> Frater: Sorry but no informed AC can accept this statement without a
pair of caveats at least and the principle of oekonomia. Otherwise we
end up in chaos. If a man is consecrated by at least 2 (Pedalion/Rudder:
Apostolic Canons 1 & 2) valid bishops then he is a bishop in the
Apostolic succession and that is that. If the three rules for
conferring/confecting a Sacrament (Form, Matter and Intention) are
observed then like it or not that sacramental act is a valid sacrament. 
                                                                        
 We can ask: Can we ordain a woman to the priesthood? The answer is that
we cannot any more than we can baptise a tree. Therefore one of the
three requirements(Matter) is not met and the act is not achieved.      
                                                                      We
can ask:Can Mass/Holy Communion be lawfully celebrated by a parrot. The
answer is obviously not and one of the three portions of the
requirement(Minister) fails and the act is not achieved.                
                                                            We can ask:
Can we baptise by saying: In the name of the creator, sustainer and
enabler. The answer is obviously no and one of the three requirements
(formula) fails and the act is not achieved.          "...the Sacraments
remain valid."
>
>          We then come to the question of 'can we do something'. If the
answer is in the affirmative then we must ask 'should we do
this'? The two are related but the former is not dependent on
the latter.                                                    
                           Father DiBiasi remarks that the
events in New Hampshire should not have happened but I do not
think that he has suggested that the act itself was not valid.
Blessings. GDVW+                                               
                                         I disagree. While I
don't think we can definitely say they are not valid,
> I
> don't think there can be any confidence that they are valid.
>
> If it were only a question of Robinson being a sinner, then of course the
> sacraments would be valid, as they are with us. But it's much more than
> that. It is a question of intent. Should we really give the Episcopal
> Church
> of Griswold and Robinson such a benefit of the doubt, that we affirm that
> they (i.e. Griswold and Robinson in particular) intend to perpetuate the
> (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Faith in their ordinations? I don't
> think
> they do. Given their commitments and beliefs, it is fundamentally a
> different religion. They may use an appropriate form, but they do not
> intend
> to perpetuate the Catholic Faith--which makes them more akin to
> Mormons--who
> use approprite words in Baptism, but whose sacraments the Church has
> consistently rejected due to invalid intent.
>
> To put it another way, to insist that their sacraments are valid, is to
> insist that the religion they believe and intend to perpetuate is
> Apostolic
> Christianity.
>
> Let's not do that.
>
> GCM+
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>
>



----------------------------------------------------
Catholic Financial Services
Send and Receive all online Payments and Donations
No Merchant Account Required!
https://www.catholicfs.org/