Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01039)

At 09:50 PM 5/17/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>I produced a 256 page book listing around 1200 and a later supplement
>listing around 600.  The "illegitimacy" lies (as ever) in the eye of the
>beholder, usually the RC or Anglican church, but also the Eastern
>Orthodox.  The kindest [Roman, surprisingly] view is that such orders as
>mine - and CWL's - are "valid, but irregular."

That's what my Jesuit friends say, but they also say that if they once begin
to deny the validity of ANY "Apostolic Succession" they would open a "can of
worms" that they'd rather not see opened. My Jesuit friends say they don't
deny the validity of Canterbury's Apostolic succession but only Canterbury's
ministry. (That's why they're Jesuits).
>
>CWL for example, would have been legit as an Anglican Curate (which he
>was to start with) but illegit once he left the Anglicans for the Old
>Catholics and then the Liberal Catholics.  It's a mess.

There are many who say he did not "just leave the Anglicans" but was defrocked.
>
>The irregularity lies in "form" "matter" and "intent."  On the last,
>there are no bishops at all, but that's a complicated and personal view
>..

It;s a "personal view" whose complications I see, and which I agree with
entirely.
>
>Alan :-)
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
But actually Alan, I was joking. what I meant was there are people who are
illegitimately Bishops and there are illegitimate Bishops, which of those
was the question?

alexis