A correspondent hiding behind the term Dominican keeps writing on Damian Thompson's blog that there is no doubt about the invalidity of Anglican Orders. He must be unaware that, as a result of the participation of Dutch 'Old Catholic' bishops in Anglican Consecrations since 1932, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided, when the former Bishop of London entered into full communion, that there was a doubt about the invalidity of his orders, and directions were given that he should be ordained sub conditione.
I know that this is a long way from concluding that Anglican Orders are valid, but it also means that it is either plain ignorance, or dishonesty, to allege that things are still where they were in the time of Leo XIII. One also wonders why some RCs are so desperately need Anglican Orders to be invalid. It's like the niggling hatreds which fester in some guts with regard to Jews.
Could it be that this personage is a sedevacantist? Why else should he keep writing comments which imply that he knows better than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did when Joseph Ratzinger was its Cardinal Prefect? Why does he need anonymity? Or she?
29 January 2009
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
He is not the only nutter on Thompson's blog, there are a whole nest of them. Any mention of the Jews brings out holocaust deniers, conspiracy mongers, and anti-semites - some masquerading as anti-zionists. Any mention of Anglicans brings out those who regard themselves as God's elected with all the rest being damned. However Dr Thompson presides over it in a relaxed manner. Perhaps he performs a public service in allowing catholic nutters a fairly free rein.
This post seems oddly fortuitous! Today was my first time reading Holy Smoke, I was drawn there by the TAC story. On reading "Dominican's" posts, I wrote a reply before returning to this blog, which I have been following for some time now, to search for some guidance on the subject of the validity of Anglican Orders! I was most pleased to find a neat response right there at the top of the page without even having to use the search function!
I wish some of the many nutters on that blog would come over to this one and make the same kind of comments here. They don't, of course, because they are frightened.
As I understand it, there was more Old Catholic involvement in England than there was in the States. Nevertheless, one has to wonder why all American Pastoral Provision ordinands are ordained absolutely even after Leonard's precedent. All the more interesting too, when one considers that part of the Provision entails tracing one's succession to an Old Catholic (PNCC) participant. Perhaps this praxis suggests that from Rome's perspective Leonard's case was an unadmitted mistake?
I wonder that the Jews deserve mention at all. Esp. in context of Pope S. Pius X's observation, "The Jews have not recognized our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people."
I'm fond of nutters, I've been called one myself! Something about hot, cold and tepid comes to mind. I recon that Jesus and the Apostles were nutters in their own right. Steel sharpens steel. Long live the nutter.
Thompsons blog is full of nutters. Dominican seems to be one of them, for putting any faith in AC at all,if for no other reason.
I do have a small question though: How do you square witht he fact that AC is still definatively the teaching of the Vatican, nice arguments about "Dutch Touch" aside? The argument dosn't seem to move Benedict XVI at all, and Ad Tuendam Fidem seems to treat the concept as if it did not exist.
How nice to have it so promptly confirmed that nutters are not confined to Holy Smoke.
Clearly Friar John, when Card. Ratzinger wrote his commentary/instruction on ATF he was simply being a nutter and is to be thoroughly dismissed, as is anyone who intelligently questions whether Anglican Orders are valid. Stop being a nutter and get with the program!
More seriously however, I've often wondered how well the CDF or even His Holiness were made aware of the extent of Old Catholic involvement in England. Seeing how ATF came some roughly 18 years after the Pastoral Provision came into being, one would think the CDF had studied the question very recently so as to give direction to American Bishops. Perhaps not. Then again, maybe they just came to the same conclusion as their forbears.
Post a Comment