> Fr. Perkins+: I do not know where you studied sacramental theology but wherever it was you clearly got the point which is exactly as you cite it to be. I am told that you also make Rosaries (the most blessed of the sacramentals). I used to have a parishioner that made them many years ago-initially for theraputic purposes (arthritis as memory serves) but soon found a great apostolate handing them out to people he visited at the local Laguna Honda SNF/Long Term Care facility (some 700 people then) in the City of San Francisco. Do you provide opportunities for public recitation in your parish? That brings many wonderful graces as I suspect you know. Blessings on Lancelot Andrewes Day 2005. GDVW+ > > While I personally regard the 39 Articles as historical and as a very > useful > guide to interpreting scripture from an Anglican perspective and not > binding, I have to agree with Article 26 on this point Concerning > +Robinson > since he was consecrated by valid Bishops in Apostolic succession. His > consecration is unfortunately valid and so his participation in the > sacraments will be valid. > > The people who receive the sacraments from him will receive them if done > properly and with the right intention in spite of the sinfulness of his > life style. This does not excuse him from his own personal responsibility > for his own sins and so he will have to answer for his actions to Christ > on > judgment day. > > As to women priestesses I do not believe their orders to be valid as that > the practice does not have scripture or tradition to support it. Not to > mention that they cannot function as an "icon" of Christ. > > Since the role of women was not intended to include holy orders as far as > I > can tell, I do not personally believe God would honor any invocation to > impart the gifts to ordain them to holy orders regardless of who the > bishop > was since they were not meant to function in this role. > > Thus any effort to dispense a sacrament on their part would not be > sacramental and would be in essence a spiritual dud. All beauty with no > substance. > > Bill+ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Rev GDVWiebe SSC.,PhD" <gdvw@...> > To: <faithandlife@...> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:42 PM > Subject: [FaithandLife] A Sacrament Is A Sacrament > > >>> 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/ >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: >> faithandlife-unsubscribe@... >> >> > > > > -- > 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/