all Christian Churches as well as an obstacle to unity.”
http://uvcarmel.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/cardinal-kasper-regarding-the-decision-from-the-church-of-england/
You are welcome to the last word.
“Oh, and yes–”priest” is the one word where inclusive language proponents insist on the masculine.”
Quite untrue. The words “poet” “author” immediately come to mind.
But there is a feminine version of priest-its priestess. There is no such word as “poetess” or “authoress”.
“Spirit of Vatican II-hail, O Zeitgeist, once thought invincible and omnipotent but already self-imploding since circa 1965.”
Again, the phrase “spirit of Vatican II” was used frequently by Paul VI and also by JP2 and B16 — take up your quarrel with them. Nor have the restorationists produced a zeitgeist that shows any durable qualities, except those a fossil has.
“Yes, in a way it is I suppose since female priests (good point Dale, can’t make that term gender inclusive, can we?) are totally foreign to the Church of God, they really aren’t a Christian concept anyway.”
Hmm, how uncritically you subscribe to Dale’s incorrect linguistic remark.
“Pope Paul VI was also dealing with a much more sane and sensible Anglican Communion back in the ’60s. Back then, the mainstream Anglican Communion was much more akin to the trad Anglo-Catholics than they are today and there was legitimate hope of a reunion of Canterbury to Rome. Besides, the musings of a Pope have no doctrinal authority that cannot be corrected by the CDF and other Successors of Peter.”
Paul VI called the Church of England our sister Church. Rowan Williams and Benedict XVI (and also Card Kasper) are on even warmer terms than Paul VI was with the Anglicans. This to my mind is a sign of the Spirit at work.
“If the Orders are invalid (which they are and doubtful Orders are to be treated as invalid) then the Eucharist is most certainly invalid.”
The Vatican currently affects to regard them as invalid, but Christus supplet.
“The Church supplies, but it doesn’t supply to those who cut them off from union with Rome and thus from the Ark of Salvation. Neither does Christ give out to every Dick and Jane what He exclusively gave to His Church through Apostolic Succession. You need a valid priest to have a valid Eucharist. You need wheat bread and grape wine. Lacking one of these things? Then you just have laymen committing what is objectively sacrilege and ending up with nothing but bread and wine (or coffee cake and grape koolaid as the case may be).”
I think that to say the Eucharist of other Christian churches is objectively sacrilege is something no orthodox Catholic would say today. Can you find any magisterial support for your outrageous remark?
Christ commands his followers: DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
To those who sincerely follow the command do we dare to say that he refuses them the wherewithal? That their worship is sacrilege? That is the kind of think people said in the over-heated days of religious war. You may not like the Spirit of Vatican II but it is surely a more Christian one than the Spirit of internecine Christian massacres.
Actually, no it’s not incorrect–I mentioned a significant number of words where -ess is in common usage.
Furthermore, let me clarify slightly–by “inclusive language” I am referring to the liturgy, where “poet” and “author” are never used to refer to women. Nope–”priest” is one place where the WO proponents insist on the most “exclusive” language. Even to the point of the silliness–e.g., “Roman Catholic WomenPriests.”
What matters is what the Council actually taught, not nonsense that is assumed to be allowed because of some whispy “spirit of Vatican II”. The “spirit of Vatican II” has absolutely no authority whatsoever. It cannot be taken to mean that people have carte blanche approval to do whatever they feel like because the “spirit of Vatican II” changed everything.
As even Card. Kasper said, the choice to “ordain” women bishops by the CofE destroyed any real hope of unity between the Church and the Anglicans. We will be on much better terms with groups like the TAC that actually profess to believe what the Church teaches that a group of post-moderns that play dress up.
Your doctrine of “Christus supplet” is nonsense and has no support in Catholic teaching. Those who do not have valid Orders cannot confect the Eucharist. What has been determined invalid cannot simply be assumed to be valid now because we want to share warm n’ fuzzies.
As all Protestants are material heretics (likely not culpable of the sin of heresy), they are not guilty of the objective sacrilege of attempting to confect the Eucharist. When a Protestant minister attempts to consecrate the Eucharist or do the Lord’s Supper, they do no more than I, as a layman, would if I were to “say Mass”. Those who practice “Adoration” thus adore mere bread, though out of ignorance.
Here’s how the Council of Trent interprets the matter-
CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.
To have Eucharist you need a real priest. No one can get around this, no matter how sincere they are.
To sum it up, your “spirit” has no authority and if it goes against Catholic doctrine it is downright pernicious and dangerous.
Your doctrine of “Christus supplet” is nonsense and has no support in Catholic teaching. Those who do not have valid Orders cannot confect the Eucharist. What has been determined invalid cannot simply be assumed to be valid now because we want to share warm n’ fuzzies.
John Paul II seems to disagree with this. But I have long predicted that with the passage of time he will be seen as a revolutionary liberal.
Where? I really doubt that JP II would teach that heretical laymen can confect the Eucharist.
It is funny, I hear some people whine that he was such a reactionary cetralist. Some think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. We tend to think he got things going in the right direction but did a few odd things.
On the subject of Anglican Orders and Apostolicae Curae:
If you read that document carefully, you will see that it deems the Edwardine Ordinal (c.1550) as deficient, from the Catholic point of view, but deems the Caroline Ordinal (c.1662) as satisfactory, BUT INEFFECTIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID HIERARCHY, THE HIERARCHY HAVING DIED OUT.
The participation of Utrecht succession Old Catholic, other schismatic Catholic, and even allegedly the odd Orthodox in places like Alaska, in Anglican episcopal consecrations, using the Caroline Ordinal or its ever more Catholic successors, has restored such a hierchical link, thus rendering, even on the terms of Apostolicae Curae itself, Anglican Orders fully valid.
Of course none of this has any relevance to the current Vatican line that a woman is no more vaild matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders than a turnip, since such arguments would only relate to the male Anglican clergy.
The merit of Apostolicae Curae is that it does reiterate, in line with much of current scholarship, and against High Anglican continuity fantasies, just how much of a break the English Reformation was, and just how Protestant the state church was, under Elizabeth, as well as under Edward. However it did completely ignore the opening lines of both the Edwardine and Caroline Ordinals:
“It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostle’s time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons……And therefore to the extent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the Church of England…..”
(Some sedevacantist fanatics use Apostolicae Curae to argue that the post-Vatican II Catholic Ordinal is invalid, which is clearly nuts, but it shows where such arguments can end up).
That is assuming that a proper intention has been kept up and that the whole hierarchy of the Anglican church has come down from those men ordained valid, albeit illicitly. All of the Anglican church is not Anglo-Catholics or High Church at all, some are downright Protestant-and proud of it.
This is why the Vatican looks into each and every case of a priest or bishop of the Anglican church taken back into the Church. There is the possibility that they have valid orders but it has been the practice of the Church to AT MOST ordain them conditionally if they are to be allowed to continue in the ministerial role.
The Church’s present policy is indeed entirely wise and prudent.
However, we have to be very careful when we talk about intention. It is not simply the private views in the head of the ordaining bishop. If a valid bishop uses a valid ordinal, then valid orders are passed on, irrespective of that bishop’s views. (Just as a valid priest who has lost faith in transubstantiation still confects the sacrament at Mass).
I would argue that Apostolicae Curae deems the Caroline Anglican Ordinal of c.1662 to be a valid ordinal in the way that it deems the Edwardine Anglican Ordinal of c. 1550 not to be. Whether my exegesis is right or not I am happy to stand corrected.
Bishops of the Utrecht succession are valid bishops. If such bishops particpate in ordinations using the Caroline Anglican Ordinal or its successors, and that Ordinal is deemed valid, then valid orders are transmitted, and this continues to be the case susbsequently, no matter what deviant Zwinglian notions may be swirling around in the minds of any Low Church participants.
Valid ordinal + valid bishops = valid transmission of orders.
Thus the Caroline Ordinal + the “Dutch touch” = presently valid Anglican orders.