Fr. Wiebe+ wrote:
  
> 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. 
                                                                  
 ---------------------------------------------

Fr. Wiebe+

Question and observation.

Is it impossible, given these formulae, to set up a succession of apostate bishops?  
If yes, then the Continuing Church jurisdictions should seriously consider closing up shop.  If no, then GCM+ has a point.

A sacrament is a sacrament if God is at work.  We with limited spiritual insight, can only know this after the fact when the works are manifest.

Chaos is a problem that the Church faced from the very beginning.
In spite of the safeguards in the formulae you cite, it appears that often through the centuries, including the first, an apostolic hand was on the Lord's table that betrayed the Lord.  When that situation obtains, what are responsible people to do?

Paul in his epistles repeatedly warns the Church of "many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ."  He exhorts Timothy to warn the faithful to be wary.  He says, "Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing."  

The Acts records the accord that Paul achieved with the Jerusalem Church and his Jewish-Christian brothers.  It is apparent though, that in Corinth and other places there were some Church leaders with whom Paul found no common ground.  Are we to assume that none of these were "in orders?"    Among those with whom he contended, according to I and II Corinthians were some who were reputed to be "super-apostles."

Simony was not unknown in the primitive church. We first hear of men trying to buy holy office in the days of St Peter.  In post-apostolic times, we have not the insight to properly discern the intentions of those dispensing or receiving orders, we can only listen to the teaching and look at the example.  Then, we find ourselves acting as we have in accordance with the injunctions Paul gave Timothy.  In this regard it seems to me the actions and attitudes of those in the Continuing churches are not so different from those of ++Akinola.

Charles+
Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis