tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37853098.post2883944211429295888..comments2023-10-04T06:35:09.419-07:00Comments on Visibilium: My Official Position On Anglican Holy OrdersVisibiliumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00069726201789314963noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37853098.post-74888781663544964932011-06-05T09:26:21.846-07:002011-06-05T09:26:21.846-07:00You're correct about ECUSA and perhaps the Chu...You're correct about ECUSA and perhaps the Church of England and others, but what about the Affirmation of St. Louis folks? I'm more interested in the Continuing churches than the Buddhists in Christian clothing.<br /><br />I have grave concerns with Old Rome's position. First, <i>Apostolicae Curae</i> makes no sense, as <i>Saepius Officio</i> correctly points out. Second, as soon as the Church of England broke off with Old Rome, any Anglican clergy who wanted to convert to Rome had to be reordained. This means that the Vatican took its pissy position even before Apostolic Succession became a fashionable excuse. Bp. Robinson points this out as well. <br /><br />The Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Cyprus in 1923 articulated my views precisely. Anglican orders could be as valid under oeconomia as Old Rome's, which means that neither orders would be valid ontologically without the acceptance of the Christian Faith, as that Faith has been preserved by the Orthodox Church.Visibiliumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00069726201789314963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37853098.post-46891646966571592582011-06-04T20:32:10.621-07:002011-06-04T20:32:10.621-07:00The Anglicans are heretics who don't even have...The Anglicans are heretics who don't even have a unified view of Holy Orders. This is one case where the Romans got it right. Absolutely null and void.John (Ad Orientem)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14329907942477160166noreply@blogger.com