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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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?

Quite untrue. The words “poet” “author” immediately come to mind.

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.